Apocrypha means “the things hidden away.” Jews used to hide old copies of revered books rather than burn or destroy them. As a result the term came to be synonymous with highly esteemed. Thus the Apocrypha originated as highly esteemed books that weren’t Scripture. There were 12 (or 15, depending on how they are divided):

1. 1st Esdras
2. 2nd Esdras
3. Tobit
4. Judith
5. Additions of Esther
6. Wisdom
7. Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach)
8. Baruch
9. Epistle of Jeremiah
10. Additions of Daniel
    1. Susanna
    2. Bel and the Dragon
    3. Song of Three Young Men
11. The Prayer of Manasseh
12. First and Second Maccabees

Between the OT and NT, in the Greek period, numerous religious texts, written in Greek, were produced. These in turn eventually found their way into the Greek OT (the LXX or Septuagint). However, Jesus, the NT authors, the Apostolic Fathers (the generation who knew the apostles) and 1st Century Jews all did not consider the Apocryphal texts as Scriptural.

When Jerome was compiling his Latin version of the Bible based off of the Hebrew, (completed c. AD 405) he followed the Greek tradition to insert them, however, he included prefaces that stressed their deuter-canonical (sub-canon) status of these books—that they were not Scripture and that the Hebrew list of Scripture represented the “clean jar”:

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.

This distinction was lost on many and throughout the Middle Ages and numerous Roman Catholic doctrines were built upon references in the Apocrypha. For examples:

• 2 Macc 15:13–14 speaks of the dead praying for the living
  • …And Oni′ as spoke, saying, “This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God.”…
• Tobit 12:9 and Sirach 3:3 speak of good works atoning for evil deeds
  • For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity[a] and of righteousness will have fullness of life;
  • Whoever honours his father atones for sins,
• 2 Macc 12:40–45 speaks of purgatory
  • …and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out…

At the time of the Reformation (c. 1517) it was not only the doctrine of justification that became an issue of dispute but also the subject of authority: tradition or Scripture. What was Scripture, upon which alone true doctrine was to be found in? In the quest for the original sources (ad fontes—to the sources), a stripping away of Catholic tradition, the Reformers revisited this story and returned to the Canon of Jesus, or the Jewish Canon. (The Catholics, at the Council of Trent [1543–63] did the opposite by elevating the Apocrypha to make it fully Canonical). (Some Protestants, such as Anglicans, continued to include the Apocrypha but included them in a separate section. Their 39 Articles, VI, state: “And the other Books [the Apocrypha] the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”

In review there are 5 reasons to reject the Apocrypha as Scripture (however helpful it may be historically):

1. Jesus never cited it
2. It reads differently; pointing to its inferior quality
3. It contains doctrines that contradict the rest of Scripture (i.e. purgatory)
4. The warning of Jerome
5. Its origin/ that it is not part of the original Hebrew Bible

More than a mere quibble, this is a fundamental issue. What constitutes Scripture, the books we base our faith and practice, indeed stake our eternity upon? Christianity stands or falls not only on whether the Bible is true but also the question of what is Scripture. Is it the NT only, the OT/NT, including the apocrypha? Is the Canon open or closed, etc? (Revelation says it is closed).

There is great importance in defining what is the authoritative and inspired canon/rule of the Christian faith. This is why historic Baptist statements of faith, including our own, specify the number of books that make up the Bible, including the OT:

• 1689 Baptist Confession:
  • 1.1- The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.2 Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diversified manners to reveal Himself, and to declare (that) His will unto His church;3 and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now completed.4
  • [Then it quickly moves to state what these books are] 1.2: “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these…[list of 66 books of the OT/NT]… All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life”
• 1953 FEB Statement:
  • 1- The Bible- “We believe that the Bible is the complete Word of God; that the sixty six books as originally written, comprising the Old and New Testaments, were fully inspired by the Spirit of God, and that they are, therefore, entirely free from error; that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice and the true basis of Christian union.” (Emphasis added)

Though this question is not as pressing for many Christians today, still from time to time it arises, or we hear of the Apocrypha and wonder what it is. At the very least, it is helpful to know as Christians why we believe what we believe and what this is based upon, i.e. the 66 books of the OT/NT, together the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

​Now you know!

As we conclude our Old Testament (OT) portion of C2C here in 2020 there are a couple important questions that we might consider.

Why does the Jewish OT or Bible (called the Tanak), differ in its arrangement of the books from the Christian OT?

When was the Old Testament canon (rule of faith) finalized and how?

Though somewhat technical questions it is hoped that in answering them believer’s will be strengthened in their knowledge of the Scriptures and thus their faith.
​
Arrangement
Here is the order and books of the Christian OT and Hebrew Bible (the TaNaK[1], see Bible Project). Essentially the OT is broken into four sections, whereas the Tanak is divided into three. (It is interesting to note Jesus referred to this trifold division in Lk 24:44):

Notice they are the same number of books (39) but in a very different order. Why the difference, especially if this was the accepted order of the Hebrew Bible in Jesus day?
​
Sometime in the 3rd and 2nd centuries there arose a large Jewish community in Greek speaking Alexandria (Egypt) who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek. It is called the Septuagint or LXX (both mean 70) after the legend that 72 independent translators (6 from each of the 12 tribes) translated the entire project identically (thus giving evidence of Divine oversight). What is true is that they re-ordered the Hebrew Bible so the Hebrew and Greek versions, though containing the same books, were ordered differently. The Greeks, ever the masters of logic, categorized the books under headings, and many books under those according to length. As this video explores, the Hebrew Bible had other historic and theological reasons for how it was arranged. It is also interesting how the arrangements end, the Hebrew with Chronicles (itself a summary of the Tanak; a return to the Promised Land and a prefiguring of Christ) and the Greek with Malachi (the promised day of the Lord).

Though Jesus would have known the Hebrew order, most of the early Christians spoke Greek and so followed the Greek version. When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin by AD 405 he followed this tradition and so the Greek pattern was all but established as the Christian ordering.

Canon
Canon is Greek for rule. What books are recognized as inspired and authoritative? The Jewish community, guided by the Holy Spirit, came to recognize the above list as canonical some 200 years before Christ, who affirmed the same in Lk 24:44 (along with multiple other sources).

Regardless of the order, as Christians we can be confident that our OT books have come to us under God’s sovereign hand, and that these books, and these alone, constitute our rule of faith as the Old Testament; or as 2 Tim 3:16b puts it are therefore the “inspired word of God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Now you know!

So that it isn’t simply a big black hole, allow me to recount the basics of the story between the Testaments.

The last book of Malachi was written sometime around the era of Nehemiah in the post exilic period (c. 450s). From this period—for some 400 years—the prophets were silent. During this period Judea was often ruled over by a series of empires: the Persians who then fell (c. 331 BC) to Alexander the Great and the Greeks; and following the breakup of his empire into smaller ones, first the Ptolemaic Empire (Egypt) followed by the Seleucid Empire. This Greek period lasted from 331–164 BC. The Greeks brought their language and culture, which would be so important during the New Testament period. The Hebrew Scriptures were even translated into Greek by Jewish scholars in Alexandrea (Egypt), so dominate was the language. However, the Jews in Judea rebelled when the Seleucids set up “an abomination” in the Temple and the Jews were forbidden to practice their religion. An aged priest, named Mattathias and his five sons led a revolt. After his death his eldest son, Judas Maccabeus, continued and won independence in 164 BC. From the Greeks, Persians and Babylonians, all the way back to King Jehoiakim/Zedekiah, this was the first time the Jews had been independent in centuries.

However, there was nothing new under the sun; their hearts remained unchanged. During the Maccabean period, successive rulers became increasingly authoritarian, corrupt, immoral and pagan. This descent became so bad that eventually some of the Jewish leaders invited the Romans—of all people—to come and restore order, which they did in 63 BC under General Pompey. They stayed for centuries to come in an uneasy arrangement. In 37 BC, partly as a political favour and partly because he was partially Jewish, the Romans appointed Herod “the Great” to be king over all of Palestine. He built Caesarea Maritima (where Paul was imprisoned), greatly improved Jerusalem and remodelled the Temple into the exquisite structure it was in Jesus’ day. This was the Herod who slaughtered all the little boys in search of Jesus. The various Herods who appear later in the NT were his descendants.

Now you know!

Even prior to the Premier’s announcement of a lockdown today, Christmas and New Year’s, for many people, was going to look much different than the season of faith, family and merriment that many people often associate with the season. The lockdown announced for Boxing Day will make this an even more difficult season for many.

To put this in perspective (and provide encouragement) and to remember that Christmas is about Christ—that He is all we need for a blessed Christmas or to live a blessed life in the face of trials—let us turn to the first Christmas story to contemplate just how difficult it would have been for Joseph and Mary and how Christ made all the difference.

Though they had no Christmas by which to evaluate their lived experience, the first Christmas was no easy time for Mary and Joseph. Notwithstanding the shame the couple probably faced because of the pre-marital pregnancy, they had to travel away from their comfort zone and support network, from Nazareth to Bethlehem. While not a long distance by modern standards, it was far enough by ancient standards. We might think that because Joseph was “of the house and lineage of David” that he would have had close family to call in on. However, Luke’s silence on this matter leads us to believe that Joseph’s roots were more connected to Nazareth than they were to Bethlehem; otherwise some relative probably would have made room for them. As it stood, homes and inns full because of the census, the couple were all alone in a foreign town and had to take shelter in a stable, “because there was no place for them in the inn.” (Lk 2:7). Bad travel plans, a grotty motel—not to mentioned being 9 months pregnant—it all seemed as if their stay would be a miserable one. But the cherish story of the nativity is far from unhappy because Jesus made all the difference.

Trusting God’s providence in the situation, looking to Him, Joseph and Mary were pleasantly surprise that first Christmas. The promised One of old, revealed as the expected child through prophecies, dreams and visions, finally arrived. The birth of any child has the effect of bringing joy to troubled circumstances; how much greater must have their joy been to welcome the Christ child!? Then unexpected visitors dropped in and told of angelic choirs rejoicing at the Saviour’s birth. God was encouraging the couple. Mary treasured and “pondered these things in her heart” as the shepherds went away “glorifying and praising God.” It is amazing how faith in God’s providence and the presence of Christ can bring joy to otherwise discouraging circumstances!
​
The Christmas holidays of 2020–21 will certainly be different, but they needn’t be as grim as Satan may tempt us to think. May it be that God is stripping away all of the distractions and adornments of the holidays: goodies, good company, traditions, etc, etc, so that we might focus exclusively on Jesus? As we worship Christ at Christmas may we be filled with all the joy and wonder Joseph and Mary were on that first bleak mid-winter Christmas night, and may we be a light in the darkness.

Can a woman forget her nursing child,
    that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget,
    yet I will not forget you. (Isa 49:15)

Prayer is an interesting thing; wrongly we often think it depends on our works (however anti-works we may be in our theology). Prayer can sometimes go like this: we pray, pray, pray for a situation but time and circumstances bring new things to pray for. Maybe that old prayer is forgotten, or at least doesn’t receive the attention it deserves. Works would say God will not hear or answer that prayer because we haven’t been conjuring up enough pray effort for Him to hear it.

WRONG!
​
God is a gracious and infinite God; we are fallible and finite. We cannot possibly remember every prayer request or to pray for every situation. There are just too many! However, being infinite, almighty, omniscient, etc, the God of the Bible remembers. He does not forget the prayers of His saints. In His marvellous grace, long after we had ceased praying, He often graciously answers prayers—beyond what we asked—and it is then that we remember a pray of a month, a year, a decade, a lifetime ago, that He was pleased to hear and honour. May we praise Him for this and remember that even though we may forget, God never does.

[To read a blog on the history of Santa Claus click here]

Recently, my wife was taking our son, who turns two and a half on Christmas Day, through the checkout. In that tone by which adults can sometimes speak to young children, the cashier asked my son, “Have you gotten your letter off to Santa already? What did you ask for?” He stared at her with a blank look, he didn’t know what she was talking about, not because he couldn’t understand her but because he—intentionally—hasn’t been taught about the modern myth of Santa. My wife respectfully responded to the cashier, “we don’t celebrate Santa, we remember Jesus’ birth at Christmas.” The cashier looked somewhat confounded by my wife’s answer; that a child would be deprived of the happiness of believing in such a myth, however, as my wife was respectful the conversation ended—though somewhat awkwardly on her part—with politeness and a seed being sown for her to think about.

Is such a view being too Grinch like or is their wisdom in such a view?

I for one was part of the syncretistic Christian culture of past decades that fused Jesus and Santa together. I cringe to remember that our local church even brought Santa into the church for the service. To the contrary my wife’s family grew up not teaching her and her siblings about the myth of Santa, instead focusing on the real meaning of Christmas. When my wife told her friend (who happened to be my 2nd cousin) that Santa wasn’t real, she burst into tears and my wife ended up in the principal’s office with a call home to her mom!

As a maturing Christian, and now a parent, I’ve moved from how I was raised to the view my wife and I hold today: to not perpetuate the culturally embraced myth of Santa but focus on the real reason of Christmas. We don’t do this in a Grinch like spirit and so far from spoiling joy for our son, his joy is made complete.

Here are three reasons why we don’t teach him the myth of Santa (there are many more):

1. We don’t want to lie to our son.

If Santa is a myth (though the origin in Nicolas of Myra certainly is not), then why would we want to lie to him? The Bible teaches parents ought not to provoke their children (Eph 6:4), seek what’s spiritually best for them (Dt 6); how then would lying to them be helpful, both for their spiritual development but also their view of your character? If we lied here would he trust us in other areas, even if it was a lie “just for fun”? We want to encourage our children to be faithful to the 9th commandment (Ex 20:16), not to break it (or break it ourselves!). We want to encourage them to seek truth in the person of Jesus (Jn 8:32).

1. We don’t want to promote an unhealthy message that is contrary to the Gospel.

The modern myth of Santa is diametrically opposed to the Gospel. See two excellent videos that contrast the message of Santa and the message of Jesus here and here. If this is so, why would we want to confuse our children with a message of self, material joy and hope and reliance on someone other than God? These are root spiritual problems. Rather we should want to point our children to the message that Christ came “to save His people from their sins” (Mt 1:21) to save each boy and girl, man and woman, who’d repent and trust in Him for their forgiveness. The real meaning of Christmas is a far better message, one that is real and one that can change your life forever.

1. Why settle for a meagre substitute of joy when real joy is on offer?

The joy of the Christmas message itself, and ultimately accepting that as your own, has stood the test of time and is sufficient to bring joy in darkness such that no other message is needed or can rival it. It brings me great delight when our son, far from being robbed of joy, sings this simple song that his mother taught him from her childhood, with great joy:

Come on ring those bells,
Everybody sing,
Jesus is the King,
Born for you and me.
Come on ring those bells,
Everybody sing,
Jesus we remember it’s your birthday.
 
How do we celebrate Christmas with our son? We tell him about Jesus and the Christmas story and the Gospel. We explain that all of the adornments of Christmas (greenery, goodies, etc) are all to help us celebrate the Incarnation. We give him gifts, in love, from mummy and daddy, and say that we give gifts because God gave the greatest gift of all, His Son. And that is something worth celebrating!

The Jews, led by Zerubbabel, had returned to Judea and Jerusalem, yet many things were not as they appeared to be and their glory was not as of old. They felt very small (as the church can today) in a much wider world (the Persian Empire). They felt as if it was a day of “small things.”
“For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice.” (Zech 4:10)
​
Despite how they felt, moment by moment, day by day, they trusted God’s promises and waited upon Him believing that He would use His people to accomplish great things, chiefly: the coming of Christ through Zerubbabel’s line. All of the steps along the way were part of God’s plan to, as John the Baptist proclaimed, prepare the way.

As Christians in our daily walk, or as a local church, it can be easy to feel as if our lives and ministry are “small things,” insignificant to God’s plans, not useful in the grand scheme of ministry or the vastness of the world. May Zech 4:10 call us to think again! Consider these examples:

• The Mustard Seed (Mt 13:31)
• The Church beginning with 12 motley disciples
• Ireland being converted through one man’s missionary zeal, Patrick
• The spark of the Reformation being light by one man’s cry, Luther
• A small group of pastors in Northamptonshire, England, praying and birthing the Evangelical Revival and the modern missions movement
• A select group of missionaries serving in Nagaland, India, which is now 90% Christian (and 80% Baptist).

Don’t wait for great things and so be discouraged, in faith, seize hold of what God is calling you to today and find that when we do what lay to our hand, our life will become rich in opportunities to be useful in the Lord’s service, and like the mustard seed, Christ will bless and transform them into great things.

There are many things I, as a pastor, would rather write about, but it often behoves me, for the sake of my sheep and those who would be gathered in, to defend the faith, to protect and guard from error, so that the saints may be edified and sinners saved. This is where Jude found himself:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

Liberalism (and I daren’t even give it the satisfaction of enjoining it to that blessed title, Christianity), is a new religion that was birthed in the nineteenth century (1800s). Like Satan posing as an angel of light or a wolf dressing in sheep’s clothing, Liberalism (lateral deists as a friend of mine calls them), guises itself as Christian, though in peering into the [initially] subtle differences, one finds an entirely different religion. We’d do well to know what Liberalism is, so in spotting it, we might turn from error fix our eyes upon the truth of Jesus.
​
A newspaper from the 1920s, an era where Liberalism and orthodox Christianity were in conflict, contrasted the chasm like differences between the two.

One author who wrote on the subject was J.G. Machen in Liberalism and Christianity (1923). In his classic work he argued that Liberalism was indeed a new religion. ​

​To further illustrate the differences, consider the Fellowship’s Statement of Faith (1953) (and still today) contrasted with the much more orthodox United Church Statement of Faith (1925) and their most recent statement, Songs of Faith (2006), on the subjects of the Bible, Jesus and Mankind (these three are chosen because of their centrality in the faith):

Doctrinal error and moral misguidedness—accommodating to the world, syncretism—has meant that the once largest Canadian Christian denomination is now one of the fastest dying religions in Canada (the old statistic was that one church building closed each week; now the figure is that, with the Anglican Church and some others, 10,000 buildings will close in 2020 alone). While a dead orthodoxy can certainly lead to closed churches, a vibrant orthodoxy normally to lead to spiritual flourishing and healthy churches (as seen in the independent and non-religious study from Ontario in 2015).
​
Like Jude, may we cling to the “faith once for all delivered to the saints,” which along is true, which alone can save; and having come near the end of our Old Testament journey in Cover to Cover, may we take heed of the danger that will come to God’s people when we compromise with the world in belief and practice (i.e. Judges).