Rev. Angus Stewart
Belgic Confession 6: The Difference Between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books
We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal, namely: the third book of Esdras, the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Syrach, Baruch, the appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, of Bell and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and the two books of the Maccabees. All of which the church may read and take instruction from so far as they agree with the canonical books; but they are far from having such power and efficacy, as that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith or of the Christian religion; much less detract from the authority of the other sacred books.
In the last article on the Belgic Confession, we introduced the Apocrypha and critiqued three of its books (or parts of them). Now we need to consider the Apocrypha in the light of the three-fold ground (one ground with three aspects) for recognizing God’s Word (Belgic Confession 5).
1. The Objective Ground
The Apocrypha itself does not claim to be the Word of God. It nowhere includes a ringing “thus saith the Lord” or any such statement. In fact, in several places it claims the opposite, such as II Maccabees 15:38 (as we saw last time) and the prologue of Jesus Syrach (Ecclesiasticus).
There is nothing in the Apocrypha akin to biblical prophecy, such as predictions of the coming Saviour or the gathering of His catholic or universal church. To paraphrase Belgic Confession 5, the very blind are able to perceive that the things of the Apocrypha are not being fulfilled.
As regards unity, no such thing is evident within the Apocrypha itself. Nor does it harmonize with the canonical Scriptures. For example, Judith 9:2 celebrates Simeon’s sinful deed of slaying the Shechemites (Gen. 34) which Jacob cursed (Gen. 49:5-7).
Doctrinally, the Apocrypha never even approaches anything like the truth of the incarnation of the Son of God or His sufferings and glory (cf. Luke 24:25-27, 44-47). It contains no intimations of the Trinity or testimonies concerning justification by faith alone or salvation by grace alone. Indeed, it contains false doctrines regarding angels (Tobit 5:12; 6:7-8; 12:12, 15) and it teaches salvation by works (Tobit 12:9), as we saw in the previous article. It even praises prayers and sacrifices for the dead (II Macc. 12:42-45).
To paraphrase Westminster Confession I:5, the Apocrypha does not contain heavenly matter, is not possessed of majestic style and does not ascribe all glory to God, unlike the Holy Scriptures.
2. The Church’s Testimony
The old covenant church of the Jews received as its canon (as witnessed by Josephus and others) the same (Hebrew) books as our (Protestant) Old Testament and excluded the (Greek) Apocrypha. The key text here is Romans 3:2: “unto them [i.e., the Jews] were committed the oracles of God.”
The Head of the church, in the days of His humiliation on earth, never disagreed with the Jews about their canon, though He was not hesitant to do so about many other things, such as their interpretations of the law, the Sabbath, divorce and remarriage, ceremonial washing, the Messiah, the kingdom of God, etc. The Lord Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha, whereas He cited many verses in the inspired Old Testament books. He also approved the Jewish canon, even using their three-fold classification of “the law of Moses,” “the prophets” and “the psalms” (Luke 24:44).
Likewise, the apostles and prophets who penned the New Testament Scriptures never quote the Apocrypha. The apostle Paul by divine inspiration declared that to the Jews “were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), as cited earlier.
In the early post-apostolic church, there was some confusion regarding the Apocrypha: sometimes it was read in worship services and sometimes it was used to support church doctrine. But God led the early church to confess as canonical what we now refer to as the 66 books of the Bible, not the Apocrypha. This is especially evident in the writings of such church fathers as Jerome (the most learned in Hebrew), Athanasius, Tertullian, Hilary, Rufinus, Epiphanius and Melito of Sardis (c. 170 AD, quoted in Eusebius).
Even in the Middle Ages, many recognized that the Apocrypha was not divinely inspired. In fact, there were some at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) who recognized that some or all of the apocryphal books were not canonical.
The views of the various churches at the sixteenth-century Reformation are interesting and instructive. By God’s grace, the true church, represented in the Protestant Reformation, recognized only the 66 books of the Bible as inspired, unlike the false churches. Roman Catholicism adds to the Word of God and Eastern Orthodoxy adds more to the Word of God. Also, the sixteenth-century Anabaptists quoted the Apocrypha as if it were Scripture.
3. The Subjective Ground
Here we are talking about the inward witness of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer as a living member of the true church. The Holy Spirit witnesses to us in the light of the objective ground (the failure of the Apocrypha to measure up to the truth of the inspired Scripture) in connection with the testimony of the true church, now and through the ages.
The Relevance of Belgic Confession 6
First, Belgic Confession 6 enables us better to understand aspects of church history. As we have seen, the status of the Apocrypha was one aspect of the Reformation’s battle with Rome, both in the sixteenth century and to this day. The Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) debated the meaning of the word “read” in Belgic Confession 6. Gomarus and others rightly interpreted this not to refer to the reading of the Apocrypha in the church’s worship services (cf. Westminster Confession I:3).
The Apocrypha was a key issue in the formation of the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS). The British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) included the Apocrypha in Bibles they sent to Roman Catholic countries. Some correctly opposed this pragmatic compromise and the TBS was born in 1831. The United Bible Society (UBS), the Bible translation wing of the very liberal World Council of Churches (WCC), has unfaithful Protestants and Roman Catholics, etc., cooperating in producing common Bibles which include the Apocrypha. Another outworking of false ecumenism!
Second, the Apocrypha is of use in informing us of the history and theology of the Jews in the intertestamental period. I Maccabees’ description of Antiochus Epiphanes IV’s exploits is especially helpful because he is prophesied by Daniel as a type of the Antichrist (Dan. 7; 8; 11). Ecclesiasticus has a famous section in praise of godly Old Testament figures (chapters 44-49) and it has some interesting things to say about wisdom.
Third, learning about the Apocrypha and contrasting it with the God-breathed Scriptures (II Tim. 3:16) helps us to evaluate other pseudepigrapha, i.e., books claiming to have been written by Old or New Testament worthies, such as the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic forgery, much beloved of the extremely modernist Jesus Seminar. Likewise, this helps us understand the unhistorical criticisms of the Bible that arise, for example, in The Da Vinci Code, a best-selling but extremely fanciful novel by Dan Brown. In short, over against all contenders, the 66 books of the Bible stand out alone as God’s hammer (Jer. 23:29), the inspired, infallible, supremely authoritative and canonical Scriptures.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
- What are the three key things in evaluating a writing as canonical or not canonical?
- How does the Apocrypha fare when viewed in the light of these three things?
- How is Belgic Confession 6 of use to believers in the twenty-first century?
