Stopped at the RPTS booth at Ligonier Thursday. I didn’t sign up for seminary but I did tell them that my husband and I enjoy your videos and that we have learned a lot from you 😊
One benefit of the Apocrypha is that it will make sense of some canonical passages, such as Daniel 8:9-27 and Daniel 11:21-35 (1 and 2 Maccabees' account of Antiochus Epiphanes' actions and him setting up the abomination of desolation is expounded upon in those two books), John 10:22 (1 Maccabees 4:59 explains the feast of dedication that Jesus attended) and Hebrews 11:35 (the account of people being tortured and expecting a better resurrection is explained in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31,7:1-42, which tells the story of Eleazar and the mother and her seven sons that refused Antiochus' tortures, in the hope of the resurrection)
Phewww thank you Jesus. Thought you was into the apocrpha and pray to the Virgen Mary and are chotolic. GOD BLESS YOU THANK YOU JESUS GLAD I FOUND UR CHANNEL 🙏
I love reading the Apocrypha in my KJV! Judith is so wonderful and Ecclesiasticus is too! I believe the Protestant and Evangelical practice should be that of the Book of Common Prayer that we read this for purposes of examples of godliness but not to establish doctrine, quite simple!
Thank you for your nuanced treatment of the apocrypha. I think we do a disservice to believers when we treat it as negatively as evangelicals tend to. I remember reading 2 Maccabees and being floored by the beauty of the martyrdoms. It’s not scripture, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t benefit to reading it. I wish more Protestants would read it at least once
2 Maccabees is the source from which the Roman Catholic church derived the false doctrine of purgatory. Anyone that has been justified by faith in Christ and his perfect and complete once for all sacrifice does not need so called purgatory. Christ's saving work on the cross is sufficient for believers. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10, ESV) Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1, ESV)
@@rinihogewoning6528 This post is exactly what I’m talking about. I agree that 2 Macc. has extremely problematic things in it, specifically the things you mentioned. It is not scripture, it does not belong in the canon, may we never say otherwise. There is, however, a beautiful account of God’s people undergoing persecution in the book as well. We don’t throw out the early church fathers, reformers, or puritans wholesale because they got certain things wrong.
@@danielsanchez9891 Ok I agree with you on it being an account of the early church and useful in that way. Sorry if I came off intense, but problematic teaching shouldn't be taken lightly is all I'm getting at. Thank you for the reply.
Thank you Matthew, for your wise and charitable attitude towards the apochryphal writings that are so often demonized because of a lack of understanding. I've just purchased a Cambridge ESV diadem with the apochrypha and have been wondering where to start. This was the perfect video to get me started!
Wisdom of Solomon & Sirach are amazing books. I honestly wish I could make a leather bound wisdom book collection incl Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastics, Wisdom of Solomon & Sirach.
Totally agree, especially Sirach. Those 51 chapters give amazing spiritual and practical advise. Truth is truth regardless of whether it's authentic or not.
For a thorough refutation of the supposed inspiration of the Apocrypha, read William Whitaker’s “Disputations on Holy Scripture” sold at Reformation Heritage Books!
I grew up in the Anglican church, where it was simply viewed as good reading material. I've left that church after learning that Baptism and the Eucarist don't save. I'm not a pastor of an independent church. I've read it every year from my youth. I recognize it is not inspired, but I've found it beneficial . I'm certainly not preaching from it and u recognize that there is some real doctrinal error in it but still find beneficial.
The funny thing about your beliefs in Baptism and the Eucharist is that: A. The Early Church universally believed that baptism was salvific and the idea that it was not efficacious is the invention of the radical Anabaptist movement B. The Confessional Anglican Church's sacramental theology regarding the Eucharist is very similar to Catholicism, of which both don't claim that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. The problem is that you left your Confessional Protestant church because you were ignorant of what was being taught. Typical for an Evangelical.
Just to clarify, not everything in your apocrypha book is part of the Catholic canon. E.G. the Catholic Bible does not include the prayer of Manasseh or Psalm 151.
True, but those two works are still canon for the Eastern Orthodox churches. I always found it a little amusing how there is not a single Christian branch that considers 4 Maccabees to be canon, in contrast to the other 3.
I have a Reader's Edition of the LXX, and after I finish my current GNT readthrough, I'm going to start putting readings from it into my Greek rotation, including the Apocrypha.
As someone who is most likely converting to Anglicanism, thanks for this overview. I like how Anglicans use these things as secondary books that are not inspired, but should be read. I am really interested in reading these.
It was by Apostolic Tradition the Church established by Christ in 33 AD discerned which writings were to be included in the list of the Sacred Books. This complete list is called the Canon of Scripture. It includes 46 Books for the Old Testament and 27 for the New Testament.
The Greek (Apocryphal) texts of Daniel 3 are actually helpful. It explains 1) why the people putting the Jews into the furnace were killed, and 2) why the King went to look to see what was going on in the furnace (because he heard the singing). It feels like the Greek text is a more complete narrative. v9 of the Prayer is also really interesting - compare 2 Th 2.3.
Same with Esther. The prayer of Esther and Mordecai are beautiful. Luther wanted to purge the book of Esther from the Bible, because there's no mention of God in the Masoretic version. I wish Protestants were as tolerant of the Septuagint as they are of secularization within the church services.
Interestingly, in a little-known early Particular Baptist catechism, titled “A Soul-Searching Catechism” by Christopher Blackwood, during the section on the doctrine of scripture, he cites as a historical example of God’s enemies attempting to destroy the scriptures, Antiochus’ burning of a copy of the scriptures and his law making it a capital crime to possess them as recorded in 1 Maccabees 1:56,57.
Would love to see the topic of Stoicism and compatibility with Christianity discussed. Stoicism seems to be quite popular now and wondering how it would relate or not relate to Christianity.
Wich apocryphal canon list should we start reading from? Also, should we consider reading Pseudepigraphal as well (Such Enoch, Ascension of Moses, etc...)?
I read any book I want for the purpose of knowledge. How else do we gain knowledge if we don't read? Especially, how do we challenge our own thought processes if we don't read things we disagree with? I read Enoch and Assumption of Moses. I found them boring and not very useful. But St.Jude quoted from them. Same for the Gospel of Thomas and the Gnostics. The lesson to me was, those writings didn't reveal anything of value to me personally. But I'm not afraid to read anything.
Regarding Manasseh 1.8, I would agree with the Geneva Bible: "He speaketh this in cōparison of him selfe & those holy fathers which have their commēdacion in the Scriptures, so that in respect of him self he calleth their sinnes no thing, but attre buteth unto them righteousnes." It strikes me as relative and hyperbolic, not as an absolute affirmation of the Patriarchs' purity.
I consider myself Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. I attend a Protestant evangelical church. I have the Apocrypha in my Bible. I don't believe it's Scripture, but several of the books have been extremely valuable to me. I read 1 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Wisdom of Sirach. My fellow Protestants would be infuriated if they knew this, but they read Spurgeon, Calvin and John MacArthur as if they were divine. I don't reveal to them that my Bible has the Apocrypha in it. They would say I'm "unsaved" and kick me out of the church. So, I may either leave the Protestant Church, attend a Catholic Church without communion, or just not attend church at all. It's very sad that Protestantism is so closed minded about this, but they allow rock and roll and other secular things with no problem.
If nothing else Jude 1:14 definitely quotes the book of Enoch. It appears 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 at the very least references it. However, Enoch is a pseudepigraphal writing so this is something I’ve often struggled with. In any case, 2nd temple literature gives us a bit of insight into the intertestamental period.
Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 Pretty amazing prophecy of Christ for an uninspired guy.
People get obsessed with this type of material, to the point where actual Scripture is set aside as "boring." They love supposedly having secret insight others don't. It's similar to those obsessed with prophecy. They can spend countless hours on prophecy (or what they think is prophecy) and watching the news to fit it all in. But ask them to spend time in studying the Bible and actual theology, and there's no interest. All of that said, I really, really hope dragons are real. :)
@@benhuremmanuel In Mat 22 Jesus is not directly quoting, but rather referring to 1 Enoch. My bad for clumsy grammar. Nevertheless, Mat 22:13 does seem dependent upon 1 Enoch 10:4. There is also verbal agreement in Mat 23:35 and 1 Enoch 9:1 of blood being "poured out upon the earth.” Likewise Luke 20:34-36, which has a parallel in Mark 12:24-25. As there are literally zero passages in the canonical OT teaching about angels and marriage, which Scripture is the Lord referring to? As far as any modern scholars can tell, the only passage known to the Scribes and Pharisees that could fit is 1 Enoch 15:1-7. This strongly suggests that Christ did regard at least this portion of Enoch as being inspired. Jude, however, directly quotes the text and (importantly) refers to it as "prophecy." (Jude 1:14 and 1 Enoch 1:9). There are several other allusions in Jude but I think my point is made. My position is that Christ and the apostles were very familiar with Enoch and either used it for illustrations, referred to it as being “Scripture”, or quoted it as “prophecy”. I draw from this the conclusion that at least PARTS of Enoch are inspired but the whole thing seems not to be. I read it as a helpful resource but not one I would stake my faith upon. Thanks for keeping me to account.
It's interesting that people filled with Holy Spirit wrote books that Protestants accept yet when their books are in the Apocrypha you won't accept them. Was Solomon only inspired by the Holy Spirit is Proverbs but not in Wisdom? Was Jeremiah only inspired by the Holy Spirit in the book accepted by Protestants but not in his Lamentations? You might want to rethink that.
Lamentations is not apocrypha. As for Solomon, we believe that it is not the author who is inspired, but rather the writing itself that is inspired. So yes, the same author may have written inspired scripture one day and something uninspired and fallible the next.
@@Metal_Auditor Second part first. A person can be inspired by the Holy Spirit not a thing. Inspired means "in the spirit". It can only apply to the person writing the scripture. Therefore Wisdom of Solomon must have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. I stand corrected on Laminations. In my Bible there is not a separate section for the Apocrypha. It's simply part of the whole Old Testament. However I did have a copy of a RSV with Apocrypha separate in the back of the Bible. In it Jeremiah wrote a letter to the Babylonian king prophesying against him. Since it was a prophecy by a recognized prophet (Jeremiah) we must accept that it was written inspired by the Holy Spirit.
@@stevelenores5637 the terminology of inspiration of scripture comes from 2Timothy 3:16, which says, in the KJV, “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” A more literal translation is “all scripture is breathed out by God,” as the ESV renders it. The scripture itself, not its author, is the direct object of the inspiration or breathing out.
@@Metal_Auditor You said. ...Given by the inspiration of God. Scripture didn't write itself. God-breathed which is what the Greek word is a synonym for Holy Spirit. Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament this was used to identify the Holy Spirit. Example God breathed life into Adam (receiving the Holy Spirit). After Christ's resurrection He breathed on 10 of the apostles and they received the Holy Spirit. At Pentecost the Holy spirit was so powerful Luke described it as a wind. Paul's description of scripture was just before his death to emphasize the importance of using scripture in guiding the church. Of course much of what Paul did in setting up the church he did in person and isn't written in the Bible. However we can count on all scripture for guidance and not just the parts that Luther kept in. God Bless and take care.
How can it be that Luther called the book of Revelation “neither apostolic nor prophetic”? How about the book of James and Jude? How about Jude referring to the book of Enoch? Why so many different opinions? How about the songs of Solomon? Judaism only included this book in their canon very late and as long as it was explained as the relationship between God and the Jews, which Christianity changed in Jesus and the church. So much interpretation: who’s right? The book of Proverbs was clearly edited during the 7-8th century BCE (Proverbs 25:1). Seems like the Jewish definition of inspiration is somewhat different.
Some of the Church Fathers had the same doubts about those books that Luther did. Luther was doubting the Roman Church's declarations on the canon, so he went through the Church Fathers and the Scriptures and saw that some were doubtful, so he put them in the Apocrypha section in the back of his Bible. Before the end of his life, however, he did conclude that they were Scripture. And we Protestants don't just follow Luther; he wasn't perfect. A hit on Luther doesn't discredit Protestantism at all. Even Lutheranism is more dependent on Phillip Melanchthon for its founding principles and theology than it is on Luther.
There is more we can learn from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha than reformed theology. Why in the world does Christianity seem to start in the 16th century with reformers who laugh and mocked such works? Reformed theology has done some good things however, reformed theology keeps people jailed in the 16 century. The fact is biblical authors read books. Biblical authors wrote to their audience who shared the same worldview. News flash: apocryphal and pseudepigraphal material serve as nothing more than commentaries on the biblical text. No they were not inspired but a book doesn’t have to be inspired to be important. Same goes for commentaries. Enoch chapters 6-8 specially informs us of Gen. 6:1-4. Enoch was also written a few hundred years before Christ and it has a “Son of Man” character in it. That is a title Jesus picks up and runs with. Traditions have poised and defanged the biblical text. If you really want to understand your Bible and God, it’s. It reformed theology, it’s the ancient near east and their worldview is the lens to which we would be wise to look through.
A billion Amens to that! My fellow church attendees would stone me to death for reading the Apocrypha, but they all treat the John MacArthur Study Bible commentaries as if it was a divine revelation. I joined a Protestant evangelical church recently only to find out they've adopted reformed theology. It was a terrible mistake, but they didn't tell us about their theology during the membership classes. I asked, but they brushed it off.
Stopped at the RPTS booth at Ligonier Thursday. I didn’t sign up for seminary but I did tell them that my husband and I enjoy your videos and that we have learned a lot from you 😊
Can you do a similar video, or offer your thoughts/opinions on the Book of Enoch?
One benefit of the Apocrypha is that it will make sense of some canonical passages, such as Daniel 8:9-27 and Daniel 11:21-35 (1 and 2 Maccabees' account of Antiochus Epiphanes' actions and him setting up the abomination of desolation is expounded upon in those two books), John 10:22 (1 Maccabees 4:59 explains the feast of dedication that Jesus attended) and Hebrews 11:35 (the account of people being tortured and expecting a better resurrection is explained in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31,7:1-42, which tells the story of Eleazar and the mother and her seven sons that refused Antiochus' tortures, in the hope of the resurrection)
Phewww thank you Jesus. Thought you was into the apocrpha and pray to the Virgen Mary and are chotolic. GOD BLESS YOU THANK YOU JESUS GLAD I FOUND UR CHANNEL 🙏
I love reading the Apocrypha in my KJV! Judith is so wonderful and Ecclesiasticus is too! I believe the Protestant and Evangelical practice should be that of the Book of Common Prayer that we read this for purposes of examples of godliness but not to establish doctrine, quite simple!
Thank you for your nuanced treatment of the apocrypha. I think we do a disservice to believers when we treat it as negatively as evangelicals tend to. I remember reading 2 Maccabees and being floored by the beauty of the martyrdoms. It’s not scripture, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t benefit to reading it. I wish more Protestants would read it at least once
2 Maccabees is the source from which the Roman Catholic church derived the false doctrine of purgatory.
Anyone that has been justified by faith in Christ and his perfect and complete once for all sacrifice does not need so called purgatory. Christ's saving work on the cross is sufficient for believers.
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10, ESV)
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1, ESV)
@@rinihogewoning6528 This post is exactly what I’m talking about.
I agree that 2 Macc. has extremely problematic things in it, specifically the things you mentioned. It is not scripture, it does not belong in the canon, may we never say otherwise. There is, however, a beautiful account of God’s people undergoing persecution in the book as well. We don’t throw out the early church fathers, reformers, or puritans wholesale because they got certain things wrong.
@@danielsanchez9891 Ok I agree with you on it being an account of the early church and useful in that way. Sorry if I came off intense, but problematic teaching shouldn't be taken lightly is all I'm getting at. Thank you for the reply.
@@rinihogewoning6528 Understood, and I can certainly agree with that.
Wisdom chapter 2 seems directly prophetic of the sufferings of Christ.
I don't think you could argue against it to be honest. Wisdom chapter 2 is a clearer picture than even Isaiah 53.
Thank you Matthew, for your wise and charitable attitude towards the apochryphal writings that are so often demonized because of a lack of understanding.
I've just purchased a Cambridge ESV diadem with the apochrypha and have been wondering where to start. This was the perfect video to get me started!
Wisdom of Solomon & Sirach are amazing books. I honestly wish I could make a leather bound wisdom book collection incl Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastics, Wisdom of Solomon & Sirach.
Totally agree, especially Sirach. Those 51 chapters give amazing spiritual and practical advise. Truth is truth regardless of whether it's authentic or not.
agree!
Thank you for making this informative, bite size, video.
For a thorough refutation of the supposed inspiration of the Apocrypha, read William Whitaker’s “Disputations on Holy Scripture” sold at Reformation Heritage Books!
Definitely worth reading.
I grew up in the Anglican church, where it was simply viewed as good reading material. I've left that church after learning that Baptism and the Eucarist don't save. I'm not a pastor of an independent church. I've read it every year from my youth. I recognize it is not inspired, but I've found it beneficial . I'm certainly not preaching from it and u recognize that there is some real doctrinal error in it but still find beneficial.
The funny thing about your beliefs in Baptism and the Eucharist is that:
A. The Early Church universally believed that baptism was salvific and the idea that it was not efficacious is the invention of the radical Anabaptist movement
B. The Confessional Anglican Church's sacramental theology regarding the Eucharist is very similar to Catholicism, of which both don't claim that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation.
The problem is that you left your Confessional Protestant church because you were ignorant of what was being taught. Typical for an Evangelical.
Just to clarify, not everything in your apocrypha book is part of the Catholic canon. E.G. the Catholic Bible does not include the prayer of Manasseh or Psalm 151.
True, but those two works are still canon for the Eastern Orthodox churches.
I always found it a little amusing how there is not a single Christian branch that considers 4 Maccabees to be canon, in contrast to the other 3.
Though Mac4 is included in some Orthodox bibles in the back as a reference, but not as canonical scripture.
I have a Reader's Edition of the LXX, and after I finish my current GNT readthrough, I'm going to start putting readings from it into my Greek rotation, including the Apocrypha.
As someone who is most likely converting to Anglicanism, thanks for this overview. I like how Anglicans use these things as secondary books that are not inspired, but should be read. I am really interested in reading these.
Very interesting !
If you are interested in an expert on the Apocrypha, Gary Machuta. Blessings on all of your journeys home!
As a Catholic, I wouldn’t want a bible without it. I love the various parts of the apocrypha.
i love wisdom of sirach and solomon. havent cared to read any other non canonical books
Cambridge now has Crossway's 2017 ESV Apocrypha available in standalone hardcover.
It was by Apostolic Tradition the Church established by Christ in 33 AD discerned which writings were to be included in the list of the Sacred Books. This complete list is called the Canon of Scripture. It includes 46 Books for the Old Testament and 27 for the New Testament.
The Greek (Apocryphal) texts of Daniel 3 are actually helpful. It explains 1) why the people putting the Jews into the furnace were killed, and 2) why the King went to look to see what was going on in the furnace (because he heard the singing). It feels like the Greek text is a more complete narrative. v9 of the Prayer is also really interesting - compare 2 Th 2.3.
Same with Esther. The prayer of Esther and Mordecai are beautiful. Luther wanted to purge the book of Esther from the Bible, because there's no mention of God in the Masoretic version. I wish Protestants were as tolerant of the Septuagint as they are of secularization within the church services.
Can you please recommend a good study on Pneumotolgy?
Check out:
" Acts of Paul and Thecla"
"Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity"
"Mourners Kaddish"
God bless ❤️
Interestingly, in a little-known early Particular Baptist catechism, titled “A Soul-Searching Catechism” by Christopher Blackwood, during the section on the doctrine of scripture, he cites as a historical example of God’s enemies attempting to destroy the scriptures, Antiochus’ burning of a copy of the scriptures and his law making it a capital crime to possess them as recorded in 1 Maccabees 1:56,57.
I will have to check but I believe my old Holman Bible has the Apocrypha.
Would love to see the topic of Stoicism and compatibility with Christianity discussed. Stoicism seems to be quite popular now and wondering how it would relate or not relate to Christianity.
read acts 17
Wich apocryphal canon list should we start reading from? Also, should we consider reading Pseudepigraphal as well (Such Enoch, Ascension of Moses, etc...)?
I read any book I want for the purpose of knowledge. How else do we gain knowledge if we don't read? Especially, how do we challenge our own thought processes if we don't read things we disagree with? I read Enoch and Assumption of Moses. I found them boring and not very useful. But St.Jude quoted from them. Same for the Gospel of Thomas and the Gnostics. The lesson to me was, those writings didn't reveal anything of value to me personally. But I'm not afraid to read anything.
No mention of the book of Wisdom and the prophecy of Christ contained in it?
Regarding Manasseh 1.8, I would agree with the Geneva Bible: "He speaketh this in cōparison of him selfe & those holy fathers which have their commēdacion in the Scriptures, so that in respect of him self he calleth their sinnes no thing, but attre buteth unto them righteousnes." It strikes me as relative and hyperbolic, not as an absolute affirmation of the Patriarchs' purity.
Jesus didn't cite the apocrypha as scripture (Luke 24:44) Josephus confirms what Jesus affirmed.
I know it was just a slip of the tongue but at the 12:11 mark you say that Daniel killed Goliath.
I consider myself Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. I attend a Protestant evangelical church. I have the Apocrypha in my Bible. I don't believe it's Scripture, but several of the books have been extremely valuable to me. I read 1 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Wisdom of Sirach. My fellow Protestants would be infuriated if they knew this, but they read Spurgeon, Calvin and John MacArthur as if they were divine. I don't reveal to them that my Bible has the Apocrypha in it. They would say I'm "unsaved" and kick me out of the church. So, I may either leave the Protestant Church, attend a Catholic Church without communion, or just not attend church at all. It's very sad that Protestantism is so closed minded about this, but they allow rock and roll and other secular things with no problem.
If nothing else Jude 1:14 definitely quotes the book of Enoch. It appears 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 at the very least references it. However, Enoch is a pseudepigraphal writing so this is something I’ve often struggled with. In any case, 2nd temple literature gives us a bit of insight into the intertestamental period.
Enoch is canon as is the Apocrypha.
1 Enoch is not pseudepigrapha.
Struggles over.
Easy.
Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
Let us test him with insult and torture,
so that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20
Pretty amazing prophecy of Christ for an uninspired guy.
People get obsessed with this type of material, to the point where actual Scripture is set aside as "boring." They love supposedly having secret insight others don't. It's similar to those obsessed with prophecy. They can spend countless hours on prophecy (or what they think is prophecy) and watching the news to fit it all in. But ask them to spend time in studying the Bible and actual theology, and there's no interest.
All of that said, I really, really hope dragons are real. :)
Jesus and the apostles quoted parts of Enoch on a number of occasions, so they at least valued it highly.
chapter and verse where Lord quotes it
@@benhuremmanuel In Mat 22 Jesus is not directly quoting, but rather referring to 1 Enoch. My bad for clumsy grammar. Nevertheless, Mat 22:13 does seem dependent upon 1 Enoch 10:4. There is also verbal agreement in Mat 23:35 and 1 Enoch 9:1 of blood being "poured out upon the earth.”
Likewise Luke 20:34-36, which has a parallel in Mark 12:24-25. As there are literally zero passages in the canonical OT teaching about angels and marriage, which Scripture is the Lord referring to? As far as any modern scholars can tell, the only passage known to the Scribes and Pharisees that could fit is 1 Enoch 15:1-7. This strongly suggests that Christ did regard at least this portion of Enoch as being inspired.
Jude, however, directly quotes the text and (importantly) refers to it as "prophecy." (Jude 1:14 and 1 Enoch 1:9). There are several other allusions in Jude but I think my point is made.
My position is that Christ and the apostles were very familiar with Enoch and either used it for illustrations, referred to it as being “Scripture”, or quoted it as “prophecy”. I draw from this the conclusion that at least PARTS of Enoch are inspired but the whole thing seems not to be. I read it as a helpful resource but not one I would stake my faith upon. Thanks for keeping me to account.
Why do you consider the Westminster Confession authoritative?
Read it ! It is not considered to be authoritative over Scripture but a Secondary Standard . It is based on inspired scripture.
@@allanyoung6231 Oh, good to hear that. I was starting to worry.
Lol
Deuterocanonical, not apocrypha.
It's interesting that people filled with Holy Spirit wrote books that Protestants accept yet when their books are in the Apocrypha you won't accept them. Was Solomon only inspired by the Holy Spirit is Proverbs but not in Wisdom? Was Jeremiah only inspired by the Holy Spirit in the book accepted by Protestants but not in his Lamentations? You might want to rethink that.
Lamentations is not apocrypha. As for Solomon, we believe that it is not the author who is inspired, but rather the writing itself that is inspired. So yes, the same author may have written inspired scripture one day and something uninspired and fallible the next.
@@Metal_Auditor Second part first. A person can be inspired by the Holy Spirit not a thing. Inspired means "in the spirit". It can only apply to the person writing the scripture. Therefore Wisdom of Solomon must have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I stand corrected on Laminations. In my Bible there is not a separate section for the Apocrypha. It's simply part of the whole Old Testament. However I did have a copy of a RSV with Apocrypha separate in the back of the Bible. In it Jeremiah wrote a letter to the Babylonian king prophesying against him. Since it was a prophecy by a recognized prophet (Jeremiah) we must accept that it was written inspired by the Holy Spirit.
@@stevelenores5637 the terminology of inspiration of scripture comes from 2Timothy 3:16, which says, in the KJV, “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” A more literal translation is “all scripture is breathed out by God,” as the ESV renders it. The scripture itself, not its author, is the direct object of the inspiration or breathing out.
Solomon didn't write in Greek.
@@Metal_Auditor You said. ...Given by the inspiration of God. Scripture didn't write itself. God-breathed which is what the Greek word is a synonym for Holy Spirit. Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament this was used to identify the Holy Spirit. Example God breathed life into Adam (receiving the Holy Spirit). After Christ's resurrection He breathed on 10 of the apostles and they received the Holy Spirit. At Pentecost the Holy spirit was so powerful Luke described it as a wind. Paul's description of scripture was just before his death to emphasize the importance of using scripture in guiding the church. Of course much of what Paul did in setting up the church he did in person and isn't written in the Bible. However we can count on all scripture for guidance and not just the parts that Luther kept in. God Bless and take care.
How can it be that Luther called the book of Revelation “neither apostolic nor prophetic”? How about the book of James and Jude? How about Jude referring to the book of Enoch?
Why so many different opinions?
How about the songs of Solomon? Judaism only included this book in their canon very late and as long as it was explained as the relationship between God and the Jews, which Christianity changed in Jesus and the church. So much interpretation: who’s right?
The book of Proverbs was clearly edited during the 7-8th century BCE (Proverbs 25:1). Seems like the Jewish definition of inspiration is somewhat different.
Some of the Church Fathers had the same doubts about those books that Luther did. Luther was doubting the Roman Church's declarations on the canon, so he went through the Church Fathers and the Scriptures and saw that some were doubtful, so he put them in the Apocrypha section in the back of his Bible. Before the end of his life, however, he did conclude that they were Scripture.
And we Protestants don't just follow Luther; he wasn't perfect. A hit on Luther doesn't discredit Protestantism at all. Even Lutheranism is more dependent on Phillip Melanchthon for its founding principles and theology than it is on Luther.
There is more we can learn from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha than reformed theology. Why in the world does Christianity seem to start in the 16th century with reformers who laugh and mocked such works? Reformed theology has done some good things however, reformed theology keeps people jailed in the 16 century. The fact is biblical authors read books. Biblical authors wrote to their audience who shared the same worldview. News flash: apocryphal and pseudepigraphal material serve as nothing more than commentaries on the biblical text. No they were not inspired but a book doesn’t have to be inspired to be important. Same goes for commentaries. Enoch chapters 6-8 specially informs us of Gen. 6:1-4. Enoch was also written a few hundred years before Christ and it has a “Son of Man” character in it. That is a title Jesus picks up and runs with. Traditions have poised and defanged the biblical text. If you really want to understand your Bible and God, it’s. It reformed theology, it’s the ancient near east and their worldview is the lens to which we would be wise to look through.
A billion Amens to that! My fellow church attendees would stone me to death for reading the Apocrypha, but they all treat the John MacArthur Study Bible commentaries as if it was a divine revelation. I joined a Protestant evangelical church recently only to find out they've adopted reformed theology. It was a terrible mistake, but they didn't tell us about their theology during the membership classes. I asked, but they brushed it off.