A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 2

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 2

Canonicity:

The canonicity of the book was, however, long doubtful (Yad. iii. 5; Meg. 7a), and was one of the matters on which the school of Shammai took a more stringent view than the school of Hillel.  It was finally settled "on the day whereon Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed head of the assembly."  Attempts were made to render it apocryphal on the ground of its not being inspired, or of its internal contradictions, or of a tendency that it displayed toward heresy — that is, Epicureanism.  But these objections were satisfactorily answered.  It was assumed that Solomon had taken the name "Qohelet," just as he had taken the name "Agur" (Prov. 30:1), as a collector; and probably the Septuagint rendering represents a theory that the name contained an allusion to I Kings 8:1 where Solomon is said to have gathered an assembly.  Along these same lines Rev. Scott wrote, “all of them [the “Epicurean-sounding” maxims] admit of a sound and useful interpretation, when accurately investigated, and when the general scope of the book is attended to.”[1]

There are no direct quotations of Ecclesiastes in the New Testament, however Matthew 23:23, R. V., "These ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone," seems clearly a reminiscence of Eccl. 7:18.  Holden gives a list from the German critic Carpzov of texts with more or less resemblance, but few of them carry any weight of parallelism or reference.

The “corrupt propensities,” as Bridges calls them, of the writer do not influence in deteriorating its real authority.  For this depends not upon the instrumentality employed but upon the dignity of its great author and the truthfulness of the testimony.  There is, for this reason, no ground to question that this book was given  - like every other part of Scripture – by inspiration of God.

Purpose:

The Book’s manifest purpose is to show that all is vanity unless one, “fears God, and keeps His commandments” (12:13).  The book is a record of Solomon’s desperate journey.  It was a maddening period in his adult life when life lost its luster.  He questions everything in life—values, God, ethics, etc.  He sought to live without God.  The goal of the journey is to show that you cannot live a significant, worthwhile, meaningful life without a personal relationship with God.  When you leave God out, life is a repetitious cycle of events, which neither possesses nor gives lasting value or satisfaction (1:2-11).  Solomon’s states clearly that significance in life can be found only in a trusting relationship with God:  Everything else is vanity.  If it is “under the sun” it will not satisfy because it is life apart from God.  Jesus asked, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?  Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”[2]  An adequate worldview must recognize that God is the highest value of all.  Life has a purpose and God will judge every deed.  Incidentally, this book is a testimony to the great doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.  Despite the depths of Solomon’s fall, he was not left by God to die in that state.  Rather, like all the elect he was recalled and died securely in the grace of God that elected him to salvation before the foundations of the earth. 

Theme:

“Vanity of vanities, All is vanity” (1:2).  “Wine, women and song” is the experience of living on the edge of reality without God.  Understanding of life begins with a healthy fear of God.  Elohim is used forty times in this book.  He is the total sovereign provider over all His creation.  The Preacher repeatedly admonishes men to “fear God” (3:14; 5:6; 8:12; 12:13).  Ecclesiastes reports the results of a diligent quest for purpose, meaning and satisfaction in human life.  The Preacher poignantly sees the emptiness and futility of power, popularity, prestige and pleasure apart from God.  The word vanity appears 37 times to express the many things that cannot be understood about life.  When earthly goals and ambitions are pursued as ends in themselves, they lead to disappointment and frustration.  Life "under the sun" (used 29 times) seems to be filled with inequities, uncertainties, changes in fortune, and violations of justice.

Yet Ecclesiastes does not give an answer to atheism or skepticism; God is referred to throughout.  In fact, it claims that the search for man’s summum bonum must end in God.  Satisfaction in life can be found only by looking beyond this world.  Ecclesiastes gives an analysis of negative themes but it also develops the positive theme of overcoming the vanities of life by fearing a God who is good, just, and sovereign (Eccl. 12:13, 14).

Style:

Ecclesiastes belongs to the Hebrew Wisdom literature.  The Hebrew in Ecclesiastes is unique to any other Hebrew from any other period.  It has some Aramaic and Persian words.  Archer says, “The reason for the peculiar vocabulary, syntax, and style seems to be found in the literary genre to which Ecclesiastes belonged – the genre of the philosophical discourse. If this particular genre was first developed in Phoenicia, and if Solomon was well read in this whole area of wisdom literature (cf. 1 Kings 4:30-34), there is every reason to believe that he deliberately chose to write in the idiom and style that had already been established for that genre.”[3]  It seems reasonably obvious that we are dealing here with a conventional style peculiar to the particular genre to which Ecclesiastes belonged.   It so happens that in the case of the precise genre to which Ecclesiastes belongs, we have nothing else that has survived from Hebrew literature.  There are some remarkable similarities between some passages in Ecclesiastes and the corresponding sections in the Proverbs.  He writes as a philosopher, and a keen observer of world history, current events and personal experiences.

Christ in Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes convincingly portrays the emptiness and perplexity of life without a relationship with the Lord.  Each person has eternity in his heart (Eccl. 3:11), and only Christ can provide ultimate satisfaction, joy and wisdom.  Man’s summum bonum is found in the "one Shepherd" (Eccl. 12:11) who offers abundant life (John 10:9, 10).   In a striking passage from his commentary on Ecclesiastes, Gregory of Nyssa sees Qohelet as a reference, or perhaps a type of Christ.  He writes: “We must first consider the inscription of this book: ‘The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David, king of Israel in Jerusalem.’ The law of Moses is read in every church along with the prophets, psalms, historical books and other Old and New Testament readings. How, then, does this special inscription enhance Ecclesiastes, and what are we to make of it? …Perhaps this inscription refers to the leader of the Church [ekklesia]. The true Ecclesiastes [Qoheleth, Christ] gathers into one assembly those persons who often have been scattered and frequently deceived. Who could he be except the true king of Israel to whom Nathaniel said, "You are the son of God and the king of Israel" (Jn 1.49)?  If these words pertain to the king of Israel, the Son of God, as the Gospel says, then he is called Ecclesiastes. We will not deviate from the inscription's meaning provided that we learn about him who firmly establishes the Church through the Gospel and to whom these words apply. "The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David" [1.1]: thus Matthew begins his gospel with the name David and calls him Lord.[4]

Conclusion:

No better conclusion of the book can be given than Solomon’s own: The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person (12:13).  Everything apart from God is futile.  Augustine said, “Thou hast made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee.”[5]  When a person begins to grow spiritually, he realizes that the former way of life and the worldview that results from it no longer suffices for the new manner of living that has come to be.  In other words, what we once valued is no longer deemed to be so valuable.  The book of Ecclesiastes clearly provides expression for such a recognition. 

Solomon explored every visible realm of stimulation in a carefully controlled environment and was still unsatisfied.  Only God satisfies our deepest needs in life.  Everything else is “vanity."

---

[1] Preface to Ecclesiastes

[2] Matthew 16:26, NASB 1995

[3] Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

[4] Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes

[5] Confessions 1.1

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 1

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 1 

The Book of Ecclesiastes has exercised the Church in no small degree.  Many learned men have not hesitated to list it among the most difficult books in the Canon.  Luther doubted whether any expositor up to his time had fully mastered it.  Gregory of Nyssa says, ”When [the book of] Proverbs has exercised our minds by its obscure words, wise sayings, riddles and various twists of words as contained in the Introduction, we find an ascent for those persons who have advanced to more perfect lessons with regard to this lofty, divinely inspired book.  If a toilsome, arduous meditation on Proverbs prepares us for these lessons, how much more laborious and difficult must it be to now examine such sublime matters proposed for our contemplation!”[i]

Gregory of Nyssa did not fail to consider the role Ecclesiastes would play in his scheme for the spiritual life. He saw it divided into three stages, an outline inherited from his illustrious predecessor, Origen of Alexandria: praktikh qeoria or "practical, applied" contemplation, yusikh qeoria or "physical" contemplation and qeologia or "theology" which pertains to God proper.  In Origen's scheme the book of Proverbs represents the first stage, the book of Ecclesiastes the second and the Song of Songs the third and final stage.  Gregory himself speaks of the three books of Solomon with reference to the three stages of spiritual growth at the beginning of his Commentary on the Song of Songs.

In Gregory and Origen’s system, the purpose of Proverbs is to teach; Ecclesiastes preaches.  The philosophy of the Song of Songs transcends both by its loftier doctrine.   For Gregory of Nyssa Proverbs is the first way, Ecclesiastes is the second and the Song of Songs is the third.  In Gregory’s view we see a need to be instructed in spiritual things before advancing to a realization that our former perceptions were subject to vanity.

These views may be a bit overly philosophical yet they do point to an interesting fact about the actual location of Ecclesiastes in the Canon.  It is just before the Song of Songs and just after Proverbs.  When one has fully realized and felt the futility of life apart from God, only then can his soul truly appreciate the splendor of the Heavenly Bridegroom.

Title:

The Book of Ecclesiastes gets its title from the first words of the book: “The words of Qohelet (ko-heh-let), the Son of David, King in Jerusalem” (1:1).  The name "Ecclesiastes"—literally, "Member of an Assembly," often thought to mean (after Jerome) "Preacher"—is the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew "Qohelet," apparently as an intensive formation from the root "qahal," with which such forms as the Arabic "rawiyyah" (professional reciter) have been compared. The Hebrew word is given by the author of the book as his name, sometimes with the article (12: 8, and probably 6: 27), but ordinarily without it: similar license is allowed in Arabic in the case of some common nouns used as proper names. The Greek title is derived from the term ekklesiastes, which is a good translation meaning “preacher,” and is derived from ekklesia, meaning “assembly.” The Greek is Latinized into Ecclesiastes.

Author:

The author of Ecclesiastes can be none other than King Solomon the son of David.  His name is nowhere mentioned in the book, however references in Ecclesiastes clearly suggest his authorship. The Jews considered Ecclesiastes to be Solomonic and inspired. The early Christian church also approved it. The author identifies himself as Davis’s son who was a king over Israel in Jerusalem (1:1). The book is consistent with the historic accounts of Solomon (1 Kings 1-11), and he has the qualities that would make him David’s son (1:16; 2:4-9).  Some critics of note, such as Grotius, Dathè and others have rejected the Solomonic authorship on the grounds of supposed differences in style and the use of a few words of a supposed later origin.  These arguments, however, amount to theoretical doubts or plausibilities.  They in fact, involve a supposition utterly unworthy of Inspiration, viz., that some unknown author has palmed upon the Church in the Sacred Canon his own thoughts and words under the deceptive cover of the name of, “the son of David – King in Jerusalem.”  Gleason Archer writes, “Most modern scholars admit that the purported author of Ecclesiastes is Solomon; but they maintain that this was simply a literary device employed by a later author, now unknown to us, who wished to teach the ultimate futility of a materialistic worldview. If this could be accepted as valid, it would certainly put in question almost every other affirmation of authorship to be found in any other book of the Bible. Some later, unknown author might equally well have pretended to be Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, or the apostle Paul, simply as "a literary device to express his own views." If it were any other book than the Bible, this would have to be classified as forgery, a mere product of deception, which would render the actual author of such a spurious work liable to damages in a court of law. It is more than doubtful that a Bible that holds to such high standards of integrity and honesty and that was certified by the Lord Jesus and His apostles as being the infallible Word of God could be composed of spurious work by authors who paraded under assumed names.”[ii]

Therefore, there is no conclusive evidence against king Solomon as the author.  There are two lines of evidence in favor of the Solomonic authorship: External evidence and internal.

As for the external evidence we have the Jewish Talmuds (the authoritative body of Jewish tradition comprising the Mishnah and Gemara), which attributes the book to Solomon but suggests that Hezekiah’s scribes may have edited the text (see Prov. 25:1).  Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is the standard Christian position, although some scholars, along with the Talmud, believe the work was later edited during the time of Hezekiah or possibly Ezra.

The internal evidence is quite conclusive.  The author calls himself, "the son of David, king in Jerusalem" (Eccl. 1:1).  A later reference rules out any other offspring of David as a possible candidate, since Solomon was the only son of David to be king of Israel in Jerusalem (1:12).  After Solomon’s death the kingdom was divided and all David’s descendants that ruled in Jerusalem reigned only over the southern kingdom of Judah.  Solomon was the best-qualified Davidic descendant for the quest in this book.  He was the wisest man who ever taught in Jerusalem (see Eccl. 1:16; I Kings 4:29-30).  The descriptions of Qohelet’s exploration of pleasure (Eccl. 2:1-3), impressive accomplishments (Eccl. 2:4-6) and unparalleled wealth (Eccl. 2:7-10) were fulfilled only by King Solomon.  The proverbs in this book are similar to those in the Book of Proverbs (e.g. Eccl. 7:10).  According to Ecclesiastes 12:9, Qohelet collected and arranged many proverbs, perhaps referring to the two Solomonic collections in Proverbs.  Furthermore, the unity of authorship of Ecclesiastes is supported by the seven references to Qohelet.

The Grecisms supposed to be found in the book are all imaginary (for instance,  has no connection with fqe1gma.  The phrase "under the sun," which occurs so frequently, is also found in the Eshmunazar and Tabnith inscriptions, not later than 300 B.C., as the equivalent of "on earth"), and the suppositions as to borrowings from Greek philosophy which some have professed to detect are all fallacious.[iii]

Date:

The date is probably around 940-935 B.C., which would be consistent with Solomon as the author (970-931 B.C.).  All the best commentators are agreed that Solomon wrote this book toward the end of his life after his apostasy.  Bishop Reynolds says, “He seemeth to have written it in his old age, when he took a more serious view of his past life – the honour, pleasure, wealth, and wisdom he had so abundantly enjoyed – the errors and miscarriages he had fallen into – the large experience, and many observations he had made of things natural, moral domestical, sensual, Divine – the curious and critical inquiry he had made after true happiness, and what contributions all things under the sun could afford thereunto.”[iv]

All the internal evidence confirms this date.  It could not have been composed before his fall, i.e., before the awful state of madness he so graphically describes.  Neither could he have written it during the time since it is obviously a record of the past viewed in repentance.  We are left with no option but the later date.

The book was plainly written in a spirit of genuine penitence for the sins he had fallen into.  “He writeth in such sort, as if he had learned the doctrine of the vanity of earthly things by very great experience and long use.”[v]  The circumstances remind us of his father’s example – writing a psalm (Ps.51), however, he produces an entire book as a solemn testimony to the Church of his godly repentance.  “After his great fall Solomon recovereth himself again by repentance, and writeth his Book of Ecclesiastes, as his peculiar dirge for that his folly.”[vi]  Witsius speaks of this book “as written in his old age, when led, under the influence of the Divine Spirit, to repent of his past life.”[vii]  All the Patristic commentators agree with this view.

[i] Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes

[ii] Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

[iii] See Ad. Lods; "L'Ecclésiaste et la Philosophie Grecque," 1890

[iv] Annotations on Ecclesiastes – Works, vol. Iv.

[v] Lightfoot, Works, vol. i

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Misc. Sacra, vol. ii. Exercit. vi.1

Patristic Witnesses to the Reformed Doctrine of Imputation and Justification

1. 1 Clement, chap. XLIX: “For the love which he had unto us, he gave his blood for us, according to his purpose, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.” Note that we have a testimony taken from the very prime of undoubted antiquity, where we are told: 1. The cause of Christ’s death, viz., His love to us. 2. Its object — us, or believers. 3. The manner how he redeemed us: by substitution.

2. Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter IX: “He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

3. Gregory of Nyssa, Oration 2 on Canticles: “He has transferred unto Himself the filth of my sins, and communicated unto me His purity, and made me partaker of His beauty.”

4. Augustine, Enchiridion, 41: “He, then being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us …”

5 Chrysostom, Homily XI on 2 Cor. On verse 21: “What words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? ‘For the righteous,’ saith he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not ‘made’ [Him] a sinner, but ’sin;’ not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but ‘that had not even known sin; that we’ also ‘might become,’ he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, ‘righteousness,’ and, ‘the righteousness of God.’ For this is [the righteousness] ‘of God’ when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is ‘the righteousness of God.’”

6. Bernard, Epistle 190: “It was man who owed the debt, it was man who paid it. For if one, says S. Paul, died for all, then were all dead (2 Cor. v. 14), so that, as One bore the sins of all, the satisfaction of One is imputed to all. It is not that one forfeited, another satisfied; the Head and body is one, viz., Christ.”

The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture Pt 2

Our previous post looked at the inspiration of Scripture. We will now make some observations on the subject of Scripture’s Authority

The question of the Scripture’s authority is not in regard to the canonical authority, but to the authority attached to the writings that are acknowledged to be canonical Scriptures. The following point addresses itself to this issue: If the Scriptures have been proved to be divinely inspired, then their divine authority goes without saying. If they are His Word, they must be absolutely authoritative with regard to all the matters they treat. The Bible is the last word on doctrinal and ethical matters and all theological and moral disputes must be brought before the bar of the written Word. This is the orthodox Protestant position.

The Protestant holds the authority of Scripture to be exclusive in the sphere of religion. That is to say that there is no other authority in matters concerning the Church’s doctrine and practice. This has to be true unless it can be shown that God designed them to be restricted in the scope of their influence – in other words, that there is some other revelation of God’s will possessing the same authority as Scripture. Plenary inspiration must be proven then of this other revelation. There are several reasons why this cannot be proved:
• The Bible claims to address all men. It recognizes no rival revelation of God’s will.
• If the Bible is inspired this claim to worldwide authority must be true and exclusive. This exclusivity is unavoidable because each would limit and condition the other, which would be contradictory to the supremacy of either. Just as two sovereigns cannot reign in the political realm, so two sovereigns cannot reign in the spiritual realm.
• No other revelation has been established by clear and unimpeachable miracles.
• No other revelation provides for the redemption of man from guilt, depravity and destruction.
• The world needs a revelation that is characterized by unity, which is consistent with itself. The idea of several revelations that are incompatible with each other at certain points is completely absurd.

This principle of the exclusivity of authority of the Bible, known to the Reformers as sola Scriptura, is not new however to the Church. This principle is stated explicitly and implicitly by the Fathers.

The clearest proof token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible.
That the Fathers were firm believers in the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century. He wrote what are known as the Catechetical Lectures. This is an extensive series of lectures given to catechumens expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture and there is not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral Apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture. He states frankly that if he presented any teaching that could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it.

The following are some of his statements from the Lectures on the final authority of Scripture: “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17)

“But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture… For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith… Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.” (Lecture 5.12)

Notice that Cyril says that these catechumens are receiving “Tradition” and he exhorts them to hold to these traditions. Yet these traditions are not the “oral traditions” of Roman Catholicism; they are synonymous with Scripturally based doctrine. The Teaching or Tradition or Revelation of God that was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church is now accessible in Scripture alone. It is also quite significant that Cyril, who is communicating the entire faith to these catechumens as a recognized authority on the subject, did not make a single appeal to an oral Tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.

This principle is also articulated by Gregory of Nyssa. “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” (On the Soul And the Resurrection).

Athanasius, while speaking on other subjects makes many indirect references to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture. In the first paragraph of his Contra Gentes, he declares, “the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.”

Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea from 370 to 379 A.D., testifies to his belief in the all-sufficient nature of the Scriptures in these words taken from a letter he wrote to a widow: “Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.” (Letter CCLXXXIII)

These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.

The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:

• Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from @ 130 to 202 A.D. He quotes from 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He makes over 1800 quotes from the New Testament alone.

• Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 A.D. He cites all the New Testament books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2400 citations from the New Testament.

• Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 A.D. He makes over 7200 New Testament citations.

• Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 A.D. he succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.

By the end of the third century the entire New Testament (short of about 11 verses) could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church fathers. B.F. Westcott sums up the position of the New Testament Scriptures in the early Church with these words: "The first hundred years of the existence of the 27 books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the apostolic age." (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament)

Scripture has authority as all evangelical Protestants will agree because it is the Word of God. But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says so. Scripture’s authority comes from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man, in other words, it has an authority independent of the Church.

The basis on which Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is the fact already argued that the Scriptures themselves make this claim. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The word used for ‘inspired’ literally means ‘God-breathed’.

The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that the Hebrew canon consisted of twenty-two books and did not include the Apocrypha. Josephus categorically rejects the Apocrypha as being truly inspired. Even the Roman Catholic Church affirms the fact that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, in that it was not part of the Hebrew canon, and acknowledges that the Protestant Church follows the canon of the Jews. For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.

The first list of the Old Testament canon given to us by a Christian writer is from Melito of Sardis. His list is preserved in the writings of Eusebius, the Church historian. Origen also names twenty-two books in his list of the Hebrew canon. First, there is the canon of inspired Scripture of the Old and New Testaments which he enumerates. Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, in his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, dedicated to Pope Clement VII, fully supported Jerome’s teaching in separating the Apocrypha from the Hebrew canon. The books that were considered inspired and authoritative for the establishing of doctrine held a proto-canonical status.

Augustine held a kind of two-fold canonicity. Clearly, Augustine believed that the Church held the Apocrypha to be canonical in the broad sense that these writings provided a good example and an inspiration to perseverance in the faith. However, it is equally clear from Augustine’s writings that he did hold the Apocrypha to be canonical in the same sense as the canon of the Old and New Testaments.

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage did not establish the canon of the Scriptures, for their decrees on the Old Testament were unsupported by the Church’s earlier testimony and were not accepted afterwards. It was not until the mid-sixteenth century at Trent did the Roman Catholic Church approve the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. He refused to translate them for his Latin Vulgate, and they were only added literally over his dead body. The situation remained unclear in the following centuries.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. Here is an authoritative Roman Catholic source affirming the fact that it was not until the sixteenth century that the Roman Catholic Church established the canon of the Old Testament. The Apocrypha was not considered to be part of the Old Testament canon. But at least it is honest enough to give an accurate picture of when the Old Testament canon was truly and authoritatively determined by the Roman Church.

The Protestant Church is continually charged with upholding dogmas which first appeared very late in the history of the Church. As we have seen, it is a ruling contrary to the testimony of the Jews to the canon of Scripture, to the general patristic witness of the Church and to the overall consensus of the Church right down to the time of the Reformation. Louis Gaussen summarizes this well when he writes, “With the single exception of Theodore of Mopsuestia [c. 400]…it has been impossible to produce, in the long course of the eight first centuries of Christianity, a single doctor who has disowned the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, unless it be in the bosom of the most violent heresies that have tormented the Christian Church.” (Theopneustia pp. 139-140)

In conclusion then, we sum up all the forgoing arguments by saying that the Bible claims to be breathed by God i.e., inspired. This inspiration is plenary, in other words, full; it applies to all of Scripture. This inspiration guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of all of the Bible’s contents. This inspiration therefore makes the Bible authoritative in all areas of our spiritual life. Every issue we face as spiritual beings is, at bottom, a theological issue and as such is addressed and regulated by Scripture. The authority of the Scripture is the authority of God Himself. In Romans 9:17, St. Paul represents Scripture as addressing Pharaoh! Surely this is a strange way of speaking? This demonstrates that in St. Paul’s mind the authority of God and the utterances of His Word are inseparable. For the Scripture to say anything is for God to say it. David says in Psalm 138:2 that God has magnified His Word above His name! However lofty God’s name is, at least for the present state of affairs (discounting what things may be like in the Eternal State), God has made His Word, the Bible, the Supreme Authority in the universe on all spiritual, doctrinal, ethical, moral and theological issues. Not only is the Bible the supreme authority, there are no subordinate authorities to which appeal may be made. It is God’s Word and it is the Final Word.