Sunday, August 30, 2009
Esther 9: 1 Postscript
First of all, the "Jew" who "got the mastery" over the Persians was the rebel, disobedient, secular, worldly Jew, represented by Esther and Mordecai, who did not return from the exile with the godly and faithful "Jew," to Jerusalem, per the words of the prophets. Their obtaining this small victory over a Persian anti-Semitic conspiracy, was not by some miraculous intervention by God, but by the political machinations of Mordecai. His "mastery" was to exact unjust cruelty on his enemies. His political mastery came by intrigue, cunning craftiness, deceit, and worldly means. He represents Apostate Jewry, secular Judaism, the kind associated with godless, money and power hungry Jews. In the feast of Purim today (which is not an ordained feast of God) we see the non-religious nature of the feast, the carnival atmosphere, and intemperance, and the "we are superior" attitude that prevails in the participants during the reading of Esther, during Purim, and is thus quite unlike the ordained feasts of God as given by Moses.
Esther Spoke of Jesus?
In a blog posting at John Piper's "Desiring God" web site, David Mathis posts a short article titled Esther & Jesus: "The Reverse Occurred" in which he tries to demonstrate, from one verse in the Book of Esther, that Jesus' death was foretold in the Book of Esther. Those who are familiar with the Gadfly blog know that I have challenged others to demonstrate where Esther was inspired scripture, and how it meets one of the "canonical rules" by testifying of Jesus. See the Mathis posting here
Mathis wrote:
"The Hebrew Scriptures point to Jesus in a myriad of ways. One way is narrative patterns, like the one in Esther 9:1:
On the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: the Jews gained mastery over those who hated them.
And so it happened at the cross. At the very moment when the Enemy of the True Jew hoped to gain the mastery over Jesus, the reverse occurred: Jesus gained mastery over the one who hated him.
God has innumerable ways of pointing us to his Son—after all, according to Colossians 1:16-17, all the universe is in Jesus, through Jesus, and for Jesus.
If all the universe, then how much more the Scriptures."
This is that testimony of Christ that is essential to being "scripture"? (See John 5: 39) If a man can make Esther 9: 1 "point to Jesus," he can find Jesus anywhere. Is this not eisogesus? Is this not the thing that brother Piper ought to be against?
Mathis wrote:
"The Hebrew Scriptures point to Jesus in a myriad of ways. One way is narrative patterns, like the one in Esther 9:1:
On the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: the Jews gained mastery over those who hated them.
And so it happened at the cross. At the very moment when the Enemy of the True Jew hoped to gain the mastery over Jesus, the reverse occurred: Jesus gained mastery over the one who hated him.
God has innumerable ways of pointing us to his Son—after all, according to Colossians 1:16-17, all the universe is in Jesus, through Jesus, and for Jesus.
If all the universe, then how much more the Scriptures."
This is that testimony of Christ that is essential to being "scripture"? (See John 5: 39) If a man can make Esther 9: 1 "point to Jesus," he can find Jesus anywhere. Is this not eisogesus? Is this not the thing that brother Piper ought to be against?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Book of Esther & Canonicity
This blog will be dedicated to research and debate regarding the Hebrew "Book of Esther," and regarding whether it is inspired and part of canonical scripture.
On Esther & Canonicity I
Recently I left a comment on Kent Brandenburg's blog wherein I doubted the inspiration and canonicity of the Book of Esther. Tom Ross, a well known Baptist pastor and writer, took issue with me and we have exchanged comments on the subject, which is still ongoing.
See here
I will begin posting some of my notes and comments on this topic.
"The story of Esther is built predominantly upon action, not character development or theological reflection. A major feature of the story is the motif of reversal of fortunes (Berg, 103-13; Fox, "Structure"). By the end of the book, Mordechai, Esther, and the Jews all have been exalted and delivered from their enemies through dramatic turns of events."
"An important motif that emerges from the book is the nature and significance of the festival of "Purim" ("lots") (Berg, 31-57). The lottery itself is not a major component of the book, but it is a part of the reversal motif (cf. 3:7; 9:26), and one of the book's appendices (9:20-32) gives formal instruction for the festival's celebration (B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 603-5)."
Prepared for the NIDOTT, July 5, 1990
by David M. Howard, Jr., Ph.D.
http://www.bethel.edu/~dhoward/articles/ESTHNID.pdf
"Although the events of the Book of Esther show little correlation with those of the actual reign of Xerxes I, the story does reveal considerable knowledge of Persian customs, and it may be based on the deliverance of Jews from a local persecution in Persia. In its present form, however, it is essentially a secular historical romance, expressing a strong concern for Jewish patriotism and national survival. God is not mentioned, and religious practices are scarcely mentioned."
"Recent scholarship indicates that the Book of Esther was composed in the 2nd century bc. Because of its vindictive tone and secular character, early Jewish commentators were reluctant to include it in the Hebrew canon, but it was finally accepted in response to popular demand and because it offered an account of the origin of the feast of Purim. The Greek version of the Book of Esther contains 107 additional verses that are not found in the Hebrew original. They were composed in Greek, probably in the 1st century bc, with the intention of making the story more religious in character and more relevant to the situation of the Jewish people. In Protestant Bibles, these passages are included as a separate book in the Old Testament Apocrypha. In most editions of the Bible used by Roman Catholics they are included with the original version of the book." (encarta)
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570696/esther.html
"Other books‚ Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther‚ were hotly contested before finally being admitted to the canon. So even though these books were all in existence during the time of Jesus, not all Jews would have accepted them as authoritative Scripture at that time."
"As we have seen, before about the end of the first century, the actual contents of the Old Testament were up for grabs, even among Jews in Eretz Israel. The situation is even more complicated than that, however. Alongside the books that would eventually become the Scriptures of Judaism were other texts, some of which had been included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament."
"Furthermore, Athanasius discussed the biblical canon in his Paschal letter of AD 367. After discussing the contents of both testaments, the bishop of Alexandria states,
For the sake of greater accuracy I must needs, as I write, add this: there are other books outside these, which are not indeed included in the canon, but have been appointed from the time of the fathers to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of the true religion. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobit, the so-called “Teaching of the Apostles” [The Didache] and the “Shepherd” [The Shepherd of Hermas]. But while the former are included in the canon and the latter are read, no mention is to be made of the apocryphal works."
http://pursiful.com/?p=796
"Now it may be true that Protestants share the same OT canon as Jews today; however, the situation was a little different during the time of Jesus. The Jews before the 2nd century A.D. did not appear to have a rigidly defined OT canon. In the words of James King West, a Protestant Bible scholar:
The Scriptures of Judaism were not, therefore, a precisely defined body of literature absolutely set apart from all other literature, but a central body of material, the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deut.), which from the time of Ezra had remained fixed as... the Scriptures par excellence, surrounded by other interpretive material of varying degrees of importance and authority. [S&W, p. OT 432]
By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] Unfortunately we can only speculate on what Jesus thought on this issue. No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue.
Others like Gregory Nazianzen also excluded Esther from the Bible [JBC, p. 522].
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon.
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
"In the year 367 an influential bishop named Athanasius published a list of books to be read in the churches under his care, which included precisely those books we have in our Bibles (with this exception — he admitted Baruch and omitted Esther in the Old Testament). Other such lists had been published by others, as early as the year 170, although they did not all agree."
"Then we must ask, how did the elders of the churches decide which writings should be read in church as authoritative? The answer is simple: They received the writings of the apostles and their closest companions, and the writings endorsed by them. The entire Old Testament was received by the implicit endorsement of the apostles."
Today we have no good reason for doubting the canon of the New Testament. It would be wrong for me to suggest that everyone needs to investigate these matters and decide for himself which books he will receive as Scripture, without any respect for the decisions of the early churches. We are not in such a position to judge as the early church was, and we are bound to respect the well-nigh unanimous opinion of so many Christians of the past.
Apostolic use of the Septuagint. The quotations of the Old Testament in the New show that the apostles often used the Septuagint, because it was generally known to those in the Church and usually adequate for their purposes. Some people in looking at these quotations have been troubled by the fact that they are sometimes not very accurate translations of the Hebrew. Did the apostles not know their business? Of course they did. They did not concern themselves with corrections when the translation served well enough for their purpose, but when it did not they quietly offered their own translation of the Hebrew. Then they usually offered a better translation. The apostles did not see fit to produce a complete version of the Old Testament in Greek for the use of the churches."
(Michael Marlowe - "Our Reception of the Bible")
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html
"If a genuine apostolic writing were rediscovered in our day, this principle would demand the writing’s immediate acceptance in the canon. Yet God evidently did not intend all inspired utterances to be included in the canon (John 21:25; 2 Cor 2:3–4[?]; Col 4:16), and it would seem strange that he would permit the Church to function for some 1900 years without a book that would have been inspired and written in the first century.
This criterion tends to circular reasoning. Orthodoxy must be defined by the canon, and here it seems that the canon is defined by orthodoxy.
This appears to be a vicious circle. We were asking: “How do we recognize an inspired book so as to include it in the canon?” It is tautological to say, “We recognize it because it is inspired.” In other words this criterion does not advance us by even one inch in our search.
We know a book to be inspired because it is canonical. We do not know how to recognize infallibly inspired books so as to assign them a place in the canon.
If this principle were as simple as it is thought to be by its advocates it is difficult to understand why it took the Church some 300 years to make up its mind on the exact list of NT books and why the problem of the OT Apocrypha still plagues some of us to this day."
("The Canon Of The New Testamentby" Dr. Roger Nicole, Th.D, Ph.D)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/NicoleRogerCanonNT.htm
See here
I will begin posting some of my notes and comments on this topic.
"The story of Esther is built predominantly upon action, not character development or theological reflection. A major feature of the story is the motif of reversal of fortunes (Berg, 103-13; Fox, "Structure"). By the end of the book, Mordechai, Esther, and the Jews all have been exalted and delivered from their enemies through dramatic turns of events."
"An important motif that emerges from the book is the nature and significance of the festival of "Purim" ("lots") (Berg, 31-57). The lottery itself is not a major component of the book, but it is a part of the reversal motif (cf. 3:7; 9:26), and one of the book's appendices (9:20-32) gives formal instruction for the festival's celebration (B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 603-5)."
Prepared for the NIDOTT, July 5, 1990
by David M. Howard, Jr., Ph.D.
http://www.bethel.edu/~dhoward/articles/ESTHNID.pdf
"Although the events of the Book of Esther show little correlation with those of the actual reign of Xerxes I, the story does reveal considerable knowledge of Persian customs, and it may be based on the deliverance of Jews from a local persecution in Persia. In its present form, however, it is essentially a secular historical romance, expressing a strong concern for Jewish patriotism and national survival. God is not mentioned, and religious practices are scarcely mentioned."
"Recent scholarship indicates that the Book of Esther was composed in the 2nd century bc. Because of its vindictive tone and secular character, early Jewish commentators were reluctant to include it in the Hebrew canon, but it was finally accepted in response to popular demand and because it offered an account of the origin of the feast of Purim. The Greek version of the Book of Esther contains 107 additional verses that are not found in the Hebrew original. They were composed in Greek, probably in the 1st century bc, with the intention of making the story more religious in character and more relevant to the situation of the Jewish people. In Protestant Bibles, these passages are included as a separate book in the Old Testament Apocrypha. In most editions of the Bible used by Roman Catholics they are included with the original version of the book." (encarta)
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570696/esther.html
"Other books‚ Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther‚ were hotly contested before finally being admitted to the canon. So even though these books were all in existence during the time of Jesus, not all Jews would have accepted them as authoritative Scripture at that time."
"As we have seen, before about the end of the first century, the actual contents of the Old Testament were up for grabs, even among Jews in Eretz Israel. The situation is even more complicated than that, however. Alongside the books that would eventually become the Scriptures of Judaism were other texts, some of which had been included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament."
"Furthermore, Athanasius discussed the biblical canon in his Paschal letter of AD 367. After discussing the contents of both testaments, the bishop of Alexandria states,
For the sake of greater accuracy I must needs, as I write, add this: there are other books outside these, which are not indeed included in the canon, but have been appointed from the time of the fathers to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of the true religion. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobit, the so-called “Teaching of the Apostles” [The Didache] and the “Shepherd” [The Shepherd of Hermas]. But while the former are included in the canon and the latter are read, no mention is to be made of the apocryphal works."
http://pursiful.com/?p=796
"Now it may be true that Protestants share the same OT canon as Jews today; however, the situation was a little different during the time of Jesus. The Jews before the 2nd century A.D. did not appear to have a rigidly defined OT canon. In the words of James King West, a Protestant Bible scholar:
The Scriptures of Judaism were not, therefore, a precisely defined body of literature absolutely set apart from all other literature, but a central body of material, the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deut.), which from the time of Ezra had remained fixed as... the Scriptures par excellence, surrounded by other interpretive material of varying degrees of importance and authority. [S&W, p. OT 432]
By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] Unfortunately we can only speculate on what Jesus thought on this issue. No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue.
Others like Gregory Nazianzen also excluded Esther from the Bible [JBC, p. 522].
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon.
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
"In the year 367 an influential bishop named Athanasius published a list of books to be read in the churches under his care, which included precisely those books we have in our Bibles (with this exception — he admitted Baruch and omitted Esther in the Old Testament). Other such lists had been published by others, as early as the year 170, although they did not all agree."
"Then we must ask, how did the elders of the churches decide which writings should be read in church as authoritative? The answer is simple: They received the writings of the apostles and their closest companions, and the writings endorsed by them. The entire Old Testament was received by the implicit endorsement of the apostles."
Today we have no good reason for doubting the canon of the New Testament. It would be wrong for me to suggest that everyone needs to investigate these matters and decide for himself which books he will receive as Scripture, without any respect for the decisions of the early churches. We are not in such a position to judge as the early church was, and we are bound to respect the well-nigh unanimous opinion of so many Christians of the past.
Apostolic use of the Septuagint. The quotations of the Old Testament in the New show that the apostles often used the Septuagint, because it was generally known to those in the Church and usually adequate for their purposes. Some people in looking at these quotations have been troubled by the fact that they are sometimes not very accurate translations of the Hebrew. Did the apostles not know their business? Of course they did. They did not concern themselves with corrections when the translation served well enough for their purpose, but when it did not they quietly offered their own translation of the Hebrew. Then they usually offered a better translation. The apostles did not see fit to produce a complete version of the Old Testament in Greek for the use of the churches."
(Michael Marlowe - "Our Reception of the Bible")
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html
"If a genuine apostolic writing were rediscovered in our day, this principle would demand the writing’s immediate acceptance in the canon. Yet God evidently did not intend all inspired utterances to be included in the canon (John 21:25; 2 Cor 2:3–4[?]; Col 4:16), and it would seem strange that he would permit the Church to function for some 1900 years without a book that would have been inspired and written in the first century.
This criterion tends to circular reasoning. Orthodoxy must be defined by the canon, and here it seems that the canon is defined by orthodoxy.
This appears to be a vicious circle. We were asking: “How do we recognize an inspired book so as to include it in the canon?” It is tautological to say, “We recognize it because it is inspired.” In other words this criterion does not advance us by even one inch in our search.
We know a book to be inspired because it is canonical. We do not know how to recognize infallibly inspired books so as to assign them a place in the canon.
If this principle were as simple as it is thought to be by its advocates it is difficult to understand why it took the Church some 300 years to make up its mind on the exact list of NT books and why the problem of the OT Apocrypha still plagues some of us to this day."
("The Canon Of The New Testamentby" Dr. Roger Nicole, Th.D, Ph.D)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/NicoleRogerCanonNT.htm
Canonical Rule #1
Does the scroll (book) speak of Christ? Is it prophetic?
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself...And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " (Luke 24: 27, 44 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 8: 39 KJV)
Which books of the Old Testament did NOT speak of the Messiah?
Clearly Esther does not. Some have doubted the inspiration of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Solomon) for the same reason.
Levels of Inspiration or Canonicity
Think of a circle with clearly defined rings (boundaries). In the "inner circle" of "inspiration," for the Old Testament, are the five books of Moses, the Penteteuch, or Torah, or "law of Moses."
In the second circle, we would have "the prophets." What books would this include? And, let not our answer be based upon some "canon" that was supposedly being used by Christ, and universally recognized and codified, but solely upon the descriptive title given by Christ.
What books can we put safely into the category of "the prophets"? Surely the ones known as the "twelve." The only questionable ones, besides the ones named above, would be Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Job, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
First, it is easy to put Daniel and Job into the category of "the prophets," is it not? Jesus called Daniel a prophet (Matthew 24: 15) and certainly Job prophesied of the coming Redeemer (Goel) who would redeem him from death. (Job 19: 23-27)
Next, we can place Judges and Ruth with Samuel, who no doubt authored these books. Further, we can also put Samuel's stamp of approval, along with David's and Solomon's, upon the inspiration of the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Many of these books, in many Jewish collections, were viewed as one book. Further, one can find allusions to the Messiah in the above books.
The book of Joshua could also be placed among the books of the prophets, for he was certainly a prophet and his writings contain both law and prophecy, as well as history.
Also we find their veracity verified by New Testament writers.
Christ, though he put the Psalms in a category all by itself, in the above passage, yet could have placed it in the category of "the prophets," for David is also identified, in scripture, as being a "prophet." Christ no doubt had a reason or reasons, for so doing.
First, not all the Psalms were written by David, but included those written by Moses and Solomon, the former being a prophet, while the latter was not. Also, not all the Psalms were messianic or prophetic. Since Christ put the Psalms into a category all its own, so, we will make the Psalms to be the third circle of inspiration.
This leaves only Ezra and Nehemiah, which were often viewed as one book (as did Josephus, who, like many Jews, believed that there was to be only 22 books, for there are only 22 letters to the Hebrew alphabet).
This really brings us to the fourth circle of inspiration, which we will call "the holy writings," or the "other writings," or sometimes as simply "the writings." These would include the inspired historical books of Kings and Chronicles, and of Ezra and Nehemiah, but they will also include what may be appropriately called the "Wisdom" and Romance books.
The Wisdom literature takes in two of the writings of Solomon, excepting his psalm writing, which are the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. His contribution to the "Romance" category would be, of course, his "Song of Songs." Some would put Ruth and Judges into the category of either historical or romance, but I think they should be placed into the prophetic, into the messianic, being properly part of the entire prophetic writings of Samuel.
None of these historical books can be strictly called "messianic." They are much like the books of Kings and Chronicles, and properly called "historical." They are to be seen as accurate and trustworthy histories and are in this sense "inspired" or "of God," but still not of the kind or level of inspiration as the prophetic books which all speak of the Messiah. The same is true for the "Wisdom" and "Romance" writings. These historical books, together with the "Wisdom" and "Romance" books, are to be received as composing the fourth circle.
Then where would we put the book of Esther? Is it historical? Is it an inspired novel? Certainly it is not messanic and therefore would not pass the first test of canonicity, given by Jesus above. Would we put it in the same circle with the other historical and romance writings?
There are those who have, historically, sought to place other books into these various circles of inspiration. These would include books called "Apocryphal."
How can we judge the inspiration, truthfulness, correctness, and reliability of these books? How do they stand up to the first rule of inspiration and canonicity? The messianic rule?
We will look upon these questions in a future posting.
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself...And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " (Luke 24: 27, 44 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 8: 39 KJV)
Which books of the Old Testament did NOT speak of the Messiah?
Clearly Esther does not. Some have doubted the inspiration of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Solomon) for the same reason.
Levels of Inspiration or Canonicity
Think of a circle with clearly defined rings (boundaries). In the "inner circle" of "inspiration," for the Old Testament, are the five books of Moses, the Penteteuch, or Torah, or "law of Moses."
In the second circle, we would have "the prophets." What books would this include? And, let not our answer be based upon some "canon" that was supposedly being used by Christ, and universally recognized and codified, but solely upon the descriptive title given by Christ.
What books can we put safely into the category of "the prophets"? Surely the ones known as the "twelve." The only questionable ones, besides the ones named above, would be Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Job, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
First, it is easy to put Daniel and Job into the category of "the prophets," is it not? Jesus called Daniel a prophet (Matthew 24: 15) and certainly Job prophesied of the coming Redeemer (Goel) who would redeem him from death. (Job 19: 23-27)
Next, we can place Judges and Ruth with Samuel, who no doubt authored these books. Further, we can also put Samuel's stamp of approval, along with David's and Solomon's, upon the inspiration of the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Many of these books, in many Jewish collections, were viewed as one book. Further, one can find allusions to the Messiah in the above books.
The book of Joshua could also be placed among the books of the prophets, for he was certainly a prophet and his writings contain both law and prophecy, as well as history.
Also we find their veracity verified by New Testament writers.
Christ, though he put the Psalms in a category all by itself, in the above passage, yet could have placed it in the category of "the prophets," for David is also identified, in scripture, as being a "prophet." Christ no doubt had a reason or reasons, for so doing.
First, not all the Psalms were written by David, but included those written by Moses and Solomon, the former being a prophet, while the latter was not. Also, not all the Psalms were messianic or prophetic. Since Christ put the Psalms into a category all its own, so, we will make the Psalms to be the third circle of inspiration.
This leaves only Ezra and Nehemiah, which were often viewed as one book (as did Josephus, who, like many Jews, believed that there was to be only 22 books, for there are only 22 letters to the Hebrew alphabet).
This really brings us to the fourth circle of inspiration, which we will call "the holy writings," or the "other writings," or sometimes as simply "the writings." These would include the inspired historical books of Kings and Chronicles, and of Ezra and Nehemiah, but they will also include what may be appropriately called the "Wisdom" and Romance books.
The Wisdom literature takes in two of the writings of Solomon, excepting his psalm writing, which are the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. His contribution to the "Romance" category would be, of course, his "Song of Songs." Some would put Ruth and Judges into the category of either historical or romance, but I think they should be placed into the prophetic, into the messianic, being properly part of the entire prophetic writings of Samuel.
None of these historical books can be strictly called "messianic." They are much like the books of Kings and Chronicles, and properly called "historical." They are to be seen as accurate and trustworthy histories and are in this sense "inspired" or "of God," but still not of the kind or level of inspiration as the prophetic books which all speak of the Messiah. The same is true for the "Wisdom" and "Romance" writings. These historical books, together with the "Wisdom" and "Romance" books, are to be received as composing the fourth circle.
Then where would we put the book of Esther? Is it historical? Is it an inspired novel? Certainly it is not messanic and therefore would not pass the first test of canonicity, given by Jesus above. Would we put it in the same circle with the other historical and romance writings?
There are those who have, historically, sought to place other books into these various circles of inspiration. These would include books called "Apocryphal."
How can we judge the inspiration, truthfulness, correctness, and reliability of these books? How do they stand up to the first rule of inspiration and canonicity? The messianic rule?
We will look upon these questions in a future posting.
Canonical Rule 1 (cont.)
What is the first criterion for deciding full inspiration or canonicity? It is the Messianic criterion (which would include what some called the "prophetic" test or criterion).
Does the book speak of Christ? In my previous chapter, I showed from Luke 24: 27, 44 that Christ made this a rule for calling something "scripture."
In this chapter I will enlarge upon the "messianic test (rule)" and show that "the scriptures" are defined by this rule.
"But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?...But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." (Matthew 26: 54, 56 KJV)
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 45-47 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 KJV)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." (Acts 17: 2, 3 KJV)
"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18: 28 KJV)
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (I Corinthians 15: 3, 4 KJV)
"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." (Romans 16: 25-27 KJV)
From these verses we are given a further description and definition of what constitutes "scripture."
Scripture testifies of Christ. Whatever does not testify of Christ is not "scripture." It discusses repentance and remission of sins. Thus, "content" or "theme" is a sub category within the "messianic rule."
From "the scriptures" one may learn of Christ and the gospel. None of this, however, can be learned from the Book of Esther.
We also learn that "scripture" may be "fulfilled." This makes "scripture," by biblical definition, "prophetic," whether outright or by way of symbolism and analogy. Strictly "historical" and "romance" books of Hebrew literature, are not capable of being "fulfilled."
Does the book speak of Christ? In my previous chapter, I showed from Luke 24: 27, 44 that Christ made this a rule for calling something "scripture."
In this chapter I will enlarge upon the "messianic test (rule)" and show that "the scriptures" are defined by this rule.
"But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?...But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." (Matthew 26: 54, 56 KJV)
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 45-47 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 KJV)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." (Acts 17: 2, 3 KJV)
"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18: 28 KJV)
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (I Corinthians 15: 3, 4 KJV)
"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." (Romans 16: 25-27 KJV)
From these verses we are given a further description and definition of what constitutes "scripture."
Scripture testifies of Christ. Whatever does not testify of Christ is not "scripture." It discusses repentance and remission of sins. Thus, "content" or "theme" is a sub category within the "messianic rule."
From "the scriptures" one may learn of Christ and the gospel. None of this, however, can be learned from the Book of Esther.
We also learn that "scripture" may be "fulfilled." This makes "scripture," by biblical definition, "prophetic," whether outright or by way of symbolism and analogy. Strictly "historical" and "romance" books of Hebrew literature, are not capable of being "fulfilled."
Canonical Rule 2
Canonical Rule 2 - The Profitability Test (criterion)
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15: 4 KJV)
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3: 15-17 KJV)
1) Does the book produce a "hope" of salvation through Christ?
2) Does the book "instruct in righteousness," being "profitable" thereunto?
3) Does the book "correct" errors in doctrine and righteousness?
4) Is the book "profitable for doctrine"? If so, what doctrines?
5) Is the book "profitable for reproof"? If so, how or in what way?
6) Does the book "perfect" the faith of the "man of God"?
7) Does the book "make one wise unto salvation"?
Scripture here is defined as what makes one wise unto salvation in Christ. Does the Book of Esther do this? Does it pass the test of "profitability"?
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15: 4 KJV)
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3: 15-17 KJV)
1) Does the book produce a "hope" of salvation through Christ?
2) Does the book "instruct in righteousness," being "profitable" thereunto?
3) Does the book "correct" errors in doctrine and righteousness?
4) Is the book "profitable for doctrine"? If so, what doctrines?
5) Is the book "profitable for reproof"? If so, how or in what way?
6) Does the book "perfect" the faith of the "man of God"?
7) Does the book "make one wise unto salvation"?
Scripture here is defined as what makes one wise unto salvation in Christ. Does the Book of Esther do this? Does it pass the test of "profitability"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
