I have written on the question of which books should, or should not be, included in the scriptures. Most believers, even teachers of the word, are ignorant of this subject. Most could not give a rational defense for why they believe that there are sixty six books in the Bible (most Protestants) or more (Catholics and other sects) and yet they should (I Peter 3: 15). Some theologians and pastors know a good bit about it, thankfully.
Are we to accept books of the bible for no good reason other than it is what our religious tradition has given to us and said that these, and these alone, are "THE scriptures"? Does our faith in which books are inspired and which are not depend upon our faith in our forefathers, or in our religious tradition? Ought we not to have a "rule" by which to discern the inspired from the uninspired?
I wrote on "the rules for deciding canonicity" for books purporting to be the word of God, inspired and without error. Any believer can read the sixty six books, and the numerous other books that have claimed inclusion into the inspired "canon," and discern whether they are truly the inspired word of God. They can do this by applying the rules that the scriptures themselves give to us for judging what is "scripture," and what is not.
I do not believe, like Luther, and perhaps Calvin, that the book of Esther is inspired and is the word of God but is to be put into the category of pseudapigrapha (spurious writings). For holding this position I have been told that I was going to Hell. When I asked the bible teacher to tell me how it could be inspired when it does not pass the test of inspiration, using the rules for determining it. I never got a response. Obviously I was expected to believe in the inspiration of Esther without good reason, or simply because this is the predominant view or tradition.
In any case the following are excerpts from the series I wrote on this back in 2008.
"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)
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.
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?
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.
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 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 - The Profitability Test (criterion) (here)
"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"?
This rule would include the issue of divine "authority."
Those who wrote scripture were not self authorized men, or men who were authorized by groups of uninspired men, but men who were chosen and appointed by God, men who were sent and authorized by him, and taught by him what to say and teach.
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1: 19-21 KJV)
In discerning inspiration and canonicity, we should ask such questions as these:
Who authored the book?
What was the content, subject, or main teachings of the book?
How did the book come into being?
What of its origination?
Is it "prophetic"?
Does it reveal the nature and workings of God and Christ?
Does it instruct in righteousness and doctrine?
Three rules have been given thus far for determining inspiration and canonicity.
1) The Messianic rule (test)
2) The Profitability rule (test)
3) The Privacy rule (test)
A popular conservantive web site gives these rules for "Tests of Canonicity."
"Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized."
(1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative?
(2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift?
(3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?
There are some 250 quotes from Old Testament books in the New Testament. None are from the Apocrypha. All Old Testament books are quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon."
Canonical Rule 4 - Does the professed sacred scroll contradict itself? (here)
Does the professed sacred scroll contradict itself? Does it have errors? Doctrinal, theological, historical, grammatical, etc.?
Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken." (John 10: 35 KJV)
Canonical Rule 5 - Does it contain the oracles of God? (here)
Thus far we have discovered four cardinal rules that determine inspiration and canonicity.
1. Messianic Test - does it witness to Christ per John 5: 39, Luke 24: 27, 44?
2. Profitability Test - Does it do the things scripture is said to do per II Tim. 3: 15, 16?
3. Origination Test - Did it originate by divine initiative and revelation? Is it cited by other scripture writers and consistent with other scripture? Is it from a prophetic or apostolic source? (Per II Peter 1: 20?)
4. Consistency or Truth Test - is it free of error and contradiction? (Per John 10: 35?)
The "oracles" of God
5. Does it contain the oracles or utterances of God per Rom. 3: 2?
"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (Acts 7: 38 KJV)
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 1, 2 KJV)
"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..." (Hebrews 5: 12 KJV)
"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God..." (I Peter 4: 11 KJV)
Strictly speaking, no accepted inspired book of the Bible contains only the oracles of God. For instance, all of the Book of Genesis is not the direct verbal utterances of God, or his "oracles." It does contain God's verbal utterances. Yea, the very first oracle is the one given to Adam and Eve, which announced to them the coming "seed of the woman" and his victory over the "seed of the serpent." But, the other parts of Genesis are the words of Moses in commentary, explanation, and narration. Yes, these are true and inspired, but they are not the utterances of God.
Genesis is inspired because it contains the oracles or very words of God spoken to a prophet by the mouth of God. Thus the prophets were often recorded as saying, "the word of the Lord came unto me" or "thus says the Lord," or "these be the words God has given me," etc.; And, where these divine utterances are recorded, they become his written oracles. But, strictly speaking, they are different from other parts that are not the express utterances of God. Can we say that the chronologies and genealogies in the Old Testament books are the utterances or oracles of God? We can say they are truthful and accurate, as a result of God's providence, but can we say they are the "oracles" of God? No, clearly not.
But, if a book contain an "oracle" or "thus says the Lord," or other such markers of inspiration and revelation, then it passes this test of inspiration and canonicity.
Does the Book of Esther contain any oracle of God?
40 Questions on Esther (here)
1. Have you ever read the Book of Esther?
2. What was your first impression when reading it?
3. What lessons did you find in the reading?
4. What was the major theme of the book?
5. How many times have you re-read the Book of Esther?
6. How much has the Book of Esther been part of your meditations? (versus other books of the bible?)
7. How many sermons or bible study lessons have you heard on it?
8. What type of Hebrew Literature is it?
9. Who is the author of the Book?
10. Are there any memorable words in the Book?
11. Are there any oracles of God in the Book?
12. Are there any Messianic references or allusions in the Book?
13. Is there any instruction in righteousness in the Book?
14. Is there any reproof for sin in the Book?
15. Is there anything in the Book profitable for doctrine?
16. Is there anything in the Book to make a person wise unto salvation?
17. Is there any correction in the Book?
18. Does the Book have the words to perfect the man of faith?
19. Does the Book equip the man of God for good works?
20. Does the Book have historical or other errors?
21. Does the Book contradict itself?
22. Are there doubts about the inspiration of the Book? Or, is there universal agreement?
23. How does the Book measure up to the rules for judging inspiration?
24. What have the church fathers and leading apologists said of the Book?
25. Is the Book cited by Christ, another bible writer, or an apostle?
26. Is the feast of Purim of heaven or of men?
27. Is the feast of Purim an addition to the seven feasts of Yahweh as given by Moses?
28. How does the feast of Purim teach about redemption?
29. Did Jesus observe Purim as a religious observance?
30. Did Jesus countenance the general Jewish practice of Purim?
31. Did he participate in the carnivals and merrymaking?
32. Did the apostles and early Christian Jews participate in Purim?
33. Why did the Christian Jews in Qumran not recognize it?
34. Are the leading Hebrew characters in the Book examples of faith?
35. Was Esther an heroine of the faith? Was Mordecai a hero?
36. What are the godly characteristics of Esther? Of Mordecai?
37. What are the ungodly characteristics of each?
38. What is the setting or context of the story?
39. Does the Book edify and build me up in the most holy faith?
40. What was God's purpose in having this Book to be accepted as his inspired word?
Another posting that may be of interest is Calvin on Esther? (here).
A writer correctly affirmed:
"Luther and Calvin left no commentaries on Esther..."
Another writer says:
"John Calvin to never have preached the book."
Another writer, a Reformed writer, wrote:
"As far as we can tell, there were no commentaries written on the book of Esther for the first seven centuries of the Church. And John Calvin, as far as we know, never preached on Esther or wrote a commentary on it. So it seems that people did have a problem with what to make of Esther."
We know Luther rejected the inspiration and canonicity of the Book of Esther. Others have also, both among the ancient Jews and the early Christian fathers (such as Athanasius).
In a separate blog titled "ESTHER'S CANONICITY" (here) I have several chapters on Esther.
It is from the Book of Esther that the Jews get their "feast of Purim" authority. But, God gave only seven (the perfect number) of feasts to the Jews and there is no eighth. Further, because of its blind acceptance as inspired (and intended therefore to teach us about God and salvation), men have therefore sought to find something in it to prove its inspiration (even though God's name is not even mentioned in it) and tried to make a Christian heroine out of Esther (which she was not).
The Book of Esther tells us what happened to the Jews who refused to go back to their own land (with Ezra and Nehemiah) in order to pick up where they left off before they were taken to captivity in Babylon. They began to build the city, its walls, and the temple. Those who returned were the godly remnant. Those who chose to stay in Babylon (where many had begun to take root and make money) represent the worldly secular Jew. That being so, we are supposed to believe that the book of Esther shows God's hand of providential blessing upon them in their preservation and deliverance. But, that is not what it shows, and is not what it was intended to show.
No comments:
Post a Comment