THE THEOLGICAN THE DOCTRINES IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE (1) Luke 1:1-4 Charles e Whisnant, March 06 2012 42.3What have we learned about Luke thus far:He was a Christian missionary, historian, a doctor, well educated, and the writer of two volumns, Lukeand Acts..I want to say a little about what Luke wrote about in his volume of Luke.LUKE WAS A GREAT THEOLOGIAN:Luke was also a great theologian. You will learn over the next few years, that teaching doctrine isimportant, and being a theologian is really important in the preaching of the Word of God.Theological ThemesiSome of the specific themes and topics in Luke are: In Gospel of Luke and Acts.
1A Christology As in the other Gospels, Jesus is seen as Messiah (e.g., Luke 9:20). He is also the Son of God, as the angel indicates (Luke 1:35) and as he himself recognizes at age twelve (Luke 2:49). One unique contribution of Luke is the presentation of Jesus as a prophet. He is compared and contrasted with John the Baptist as a prophetic figure. Luke hints at his prophetic role in 4:24-27 and 13:33. Also the ministry of Elisha comes to mind at the raising of the son of the widow of Nain near where Elisha had raised the son of the "great woman" of Shunem. He has a great Christology which, of course, is the theme of the whole book, the Doctrine of Christ. You want to know something very interesting2A Soteriology Without question, Luke emphasizes the need and provision of salvation. The Gospel focuses on the cross through the passion predictions (9:22, etc.), in common in Matthew and Luke, in the early foreshadowings of 2:35; 5:35; and especially through the sayings at the Last Supper (22:19- 22). In Acts the cross is seen as Gods will, though accomplished by sinful people (Acts 2:23). If neither the Gospel nor Acts contains the explicit statements familiar from Paul on the theology of atonement, that does not mean Lukes doctrine is deficient. The Gospel presents the need of salvation and the progress of Jesus to the cross vividly; Acts declares the opportunity of forgiveness through Christ (e.g., 2:38; 4:12; 10:43; 13:39).3A Glory Nevertheless, Luke has a very strong theology of glory. He emphasizes the victory of the resurrection, with a declaration of the vindication of Jesus (Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10; 10:39-42; 13:26-37; 17:31). The ascension is stressed predictively in the middle of the Gospel (9:51) and in the middle of Lukes two-volume work, Luke 24 and Acts 1.4A Doxology This theology of glory finds practical expression in repeated ascriptions of glory to God. These occur especially at the birth of Christ (2:14) and on the occasions of healing (e.g., Luke 5:25-26; Acts 3:8-10).5A The Holy Spirit PNEUMATOLOGY: THE HOLY SPIRITii The Spirit is prominent from the beginning (Luke 1:15, 41; 2:25-35). Jesus was conceived by the overshadowing of the Spirit (1:35). He was full of the Spirit and led by the Spirit at the time of his temptation (4:1). The Spirit was upon him in his ministry (4:18). The Lord promised the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer (11:13) and in anticipation of Pentecost (24:49; Acts 1:4). The Holy Spirit is, of course, prominent throughout the book of Acts. Luke makes a major thrust in discussing the ministry of the Holy Spirit, much more so than any of the other gospel writers. He focuses on the Holy Spirit, particularly early in the gospel of Luke. The Holy Spirit is just everywhere in the first few chapters. The Holy Spirit is involved in the birth of John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit is involved, of course, in the birth of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit is there early on talking to Mary, talking to Zacharias. The Holy Spirit is leading Simeon to come and worship the Christ child. The Holy Spirit is involved in the baptism of Jesus and the temptation of Christ and we learn about the Holy Spirit.6A Prayer This is especially significant at times of crisis in the life of Jesus (Luke 3:1; 6:12; 9:18) and in the early perilous days of the church (e.g., Acts 4:23-31; 6:4, 6; 8:15; 9:11; 10:2; 13:3).7A The Power of God Along with the other Gospels, Luke records the miracles of Jesus and uses the word dynamis. This emphasis continues throughout Acts.8A Sense of Destiny; Prophecy and Fulfillment This is a unique emphasis of Luke. The verb dei, "it is necessary," occurs frequently with reference to the things Jesus "must" accomplish (Luke 2:49; 4:43; 9:22; 13:33; 24:7, 26, 44-47). This is seen both in terms of accomplishment (Luke 1:1, translating peplerophoremenon as "accomplished" or, with NIV, "fulfilled") and in terms of fulfillment of OT prophecy. "Proof from prophecy" is a significant aspect of Lukes writing.9A Eschatology This aspect of Lukes work has occasioned much discussion. It was the view of H. Conzelmann that Luke wrote against a background of concern because Jesus had not yet returned. Luke supposedly met this alleged "delay of the parousia" by reworking Jesus teachings which the church is to continue. Without dealing here with Conzelmanns various ideas on this and other topics, we may note that further study has shown that, while Luke sees a period of faithful service prior to the Lords return (e.g., the parable of the nobleman, or the ten minas, Luke 19:11- 27), he also retains strong eschatological teachings (e.g., 12:35-40) and a sense of imminency (e.g., 18:8). It is misguided speculation (cf. Luke 17:20-21) which Luke rejected, not the imminency of the Lords return. It is against this background that Lukes unique emphasis on "today" is to be seen.10A Israel and the People of God The word laos, "people," is used with special meaning in Luke. In contrast to the crowds (ochloi) and the hostile rulers, the "people" are ready to receive Jesus. Naturally, in the period of Luke- Acts most of these are Jews. Luke seems to be dealing with the nature of the people of God, the position of the church in relation to the unbelieving Jews. He emphasizes that thousands of the Jews believed (Acts 21:20), even though he shows Paul as turning to the Gentiles.11A The Word of God
This is a more significant theme in Lukes writings than is generally recognized. Logos occurs in the Gospel prologue (1:2), in 4:22, 32, 36, and notably in the parable of the sower, which stresses obedience to the word of God (8:4-15). In Acts the growth of the "word" parallels the growth of the church (Acts 4:31; 6:7; 12:24).12A Discipleship Luke contains teachings not in the other Gospels. In addition to 9:23-26, paralleled in Matthew and Mark, Luke has major sections on discipleship in 9:57-62; 14:25-33.13A Poverty and Wealth The Gospel, addressed to a wealthy person, records Jesus mission to the poor (4:18). Luke refers to a future reversal of social roles in the Magnificat (1:46-55), the Beatitudes (along with the woes, which only Luke describes; 6:20-26), and the story of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19- 31). Luke gives direct teaching on possessions (Luke 12:33), has the only comment on the Pharisees greed (Luke 16:14), and emphasizes the churchs generosity in sharing with those in need (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 11:27-30).14A Atonement15A18A Justification The Doctrine of Justification is the heart of Christian theology, its the heart of Reformation theology that we have been declared righteous. That Doctrine of Justification is Lukes to discuss and he does it when he writes about a publican and a sinner who went into the temple to pray and the publican who was a tax collector, again an outcast, a pariah, a despised and hated man went home justified and Luke gives us our first introduction into justification. And justification is also in the story of the prodigal because this wretched, wicked sinner comes home and he has no value, no virtue, no worth, nothing and his father puts on the robe and gives him the ring and has a feast. And thats what justification is, its taking an unworthy sinner who belongs in the pig slop and covering him with the robe of righteousness.
19A Theology: Doctrine of God20A Sovereignty: God is over everything:21A Worship He says a lot about worship as well find out when we go through. He shows the majesty of Jesus and his ministry to people in need. He focuses on the prayers of the Lord.22A The Cross But in the heart of his theology is the cross...the cross, the cross, the cross. Ten chapters, from chapter 9 verse 51 all the way in to chapter 19 Jesus is going toward the cross...going toward the cross...going toward the cross. Chapter 19 He arrives there, all the way to chapter 23, thats all about the cross. You could say from chapter 9 to the end of 23 its the cross because thats where God fulfilled His redemptive plan, Jesus moving relentlessly to the cross. The Son of Man, the key verse in Luke, Luke 19:10, "The Son of Man has come to seek, to save that which was lostLUKE HAD A PASTOR’S HEART Luke was a person than just like to make it right: vs. 3 A pastor‘s heart: "It seemed fitting for me having investigated everything carefully from the beginning to write it out for you in logical, persuasive clarity, most excellent Theophilus, so that you might know the exact truth about the things youve been taught." One characteristic of a pastor-teacher he likes to write. Have you notices pastors like to have a books publish. (I would really like that.)John MacArthur said Let me tell you, anything short of that is a failure to understand the responsibility of the pastor, isnt it? 1. My job as a pastor is not to fuss with your emotions. 2. My job as a pastor is not to make you feel good about yourself. 3. My task as a pastor, its just like Lukes was, is to bring you to an exact understanding of...what?...of the truth of God, isnt it? As I say, we dont know anything about him. But we know enough about Luke to know that Luke cared enough about this mans soul to bring him to the exact understanding of truth. Cared enough about him to write this long, intense, complex, monumental history and theology of salvation and give it to Theophilus. Thats a remarkable evidence of personal concern to shepherd the soul of one man. 4. He gave him...and this is where we need to wrap it up...he gave him exact truth. What a great statement. "Exact" is the word asphaleia, it means reliable, certain. He gave him a precise, reliable, accurate, complete understanding of the amazing saving story of Jesus and the gospel...clear, complete, sifted from all error and persuasive...persuasive. He wanted that man to know the truth. I dont
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF JESUS COMING TO EARTH IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHYDO WE HAVE THE OLFEW TESTAMENT? WHY DO WE HAVE THE NEW TESTMENT? --------CHRIST IS THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT Jesus Christ: THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENTChrist said, “Search the Old Testament scriptures for they testify about Me.” Jesus Christ fulfilled the Messianic Prophecy foretold by the Old Testament authors. Study the prophecies yourself and consider the probability of just one person fulfilling even a few of these specific prophecies! Luke 24:44 says, ―Then he said, ‗When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true.‘‖Now, Jesus Christ is not in every verse or every chapter or every book of the Old Testament, but He isnonetheless the prophetic theme of the whole Old Testament.In 2 Corinthians 3:14 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untakenaway in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.How did Zacharias know what the angel of the Lord said unto him was true? He knew the OldTestament. How much of the Old Testament books he had?Joseph and Mary believed the angel of the Lord? How? Did they know the prophecies of the OldTestament.Was this baby Jesus to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament?>Jesus said a number of times that He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament.Consider these Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament fulfillment by Christ… 1. Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7) 2. Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23) 3. as a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16) 4. of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14) 5. and of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1) 6. Herod killing the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18) 7. Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3) 1. Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17) 2. Preached good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21) 3. Performed miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35) 4. Cleansed the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13) 5. Ministered in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16)
6. Entered Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9) 7. First presented Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11) 8. Rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; 1 Peter 2:7)Then…. 1. Died a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) 2. involving: rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48) 3. betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18) 4. sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15) 5. silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14) 6. being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31) 7. beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26) 8. spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30) 9. piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31) 10. being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38) 11. praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34) 12. piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34) 13. given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36) 14. no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36) 15. buried in a rich man‘s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60) 16. casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24) 17. Rose from the dead! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31) 18. Ascended into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9) 19. Sat down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)Jesus said many times that the Old Testament reveals Him.“And we also should look to the Old Testament and find a constant, continual, cumulative, consistenttestimony of Christ,” he stated. “We do not look back to the Old Testament merely to find the background ofChrist and his ministry, nor merely for reference and anticipation of Christ. We are to look to the OldTestament and find Christ. Not here and there, [but] everywhere.”Jesus and the Old Testament: 1. Jesus, like all the Jews of the first century, divided the Old Testament into three "collections": the law, the prophets, the psalms. Jesus said: "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44) 2. Sometimes the sum of the Old Testament was referred to as two collections: the law and the prophets. Intestingly, Jesus referred to Psalm 82:6 as "Law": "Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, I said, you are gods?" John 10:34. This may explain why most of the time there were two collections referred to as a sum for the whole. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17 "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. Matthew 11:13 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John;
since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Luke 16:16 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." John 1:45 After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it." Acts 13:15 "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; Acts 24:14.WHICH LANGUAGE DID JESUS SPEAK WHILE ON EARTH/iiiWhich Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from? How many Old Testament books didJesus quoted?iv vThe Old Testament footnote: When was the Old Testament completed?The inter-testament period. Between the Old and New?viThis is interesting: The only Bible that Jesus had was the Old Testament. I would think that the parents of Joseph and Mary had seen the Old Testament . Where wouldthey?have seen a copy of the O.T>i THEOLOGICAN THEMES” http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/luketheo.htmii http://carm.org/iii WHICH LANGUAGE DID JESUS SEPAK WHILE ON EARTH? http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-Jesus.htm Aramaic
Christ taught and spoke mainly in Aramaic. The Gospels record some of Christs words in the original Aramaic. When He healed a little girl, He said in Aramaic, “Talitha cumi,” (Mk 5:41) which means, Little girl, get up. When He healed a deaf man, who spoke poorly because he was deaf, He said, “Ephphatha,” which is Aramaic for, “Be opened.” (Mk 7:34). On the Cross, when Christ cried out to His Father in Heaven, He spoke in the language of His daily life on earth, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34). Christ mainly spoke Aramaic, as was the custom for persons living in Israel and other areas around the Mediterranean during that time period . Hebrew Christ also spoke and taught, occasionally, in Hebrew. He often read the Scriptures and taught in the synagogues on the Sabbath. “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written…” (Lk 4:16-17). When Jesus read from the Scriptures, He read in Hebrew. The Hebraic Jews of Israel generally knew both Aramaic (their daily language) and Hebrew (the language of their faith). Hebrew was their preferred written language since it was the language of their Scriptures. After reading the Scriptures, Jesus could have taught in either Aramaic or Hebrew and been understood. However, He probably taught in the synagogue in Hebrew. Christ may also have used Hebrew when debating with the Pharisees and Sadducees. They would have preferred to use Hebrew when arguing with Christ for several reasons. Hebrew was the language of their faith. They were literate and well-educated, in contrast to the illiterate or minimally-literate general population. They could therefore show off their education to the crowd listening to the debate by speaking Hebrew. Also, they considered Christ to be uneducated because He was not one of them and did not study and learn from them. They could test Christ by speaking to Him in Hebrew, thinking that they would be able to speak that language more eloquently than He would (which turned out not to be the case). Christ would have used Hebrew to reply to their arguments in Hebrew, and He would have done so with simple and profound eloquence . Matthew wrote in Hebrew; Mark wrote in Latin; Luke wrote in Greek. Christ taught, at least some of the time, in Hebrew. Matthew had to translate much, but not all of Christs words from Aramaic into Hebrew. Some of Christs words in Matthews Gospel were probably written just as Christ spoke them, in Hebrew. Likely verses in Matthew, which Christ originally spoke in Hebrew, include the following. Wherever Christ quotes Scripture, there is a likelihood that He quoted it in the Hebrew language. For example, Christ said, “Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy, not sacrifice. ” (Mt 9:13; Hos 6:6). Christ was speaking to some Pharisees, who knew Hebrew well, and he was speaking somewhat privately, i.e. not teaching a large crowd as in Matthew 5. When Christ spoke privately to Saul, who was at the time a Pharisee, He spoke in Hebrew (Acts 26:14). A nice example of Christ quoting the Hebrew Scripture is found in Matthew 21:42. Jesus there uses the Hebrew expression, “head of the corner,” sometimes translated to English as “cornerstone.” Christ may also have integrated some Hebrew when He was teaching or speaking in Aramaic. For example, Christ said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mt 11:15). In addition to quoting from Scripture, Christ also used some expressions that are similar to, or that play off of, Scripture passages. The Old Testament has many verses that use some version of an expression which refers to hearing God or being heard by God. Much of what Christ says has similarities to Old Testament expressions. When quoting the Old Testament, Christ may have switched from Aramaic to Hebrew, and when using expressions based on Scripture, He may also have used Hebrew. Putting an expression in Hebrew, in the midst of a talk to Jews using Aramaic, would have the effect of coining a phrase or of giving particular emphasis to that expression.iv Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from? 1. Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books.
2. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. These 5 books are never quoted in the New Testament: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. 3. It is not significant that these books: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, were never quoted in the New Testament, because they were part of "collections" of Old Testament books. Since other books within the same collection were quoted, this shows them too to be inspired. 4. The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection" are every quoted. So the Catholic argument that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired." The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and "Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection". By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible. http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htmv THE OLD TESTMENT was completed when?: http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html What a fascinating history the English Bible has including martyrs, translations by Kings and poets and a search for the definitive translation that would confirm “truth”. Here’s a short, concise history of the English Bible from the earliest times to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. 443 BC Completion of all the books of the original Hebrew manuscripts which make up the 39 books of the Old Testament 200 BC Completion of the Septuagint Greek manuscripts which contain the translation of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 14 books of the Apochrypha. 60 AD Completion of the Greek manuscripts which make up the 27 books of the New Testament 90-95 AD Council of Jamnia, a Jewish council, met to revise the Books of the Canon (or the Old Testament as it is known to Christians.) These were the criteria: 1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books). 2. The books had to be written in Hebrew. 3. The books had to be written in Palestine. 4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C.. One result is the removal of the 14 books known as the Apochrypha.vi THE CONTENT AND EXTENT OF THE OLD TESTMENT CANON http://bible.org/article/content-and-extent-old-testament-canon
The inter-testament saints held that there was a known corpus of Scripture, for in their writingsthey would often refer to it with the authoritative phrase, ―as it is written,‖ or ―according toScripture,‖ or ―it is written.‖ In fact, references to almost all of the books of the Old Testamentare considered to be Scripture by the writers of the inter-testament and the New Testamentperiod. Beckwith says of this period that. . . with the exception of the three short books of Ruth, Song of Songs and Esther, the canonicityof every book of the Hebrew Bible is attested, most of them several times over. . . it is verystriking that, over a period ranging from the second century BC (at latest) to the first century AD,so many writers, of so many classes (Semitic, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Essene, Christian), showsuch agreement about the canon. . .6In addition, there are at least 28 documented separate titles for the Old Testament canon provingthat the individual books had become a collection sufficient enough to warrant various titles tothe group (i.e. canon) as a whole.7Church history took very heavily into consideration what Jesus and the New Testamentwriters thought about the Old Testament in determining canonicity. The number ofreferences to the Old Testament by New Testament writers is abundant, and it attests tothe fact that there was an established canon at the time of their writing.Probably the fullest evidence (in secular writings) on the concept of there being a canon is in thework of Josephus. In Against Apion 1.7f., or 1.37–43, Josephus gives his understanding that, notonly was there a canon, but he also lists what he believes that canon is. This list is identical to theJewish and Christian canon with one exception, that of omitting either the Song of Songs orEcclesiastes.8 Josephus mentions that there were copies of Scripture in the Temple itself, andbefore its destruction in AD 70 it contained a collection of books. This collection was consideredby the Jewish community to be canon, for ―the main test of the canonical reception of a bookmust have been whether or not it was one of those laid up in the Temple.‖9This evidence reveals not what the books of the canon are, but the fact that the concept of acanon did indeed already exist before the beginning of the Christian era.The Construct of the Old Testament Canon Not only does the literature testify toThe Contents of the Old Testament CanonThe Canonical Books It would be logical that upon completion of an Old Testament book the book was canonical. Theoretically, this must be true, but actually, a book of Scripture was considered to be such by virtue of the authority of the human author. So while the Pentateuch was completed with the death of Moses, and the Prophets and the Hagiographa with their authors, the recognition of their canonicity may have been centuries after their actual completion. Consequently, as recognitions differ, there was some dispute about mainly five books of the Old Testament, sometimes called the
―antilegomena‖ or the ―books spoken against.‖ These were: Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Esther. The secular motifs in these books were the leading cause of concern to some scholars as well as was the apparent contradictions with other canonical books which were not disputed. The disputes themselves imply that the books in question were considered canonical, because contradictions in un-inspired texts would have been assumed, and therefore, non-existent. It is usually assumed that the presence of the dispute proves that the canon was still open and up for grabs and that it was not settled until the Council of Jamnia in AD 90. The motivation behind such an assertion is the desire to canonize some Apocryphal and books of the Pseudepigrapha as well. Beckwith makes a good argument14 that Ezekiel was not debated, it being part of the already closed Prophets, and not the Hagiographa, which was the subject of debate at Jamnia. In particular only the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes were debated, or according to the Rabbi Akiba, only Ecclesiastes. Green quotes Rabbi Akiba from the Talmud regarding the Jewish opinion of the inspiration of the Song of Solomon. ―‗Silence and Peace! No one is Israel has ever doubted that the Song of Solomon defiles the hands [i.e. is Scripture]. For no day in the history of the world is worth the day when the Song of Solomon was given to Israel. For all the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Solomon is a holy of holies. If there has been any dispute, it referred only to Ecclesiastes. . . So they disputed and they decided.‖15 And what did they decide? ―‗The wise men desired to withdraw (ganaz) the Book of Ecclesiastes because its language was often self- contradictory and contradicted the utterances of David. Why did they not withdraw it? Because the beginning and the end of it consist of words of the law.‘ Sabbath 30b.‖16 The book of 2 Esdras shows that Ezra republished the 24 books of the inspired law. ―How could such an assertion be made if five of the 24 books were known to have been added to the canon about AD 90, only ten years or so earlier?‖17 In the end the Hagiographa triumphed. For two factors helped, says Pfeiffer: ―The first was mere survival. In ancient times, when books had to be copied laboriously by hand on papyrus or parchment, no literary work could survive for a few centuries unless it had attained considerable circulation. . . We may wonder, for instance, why Esther should have survived among the Jews, while Judith perished, since the appeal of both was mainly patriotic.‖18 s Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?5. Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books.6. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. These 5 books are never quoted in the New Testament: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.7. It is not significant that these books: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, were never quoted in the New Testament, because they were part of "collections" of Old Testament books. Since other books within the same collection were quoted, this shows them too to be inspired.
8. The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection" are every quoted. So the Catholic argument that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired." The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and "Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection". By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible. http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm