The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession: Of the Holy Scriptures (1.3)______________________________________
Letter from the Pastor 11/12/2025
Introduction
As we continue our consideration of the canon of Scripture from last week, we come to paragraph three of chapter one of the Second London Confession which addresses the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
The 1689 Second London Confession of Faith (1.3)
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.
What is the Apocrypha?
Before we answer that question, I want to draw your attention to Romans 3:2 which says, “To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (ESV) The framers of the London Confession cite this verse as a proof text for their paragraph rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical. In other words, the authors of the Confession rejected the Apocrypha because the Jews did not consider the Apocrypha to be canonical or coordinate with the rest of the Old Testament.
But what is the Apocrypha? The word Apocrypha is a classical Greek word that originally referred to something “hard to understand,” or “hidden.” By the time of the Reformation, the word had become a proper name for a group of fourteen (or fifteen) books written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100; eleven of which are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. You may be familiar with the names of several Apocryphal books such as, 1 & 2 Maccabees, or The Wisdom of Solomon. While the Apocrypha is absent from the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, it is present in a list known as the “Alexandrian Canon” which allegedly originated in Egypt.
It’s important to know that while the New Testament authors quote from other extra-biblical material, neither Jesus nor the authors of the New Testament ever quote from the Apocrypha. In fact, when Jesus spoke of the Old Testament canon in Luke 24:44, he said this:
“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Jesus affirmed the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament which divided the Scriptures into three categories: the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im) and Psalms/Writings (Ketuvim). Christ himself, when he had the opportunity to affirm the Apocrypha as canonical, omitted it.
Neither the Jewish philosopher, Philo, nor the historian, Josephus, considered the apocryphal books canonical. None of the ecumenical councils of the church recognized the Apocrypha as canonical, and several voices in the early church, such as Origen and Athanasius rejected the Apocrypha.
Jerome (AD 340-420) translated the Bible into Latin at the end of the 4th century, and after his death, Latin translations of the Apocrypha were inserted into the Vulgate. While there were frequent challenges to the canonicity of the Apocrypha through the Middle Ages (AD 450 – 1500) a true mass controversy regarding the Apocrypha began in during the Protestant Reformation.
The Reformers committed themselves to the principle of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority on matters of faith and practice. Their commitment to this principle led them to their initial suspicion and ultimate rejection of the Apocrypha as canonical. So, what made them suspicious? First, several books in the Apocrypha contradict the doctrine of the Old and New Testament. For instance, 2 Maccabees 12 argues for prayers for the dead, from which the Roman Catholic Church developed its doctrine of purgatory. Tobit 12 teaches justification by works. Aside from theological contradiction, the apocryphal books were not authored by recognized prophets of God to Israel, and they had not been accepted by God’s people. Several of the books contain historical or chronological errors. As the Reformers began translating the Scriptures from the original languages into the common languages of the people, the Bibles they produced removed the Apocrypha. In response, the Roman Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed eleven apocryphal books as fully canonical.
During the 17th century in England, debates shifted back and forth over the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Church of England until the 1644 Long Parliament ruled that the Apocrypha should no longer be read in the liturgies of the church. Subsequently, the Westminster Confession of Faith included only the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament as Holy Scripture as did the English Particular Baptists in the Second London Confession.
Should We Read the Apocrypha?
While we agree with the Jews of antiquity, the Reformers, and the Puritans that the Apocrypha does not meet the criteria for canonicity, does that mean we shouldn’t read them at all? I’ll lay my cards on the table and tell you that I have never personally read all of the Apocrypha, and the only time I have read portions is when I have to do research. While some Christians have read them for general wisdom or to learn about the history of the Jews in the Intertestamental Period, I believe there are far better books we could spend our time reading. First, and obviously, you ought to read Scripture every day. Beyond Scripture, read solid books that help explain Scripture. Read Puritans like Thomas Watson and John Bunyan. Read Calvin’s Institutes or Stephen Charnock’s Existence and Attributes of God. Then, if you do get a little curious, dip into the Apocrypha. Measure what it says against Scripture.
If you are interested in learning more about the doctrine of Scripture, or the Bible’s composition, transmission, and canonization, I’d like to recommend a few resources:
For an easy to read, yet comprehensive introduction, I recommend A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix. Robert Saucy’s book, Scripture, is a wonderful theology of Scripture that anyone can and should read. For a robust theology of the Bible, B.B. Warfield’s The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible is essential. Matthew Barrett has written a wonderful volume on the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura entitled God’s Word Alone. And I would be remiss if I did not also mention Baptists and the Bible by L. Russ Bush and Tom Nettles which provides a detailed account of Baptist attitudes toward the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility. Finally, if you’d prefer a book that is more devotional in nature, John Piper’s A Peculiar Glory helps us see that while it is good to defend the canon, in reality God’s Word attests to its own glory and truth.
May you cherish the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament, reading them as they are meant to be read: as God’s inerrant, sufficient, and authoritative self-revelation to his church.
In Christ,
Pastor Jonathan