Devotional 3: The Apocrypha: Why It Has No Place in God's Word

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

— Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Section 3

Introduction: Why Some Books Are Not Scripture

In Section 1 we saw that Scripture is necessary for salvation. In Section 2 we saw which books constitute that Scripture — the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. But the Confession does not stop with a positive list. It also draws a negative boundary. There are books that some consider Scripture that the Confession explicitly excludes: the books commonly called the Apocrypha. Why is this necessary? Because the question of the canon is not merely an academic one. If the church can add books to the Bible, then the church stands over the Bible. If the church can subtract books, then the church is the judge of Scripture. Both errors destroy the principle of sola Scriptura. The Confession therefore draws a clear line: these books are not of divine inspiration, they are no part of the canon, and they have no authority in the church of God.

Scripture Foundation

The Westminster Divines built this section upon the testimony of Scripture itself concerning its own nature and boundaries. Let us consider the chief proof texts that establish the canon and exclude the Apocrypha. Luke 24:44 — "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." Here our Lord Himself ratifies the threefold division of the Hebrew Scriptures: the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the Writings (Ketuvim, of which the Psalms were the first and most prominent book). This was the settled canon of the Jewish people — the same people to whom, as Paul tells us, "were committed the oracles of God" Romans 3:2. By adopting this received canon as His own Scripture, Jesus gave His divine endorsement to the precise collection of books that the Jews had preserved. Notably, He never once quoted the Apocrypha, nor did He ever suggest that the Jewish canon was deficient. If the canon had needed additional books, our Lord would have supplied them. He did not. 2 Timothy 3:16 — "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The Greek word translated "given by inspiration of God" is theopneustos — literally "God-breathed." This term occurs only once in the New Testament, and it carries the full weight of the doctrine. Scripture is not merely elevated human writing; it is exhaled from the mouth of God Himself. The Apocryphal books make no such claim for themselves. The prologue to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) is written in the first person by the translator, who apologizes for any imperfections in his work — a confession no biblical writer would ever make. The author of 1 Maccabees concludes by saying, "If I have done well, it is what I desired; if not, forgive me" — words that could never proceed from a prophet who knew he spoke for God. 2 Peter 1:21 — "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." The Greek word pheromenoi (translated "moved") means "borne along" or "carried." As a ship is carried by the wind across the sea, so the sacred writers were carried by the Holy Spirit. The Apocrypha lacks this supernatural propulsion. Its authors do not speak with the "Thus saith the Lord" of the prophets. They write as historians, moralists, and storytellers — not as men borne along by the Spirit of God. Revelation 22:18-19 — "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life." These closing verses of the Bible serve as a divine seal upon the entire canon. While the immediate reference is to the book of Revelation, the church has consistently seen in them a broader application. They announce that the canon is closed, that nothing may be added, and that nothing may be taken away. B.B. Warfield called this closing admonition "a wall of fire round about" the completed Scriptures. The Council of Trent, by adding the Apocrypha to the canon a century before Westminster, breached this wall. Deuteronomy 4:2 — "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." Moses set the pattern at the very beginning of the canon. The Hebrew word here is significant. Herman Witsius notes that the term choq (statute) means something "fixed or limited" — a boundary that cannot be crossed. The Word of God is not a growing collection that the church can expand over time. It is a completed deposit, delivered once for all to the saints. Luke 16:29, 31 — "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Our Lord's parable of the rich man and Lazarus contains a profound statement about the sufficiency of the existing Scriptures. The rich man, tormented in Hades, begs that Lazarus be sent from the dead to warn his brothers. Abraham's reply is decisive: they already have the canonical Scriptures — Moses and the prophets. If those are not enough, no miracle will persuade them. The Westminster Divines understood this principle to apply also to the Apocrypha: if the sixty-six canonical books are not sufficient for faith and life, adding fifteen more will not make them so.

What the Divines Meant

The Historical Context The Westminster Assembly met in the 1640s, barely a century after the Council of Trent (1545–1563) had declared the Apocryphal books to be canonical Scripture "with equal piety and reverence" as the inspired books. This was a direct challenge to the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura. Rome had elevated tradition to the same level as Scripture, and the Apocrypha — with its support for prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45) and salvation by works (Tobit 12:9) — provided convenient proof texts for doctrines the Reformers rejected. The Divines were not being arbitrary. They were returning to the judgment of the ancient church. Jerome, the great biblical scholar who translated the Latin Vulgate, explicitly distinguished between the canonical books and the Apocrypha, noting that the Apocrypha "are not indeed included in the canon." Athanasius, the great defender of the Trinity, listed the Old Testament books in his festal letter of AD 367 and excluded the Apocrypha. Melito of Sardis, writing in the second century, catalogued the Old Testament books and listed only the Hebrew canon. Robert Shaw on the Fourfold Rejection Robert Shaw, the Scottish Presbyterian divine whose exposition of the Confession remains a standard work, summarizes the four reasons the Westminster Divines rejected the Apocrypha. First, the Jewish church, to whom the oracles of God were committed, and who were never blamed for unfaithfulness to their trust, never acknowledged these books as divine. Second, they were not written in Hebrew (the language of God's covenant people) but in Greek, and their authors were posterior to Malachi, in whom the spirit of prophecy ceased. Third, neither Christ nor His apostles ever quoted a single word from the Apocrypha as Scripture. Fourth, the books themselves contain historical errors, doctrinal errors, and moral flaws — and their own authors disclaim inspiration. A.A. Hodge on the Canon A.A. Hodge, the great Princeton theologian, sharpens the point further. He writes that "the Apocrypha never formed a part of the Hebrew Scriptures" and that "they have always been rejected by the Jews, to whose guardianship the Old Testament Scriptures were committed." He further notes that "none of them were ever quoted by Christ or the apostles," and that they "were never embraced in the list of the canonical books by the early Fathers." Even within the Roman Church, Hodge observes, the most learned and candid men did not accept the Apocrypha's authority until it was made an article of faith by the Council of Trent.

Theological Depth

John Calvin on the Self-Authenticating Canon In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin takes up the question of how we know which books belong to Scripture. He refuses to ground the canon in the authority of the church. "Nothing," he writes, "can be more absurd than the fiction that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends." The church does not make the canon; she receives it. She does not create the Word of God; she recognizes it. Calvin notes that for five centuries the ancient church remained free from the corruption of adding human writings to the divine Word. It was only when the purity of the ministry began to degenerate that such additions crept in. The Reformation was not an innovation but a restoration — a return to the canon that the church had always received before the medieval corruptions. Thomas Watson on the Excellency of the Canon Thomas Watson, in his Body of Divinity, addresses the Apocrypha with his characteristic blend of warmth and sharpness. He calls the Papists "guilty, who eke out Scripture with their traditions, which they consider equal to it." He compares them to Ananias, who kept back part of the money, and accuses them of "clipping the King of heaven's coin" by taking away parts of Scripture and adding human inventions. Watson argues that the Scripture is a "complete rule," containing all things necessary for salvation. He asks: "Are the Scriptures a complete rule?" and answers: "The Scripture is a full and perfect rule, containing in it all things necessary to salvation." If the Scripture is complete, then nothing needs to be added. The Apocrypha is not merely unnecessary; it is an intrusion upon the sufficiency of the written Word. Watson gives a memorable analogy for the sufficiency of the canon: "The Word is the field where Christ the pearl of price is hidden. In this sacred mine we dig, not for a wedge of gold, but for a weight of glory." To add human writings to this divine mine is to muddy the crystal fountain with human fancies. Herman Witsius on the Fixed Covenant Herman Witsius, the great Dutch theologian of the covenants, contributes a crucial framework for understanding the closed canon. He notes that the Hebrew word choq (statute) carries the sense of something "fixed or limited, which nothing is to be added to, or taken from." The covenant of grace, he argues, is like a last will and testament — once sealed and witnessed, it cannot be altered. The Scriptures are the written instrument of this covenant. To add the Apocrypha is to tamper with the testament of the living God. Witsius's point is profound. The canon is not merely a list of books; it is the constitutional document of the covenant between God and His people. Adding to it is not merely an academic error; it is a violation of the covenant relationship itself. B.B. Warfield on Divine Authorship B.B. Warfield, whose name is synonymous with the doctrine of Scripture, makes a crucial distinction in his treatment of the canon. The question, he insists, is not whether the Apocrypha is "inspired" in some vague sense, but whether it bears the mark of "divine authorship." If God is the author of a book, then that book carries His authority. If God is not the author, then the book is merely human — regardless of how edifying or historically valuable it may be. Warfield argues that the Westminster Divines were not being narrow in excluding the Apocrypha. They were being faithful to the principle that the church must receive only what God has given. The canon is not the church's creation; it is the church's recognition of what God has already authored. The Significance of the Closed Canon The Confession's rejection of the Apocrypha carries implications far beyond those fifteen books. It establishes the principle that the canon is closed, that revelation is complete, and that the church has no authority to add to what God has spoken. This is the foundation of the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura — not that the church has no authority, but that Scripture is the final and only infallible rule of faith and life. The Divines understood that if the church could add books to the canon, then the church stands over Scripture. If the church can add, the church can also subtract. And if the church can determine the canon, then the church can also determine the interpretation — and the Word of God becomes the servant of the church rather than the church being the servant of the Word. John Owen on the Self-Authenticating Canon John Owen, the greatest of the Puritan theologians, wrote extensively on the canon and the authority of Scripture. In his monumental work The Divine Original of the Scripture, Owen argues that the Scripture carries within itself the evidence of its own divinity. It does not need the church to authenticate it; it authenticates itself. Owen writes: "The light of the Scripture is like the light of the sun. The sun does not need the testimony of any other light to prove that it shines. It is self-evidencing. So the Scripture, by its own light and power, manifests itself to the conscience as the Word of God." This principle applies directly to the question of the canon. The same self-authenticating light that makes the sun known by its own brightness makes the canonical books known by their own divine quality. The church does not create the canon; it recognizes what God has already made evident. The Apocrypha lacks this self-authenticating quality, and therefore the church, in obedience to God, must receive it as no more than human writing. Francis Turretin on the Marks of the Canon Francis Turretin, the seventeenth-century Genevan theologian whose Institutes of Elenctic Theology became the standard textbook of Reformed orthodoxy, provides a detailed treatment of the marks by which the canonical books are known. He argues that the canonical books have certain internal marks — majesty, purity, power, harmony — that distinguish them from all other writings. These marks are not the ground of their authority (which is God alone), but they are the evidences by which the church recognizes them. Turretin notes that the Apocryphal books lack these marks. They contain historical errors (such as claiming Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians). They contain doctrinal errors (prayers for the dead, salvation by works). And most significantly, they lack the prophetic "Thus saith the Lord" that characterizes every canonical book. The voice of God is simply not heard in them. The Witness of the Early Church The testimony of the early church fathers is crucial for understanding why the Reformed tradition follows the Hebrew canon rather than the wider canon adopted by Rome at Trent. The earliest Christian lists of the Old Testament books consistently exclude the Apocrypha. Melito of Sardis, writing in the second century, traveled to Palestine to ascertain the exact number and order of the Old Testament books and produced a list that matches the Hebrew canon exactly. Athanasius, the great defender of the Nicene faith, in his thirty-ninth festal letter of AD 367, listed the Old Testament books and explicitly distinguished between the canonical books and "other books" (the Apocrypha) which were "not indeed included in the canon, but appointed by the fathers to be read to those who newly join us." Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the ancient church, was emphatic on this point. In his prologues to the Latin translation of the Scriptures, he explicitly states that the Apocrypha are not canonical and should not be used to establish doctrine. He calls the books of the Hebrew canon the "books of the truth" and relegates the Apocrypha to a separate category. It was only through the influence of Augustine — who, though he included the Apocrypha in his list, acknowledged that the Jewish canon did not receive them — that these books gradually found their way into the Latin manuscripts of the church. The Westminster Divines, in returning to the Hebrew canon, were not innovators. They were returning to the judgment of the earliest and best witnesses of the Christian tradition, setting aside the innovations of the medieval church and the Council of Trent. They understood that the church does not have the authority to canonize new books; it can only recognize what God has already given and what the Holy Spirit has already authenticated in the hearts of His people. The Apocrypha and the Sufficiency of Scripture A further reason for the Confession's rejection of the Apocrypha — one that is often overlooked — is its connection to the sufficiency of Scripture. The Confession will later declare in Section 6 that "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." If Scripture is sufficient for all things necessary for salvation, then nothing needs to be added to it. The Apocrypha, however, was used by the Church of Rome precisely to supply what was not found in the canonical Scriptures. From 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, they derived the doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead. From Tobit 12:9, they derived the doctrine of salvation by works. From Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), they derived support for human merit. In each case, a doctrine that contradicted the plain teaching of the canonical Scriptures was being supported by books that the Confession rightly declares to be "no part of the canon." Robert Shaw puts this with his characteristic precision: "The Apocryphal books contain many things erroneous, superstitious, and immoral; and some of the writers, instead of advancing a claim to inspiration, acknowledge their own weakness, and apologise for their defects." The church does not need such books. It has a complete and perfect rule in the sixty-six books of the canonical Scriptures. The Practical Implications for the Church Today The rejection of the Apocrypha is not merely a matter of historical controversy; it has direct implications for the life of the church today. Wherever the church adds to Scripture — whether through official traditions, through the writings of influential teachers, through cultural preferences, or through subjective experiences — it inevitably distorts the gospel and leads souls astray. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is not a narrow biblicism that denies the value of tradition, reason, or experience. It is the recognition that Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and life. Tradition, reason, and experience all have their place — but they are subordinate to Scripture, subject to its judgment, and corrigible by its teaching.

Puritan Application

Let us now bring this doctrine down to the floor of our own souls. First, do you recognize the difference between the Word of God and the words of men? The Puritans would press this question relentlessly. How many of us treat human traditions, popular teachers, or our own opinions with the same authority as Scripture? Thomas Watson warns that the Papists "eke out Scripture with their traditions," but we do the same whenever we elevate our preferences above the plain teaching of the Word. Search your heart: Is there any area where you have allowed the traditions of men to override the commands of God? Second, are you content with a closed canon? The Confession's rejection of the Apocrypha implies that the canon is closed. No new revelation is being given. The Spirit's work today is not to add to Scripture but to illuminate what is already written. Are you looking for new revelations, new prophecies, new words from the Lord beyond what is written? The Puritan divine William Perkins warned: "The Word of God is the only rule of faith and life. We may not add to it nor detract from it. If we think to have any other rule beside the written Word, we do but run upon a maze of errors." Third, do you read the Bible as a complete and sufficient rule? If the Scripture is a "full and perfect rule," as Watson calls it, then you need nothing else for salvation and godliness. You do not need secret knowledge, hidden wisdom, or special revelations. Everything you need for life and godliness is contained in these sixty-six books. Do you live as though this were true? Or do you constantly seek something more — an experience, a feeling, a sign — beyond the sufficiency of Scripture? Fourth, are you a "Bible Christian" or a "tradition Christian"? Watson exhorts his readers to "prize the written Word" and to be "Scripture-men, Bible-Christians." The question is searching: Is your faith grounded in Scripture itself, or in what your church, your family, or your culture has taught you about Scripture? There is a difference between believing the Bible because the church says so and believing the Bible because the Spirit has borne witness to its truth in your heart. The first rests on human authority; the second rests on divine. Fifth, do you guard the purity of the Word? Watson speaks of those who "muddy the pure crystal fountain" of Scripture with "corrupt glosses" and wrong interpretations. We may not add books to the canon, but we can add our own misinterpretations. Do you handle the Scripture carefully, comparing Scripture with Scripture? Or do you twist the Word to fit your own preferences? The Puritans would have you tremble at the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 — not only about adding books, but about adding meanings that God never intended. Sixth, are you reading all of Scripture or only parts of it? The Confession's rejection of the Apocrypha reminds us that there is a defined canon of sixty-six books. But do you read them all? Many Christians neglect the Old Testament, or skip the genealogies, or avoid the difficult prophets. They treat whole sections of the Bible as if they were Apocrypha — not inspired, not profitable, not worth their time. The Puritan William Bridge once said: "Every part of Scripture has its own use. The Word is a complete medicine chest, and every book is a different remedy for a different ailment of the soul." If you only read your favorite books and passages, you are impoverishing your own soul. The whole canon is given for the whole man, and the whole Christian needs the whole Word. Seventh, do you test all teaching by the canon? The Puritans applied the principle of the closed canon to every area of life. If a teaching is not found in Scripture, it cannot bind the conscience. If a practice is not warranted by Scripture, it cannot be required of the people of God. This was the great Reformation principle of sola Scriptura — and it is the only safeguard against the tyranny of human tradition. Robert Shaw writes: "Divine institution must be our rule of worship; and whatever may be imagined to be useful and decent, must be examined and determined by this rule." Do you test everything you hear and read by the Word of God? Or do you accept teachings simply because they come from a respected source? Eighth, do you hold fast to the all-sufficiency of Scripture in an age of dispersion? We live in a time when the people of God are scattered, when many churches have departed from the faith, when new teachings and new revelations are constantly being proposed. In such times, the closed canon is our anchor. We do not need a pope to guide us. We do not need a prophet to reveal new truth to us. We have the completed Word of God — sufficient for faith, sufficient for life, sufficient for every trial and every temptation. The Puritan Richard Sibbes, the great physician of the soul, wrote: "There is more light in the Scripture than we have yet discovered. The Word is a deep mine, and we have only scratched the surface. But the treasure that is there is sufficient for all the needs of the church until Christ returns." The canon is closed, but its riches are inexhaustible. As you read the sixty-six books, you are not reading a closed museum but an open fountain. The same Spirit who inspired the Word still illumines it, and He will continue to lead you into all truth — not by adding new books, but by opening the books that are already given.

Prayer

Blessed Lord, who hast spoken to us in times past by the holy prophets and in these last days by Thy Son, we give Thee thanks for the sacred Scriptures, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, which are given by inspiration of God. We thank Thee that Thou hast not left us to wander in uncertainty, but hast given us a fixed and closed canon — a complete revelation, a finished Word, a sealed and settled deposit of saving truth. We confess that we are prone to add to Thy Word, whether by human traditions, by our own opinions, or by seeking revelations where Thou hast not spoken. Forgive us, Lord, and keep us within the bounds of the written Word. Grant us grace to receive the Scriptures as what they truly are — not the words of men but the Word of the living God. Give us a love for every book of the canon, from Genesis to Revelation. Help us to search the Scriptures daily, to meditate upon them constantly, and to order our lives by their precepts. We confess that we are prone to neglect whole portions of Thy Word. We read selectively, preferring the parts that comfort us and avoiding the parts that challenge us. Forgive us for treating any part of Scripture as if it were not from Thee. Give us the heart of the psalmist, who said, "I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way." Help us to receive the whole counsel of God with the same reverence and hunger with which we receive our daily bread. We pray especially for those who have added to Thy Word or taken from it, that they may come to know the Scriptures in their fullness and purity. Undeceive the deceived, enlighten the ignorant, and draw all Thy elect into the light of Thy truth. And when at last we shall see Thee face to face, and know even as we are known, may we bless Thee forever for the Word that led us to the Word made flesh, even Jesus Christ our Lord, who with Thee and the Holy Ghost livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen.