We are continuing our series examining the Arian controversy from the eyes and pen of Marcellus of Ancyra. Note, I am not responding to his doctrine, or to that of the Arians, nor am I willing to back up either side with Scriptures, trying to let Marcellus speak for himself, as much as possible. I realize that not everyone like theology or Church history – (Imagine my surprise in school when I found out that 99% of my history classes hated history!) For some, this is boring, for others, it is a click through. For me, I am edified through discussions on theology, and can spend ours listening to lectures and then in turn discussing the finer points until the wee hours of the morning. As I said, I understand that I may be boring – but at least it makes you feel some compassion for my wife and children.
Unsettled ChristianityOne blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
In the mouth of the opposition to the current president-elect are the words ‘don’t trust the government’, but the bible is clear – the Government is God’s minister. People who would label themselves Christian have taken up with the spirit of fear, and have insisted that we must not trust nor should we place our hope in the Government. Does the bible, which many claim to base their Christianity on, permit a general mistrust, fear, or even rebellion against the Government?
Let every man be subject to the high power — for there is no authority but from God; the authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Accordingly, he that opposes the authority opposes the command of God, and they that oppose it shall receive unto themselves the judgment. For those that rule are not terrors to good works, but to those who do evil. Do you then want to stop being afraid of the authority? Work that which is good and you will have the praise from him. For he is the servant of God to you for the good; however, if you continue to do that which is evil, be afraid — for he wears not the sword in vain, for he is a servant of God, an executor of justice, to visit wrath to the evil doer. For this reason, there is a necessity to be subject, not for the wrath, but also because of your conscience. Then, for this reason, pay your taxes also. For they are ministers of God’s service, and on this very thing, they continue steadfastly. Therefore, render to all that is their due — taxes to whom taxes is due, revenues to whom revenues, fear to whom fear, and honor to who honor is due. (Romans 13:1-7 CTV-NT)
This is not just a mere passing thought of the Apostle Paul in hopes of securing from Rome some measure of peace, but indeed, this commandment runs throughout the New Testament and may be found in 1st Timothy 2.1-2; Titus 3.1; and 1st Peter 2.13-17. By the mouths of those that had held the name, we hear,
Justin Martyr (Apology 1:17) writes, “Everywhere, we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes, both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Jesus. We worship only God, but in other things we will gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that, with your kingly power, you may be found to possess also sound judgment.”
Athenagoras, pleading for peace for the Christians, writes (chapter 37): “We deserve favour because we pray for your government, that you may, as is most equitable, receive the kingdom, son from father, and that your empire may receive increase and addition, until all men become subject to your sway.”
Tertullian (Apology 30) writes at length: “We offer prayer for the safety of our princes to the eternal, the true, the living God, whose favour, beyond all other things, they must themselves desire…. Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection for the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest–whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.” He goes on to say that the Christian cannot but look up to the emperor because he “is called by our Lord to his office.” And he ends by saying that “Caesar is more ours than yours because our God appointed him.” (Barclay’s DSB)
We must be reminded that the governments of this world are not their own, but ours – as Tertullian – because just as we are of God, they are appointed by God to carry out His plan and His will. It is not that we have a confident expectation in the Government or even faith that they will do what is morally and scripturally right, but we must hope, trust, and know that the same God that we serve has appointed these governments for a specific purpose, and if He has done so, then we can trust that they will serve us in the manner that we need them to do so.
Does this mean that we accept what governments do, or will there come a time in which civil disobedience becomes the order of the day? I believe that when the government interferes with the Church, then it must be resisted. We can find such an example in Daniel, who served the King, but resisted his command to cease the worship of the God of the Jews. Again, the Three Young men, who had served the King up until the time it came to worship a false god.
Then we have the much heralded example of Polycarp (chapter 9 and 10), who led no political rebellion against Rome, but insisted on his service to the Christian King and Savior,
Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, “Be strong, and show thyself a man, O Polycarp!” No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, the proconsul sought to persuade him to deny Christ, saying, “Have respect to thy old age,” and other similar things, according to their custom, such as, “Swear by the fortune of Caesar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists.” But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, “Away with the Atheists.” Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, “Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ;” Polycarp declared, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”
And when the proconsul yet again pressed him, and said, “Swear by the fortune of Caesar,” he answered, “Since thou art vainly urgent that, as thou sayest, I should swear by the fortune of Caesar, and pretendest not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and thou shalt hear them.” The proconsul replied, “Persuade the people.” But Polycarp said, “To thee I have thought it right to offer an account of my faith; for we are taught to give all due honour (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God. But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me.”
Therefore we see that the proper examples of Christian men who would rebel rebel only against the infringements of the Government upon the Church. What does this mean for the founding of the American Republic who, in mob rule fashion, decided that representation in Parliament was a suiting reason for open and armed rebellion against the King of England, claiming God for their banner? Can an open rebellion, not only against the King of England, but against the very word of God, be considered a Christian act especially if that rebellion was held on the issue of taxes?
What then of God’s sovereignty? Might, and victory, does not make right. I am reminded that Nero fiddled while Rome burned and the Christian’s were blamed or that Christ suffered and died while the nations rejoiced. The Death of Christ was indeed the righteous thing, for all of us, but how many of us would have participated in the murder of the Righteous Man?
The idea that we cannot trust the government is foreign both to the Scriptures and Tradition, and should be foreign from our pulpits. In a government that we feel stands in opposition to our morality, we must consider what Paul tell us, that is to work good things, to earn praise instead of delve into fear. Do not read into this as that we hold the government as we would God, but instead, understand that a basic fear of government is not necessary.
I am a biblical fundamentalist; I am an Economist, believing that Jesus Christ is God, according to the Economy of God. I do not believe in doctrinal development past the point of the Apostles. I do not believe in new revelations, historical Tradition, or the that tradition defines and develops Doctrine. I stand with Marcellus of Ancyra in appreciating the early Church Fathers, but finding the sole source of Doctrine as the Scriptures from the Apostles and Prophets. I do not give any doctrinal significance to the Councils, nor will I call anyone a Saint, except for the broader body of the Church. I see no greatness in Rome or the so-called Apostolic Church which she leads.
To be honest, I relish the thought of being a heretic hunter, of stamping out false doctrines where they arise, with a steady word and a heavy hand. The Church has no room to allow these cancers to grow. I have no problem, as many would read this blog, of stating that this one or that one is a false prophet and a heretic.
However, in my study of the Church Fathers, I have come to a deep appreciation of their writings and their tribute to biblical studies and would rarely use the word ‘heretic’ (except for maybe Origen). I have been criticized for my use of them, however, I will continue to use them and their quotes in my own development and maturity as a Christian.
John Chrysostom has become a favorite of mine, as has Irenaeus, Tertullian, and even Cyprian. Most of these men I would have disagree with in nearly every way, yet, they have measures of Truth. I fully recognize
“So, we see Justin Martyr accused of ditheism and/or subordinationism. Or, we see Gregory Nazianzus accused of proto-Nestorianism.”
However, in doing so, I also recognize that there was not a sudden shift from what I would consider orthodox doctrine (except maybe Origen), and these men still have a measure of contribution to every self-proclaimed theologian – or otherwise – not in refuting any doctrine, or building any doctrine, but in tracing what theological development took place and when and in understanding the Christian community in a historical viewpoint.
Let me say quickly that if you believe that Christianity suddenly ceased after Peter and Paul and that Rome immediately appeared, then you have no faith in Christ or His Church. If Christianity ceased after the Apostles, then Gamaliel was right, and we have all been wrong for nearly 2000 years.
I find that Irenaeus, who is roundly despised by biblical fundamentalists, must be understood as the defender of the faith against well-learned Gnostics, versed and steeped in the Bible. He defended the Faith as one would in these circumstances, and more often than not, stayed within the pattern established by Ignatius and Polycarp. We have Justin, who I find in error as a ditheist, who has great strength in defending the Church against the Jews and further in defending the Septuagint. Tertullian provides us with a rigorous approach to Christian living while Cyprian fought for Church unity against the rising power in Rome. This is not to say that I judge them Christian, as that is in God’s hands, but even the most radical anti-Catholic (which rarely makes any sense) can see that some measure of Truth existed in this learned men.
Personally, I agree that
“Tertullian’s extreme temperament led him to rigid views about asceticism and prophecy which drove him from the orthodox church.”
Except for the part about the prophecy and his Montanist days, I find little wrong in Tertullian’s rigidness. I do however, find a great deal wrong with Origen and the entire school from Alexandria. I find it a break from Orthodoxy, no matter the century and cannot rightly see him in any positive light.
Returning to the others, however, I realize that many of them do not share the doctrines that I might hold, in total; however, it does not erase their value. We have to remember that History is rarely kind to even Inspired Writings, much less the writings and thoughts of men, albeit inspired men. (Look at the war that history as waged on the epistles from Ignatius) Interpretation of these writings is the same way. Do not take them in the light of theologians 1800 years removed from them, but attempt to understand them in the world in which they wrote. Unlike the Bible, their words are not timeless, and must be understood against the world that they fought.
I agree with the writer of the above post when he says,
A second less innocent motive is heresy hunting in the context of inter-denominational apologetics and polemics. In this kind of heresy hunt, we see writers (often, but not always Protestant) search the Fathers in order to find something wrong in what they are saying. What they are doing in reading the Fathers isn’t reading them to understand them or to take insight from them, but rather they are reading them the way that a lawyer reads a hostile brief–they are looking for dirt and evidence to beat the other side with.
There a few things that I no longer like to see, and that is anyone on my ‘side’ calling the theologians of the 2nd and 3rd century, Roman Catholic. Most them would have rebelled against the idea of the Roman Church as we know it now. Instead, we must look at these as cousins, rather distant, and stop the labeling, often times done in error. We must not succumb to the ‘violence’ of apologetics, but instead place these people in their respective places, learning and valuing their input.
Finally, even Paul used non-Christians to highlight Christianity, and if we dismiss the entire corpus of post-Apostle’s writing simply because they might not agree with us in every way, then we do a great deservice to the Church.
A mere thought, leading to a larger one…
“The LORD our God spoke to us in Horeb, saying: “You have dwelt long enough at this mountain. Turn and take your journey, and go to the mountains of the Amorites, to all the neighboring places in the plain, in the mountains and in the lowland, in the South and on the seacoast, to the land of the Canaanites and to Lebanon, as far as the great river, the River Euphrates. See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to your fathers–to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–to give to them and their descendants after them.’ (Deuteronomy 1:6-8 NKJV)
The Israelites were camped at Mt. Sinai, which held a significance for the Jews, as this was the mountain of the Lord, where the Law had been delivered. (Exodus 19.1) It was here that what we call Judaism began with the handing down of the Torah. Jewish Tradition has it that the power of the delivery was felt the world over, with the entire world going dark. It would have been pleasant to stay there, to remember the days of the first love; however, this was not God’s intention. The Lord had commanded Israel to move, to continue their journey, as He had given a Promise of Rest. They were on their way to the Promised Land of Canaan, and to mount Zion, which is Jerusalem, to a homeland of their own, where they could worship the living God. This was the first promise made to Abraham (Genesis 12.1)
During the Shalosh Regalim, the Jews celebrated three holy festivals – Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost), and Sukkot (Tabernacles). We can see these feasts celebrated in the Church. Judaism provides us our example, and knowing that God changes not, we find in the life of physical Israel, the hope for the spiritual, i.e., the Church. Christ is our Passover; the Day of Pentecost was the birth of the Church with the Spirit given just as the Law was, while Tabernacles will be celebrated when Christ calls His Church home. Melito of Sardis provide us with enough exegetical thoughts to last us a life time on the Christ as our Passover, and with very little that can be added to our Bishop, friend and brother, let us focus on Pentecost.
When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4 NKJV)
The Day of Pentecost is the Church’s Mt. Sinai. It is here that the Church received her Torah (the Spirit) which unites the Church to this day. The writer of Hebrews indentifies the comparison between Zion (the Church) and Judaism (Sinai) this way,
For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. (For they could not endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow.” And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”) But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. (Hebrews 12:18-24 NKJV)
The day which brought the Spirit of God has been recognized as significance by some of the early Church Fathers, including Irenaeus and Tertullian. The former compared it in quality to the Lord’s Day while the latter believed that it was a day of exaltation. We must not dismiss the importance of the Day of Pentecost to the Christian Faith, nor to the individual. With each Saint who experiences the charisma of the holy Spirit, stands with the Apostles, and with the entire Church, as united, saved, clean, a new creature, part of a new race. They experience the power of the Spirit of God as it moved upon the waters (Genesis 1.3) which produces a new creation. It is for them as it was for Peter and the Eleven. It is a day of joyful remembrance that we are able to celebrate with a birth of a new Saint; however, it is a day, and a time in history, but neither our journey nor our destination.
Pentecost was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the Passover with the celebration of the first fruits. It remembers the day which God gave the Torah to the children of Israel, fifty days after the first Passover. In the Bible, Shavuot is called the Feast of Weeks (Hebrew: חג השבועות, Ḥag ha-Shavuot, Exodus 34:22, Deuteronomy 16:10); Feast of Reaping (Hebrew: חג הקציר, Ḥag ha-Katsir, Exodus 23:16), and Day of the First Fruits (Hebrew יום הבכורים, Yom ha-Bikkurim, Numbers 28:26). The Mishnah and Talmud refer to Shavuot as Atzeret (Hebrew: עצרת, a solemn assembly), as it provides closure for the festival activities during and following the holiday of Passover. It marks the conclusion of the Counting of the Omer which is a preparation for the Jews to receive the Torah.
With the Death of Christ, Passover was no longer relevant; with the Resurrection of Christ, the Year of the Lord began again. We have to remember that the Jews were told to gather for a solemn assembly during this time of year for a remembrance of the handing of the Torah to Moses from the Lord. With Christ fulfilling the Law by His atoning sacrifice, there would have to be another Mt. Sinai. It was at this Mt. Sinai, the spiritual mountain, which Christ handed down the Spirit, which breathed new life into the Church.
The Apostles were not told to go to Jerusalem to celebrate the Day of Pentecost as they longer stood in the Jewish religion of their contemporaries, and indeed had they been Pentecostals, they would have been in the streets; instead, they were in Jerusalem to ‘wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” Christ said, “you have heard from Me;’ (Acts 1.4). They gathered in the upper room while those that celebrated Pentecost where massed in the streets. Both groups, the 120 disciples and the Jewish celebrants, were in Jerusalem, the former group waiting on a Promise while the latter was for a memorial. The Pentecostals were in the Streets, celebrating the deliverance of the Torah; the Church was in the upper room, gathered together, praying and waiting for the Promise of the Father. When the promise fell (the Spirit), and truly according to God’s Plan it had to happen on the Feast of Weeks, it did not fall on the Pentecostals, but it fell on the Church built by Jesus Christ.
The Church did not stay in the upper room, but dispersed, heeding the commands of Christ Who said,
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8 NKJV)
The Pentecostals, as they traditionally did, dispersed as well, but only to meet again, every year, until the Messiah came. Whereas Pentecost harkened to the past while looking to the future Messiah, the Church had received the promises of Israel, the Law of Grace, and had accepted the Messiah. For the Church, there were only one event to celebrate – the Eucharist – and this was to be until Christ returned, and that happened some fifty days before Pentecost.
No place in the Scriptures do we read of a remembrance of that Day by the Church, nor of the term ‘Pentecost(al)’ except in Acts 20.16 and 1st Corinthians 16.8. Luke tells us that it was Paul’s intention to waste no time in getting to Jerusalem for the Day of Pentecost (Paul echoes these sentiments, albeit, not as strongly as Luke, in 1st Corinthians 16.8). We must be reminded that Pentecost was a very large Jewish celebration. It was not Paul’s intention to keep the Day, but to be there to witness to the Pentecostals concerning Jesus Christ. This was an opportunity to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It should be remembered as well that Paul was taking with him gifts and offerings from other congregations to the saints at Jerusalem (Romans 15.25-26; 1st Corinthians 16.1).
Scripture has no focus on the ‘pentecostal experience’ beyond that of the first Day, but always on maturity and growth of the Saint after such an experience. We are commanded in Hebrews 6.1-2 to grow past those first words of Christ. The Apostle Peter tells us,
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. (2nd Peter 1:5-7 NKJV)
Christ no more intended a pentecostal Church than the Apostles an Apostolic one, but this moment in time is one that too many desire to live in, refreshing themselves with an experience and being called by a name that was unknown to the Apostles. No place in scripture do we see the adjective ‘pentecostal’ applied to the Church, like wise the adjective ‘apostolic’, yet many would assume them as equal to ‘Christian’ or an appropriate name for the Body and Bride of Christ. Those that do, often find themselves focused on the experience rather than the exercise of doctrine. Moses, led by God, understood the precept of growth, and speaking the very words of the Lord, ordered those that were going to the Promised Land to move, for they have been camped at the mountain for far too long, and would have ceased soon enough.
Do not relish the term ‘pentecostal.’ It is a recent term in use as applied to segments of Christianity dating back to roughly 1867. The Church, historically, did not use it, nor did they historically use it to describe experiencing the holy Spirit of God. The pentecostal experience movement became prominent in the Holiness movement, which was the first to begin making numerous references to the term “Pentecostal”, such as in 1867 when the movement established The National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of Christian Holiness with a notice that said: “[We are summoning,] irrespective of denominational tie…those who feel themselves comparatively isolated in their profession of holiness…that all would realize together a Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Ghost.” The Catholic Apostolic Church of Edward Irving did not consider itself Pentecostal as many would today. How can anyone rightly apply this term to the Church, the Body and Bride of Jesus Christ? The Nazarenes have used it; charismatic Trinitarians still use it. The one group that we have to be concerned with, the Apostles, never used it.
Across the United States there are congregations that have the catch phrase, ‘Apostolic in doctrine; Pentecostal in experience’. A quick and rude analysis of this slogan reveals that the congregation has a doctrine similar to the Apostles, and always focused on the first experience of the holy Spirit. Is this really what the Church was supposed to be? Did the Apostles all have similar doctrines, or one Doctrine? Did they always seek the pentecostal experience, or as some might say, ‘Holy Ghost experience’ (as if it is some thrill ride at an amusement park)? Or did they see it as the birth of the Church?
These terms – Apostolic and Pentecostal – have become so engrained in the minds of some Christians without any thought of their origin. People hold to them as cherished emblems. ‘I am Pentecostal!’, one says while the other says ‘I am Apostolic’, not questioning what Peter or Paul would have said and all the while promising to hold to nothing but what is written in the bible.
So, who are the Pentecostals? They were the Jews, celebrating a holiday that was no longer needed. They are people celebrating an experience instead of growing in the Church.
 Source: Wikipedia
As I mentioned last time, one of the objections to the printing of the Deuterocanon in the KJV is:
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
The Deuterocanon is a collection of eleven books that are sometimes mistakenly referred to as the Apocrypha. “Deutero” means “second” and so the deuterocanonical books refer to a second canon, the first canon being the Old and New Testaments. The deuterocanonical books include: Tobit, Judith, Esther 10:4-16:24, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch (Letter to Jeremiah), Song of the Three Children, History of Suzanna, Bel and the Dragon, and 1-2 Maccabees. These books are considered to be inspired by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Note, it was not until Luther that the canoncity of these books were called into question. Of course, Martin Luther called into question, and tried to prevent the inclusion of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as well. To him, these books were antilegomena, although it is reported that he changed his views somewhat later in life.
Of course, the easy answer to the above mentioned charge is that neither Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, nor the Song of Solomon is quoted by the New Testament. Others would add Lamentations, the Chronicles, as well as perhaps Judges and Joshua to that list.
The statement bu KJV-Only advocates is misleading in of itself. Only in Hebrews (8.13) do we find a mention of the Old Testament/Covenant, but that is in reference to the actually Covenant of between God and Israel, not to the collection of books that came to be called the Old Testament. It was actually Tertullian who first developed the idea that the two sections of books are testaments (vetus testamentum (“old testament”) and novum testamentum (“new testament”)). Tertullian, however, never separated the Deuterocanon out of the Old Testament, as he regularly quoted from them.
It would be unwise for me to post a complete list of Deuterocanonical quotes by the New Testament writers, however, here is a good place to start. Regular readers to this blog will note, either with joy or the fires of heresy hunters, that I most often use Wisdom as a weapon and have even posted on 1st Maccabees. For the record, I have also found great solace in Sirach, although I have not had much time to study this ancient book. (Although in the depths of prison, John Bunyan of Pilgrim’s Progress fame, received a moment of inspiration, and after years of searching, found the passage in Sirach 2.10 – Look at the generations of old, and see; did ever any trust in the Lord, and was confounded? or did any abide in his fear, and was forsaken? or whom did he ever despise, that called upon him?)
Before we go one, I should state that my favorite bible is the Cambridge, Calf-skin leather KJV, black letter and with the Protestant Apocrypha. What is of special interest to me is that the original cross references include links to the Apocrypha and that the Apocrypha includes links to the Old and New Testaments. If the KJV translators, these supposedly inspired men (Trinitarians the lot of them) thought that the Apocrypha was of no or little help to the Christian, then why was so much, or any really, time devoted to translating it and creating a system of cross references to it and from it?
In the following list, I have not even begun to scratch the surface of the quotes and allusions found in the New Testament relating to the Deuterocanon. I have used the King James Version for both the Deuterocanon and the New Testament. What we can take from this is that it was not the early Church Fathers that used the Deuterocanon, but the New Testament writers. In future posts, I will attempt to explore the use of Wisdom in Luke-Acts as well as in the Christology of John. In my commentary on Wisdom, I will further show that this book alone was a silent tool wielded by Paul in his composition and thought.
I have not done justice to these books, this I know, but I hope that I have excited some interest in realizing that the Deuterocanon should be studied by serious students of the New Testament.