Why Cyril of Jerusalem Rejected the Apocrypha

Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.

SUPPORT:

FOLLOW:

MY ACADEMIC WORK:

PODCAST:

DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM

CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:

00:00 - Introduction

[O.Z.]

If you accuse Gavin of picking and choosing or that he has deeply flawed reasoning you likely are missing the point.

[London-Lad]

you so so much. Please, keep the faith and keep the faith online. We (your subscribers) are also members of your ministery and it's only projected to grow ❤

[johnsmoth]

Forbidding new Christians from reading them and "rejecting" them are not the same thing.

[bman]

This is where the citation of Church Fathers by Protestants seems so arbitrary. Why is it so important we trust St Cyril of Jerusalem and St Jerome on this issue but not when they take the Catholic side on the other issues. Or why is their view evidence of the canon but not Clement of Rome, St Polycarp, St Augustine, St Irenaeus, St Hypolotus and St Cyprian?

[nateewongo]

This is not the whole story. For instance, St. Cyril of Jerusalem refers to Burch as “the prophet.” Additionally, he used Baruch 3 to defend Christ's divinity. *Most importantly, he included the text of Baruch in Jeremiah for his canon.*

Dr. Ortlund mentions this himself in the full video.

[lukeohanlon]

​ @Truth Unites The use and acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books varied among early Christian communities. While it is challenging to determine the exact usage and views of all early churches, there is evidence to suggest that some of the Deuterocanonical books were read and considered authoritative by certain early Christian communities.

For example, the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures widely used by Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians, included the Deuterocanonical books. This suggests that these books were read and accepted by some Jewish communities in the Hellenistic world, including early Christians.

Furthermore, several early Christian writings contain allusions or references to the Deuterocanonical books. The writings of early Church Fathers, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, occasionally contain quotations or references to these books.

Ultimately, the final determination of the canon was made in later church councils with the Deuterocanonical books as part of their authoritative Scripture.

Jesus told His followers He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them in ALL truth and I doubt for 1500 years they were led astray with the wrong canon since Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine and infallible, meaning they cannot make mistakes because each person of the Trinity is fully divine and possesses the attributes of God, including perfect knowledge and wisdom. The Holy Spirit guides believers in understanding and applying God's truth and to illuminate Scripture, provide wisdom, and empower us for Christian living. The Holy Spirit led the councils of the Church which decided on canon, compiled the Bible and gave it to the world.

To think otherwise or to ascribe mistakes or errors to Jesus or the Holy Spirit would be contradictory to the understanding of their divine nature and attributes. This is why I have a hard time with protestantism and even between some individuals among the Baptist community. Is it your belief that the Holy Spirit (that is believed to guide believers in understanding and applying God's truth) is giving them all different and conflicting interpretations?

Deeply respect you Gavin, and I love listening to your videos as a former Baptist myself. God bless you❤️

[justfromcatholic]

Cyril of Jerusalem did NOT reject all apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. His list of 22 books includes Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah, both combined with Jeremiah and Lamentations as one book (Source: McDonald L.M and Sanders J.A.: The Canon Debate< Appendix C, page 585). Either Dr. Ortlund missed the fact and he turned blind eye on it.

[peterw]

1. So far Dr. Ortlund hasn’t proved that the 22 Old Testament Hebrew Canon was the accepted Canon for the early Church.
2. There is no evidence of a complete Old Testament list attributed to any of the Apostles. The formation of the canon was a long complex process. At the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, Christians had new texts like the Gospels and Letters of St. Paul that the Jews rejected. Both the New and the Old Testament Canon’s developed around the same time. The Jews (Rabbinic Tradition) were also deliberating about their Canon during this time. The 22 Old Testament Canon was popular at the time, but the Jews ended up with a 24 book canon. Even though the texts are about the same in both canons.

The councils that dealt with this matter had the wisdom to discern what was right for the Church and they did.

[jonatasmachado]

"...the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer, but the Body of Christ..." Cyril of Jerusalem

[Xavier-wwzy]

Church history really does expose that we've argued back and forth for 2000 years. Maybe Romans 14 is the best covering for our Brotherhood that lives beyond the disagreements

[thyfuoh]

The problem here is that saint Cyrill in Jerusalem mentions the Hebrew canon, which of course is read in the Churches. He does not talk about the Christian canon, which follows the Greek count of 39 books in the OT. The Orthodox Church of the East follows of course the Greek / Christian Bible just like the Apostles (2/3 of all quotes in the NT are from the Greek OT). All Christians counsels confirmed the Greek (Apostels) Bible as the canon. Dear Gavin picks singular opinions to prove his point. If he were a man of integrity and humility he would mention that the clear majority belief of Christians and counsels until the „Reformation“ was Catholic/Orthodox. Other older churches have even more books but not less. Return to truth my friend. Greetings, ex-elder and convert from Pentecostalism 🙏📿❤️

[frekigeri]

You cannot actually consider the deuterocanonical books as disputed anymore, as a Church council was convened on the subject. So while Cyril was “playing it safe” in his caution on the deuterocanonical books, his guidance was misleading and misplaced. Saints are great and their guidance should be highly respected, but in this case Cyril was wrong.

[HearGodsWord]

I wonder how many of the triggered comenters haven't watched the full video to get the context 🤷

[bryantramos]

Do protestants have an actual canon?
Did they run a council for it?
Did the bigger protestant communities get together and sign a document?
Or did the biblical society just leave the 7 books out?
I gotta admit though, protestants have an amazing selection of Bibles to choose from, leather and stitching, sizes and colors galore.
While Catholic Bibles come in about three different sizes and colors, paperback or leather.

[marincusman]

Even if you went into more detail in the full video, this short is misleading and nigh on deceptive. He did not “reject” the “apocrypha.” And he also didn’t include revelation. I’m not hating, and I’m also Protestant, but please be aware that these shorts can be dangerous and spread false assumptions

[Silverhailo]

Something to keep in mind here when Saint Cyril is making this claim, is that he is presupposing the authority of the church in the infallibility of the church to recognize the cannon and hand down a sacred tradition. A Protestant appealing to Saint Cyril who as a priest who submitted to the authority of the church and confected the Eucharist, who affirmed seven sacraments, and rejected the novel and modern Protestant distinctives, especially of salvation by faith alone and affirmed Apostolic succession is odd to be frank. Saint Cyril was not a Protestant.

In the end, it's more important to be in communion with the apostolic fathers rather than agree with them on every single point. And I can tell you right now that Dr. Ortlund would not be okay with him preaching in his church.

[victorrene]

Thank you for the clear understanding! I learn something new Everytime I see your videos

[HumanDignity]

One of last Sunday's readings for Catholics was Matthew 11:25-30. In this reading, Jesus is referring back to the book of Sirach. He assumed the people he was speaking to knew that book. One of the books Protestants removed was Sirach. If that book is no longer in your bible, how can you fully understand what Jesus was getting at in that passage? This happens in a lot of places in the NT - there are allusions and references to passages in the Deuterocanonical books. To me it seems like reading a thesis paper and not being able to go to the references the writer cites. It seems more likely to open one up to missing important context when interpreting the meaning.

[matthewbroderick]

Yet, other Church Fathers affirmed the deuterocanonical books are part ofvthe canon! So, this point is not valid!

[ronfeledichuk]

Gavin Ortlund is trying to make Saint Cyril into a Gavin Ortlund who has the power to teach his thinking as truth. Saint Cyril bowed to the authority of the Gavin would never do!