Luke was a skilled theologian who covered many important doctrinal themes in his gospel and Acts. [1] He emphasized Christology, presenting Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. [2] Luke also focused on soteriology, the need for and provision of salvation. [3] Additionally, Luke stressed the glory of the resurrection and the ascension of Christ. The document then provides details on several other theological themes and doctrines covered in Luke, such as pneumatology, prayer, the power of God, prophecy, Israel, the word of God, discipleship, poverty, and justification.

1. THE THEOLGICAN
THE DOCTRINES IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE (1)
Luke 1:1-4
Charles e Whisnant, March 06 2012 42.3
What have we learned about Luke thus far:
He was a Christian missionary, historian, a doctor, well educated, and the writer of two volumns, Luke
and 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 is
important, and being a theologian is really important in the preaching of the Word of God.
Theological Themesi
Some of the specific themes and topics in Luke are: In Gospel of Luke and Acts.

2. 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 interesting
2A 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 God's 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 Luke's 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 Luke's 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.

3. 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 Luke's writing.
9A Eschatology
This aspect of Luke's 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 Conzelmann's 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 Lord's 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 Lord's return. It is against this background that Luke's 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

4. This is a more significant theme in Luke's 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 church's generosity in sharing with those in
need (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 11:27-30).
14A Atonement
15A
18A Justification
The Doctrine of Justification is the heart of Christian theology,
it's the heart of Reformation theology that we have been declared righteous.
That Doctrine of Justification is Luke's 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 that's what justification is, it's taking an unworthy sinner who belongs in the pig slop
and covering him with the robe of righteousness.

5. 19A Theology: Doctrine of God
20A Sovereignty: God is over everything:
21A Worship
He says a lot about worship as we'll 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, that's all about the cross. You could say from chapter 9 to the end
of 23 it's the cross because that's 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 lost
LUKE 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 you've 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, isn't 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, it's just like Luke's was, is to bring you to an exact
understanding of...what?...of the truth of God, isn't it? As I say, we don't know
anything about him. But we know enough about Luke to know that Luke cared
enough about this man's 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. That's 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 don't

6. WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF JESUS COMING TO EARTH IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHY
DO 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 TESTAMENT
Christ 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 is
nonetheless 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 untaken
away 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 Old
Testament. 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 Old
Testament.
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)

7. 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, consistent
testimony of Christ,” he stated. “We do not look back to the Old Testament merely to find the background of
Christ and his ministry, nor merely for reference and anticipation of Christ. We are to look to the Old
Testament 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;

8. 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/iii
Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from? How many Old Testament books did
Jesus quoted?iv
v
The Old Testament footnote: When was the Old Testament completed?
The inter-testament period. Between the Old and New?vi
This 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 would
they?have seen a copy of the O.T>
i
THEOLOGICAN THEMES” http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/luketheo.htm
ii
http://carm.org/
iii
WHICH LANGUAGE DID JESUS SEPAK WHILE ON EARTH?
http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-Jesus.htm
Aramaic

9. Christ taught and spoke mainly in Aramaic. The Gospels record some of Christ's 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 Christ's words from Aramaic into Hebrew. Some of
Christ's words in Matthew's 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.

10. 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.htm
v
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

11. The inter-testament saints held that there was a known corpus of Scripture, for in their writings
they would often refer to it with the authoritative phrase, ―as it is written,‖ or ―according to
Scripture,‖ or ―it is written.‖ In fact, references to almost all of the books of the Old Testament
are considered to be Scripture by the writers of the inter-testament and the New Testament
period. Beckwith says of this period that
. . . with the exception of the three short books of Ruth, Song of Songs and Esther, the canonicity
of every book of the Hebrew Bible is attested, most of them several times over. . . it is very
striking 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), show
such agreement about the canon. . .6
In addition, there are at least 28 documented separate titles for the Old Testament canon proving
that the individual books had become a collection sufficient enough to warrant various titles to
the group (i.e. canon) as a whole.7
Church history took very heavily into consideration what Jesus and the New Testament
writers thought about the Old Testament in determining canonicity. The number of
references to the Old Testament by New Testament writers is abundant, and it attests to
the 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 the
work of Josephus. In Against Apion 1.7f., or 1.37–43, Josephus gives his understanding that, not
only was there a canon, but he also lists what he believes that canon is. This list is identical to the
Jewish and Christian canon with one exception, that of omitting either the Song of Songs or
Ecclesiastes.8 Josephus mentions that there were copies of Scripture in the Temple itself, and
before its destruction in AD 70 it contained a collection of books. This collection was considered
by the Jewish community to be canon, for ―the main test of the canonical reception of a book
must have been whether or not it was one of those laid up in the Temple.‖9
This evidence reveals not what the books of the canon are, but the fact that the concept of a
canon did indeed already exist before the beginning of the Christian era.
The Construct of the Old Testament Canon
Not only does the literature testify to
The Contents of the Old Testament Canon
The 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

12. ―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.

13. 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