Archive for category Church of England
The words of Jesus Christ will never go away
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christmas, Church of England on December 4, 2025
In todays readings for Advent, Ryle refers to Matthew 24: 29-35 where Jesus says His words will never pass away. How Jesus knew well the unbelief of human nature and as St Peter declared that mockers would come in the last days (2 Peter 3: 3-4).
The Biblical reality is that world has been in the last days for 2000 years. The author of Hebrews makes this very clear in Hebrews 1: 1-2 that God has spoke throughout history by the prophets but in those last days, that is in the 1st century, God has spoken “by His Son, who, He has appointed heir of all things, through whom He made the worlds.” (NKJV)
Jesus’ words are enough for us to feed upon and sufficient and powerful enough for us to live by. His words “will be fulfilled in their season” and will never die or be taken away. We may well live in an unbelieving age, an age where even the church has fallen away into irrelevance and fear, and yet Christ is still with those who belong to Him, who love Him and keep His commandments.
The words of Jesus Christ are like no other. No one has ever spoken like He did and no other words can come to pass like His. No priests, no bishops, no councils or synods, can ever take away the truth of His words. They (bishops and priests) can infect them so that they do not believe His truth anymore, but it has little effect in the lifelong reality of them. Jesus’ words cannot be broken and will never pass away. He is the King of glory and the Lord of all life. No one can take Him away.
Worship the King of kings and the Lord of lords and never lay down His truth for the squeamish words of archbishops and synods who no longer believe them. Heal yourselves and your wounds from the infections that they have spread and let the Lord of all peace and justice reward and fill your hearts with gold and myrrh. For the day is coming when all the injustices of the world and the devil will be drawn away into the dismal clouds of darkness and failure.
Look now unto our gracious Lord and have confidence in the power of His true gospel to save and restore. Amen.
Is AMiE a better option than the CofE
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, Church of England, Reform on November 13, 2025
It is quite evident to most Christians now that the Church of England has fallen headlong into apostacy. A large percentage of ministers and bishops are in favour of practices and re-interpretations of Scripture which any Bible believer cannot accept.
It has been a long and tiring debate and conservative evangelical ministers are doing the best they can to uphold the church’s teaching on sexual ethics and Scriptural doctrines while at the same time holding the blanket concerning their future careers.
There are serious problems happening with the establishment and you know there is an even deeper issue on the horizon when the King prays with the pope for the first time in 500 years and now they have a very liberal catholic female archbishop about to be seated on the chair of St Augustine. An act for which Archbishop Thomas Cranmer would be turning in his grave.
The question is what to do about it?
Roman Catholic’s are being sneaky right now and are chasing in on this cradle of insecurity by trying to woo Anglicans back into their lair of popery. What’s wrong with that, people might say? Well, there is a great deal wrong with that. For a start off Roman Catholicism is not Christianity it’s Roman Catholicism. It is a religion that prays to the dead, worships a goddess, rejects justification by faith alone, condemns reformed theology and believes that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is cannibalism and vampirism. On top of all they they quite literally believe that the pope is Christ’s vicar on earth, which means to be in place of Christ.
Not to mention the fact that they worship apparitions of a demon masquerading as the virgin Mary.
We live in very dangerous religious times and for this reason Paul wrote, “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” (1 Timothy 4: 16) Just because a religion claims to be Christian, does not make it so. Each one of us needs to examine claims and doctrines and do it closely with the Bible in hand. There is no need for a bishop to guide you in this, you can research and decide for yourself.
As you can tell I am a nonconformist at heart, I don’t believe things just because people preach them. I need proof.
That being said I am not the type of person who tells people what to do. Each of us must make our own choices in this life and everyone must decide for him or herself what each one of us must do. But I am going to recommend to you that if you are going to leave the Church of England, either now or in the future, do not go running off to Roman Catholicism. It is a corrupt religion with a rotten past and a future reliant upon it’s claim that the pope is a direct successor to St Peter. Such a claim in itself is useless since in Revelation 3: 16 Jesus warns a lukewarm church that He will vomit them out of His mouth unless they repent and that church in Laodicea knew John and St Paul, so if you can understand my perspective, it makes no difference if a church in history knew St Peter or John or Paul, Jesus can still remove them from His body if they apostatise like the Roman Catholic Church has done.
I assure you, there are better options for people who may be thinking of leaving the CofE, don’t go crawling off to the Roman Catholic Church, go to an independent church or why not give AMiE a try?
AMiE stands for the Anglican Mission in England and is not a state run church, it has no female bishops, no women vicars, no heresies, just basic Christianity and in the Anglican tradition.
Remember, remember the 5th of November
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Reform on November 5, 2025
Bonfire night in the UK is traditionally known as Guy Fawkes Night and it is observed on November 5 to commemorate when Guy Fawkes was arrested while trying to blow up the house of Lords so he could establish a Roman Catholic monarch on the throne of England.
These details can be found here.
Fawkes wanted to assassinate James 1 of England and V1 of Scotland because he was a protestant king. The plan was to return the Church of England and this country back into the lair of the pope.
But it never happened.
While at a bonfire this month I reflected on how important it is that England never forgets her own history, especially the reformation and we should never bow the knee to those who seek to destroy the very Christian foundations that have made this country so great. It is true that we have many problems in the UK and I’m sure that in time those problems will be resolved by the grace of God.
Today we are seeing a peaceful revival of Christianity in this country and people are once again exploring Christianity and the Bible and even attending church.
But even though these are positive adventures, we should not ignore the fact that there are some big problems which cannot be overlooked. The established Church of England is in a real mess. Not only has a King of England prayed with the pope for the first time in 500 years, but we also have a first female Archbishop of Canterbury who is a catholic and prays the rosary.
The rosary is traditionally a Roman Catholic devotion and not a Protestant one. It cannot be found in the Bible and it places Mary before Jesus meaning you have to go to her first in order to reach out to Jesus.
Likewise, many Roman Catholics are seeking to overturn the reformation and reunite Anglicans with Rome. “Come home” they continue to say, yet the Roman Catholic Church is not home to me, I say. I am a Christian and not a Roman Catholic. I do not believe the Bible agrees with transubstantiation or Marian devotions or idolatry or prayers to the dead or prayers for the dead.
Let us not forget it was pope Leo X who excommunicated Martin Luther and now pope Leo X1V wants to restore that.
To quote an article I wrote back in 2015, I say it again; “Britain has come a long way since the glorious days of the 16th century, and in many ways both England and Britain are founded upon the principles of the Protestant reformation. Many ideals such as democracy, tolerance and human rights are rooted in the principles of the reformation and the people of Britain should never forget that.
It is a true saying ‘remember, remember, the 5th of November”.
Stop the liberalisation of the Church of England
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Reform on November 2, 2025
I have been in the Church of England since 2019 and have I have signed documents to oppose the same-sex blessings, and in October 2025 I left the Church of England following the announcement of the first female Archbishop of Canterbury.
I have no objection to returning to the CofE if they end the corruption and liberalisation of this denomination and return the church back to Biblical doctrine, authentic Anglicanism and the 39 Articles of Religion (1562) and male leadership.
If you are disturbed by the revisionist trajectory of the bishops, the desecration of historic church buildings, and you want to preserve our historic Christian church, now is the time to make your voice heard. Let’s end this corruption together and say no to the liberalisation of the Church of England!
Sign my petition now!
Visiting the grave of J C. Ryle during the biggest split in Anglican history
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Reform on October 23, 2025
This month following the announcement of the first female Archbishop of Canterbury, it is said that over 40 million Anglicans have left the Church of England.
Is this the death of the Church of England I ask myself? I’m not sure?
J C. Ryle was Bishop of Liverpool between 1880 – 1900 and was an outstanding minister and his Expository Thoughts on the Gospels are among my favourite commentaries on the market. Ryle was born in Macclesfield in 1816 and died in Liverpool aged 84. He held to a Calvinistic tradition however he firmly believed that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world. A belief that is entirely consistent with the New Testament and Biblical exposition.
Ryle was a great admirer of the 16th century reformers, and he wrote a book on Five English Reformers. These included Hugh Latimer, John Bradford and Nicolas Ridley.
On the anniversary of the burning of Hugh Latimer and Nicolas Ridley (October 16) GAFCON made an announcement that The Future Has Arrived. GAFCON has removed any reference to being in communion with the see of Canterbury and the Church of England.
The CofE has brought this upon itself. Years upon years of liberalism and corruption has brought about the biggest shift since the Reformation.
As I too have left the Church of England, I find myself reflecting upon a once great denomination in Christianity. Is this the end of the Church of England I ask myself? I don’t think it is. I think the tide could turn in time.
In his chapters on John Bradford: Martyr, Ryle closes with the following words,
“Let us thank God that the foundations of the Reformed Church of England were laid by such men as John Bradford. Let us clearly understand what kind of men our martyred Reformers were, what kind of doctrines they held, and what kind of lives they lived. Let us pray that the work they did for the Church of England may never be despised or underrated. Above all, let us pray that there never may be wanting among us a continual succession of English clergy, who shall keep the martyrs’ candle burning brightly, and shall hand down true Reformation principles to our children’s children.“
Ryle’s grave is very touching, it reads,
“I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.” 2 Tim. 1V. 7.
May that be said of all those who belong to Christ and as Latimer famously said, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”
The CEEC’s spineless response to the first female Archbishop of Canterbury
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on October 7, 2025
In an article published on October 3, the Church of England Evangelical Council has given a response to the recent announcement of the first female archbishop of Canterbury in the history of the CofE. They go on to say that they join Anglicans across the world in “praying” for Sara Mullally in her role.
The article goes on to say about the difficult time the Church of England is in and how it is set against a backdrop of “global conflict and instability.” Challenges and declining church attendance are sweeping their way through the CofE and the LLF process has caused division.
For no fault but their own, the CofE is an absolute mess and now they have made a woman the archbishop of Canterbury and it seems the CEEC is not very disturbed about this ordination. Regardless of how expressively clear the New Testament is concerning an all male leadership, the CofE just doesn’t seem to care. Men like N T. Wright and liberal vicars and writers spell out their outright revisionist nonsense and claim that St Paul was actually in favour of women leaders.
I was at a meeting with the CEEC during their opposition to the same-sex blessings and N T. Wright was broadcast on the screen and I stood with the CEEC in their fight for orthodoxy but over time I saw how they were claiming orthodoxy in one sense while denying it in another.
The Bishop of Lancaster, a woman, was at the meeting and a number of female vicars were present and it occurred to me that people didn’t care if 1 Timothy 2: 12 was upheld, so long as the women vicars believed in traditional marriage. This is a major fault of the conservative evangelicals, they are picking and choosing the texts they want provided you agree to disagree on the the ordination of women vicars. But what if what Paul was saying in 2 Corinthians 11: 3 that any attempt at female leadership is not a secondary issue. What if Paul was claiming that he feared the work Christ accomplished by overturning the evil the serpent in Eden was about to be attacked again by the devil.
Paul writes,
“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may be somehow led astray from the sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11: 3)
I have used the NIV in this quote for the benefit of CofE members who use this translation, because I want you to see the real truth of what is going on here. If you believe that it is ok for women to be ministers you are greatly deceived.
Paul gives his reasons why women are not to be bishops or vicars and why leadership in the church is reserved for men only because Adam was formed first and “Adam was not deceived, but woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2: 14)
Paul is here leaving one of his final commissions to Timothy on how the church is to be governed after his death. There was to be no alteration. This is why Paul wrote, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Paul’s greatest fear was that Satan was going to try and undermine what Christ achieved and overturn the restoration of Eden by deceiving women by manipulation just like he did in the garden of Eden.
Narcissists always manipulate women and Satan is the ultimate narcissist and he will not stop and cannot stop until he has tried to get anyone back of whom he has lost. That is what narcissists do. Once they have someone in their grips they never let go of them. Satan (the ultimate narcissist) is forever working to try and attack his antagonist Jesus Christ and undo everything He has accomplished. That too is what narcissists do. They hate losing.
For this reason, the CEEC has made a big mistake in letting female ministers join their stand for orthodoxy. They have lost the battle already. The ‘liberal bishops’ cannot consistently take them seriously because the conservative evangelicals once stood up against the ordination of women ministers and bishops, and now they have lowered their standards by regarding the matter as a secondary issue. It is not a secondary issue.
The officiating of the first female archbishop of Canterbury is not legitimate. Sara Mullally prays the rosary and catholic prayers to Mary and she will lead the church astray even further than you could possibly imagine. You cannot pray for that. You cannot pray for the Holy Spirit to use someone in an office that is contrary to Scripture. You invite the devil in when you do that.
You may disagree with me, you may think I’m going over the top and think I’m crazy, but I’m not, I’m warning you. Don’t fraternise with the devil. Don’t mess around with the darkness. Don’t think the Holy Spirit is guiding you if you are going against Scripture. Never forget that the darkest evil often appears as an angel of light.
The ordination of the first female archbishop of Canterbury is an act of hell and the Church of England is about to step into one of the darkest eras of it’s existence.
Turn back and repent and “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5: 11)
IC XC NIKA
It is time to leave the Church of England!
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on October 3, 2025
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth,” (2 Timothy 4: 3-4. NKJV)
The above quote is taken from St. Paul’s letter to Timothy, a leader of an early New Testament house church. In his first letter the apostle instructed Timothy to “Fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6: 12. NKJV) and in his second to “Preach the word!” (2 Timothy 4: 2) He also made it abundantly clear that leadership in the Christian church is reserved for men (1 Timothy 3: 1-13)
Today’s headlines come as no surprise. The Church of England has announced that a woman has been made Archbishop of Canterbury. This is an act of hell and the bishops demonstrate the outright disdain a majority of them have for St Paul’s authority.
I have been saying they will make this decision for some time now and I wrote against the consecration of women bishops back in 2015. You can read that article here.
I have come to believe that Martyn Lloyd-Jones was correct in his disagreement with John Stott. Evangelical Christian’s should withdraw from liberal denominations. For me, the Church of England’s decision to make a woman the Archbishop of Canterbury is like icing on an already rotting cake and it is the straw that broke the camels back.
Sadly, there are many faithful ministers in the CofE and they are a good community of believers who hold together well to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. These are inspired by a statement made in Jude 1: 3 and they should be commended for it.
However, I cannot ignore the overriding influence of female ministers within the church and even many conservative evangelicals. This is big problem for me since they fail to see the importance of maintaining strict adherence to a male leadership that complies with the criteria set forth by St Paul in his epistles to Titus and Timothy. Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2: 13-15 cannot be ignored.
St. Paul did not permit women to teach “or to have authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2: 12) and the reason why women are not permitted to be ministers is because Eve was deceived by Satan. Adam was born first and then Eve and Adam was not deceived but Eve (1 Timothy 2: 13-14). But people have manipulated this clear teaching and have deceived people into thinking women leadership is Biblical. I have addressed these issues very clearly in my previous articles.
Read here why Phoebe was not a deacon in office.
Read here why Junia was not apostle.
Read here why Priscilla was not a joint leader with Aquila.
Read here why Acts 18: 24-26 does not say Priscilla was a preacher
Read here how I have already warned that the next Archbishop of Canterbury could be a woman, and now she is.
It comes as no surprise to me how the leading bishops wrongly interpret the Bible. They squeeze their interpretation into their trajectory to preserve an establishment that goes from one extreme to the other and faithful ministers are caught like boiling frogs in a hot pan. These bishops who have brought in the same-sex blessings know the church will eventually bring in same-sex marriage, just as the ordination of women priests has now led to the ordination of the first Archbishop of Canterbury. This is the way false teaching works, it creeps in and doesn’t creep back out again. False teachers are like that too, they crawl in unawares and manipulate women and well meaning people and have no respect for authority. False teachers reject the higher authority of Scripture and have no genuine love for God in their hearts.
I understand that the fabric of a state church has to flow with the winds of culture, but the problem then becomes an issue of people pleasing. Christians are not on this earth to be people pleasers, we are here to serve God. So because of this I believe it is time for separation, or even disestablishment.
Does Paul say Chloe was a church leader?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, The Bible on September 19, 2025
Continuing on my with my series on refuting women leadership in the church, today I’m dealing with another passage of the New Testament which advocates of female leadership misuse to promote their ideas.
Liberals and revisionists use 1 Corinthians 1: 11 to claim that a 1st century woman named Chloe was a leader of a church that met in her house.
Paul writes,
“For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you.” (NKJV)
That’s it! This tiny verse is used by revisionists as another pawn in their chess game to promote the tiny claims that women can be leaders and ministers in the Christian church. No such thing. This verse does not say that Chloe was in any kind of leadership. Let me show you why.
Paul is writing to the 1st century church at Corinth, this is an ancient city in Greece. Corinth was a place bustling with worldwide commerce and cultures. Religion played a huge role in that place and the church was full of problems, divisions and the difficulties of living in a pagan society. Chloe (or her family) had informed apostle Paul that things in church were not going so well. Immorality, and abuse of the Lord’s supper had been going on and people were mixing the practices of Corinthian culture with church practices. Paul sets them straight in this letter and he admonishes them and pleads that they “speak the same thing” and “that there be no divisions among” them (verse 10).
People had become proud and claimed that they were worthy of note because they were of Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas or Christ (verse 12). These claims however were not related to doctrinal distinctions, since our Lord Jesus Christ, and saints Peter, Paul and Apollos all taught the same doctrines. No, the issue here was that people were claiming that they themselves were special because they were with Jesus during His lifetime or they personally knew Peter, or Paul, or Apollos. In verse 13 Paul refutes these claims and asked them a series of questions;
“Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Or were you baptised in the name of Paul?”
Note that Paul does not bring Peter or Apollos into this section where he refers to crucifixion and baptism. This is because Paul himself rarely baptised anyone even though there were exceptions.
In verse 14 he says he did baptise “Crispus” and “Gaius” and didn’t baptise the others lest any of them claim that Paul baptised in his own name. Yet in verse 17 Paul makes it clear that Christ did not call him to baptise but to preach. Then in verse 16 he refers to his baptising of those from “the household of Stephanas” so he did baptise people on occasions. This brings us to an important section of the passage. By claiming that he baptised those of “the household of Stephanas” Paul is referencing a family here. The Greek refers to a family, a home. See (G3624). This sets the passage and verse 11 in the context of a family and brings us back to the verse in question, “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you.”
Here Paul is in no way referencing Chloe being a leader of any church. Paul is merely stating that either Chloe or her family have reported to him that arguments and contentions have been going on at church and Paul wants this to stop. Prideful contentions, worldly practices and divisions have no place in Christianity. The church should be a place of purity and holiness, not a place where people behave like the world and the culture around them. The people of God are supposed to be different. God in Christ has given His people righteousness and redemption, and for those who know the Scripture, we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2: 16). Because of this we do not need to conform ourselves to the culture of the day.
Once again we see another Scripture twisted and misused by preachers and pastors who manipulate the Scriptures to suit their own agendas and lead the masses away into false teaching and errors.
Please don’t listen to them, they will lead you astray.
Were Aquila and Priscilla joint church leaders?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, The Bible on September 8, 2025
Continuing on with my previous article on Priscilla, and my continued articles on Junia and Phoebe and we come to a passage of Scripture again used by liberal revisionists to usurp the unbiblical position of women leadership. This time we are looking at 1 Corinthians 16: 19.
Paul writes,
“The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” (1 Corinthians 16: 19. NKJV)
Revisionists liberals use this passage to claim that women can be leaders in the Christian church. But the passage doesn’t say very much does it. It certainly does not say that a woman can be an archbishop, rector or pastor. In fact all it says is that a 1st century Christian couple sent their greetings to other believers in Corinth.
So what is all the fuss about?
The answer is, there isn’t any fuss. The passage says nothing about joint leadership as the modern revisionist liberals claim. Paul was simply writing to an early 1st century church and says, “The churches of Asia greet you”. That is the churches that existed in the 1st century in Asia Minor, on the western shore, now modern Turkey. Paul writes, “Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord” by which he offers a warm greetings along with “the church that is in their house.”. This was a congregation that met in the house of this Christian couple and the apostle is being courteous to them. Paul is not writing about a state church or an institution or denomination. There were no chapels at that time. No church buildings. No cathedrals. No paid clergy. No archbishops earning a salary of £85,000 per year. These good 1st century Christians opened up their family homes for assembly’s of fellow Christians to worship together in.
Perhaps when this is considered we can understand why Paul is mentioning this Godly married couple. They were clearly wonderful Christians and perhaps that is how we should view this passage. Paul is just being very courteous to a couple who have been of great service to him in his missionary purpose.
Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers by trade who had been expelled from Rome (Acts 18: 2) and accompanied Paul from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18: 18) They played a significant role in bringing Apollos to faith in Christ (Acts 18: 26) as my previous article demonstrates. In Romans 16: 3 Paul refers to them as “fellow workers”. There is no mention of preaching or teaching and certainly no hint whatsoever that any woman could be a bishop, archbishop or pastor. and the greek word translated workers does not denote ministry. Thus, I see nothing in these passages of Scripture to cause me to agree that women should be ministers in the Christian church.
Paul mentions Aquila and Priscilla (or Priscilla and Aquilla) together in six passages, and in 1 Timothy 4: 19, John Gill argues the Latin Vulgate adds “with whom also I lodge“. Thus demonstrating the generosity of the Godly couple.
Thus, if we look at 1 Corinthians 16: 19 in an open light we see there is nothing in this passage to cause any of us to believe Aquila and Priscilla were joint church leaders. Paul was simply informing his 1st century readers that a growing congregation was meeting at that time in their home and since Paul mentions Aquila first, we should assume he was the leader of this house group.
If you doubt what I am saying and have been persuaded by corrupted church leaders and revisionist liberals, ask yourself a question: wouldn’t you have the courtesy to mention the names of a married couple who let you have a house group or church meeting in their home?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps you can see why Paul mentions them.
Does Acts 18:24-26 say Priscilla was a preacher?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical archaeology, Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on September 3, 2025
In my previous articles on Phoebe (Romans 19: 9) and Junia (Romans 16: 7), I demonstrate my reasons for rejecting the modern revisionist claims that women can be leaders in the Christian church.
In this post I will be discussing another Scripture used by revisionists who argue in favour of female leadership. Revisionists like to claim that Luke in Acts mentions a woman named Priscilla as though she was a woman of Christian leadership. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Let me show you why.
In Acts 18: 24-26 St. Luke mentions a man named Apollos who met a Christian couple in Ephesus by the names of Priscilla and Aquila and at that time Luke claims that Apollos only knew the baptism of John the baptist.
Luke writes,
“Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.
So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” (Acts 18: 24-26. NKJV)
Ancient Ephesus is no longer part of civilization, it’s a historical landmark and an archaeological site. My wife and I visited Ephesus many years ago and walked the streets where this event happened. At that time I was involved in a great deal of church work. People knew my wife and I as a Christian couple and we had many discussions with people about the Bible and what it all means. Often times we would have discussions with believers who were not seeing Scripture rightly and engaging conversations would happen to show Christ more clearly. Yet neither of us believe in women leadership.
That is what I see going on here in this passage. Luke communicates how the man named Apollos was in Ephesus and he was very knowledgeable but didn’t yet know all he needed to know about Christ. Apollos only knew the baptism of John the baptist and had been teaching in the synagogue at Ephesus. The very fact that Luke states he taught in the synagogues and only knew the baptism of John sets this whole passage in its proper context. This is what happened.
When Aquila and Priscilla heard about him and how he was Jewish man who didn’t know about Christ, they delivered the truth to him about the Messiah. Some years earlier Apollos had likely returned to Alexandria after receiving the baptism of John and never fully knew that Jesus had fully come and had been crucified, risen and ascended. So the Christian couple explained what had happened and Apollos believed and received this truth.
Luke is communicating that Aquila and Priscilla evangelised to Apollos which they did in the ancient city of Ephesus. Please do not let modern revisionists distort the meaning of this two thousand year old text. Luke does not say that Priscilla was in any kind of church leadership, he merely communicates that the godly couple witnessed about Christ in the context of evangelism.
In short, all that happened in this passage of Scripture is that a married Christian couple witnessed Jesus Christ to a Jewish man from Alexandria. That’s all.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Church of England category.
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 