Kos and the Gospel according to St.Luke trailer
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Documentaries, The Bible on January 8, 2016
Jesus the “Son of David” and heir to the throne of Israel
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Theology on December 11, 2015
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7: 14
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has been controversial topic for centuries. In the 2nd century, a Greek philosopher and a critique of Christianity named Celsus, claimed that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera. This claim has sparked debate that Mary was the victim of a rape and that Jesus was the product of that. But the story has very little historic backbone to it.
In 1952, a Bible translation called the Revised Standard Version was published. This translation rendered “a virgin” of Isaiah 7: 14 as “young woman”.
The translation appeared to be in direct contrast to the KJV and caused considerable controversy in its day and gave zest to the King James only movement. One of the arguments presented by critics of the RSV was that the rendering of ‘a virgin’ could be traced back to the oldest translation of the Old Testament known to exist. This translation is the Septuagint (LXX) and is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating to the 3rd century BC.
likewise, we know the early Church believed Isaiah 7: 14 meant ‘a virgin’ since the ancient Apostles creed, puts the miracle of the Virgin birth this way:
- “Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.”
The problem is that in the RSV, the text of Isaiah can be read to deny the virgin birth, however, Luke’s gospel according to the RSV may not appear to deny the virgin birth, since the claims are quite clear by exposition.
However, for many people today, the virgin birth is about as real as Rudolf pulling Santa’s sleigh, yet these views are nothing new. In fact, when we read the New Testament, we see Joseph and Mary wrestling a little with it too.
In Matthew 1: 20 we read that Joseph “thought about these things” and then had a dream. Clearly he was troubled by the situation and was logical, he must have thought Mary had been unfaithful to him and Matthew recorded that he planned to divorce her quietly (Matthew 1: 19). Likewise Mary’s response to the angel who told her she would give birth to a son was likewise logical and reasonable “how can this be, since I do not know a man” (Luke 1: 34. NKJV). The angel told Mary the miraculous conception would be of “the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1: 35. NKJV). Mary’s question was reasonable and shows that people can reason and ask questions concerning God and faith.
A question I often asked myself when I was a child was; why did the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel go to Joseph? And why do the genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ? Many years later, I learned there is a very distinct reason for the two genealogies. Matthew’s genealogy differs to Luke’s genealogy for very distinct reasons:
Matthew’s genealogy proceeds forwards from Abraham to Joseph. While Luke’s genealogy moves backwards from Jesus to Adam. Matthew’s genealogy represents the legitimate, legal, royal line unto Jesus’ legal father, as in stepfather, while the genealogy of Jesus recorded for us by Luke represents Mary’s lineage.
Matthew’s genealogy represents the legitimate, legal, royal line unto Jesus’ legal father, as in stepfather. The genealogy of Jesus recorded for us by Luke through Mary’s lineage. This connects all the way back to Adam, as needs must to connect Christ as direct decent from Adam that He in the likeness of flesh, might take upon Himself the sins of the world.
Research shows that King Jeconiah is mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy and thus reveals a very distinct reason for the virgin birth.
In Jeremiah 22: 30 the prophet wrote;
- “Thus says the Lord; Write this man down as childless, A man who shall prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.”
This is the reason why a virgin birth had to happen, because if Jesus had been the actual biological son of Joseph, then Jesus would have been part of this curse and thus could not be King of Israel.
If not for this curse, then Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather would have been the legitimate King of Israel. This is why the Angel referred to Joseph as “Joseph, thou son of David” Matthew 1: 20. The Angel did not refer to Joseph as ‘the’ Son of David, but ‘son of David’. Seventeen verses in the New Testament name Jesus as the Son of David and Matthew recorded that when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a Donkey, the people hailed “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 20: 9) Jesus the King was clearly next in line for the throne and Paul also affirmed this claim in Romans 1: 3, 2 Timothy 2: 8.
This curse written by the prophet Jeremiah did not come upon Mary or her descendants because she was not a descendant in the lineage of Jeconiah.
The people of ancient Jerusalem and the Babylonian Kings (the wise men) knew these things and this is why they asked:
- “Where is He who is born King of the Jews”. Matthew 2: 2
Jesus Christ crucified from a 19th century engraving © 2013/15 Simon Peter Sutherland
The claim to the throne of Jesus as the true King of Israel was known not only by the Jewish people, but by Greeks and by Romans. The Gospels record that the claim of Jesus as King was written by Pontius Pilate and placed upon Jesus’ cross.
- Matthew 27: 37 “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”
- Mark 15: 26 “The King of the Jews”
- Luke 23: 38 “This is the King of the Jews”
- John 19: 19 “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”
The claim of Jesus as King was written in “Greek, Latin and Hebrew” and in John 18: 34 Jesus questions Pilate on whether or not the claim that He Himself was King came from Pilate or from other people. “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”
That question should be asked by all of us; do we say things about Jesus because others tell us these things or do they come from ourselves? It must be a fact that since Christianity has impacted this world so strongly that every human being must at some point ask the question of who Jesus Christ truly was and is. If He was truly the Son of God, which I believe He was, then He is the most important person who has ever lived or ever will live. And if He wasn’t the Son of God then who was He and how strong a case can be assembled to make each and every individual wage eternity upon their answer?
I believe that Jesus was who He said He was and that is why I hold Him and His commands in such high royal esteem. I believe He is the only way to God and His miracles, healing’s and resurrection stand as firm proofs of that.
The question is; when He returns, will He take the throne in a literal sense?
Richard Baxter 400th anniversary 1615-2015
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, Theology on November 14, 2015
Richard Baxter © 2015 Simon Peter Sutherland
Thursday 12th November 2015 saw the 400th anniversary of 17th century Puritan Theologian, hymn writer and minister Richard Baxter.
Richard Baxter was born on 12th November 1615 and died 8th December 1691. He is famed for being minister at Kidderminster. He was a towering figure in the nonconformist movement. He lived through the English Civil war.
Richard Baxter Saint’s everlasting rest © 2015 Simon Peter Sutherland
He was a great Christian man and a true witness to the life of Christ. He wrote many books, which are still published even to this day and his work “the Saints everlasting rest” is one of my favoured works in all of Christianity.
Baxter interpreted Scripture that Christ died for ‘all mankind’ in the sense of Christ dying for sins, not only for the elect. The substitutionary atonement of Christ was available for all men in Adam, no one was excluded. The atonement was available for all who believe in Jesus Christ and that no man was excluded from believing in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
Baxter’s Theological position on the universal offering of salvation was not favoured by the majority Calvinists of his day and he ran into conflict with John Owen, the author of ‘the death of death in the death of Christ’. Owen believed that the sacrifice of Christ granted nothing for the none-elect and the doctrine of ‘double predestination’ was a logical conclusion to the doctrines of predestination, election and reprobation.
Baxter believed the doctrine of ‘limited atonement’ in the 5 point Calvinist sense, was inconsistent with the Bible and I agree with Baxter that Christ is available as Saviour for all mankind and I believe the Scriptures affirm this explicitly.
If I had only four books to choose from, my first would obviously be the King James Bible, then the Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis, the third would be the Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and my final would be “Saints everlasting rest” by Richard Baxter. My reason for these choices is that the Bible is the absolute measuring line and rule of faith and practice for any Christian: the ‘Imitation of Christ’ helps me with humility and devotion: The ‘Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’ offers remembrance of our own Christian history, showing us where we have come from proceeding the Apostolic era to the Reformation and the ‘Saints everlasting rest” shows me quite clearly where Christians are going.
When I read ‘Saints everlasting rest’ I look forward to heaven.
I am truly thankful to men like Richard Baxter who stood up for Biblical truth and fell out of favour with many for doing so and I am thankful to God for His outpouring of love upon His people, showing us time and time again the treasures and glorious future He has stored up for those who love Him.
New documentary on Kos and the Gospel ‘coming in 2016’
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Documentaries on November 10, 2015
Kos and the Gospel documentary with Simon Peter Sutherland © 2015
Bonfire reflections
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity on November 5, 2015
Prayer of thanksgiving from the Book of Common Prayer © 2015 Simon Peter Sutherland
Tonight being November 5th I attended a bonfire.
For those not familiar with English traditions; Bonfire Night is a tradition in Britain and cultural event where people gather around a large fire, eat toffee apples and treacle toffee and enjoy a display of fireworks.
Tonight I participated in this tradition at an even on the outskirts of Manchester. Walking toward the area I looked down over the bridge and the fire was lit and the people were all gathered around. Walking toward them and the fire, I looked around at everybody. People smiling, talking, drinking, eating.
When I arrived at the fire I felt myself moving toward the heat. I stood looking at the fire and I thought about the Christian martyrs from the earliest days of the Church to the Protestant Reformation. Suddenly my youngest son asked me ‘dad, is that what the fire was like when the burned George Marsh’. ‘Yes’ I replied, ‘and John Bradford’ Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and Tyndall. And people flocked to see them burn. To some it was entertainment, others watched in terror, some with Religious zeal, others believing they were doing the will of God via the Pope.
In ancient times the execution of a man could be local entertainment. In the 16th century people sold religious items and even prayers during executions. Even in the 19th century, an execution could prove commercial. One such example can be found in the history associated with Beaumaris Gaol in Wales. Here, people often rented out highly elevated rooms and put on entertainment when a convicted man was to be put to death. It shows that man is not good, his depravity can be switched around based upon the mainstream culture of the times.
Many people back in ancient times would not consider it immoral to watch an execution and even to make a bit of money off the event. Today, it is difficult to believe that any person could do such things and yet when it is all said and done, people and their outlooks are all too often the result of culture and influence.
Today in some circles, the word ‘martyr’ has merely took on another form. It communicates ‘death cults’. But in the ancient Christian history, the meaning of the word martyr has a whole different connotation. The early Christian and Reformation martyrs did not want to die, they were merely willing to die rather than deny what they believed to be true. There is a difference.
Gunpowder treason from the Book of Common Prayer © 2015 Simon Peter Sutherland
Tonight I looked around me and tried not to judge people, but I couldn’t help but reflect upon the sheer ignorance of a society that gathers around fires eating toffee apples and drinking drinks together without any discussion or meaningful understanding of what Bonfire Night means. For too many people, Bonfire Night has nothing whatsoever to do with Guy Fawkes and his failed attempt to undo the Protestant Reformation and return Britain once again to the religious bondages and totality of Roman Catholicism? On the contrary, it is merely a social event and just something people do to have a good time. Yet a sad reflection indeed is that November 5th was once a time of thanksgiving and prayer, where Christians thanked God for the deliverance of the Church and the nation from the bondage of Rome.
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’.
“Revealing the buried secrets of the Temple mount”
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical archaeology on September 3, 2015
Which Greek or King James New Testaments are you reading?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Bible translation on September 1, 2015
Holy Bible © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland
Many people today can go into a bookshop and buy a Greek New Testament. Many Christians or scholars do this and no doubt many consider that they now own the New Testament in the ‘original Greek’. However, this may be a misunderstanding.
If we look back to the 16th century, we see that there were many Greek and Latin New Testaments published during that century. For example, between 1516–1521, Erasmus published his Greek New Testament which he based upon the best available manuscripts of his day. In 1550, Stephanus published his Greek New Testament based upon the best available manuscripts of his day. In 1556, Theodore Beza published both a Greek New Testament and a Latin New Testament, again based upon the best available manuscripts of his day.
Contrary to what many believe or are told, the translators of the King James Bible did not exclusively use the ‘Textus Receptus’ by Erasmus. Research reveals that in many passages the King James Bible translators preferred the textual renderings of Stephanus’ 1550 Greek New Testament, and also Theodore Beza’s 1556 Latin New Testament. They also consulted the Latin Vulgate.
We know for certain that Tyndale used Erasmus’ Greek New Testament for his 1526 and 1534 New Testaments, and that the majority of the New Testament of the ‘original’ King James Bible was merely a revision of Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament. Likewise, in many ways the KJV was also a revision of the Geneva Bible. Yet even in that, many of today’s publications of the King James Version are not the original 1611 text.
One common mistake is the idea that the King James Version was not revised until 1881. This is simply untrue. The original translators of the King James Version wrote by hand and the original manuscripts had to be printed. Thus, the many printing errors happened and thus the KJV underwent many print revisions in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Research into many original prints of the KJV between 1611-1762 reveal a number of printing errors including the popular ‘Adultery Bible’ and the ‘Vinegar Bible’ yet it should also be noted that there are other Bibles too which also contain less harmful printing errors. Some of these errors can be found in ancient copies of the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible, some of them involving page numbers and scriptures written underneath engravings.
Perhaps more than that, there were some who disagreed entirely with the way the KJV translators rendered certain passages. One of the main 18th century revisions of the KJV was by Cambridge Bible scholar Dr. Francis Sawyer Parris (1707-1760), who’s work was included in the 1762 KJ revision based upon years of his work. In 1769 a revision was published which incorporated much of Paris’ work. His work remains in most King James Bible translations published today.
One of the noteworthy changes to the KJV can be found in Titus 2: 13. In the 1611 the text reads;
- “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
The 1769 revision reads;
- “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
Note the removal of the comma after “God” and before “and our Saviour”, which I think puts more emphasis upon the Godhead and Deity of Jesus Christ.
With that line of thought in mind, many people are not actually reading the original 1611 King James Verse. However, here are some further following texts which may help identify which KJV a person is reading:
- Matthew 16: 16. “Thou art Christ” (1611) “Thou art the Christ (1762)
- Matthew 26: 75. “The words of Jesus” (1611) “The word of Jesus” (1762)
- John 15: 20. “The servant is not greater than the Lord” (1611) “The servant is not greater than his Lord” (1762)
Fair enough, the revisions made in the 17th -18th centuries do not appear to alter doctrine, but they were revisions none-the-less. And the 1769 revision arguably enhances the proclamation of the Deity of Jesus, and the doctrine of the Godhead (Trinity).
Likewise it is not only so with the KJV but revisions also took place with publications of various Greek New Testaments. These revisions include the Textus Receptus and Stephanus and even the Latin Vulgate.
Today, if a person were to purchase a 19th century print of the Greek New Testament by Stephanus, it is likely that they would be getting a re-worked version of Stephanus’s 1551 NT which had been updated and altered by a man named John Mill. This is often referred to as ‘Mill’s text’.
John Mill (1645-1707) was an English Theologian and Oxford scholar who worked on the Greek New Testament based upon around 100 or so manuscripts. He also claimed to have found “30,000 discrepancies”.
Thus, it is likely that if a person has a Stephanus’ GNT according to ‘Mill’s text’ it will not be the original text of Stephanus’ 1550.
This can also be the case with the Latin Vulgate or Biblia Sacra, which is often the edition of the Vulgate published under Pope Clement V111.
The probable facts are that unless a person acquires an actual original print or facsimile of either Erasmus, Stephanus, or possible Beza, the person will not be getting the actual original desired work, but a text which has been altered, or updated in later centuries. Facsimiles or original prints are the best.
William Salesbury, Welsh Bible documentary
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Bible translation, Documentaries on August 12, 2015
William Salesbury documentary © 2016 Simon Peter Sutherland
Over the past two – three years, I have been sporadically presenting and producing a documentary on Welsh Bible translator William Salesbury.
Salesbury was born c 1520 in Llansannan, Wales. He was educated at Llanrwst and Oxford and spent time in London where he became involved with the printing press. However, during the reign of Mary Tudor (1553-1558) he returned to Wales and went into hiding. Upon the accession of Elizabeth 1 Salesbury appealed to Parliament to translate and publish the New Testament. He was granted his request and he became the first person to translate the New Testament into the language of Welsh.
Salesbury was a mysterious character, who suffered for the faith and although many aspects of his life remain unknown, it is the legacy of the man which is arguably of the greatest interest. From my perspective, researching ancient Welsh, Latin and English Bibles is always a joy, and travelling hundreds of miles around the beautiful countryside of North Wales, and the great cities of England, in the footsteps of the 16th century Linguistic Reformed Scholar has been an intriguing adventure.
The documentary will be released in the future. Keep posted!
George Marsh 500th anniversary sermon now on YouTube
Posted by simon peter sutherland in 500th Anniversaries, Martyr George Marsh on July 27, 2015
Church of England and the consecration of women bishops
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Issues with Christianity in England today on July 10, 2015
York Minister © 2015 Simon Peter Sutherland
Church leadership for women is changing. What with female activists and activist goals, the culture has been shifted by the media and many people have been persuaded by rhetorical speeches and sensuality. On 3rd July 2015 a second woman bishop was consecrated at York Minster. The Church of England remains divided upon this ‘unbiblical’ practice and during the consecration at York Minster, the Rev Stephen Holland Protested, walking through the Minster calling for the “Church of England” to “return to the Bible”. The Rev Holland is not an Anglican minister but there are many within the Church who disagree with the way things are going.
Since the 4th century AD to the 19th and 20th centuries, the Bible has been the dominant book of Western society, and in some sense, it still is. The relationship, which could be likened to a marriage between the West and the Bible has been interrupted by the gradual appearance of another lady. Society has become like a man who wants to keep parts of his wife while embracing the fancies of his sensuality. The situation we face today in the Church of England is a political structure which is attempting to re-define the Church in order to keep itself alive and financially secure. In doing this it ignores the Bible when it contradicts the liberal and feminist agenda, and merely re-interprets the rest to fit with changing times.
Closed Church door © 2014 Simon Peter Sutherland
The door is closed to the polemical position of women bishops. The majority C of E elite recognize Ecclesiastical history but merely look upon it as past, and claim ‘we need to move on from that now’. The problem is however, people can’t change things when there is no backbone to keep standing upright to witness the fall.
In 2008 a published study claimed that should the current decline of Anglican congregations continue, by 2050 Sunday service attendance could fall to 87,800. This seems to me the motive behind the current winds of change. By using the influence of historically significant and controversial changes and twisting them to suite the current agenda’s, the Church of England has merely lowered itself from integrity to rhetorical intellectual dishonesty. Repeatedly we hear the intellectually dishonest claims that modern liberation movements are mere continuations of great historic works such as ‘the Abolition of the Slave trade’ and those who oppose them are merely the same ‘sort’ as those who opposed freedom back then.
Intellectual dishonesty is not the way forward if you are in the right!
The facts remain that some of the greatest works the West has ever known have been established by fundamentalist Christians. And the establishment of the Church of England would do better to hold fast to its long standing historical tradition, than to have tasted Truth and turned its back upon it.
The very reason the 19th – 21st century decline of the Anglicanism came about was because of the spread of liberalism. A movement which dramatically failed to bring about evangelism to the salvation of souls thus giving people a reason to go to Church. Thus, the Church of England was swept away into irrelevance. Biblical Christians either attending or moving on to other more Biblically loyal Denominations, thus understandably bringing about more divisions for which they are not responsible.
Jesus’ command was for His disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations” not mere Church goers. The true soul winning Church has historically been anything but liberal. In fact, the Church of England was founded by people who would now be labelled ‘fanatical fundamentalists’.
The establishment of the Church of England dates back to the 6th century and was led by Augustine of Canterbury and in the 16th century when the Church broke from Rome, could either of these these foundations have been laid by anyone but ‘fanatical fundamentalists’? The facts remain that this establishment was once grounded upon the Biblical text and the historic writings of the Church fathers and ecclesiastical creeds and devout evangelical Christianity. Fair enough the Church of England/Anglican Church has many Godly people within it and has many devout Christian bishops and because of this the Church is divided on issues such as women bishops, but today, it seems that the elite ‘society for the prevention of Christianity’ has become so liberal and politically motivated, that the liberal lobby have trampled upon 2000 years worth of Ecclesiastical history and even Cannon Law. Thus making the present Church of England either irrelevant or illegitimate and guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Cannon Law reads like so;
- “The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in the teaching of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church, and is particularly contained in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” (The Cannon Law of the Church of England. Of the Doctrine of the Church of England. V)
The Holy Scriptures read like so;
- “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity…(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Timothy 3: 2-5)
- “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” 1 Timothy 2: 11
- “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2: 12)
- “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” 1 Corinthians 14: 34
The writings of the Church fathers states the following;
- “Even if it is granted to a woman to show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. When Miriam the prophetess spoke, she was leading a choir of women … For [as Paul declares] “I do not permit a woman to teach,” and even less “to tell a man what to do.” (Origen, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios)
- “It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office.” (Tertullian. On the Veiling of Virgins. 2nd century)
Finally the 39 Articles states the following;
- “And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” (39 Articles of Religion. Article XX. OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH)
What has become clear today is that we are living in strange times. The Church has become like the world and seeking to appeal to it, which is contrary to Scripture (Romans 12: 2) But where does that leave the Church of England? In light of Scripture she paints a very bad picture of herself. As Thomas Cranmer once wrote;
- “But if the church proceed further to make any article of the faith, beside the Scripture, or direct not the form of life according to the same; then it is not the pillar of the truth, nor the church of Christ, but the synagogue of Satan, and the temple of antichrist which both erreth itself, and bringeth into error as many as do follow it.” (Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Works of Archbishop Cranmer, Parker Society I, p 377)
So what I ask is where does this historical yet eternal reality leave the Church of England? What of our modern liberal bishops who have choked the breath of historic reliability? I can understand that some bishops are genuinely working for the survival of the Church, but they are going about it the wrong way. It was Jesus Himself who said “I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. If the bishops were willing to submit to Scripture then Jesus would draw His flock to Shepherds true to His word. But in reality, too many bishops are not going to change for they are not willing. They have set themselves up as rulers and gods. They are not following any measuring line but their own ideas. The argument is not even about Scripture anymore, it has gone beyond that. They merely use Scripture to promote their own agendas. So in reality, there can be no way forward but to outnumber the liberals and win back the majority. In doing that, there needs to be an outpouring of true evangelism throughout Britain and the unbreakable power of the Holy Spirit. Then and only then will the Church be returned back to the truth, when Christians, not political spin doctors, are in the pulpits.
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 