Posts Tagged god
The 500th Anniversary of Tyndale’s New Testament
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Bible translation, The Bible, William Tyndale on January 8, 2026
We are in a very unique era in the history of this world since this year marks the 500th Anniversary of the 1526 Tyndale New Testament.
In 2025 we saw the 500th anniversary of the 1525 version, and this year has enormous significance.
For those who may not know, William Tyndale (c 1494-1536) is a pioneer in the formation of the English language and in the translation of the Bible into English. The original 1st century apostles and gospel writers primarily wrote in Greek, with some texts being translated from Hebrew.
In 300 BC scholars from Alexandria translated the entire Old Testament into Greek and in the 4th century AD Jerome translated the New Testament into Latin.
Translation has been part of church history for centuries and is the key method by which we communicate with one another.
Tyndale was a genius and his translation work should be remembered forever. I love the Tyndale New Testament and I hope that heaven will hold them forever. Being able to read ancient English I don’t have any issues with using old English translations including the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva and King James versions.
The Tyndale New Testament has certainly impacted me very deeply, from those early days when I was studying for my degree and I first held an original 1538 print in John Rylands Library, to the days when I held a 1534 edition at Chetham’s Library to the days when I walked in the footsteps of Tyndale while visiting Oxford. These were golden days and my attachment to Tyndale goes beyond sentiment to the depths of the eternal truth he proclaimed, which cost him dearly.
This year yet again I hope to know more of Tyndale and be blessed by the reading of his translation of the word of God. May that be truly said of us, and all of us. In these dreary times of confusion and upheaval, may each one of us find solace and obedience in the personal revelation of Jesus Christ.
The real Virgin Mary was the Lord’s servant
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Census of Luke, Christmas, Christmas or Nisan, Theology on December 16, 2025
In J C. Ryle’s readings for advent, he chooses Luke 1: 34-38 for todays text. This text is about how the Virgin Mary received news that she would conceive by the Holy Spirit and give birth to a Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary responded to the angel, “Let it be to me according to your word.” (Luke 1: 38)
We see from this text that the Virgin Mary was a real servant of God and even though she knew what controversy would face her once news of her conception came about she obeyed the word of the Lord perfectly.
Ryle writes how this act did “present no small danger to Mary’s reputation and no small trial to Mary’s faith.” And when you consider the danger she would have to potentially face, it’s not difficult to understand why. Mary could have been stoned to death for conceiving outside of marriage. But we know, because of Scripture that Mary was indeed innocent and had not conceived outside of wedlock (Luke 1: 34). Mary was a Virgin and betrothed to Joseph who only knew her intimately after Jesus was born.
It is here in these passages where we see the true Virgin Mary, not the false version worshipped by the Roman Catholic Church as mediator. Mary points us to Christ she does not replace Him or cause us to pray to her in order to get to Jesus. Mary is no mediator. There is only one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2: 5)
A number of years ago a scholar claimed that the nativity account in Luke’s gospel contains feminine uses of Greek. This implies that the words contained in these few verses in Luke are the actual eyewitness testimony of Mary herself, incorporated into the gospel by Luke. This little known observation can inspire us all to know that Scripture is reliable and trustworthy.
Our society seeks to play down Scripture and inspire people to doubt what is written, but no one need let this happen. The Bible is true and historically accurate and the more people believe by faith, the stronger your belief will be.
Please don’t be fooled by Roman Catholicism or her prophets and proponents. If you want to find the true Mary don’t pray to her, read Scripture and her own words.
Believe the Bible this day and trust in Jesus Christ till the end of your life and He will never leave you or forsake you. Amen.
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.
The second coming of the King of kings, Advent reflections with J C Ryle and Matthew 24: 29-35
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, Christmas, Eschatology, Theology on December 1, 2025
I have begun the reading of a book “The Coming King” – 25 Readings For Advent with J. C. Ryle.
Ryle was Bishop of Liverpool between 1880 and 1900 and the readings are taken from his Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, some of the best commentaries available today.
In this part he deals with “our Lord’s prophecy” from Matthew 24: 29-35 where Christ describes His own second coming. In this passage we are told that Jesus will return with great power and glory quite different to His first appearing. During His incarnation Jesus was a man of sorrows (Isaiah 53: 3) He was not some ordinary joker Man who talked a lot, and blended in, He was a quiet Man and when He spoke He spoke with power and authority. If He did speak all the time, His words would not carry the same weight, yet His words were like no other, they had weight and strength. No one ever spoke like this Man. Even the authorities could hardly refute Him, even though they tried. He was the King of kings and Lord of lords, and no one had authority over Him unless it was granted by the Father.
When He was born, He was born humbly, among the lambs reared to be offered in the temple sacrifices. As He grew, He grew in favour with both God and man, yet He took on the form of a servant, rejected by mankind. Betrayed by his friend and condemned to death of a cross. Yet it did not end there, if it did, faith would be worthless and in vain. No, Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven where He reigns forever more. We do not need to wait for His return to know that He reigns, He is reigning now from heaven. We do not need to wait for some futuristic kingdom to take place on earth when He returns to Jerusalem, He is reigning now from heaven on the throne of David. And one fine day He will return and men will receive the fulness of eternal life or the sentence of eternal death.
Remember this, lest you live a pointless and meaningless life. There will be no escape from anything when He returns. There will be no opportunity for people to change their minds and believe once He returns. It will be the end. No thousand year reign. No second chance. No scoffing at Him. He will return to this earth when you least expect and no one will escape Him. He will not be the same as He was at His first coming, He will not be the Jesus people mock and blaspheme, and think they can walk all over, He will be returning with all His power and glory in the clouds of heaven, and no eye will be able to escape from Him. No ear will be unable to listen to Him. No sin will be left uncovered. No one will be able to escape. It will be the end.
What a terrible day that will be.
I wonder where you will be on that day? Will you be preaching, only to find yourself lost without salvation? Will you be drinking, only to find yourself thirsty? Will you be walking only to find yourself on your knees? It doesn’t have to be that way, you can pray. You can receive Christ at any moment of the day. You don’t need a priest, He is our priest. You don’t need a pastor, prophet, or pope or mediator, Jesus is our Mediator. All you need to do is pray and receive Him and you too will be given the gift of eternal life in the arms of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Examine yourself whether you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13: 5) Evaluate your beliefs. Consider your actions, and see if they line up with the gospel. Test your faith and yourselves, and keep awake, so that when Christ returns, He will not find you sleeping.
Is Jeremiah 10: 1-10 about the Christmas tree?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christmas, Christmas or Nisan on November 27, 2025
A number of years ago I wrote an article about Martin Luther and the Christmas tree. In this post I mention how some believers have claimed that the prophet Jeremiah wrote against the use of Christmas trees in Jeremiah 10: 1-10. I wrote “I doubt that the text is speaking of anything like that, for the context of Jeremiah’s passage speaks more against the idol worship that then existed and cannot rightly be connected to a mere celebration of Christmas which did not begin until many centuries later.”
In this post I would like to share a little more information on that claim.
Jeremiah’s ministry took place between 627 B.C. until the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. He is my favourite Old Testament prophet. I see Christ in him. He was accused wrongly, as was Christ, he was tried, persecuted and imprisoned because of the things he said. Like Christ he also foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Jeremiah 22: 5-7, Matthew 23: 37-39) and was rejected by his own people.
The book of Jeremiah was essentially written about 605 B.C. and chapter 1 describes his call, chapter 2 describes his call for Israel to repent, chapter describes their unfaithfulness, in chapter 4 he calls Israel to return to God, in chapter 5 the sins of Jerusalem and Judah are exposed, while chapter 6 speaks about the siege of Jerusalem and in chapter 7 Jeremiah preaches. You can at times hear his voice and his sorrow. As Jerusalem cries out for help (chapter 9) and in chapter 10: 1 Jeremiah calls on ancient Israel to “Hear the word which the Lord speaketh unto you” meaning them, his original audience.
I am struck by some words in the footnotes of my dad’s Thompsons Chain Reference Study Bible relating to “Palm-trees” and “Idol Making“. My dad used to preach from this Bible. In it Jeremiah speaks against people cutting down a tree in a forest and then they deck it with silver and gold, fastening it with nails so that it won’t move (Jeremiah 10: 3-4) But then in verse 5 we read about these palm trees. The prophet writes the “customs of the people are vain” meaning they are founded upon nonsense, idolatry and folly. Jeremiah ridicules them. The people must have been nailing these trees to a pedestal or a pillar. All the while Jeremiah is speaking from the living God but these people were making dumb idols out of palm trees and fastening them up like pillars.
Calvin comments “We now see what the Prophet meant to teach us, – that the wisdom of the Chaldeans, and also of the Egyptians, was celebrated throughout the world, and also so blinded the Jews, or so enraptured them...” (Calvin’s Commentaries on Jeremiah, Chap. X. 4, 5)
Here we do not see Jeremiah speaking against Christmas trees put up to remember Jesus Christ, the light of the world, we see ancient Israel following the ways of the Egyptians from whom GOD had delivered them from in the Exodus. But never the less, they are returning to the ways of the world and not continuing on in the ways of the Lord.
It is true that people can make gods of anything, be it wood or stone. But for people to remember and honour the birth of Christ by placing up a work of art in the form of a Christmas tree is in no way spoken against by Jeremiah.
If you in your heart are honouring Christ and remembering His birth then your Christmas tree is very right and proper, and in no way spoken against by the prophet Jeremiah. Remember that when Jesus was hailed as king the people honoured Him with palm trees (John 12: 13). This was a symbolic act and the gospels do not speak against that. So again, if you are honouring Christ and are not bowing down to a Christmas tree or worshipping it as a god, then you are doing nothing wrong.
Jeremiah 10: 1-10 is nothing to do with the Christmas tree.
“Dispensationalism Exposed” Revealing the Bad Fruit: book review part 1
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Eschatology, Theology on November 19, 2025
Last month while reflecting on bygone eras of my church life, I was rummaging through some second hand books and I happened upon a book entitled “Dispensationalism Exposed” by Dale A. Albertson. I didn’t know anything about the author but I noticed the book was self published so it was right up my street.
I have a history with Premillennialism, from my early days where the theory was projected at me, to my more recent days when this happening reoccurred. I have a distinct distaste for Premillennialism and so often it is difficult to find folks who think alike. Thankfully Dispensationalism is not a big issue in UK churches, but for many people, especially American Christians, Premillennialism is nothing more than Scripture itself.
But now things have changed. More and more people are realising that it ain’t necessarily so. Premillennialism is not the only interpretation of Matthew 24 or the Book of Revelation. But the problem for some believers are, that other views are rarely presented. At least in some circles.
So, I bought the book and I have found it to be a pleasant surprise. In it, the author presents his arguments against dispensationalism and argues the doctrine is distructive and in many cases, harmful. Dispensationalism prevents people from trying to make our world a better place, it often denies the reality of what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24, and it creates unnessesary division and is not accurate to the early church.
The author focuses upon the 1,000 year reign of Christ and His saints and the events of AD 70 when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed by the Romans. Yet Premillennialists often ignore what Josephus documented and prefer to promote various rapture theories as though Matthew 24: 40 refers to an event way off in the future. It does not, Jesus was talking about the Roman armies taking people into captivity when Jerusalem was about to be destroyed and it all goes back to the writings of John Nelson Darby and his incorrect hermeneutics. The Olivet discourse and a majority of the book of Revelation are all about the past, not the future.
Dispensationalism has a dark side, the author argues, “and its bad fruit” has a “negative impact-on the world today”. “Dispensationalism is a very new doctrine in the scope of church history,” the author argues, dating to the 19th century and the “Plymouth Brethren minister” (P. 12). Spurgeon was a “well-known vocal critic of Darby” the author exclaims. Darby’s ideas where adapted from Edward Irving (1792-1834) a clergyman in the Church of Scotland and Darby’s influence spread through seminaries of Europe and his tours of the United States.
Dispensationalism brings about the practice of “separatism” and causes people to fail in working towards change in our world because according to them, the decline of society and church is all part of the unfulfilled prophecies of Scripture. I have been making this point for years. I argue that the powers that be use Premillennialism as a gateway to disencourage Christians to make changes in our world, because when Dispensationalism is believed, the bad events of our day and age are all foretold.
“The indoctrination of Dispensationalism is now nearly universal in America.” and “Dispensationalism is considered unassailable by the majority of Christians in America” and “those who disagree have been called heretics,”. (P. 25)
I can relate to those claims, since one man attempted to assassinate my refutation of Premillennialism by claiming that I was denying the second coming of Christ. So for me, since Premillennialists often ignore and overlook the writings of Josephus, you can see why the real historical events of Matthew 24 are unknown to them. Because of this I think many American Dispensationalists are ‘Nuda scriptura’ rather than ‘Sola scriptura’. Personally I am Sola scriptura a position which allows for other historical sources to help us rightly divide the word of truth.
Premillennialism does not rightly divide the word of truth since it fails to recognise that a literal-historical hermeneutic of Matthew 24 would reveal that Jesus was warning His 1st century listeners about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, by the Roman armies under Titus. A fact which according to the author “Dispensationalism must (mostly) deny in order to justify its alternative interpretation of the great tribulation.” (P. 31)
The author continues on to argue that Dispensationalism is so bad an idea that even sceptics and Muslims use it to argue that the prophecies of Jesus were not fulfilled, then there is the credulous nature of the support for the rapture doctrine, and the secret rapture of the church, a position that the author rightly argues “is not found anywhere in scripture.” (P. 46)
Amen to that. Absolutely.
If you are looking for a good book to read over Christmas or the new year, you should get yourself a copy of this book. Self published works can oftentimes be great reads.
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
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 Romans 16: 7 say Junia was an apostle?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, The Bible, Theology on August 28, 2025
In my previous article I mention why Phoebe of Romans 16: 9 was not a deacon of the church in the sense of being a minister or preacher. Phoebe delivered a letter of Paul, and was a servant, and nothing more should be made of that.
In this article however I am continuing to explore the claims of revisionists who argue in favour of female leadership and I will show that Scripture does not affirm female leadership in the Christian church.
On Sunday I attended a CofE church and it was very unbalanced, women were leading the whole service, and there was hardly a male leader in sight. This is very unscriptural and leaves nothing for men who seek a male minister to talk to. Not only are there female reverends but female bishops too and there is not a single Scripture to support this. However, revisionists like to use Romans 16: 7 to claim that Junia (a woman mentioned by Paul) was an apostle.
Paul writes,
“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” (Romans 16: 7)
In order to understand the Scripture we need to get behind the text and understand it from a contextual viewpoint. Here it is important to acknowledge that as with Paul’s reference to Phoebe (verse 1) the apostle is writing to a house church in Rome. We know this because in verse 5 Paul references the congregation that met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila. Interestingly enough Paul speaks about the congregation not the place they assembled in, and since Paul previously mentions “Priscilla and Aquila” who were a married couple, it is probable that “Andronicus and Junia”were a married couple also. Ancient Christians recognised that Junia was a woman, however very little else is known about her. However modern revisionists like to boldly claim that Junia was an apostle yet there is not a scrap of evidence to re-enforce that claim. In all probability Junia was simply the wife of Andronicus and the both of them were known by the apostles.
When Paul wrote about “Andronicus and Junia” he used the term “my countrymen” or kinsmen. Paul uses this term elsewhere in Romans 9: 3 and this is within the context of fellow Jew’s so it is likely that Junia was Jewish or even a relative of the apostle. This is where the rubber hits the road, there is no way any Jewish woman could be regarded as an apostle in the 1st century.
When Paul writes Andronicus and Junia “are of note among the apostles” he is merely saying they were known by the apostles. Paul’s proceeding words affirm this when he says “who also were in Christ before me.” Here Paul is saying that they had been Christians longer than he had, and in order for a person to have been an apostle that person had to have known Christ and witnessed His resurrection (Acts 1: 21, 22, Luke 24: 48) and we have no record whatsoever of Junia witnessing that.
Commenting on this passage Albert Barns writes,
“it by no means implies that they were apostles All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before “he” was himself converted. They had been converted “before” he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honored with the friendship of the other apostles.”
This view is entirely consistent with Scripture and is contrary to the false claims of revisionists who claim Junia was an apostle.
Once again, there is no evidence for female church leadership in the Bible.
Will the next Archbishop of Canterbury be a woman?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, Reform, Theology on July 25, 2025
It has been six years now since I returned to the Church of England and during that time I have witnessed a very controversial era within the history of Anglicanism.
In February 2023 a majority of the synod chose to pass the unorthodox motions of the liberal revisionist bishops concerning the blessings of ‘same-sex unions’.
Since then the CofE has remained divided.
Personally I have been through great turmoil being in this denomination. Being very fond of the history of the Church of England, the early English Bibles, the Book of Common Prayer, the great hymns and the lives of the 16th century reformers who were ministers within the Church of England, there is no doubt to me that the present CofE (on the whole) is no longer the same church. After years and years of revisionist liberalism, scandals and corruption, each moment has slowly demolished the denomination brick by brick, and it seems likely that we yet again face another bigger problem that will not go away.
For the first time in history, the next archbishop of Canterbury could be a woman. With very few conservative evangelicals disagreeing with women leadership, it appears that many could embrace this choice and few will oppose it.
This could be an even bigger problem than upholding a Biblical view of marriage.
The reason I say this is because the Biblical view of marriage is plain and obvious. All religions generally agree that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. However when it comes to the issue of women leadership, even the conservative evangelicals have gone astray and many have played the hypocrite by embracing woman bishops who agree with traditional marriage, to their own advantage.
I say this because conservative evangelicals (within the CofE) speak against the liberal bishops and the synod for going against Scripture concerning ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘the blessing of same-sex unions’ yet they themselves go against Scripture when they embrace and promote female leaders.
Yet the Bible does not support female leadership and in the New Testament there are no female leaders in the Christian church. Yet revisionists pull out text after text and radically re-interpret them and the CofE embraces their claims because fewer and fewer men are putting themselves forward for ministry. So they play a legal game and use the Scriptures to create loopholes that allow for women to become curates, vicars and bishops. Pheobe was a Deacon they say, Priscilla was a co-leader, they say and apparently Junia was an apostle. It’s absolute nonsense.
The reality is that Pheobe (Romans 16: 1) was just a servant of the church who delivered a letter and judging by the context Pheobe was probably the widow of a deacon. Priscilla was simply the wife of Aquilla they had a church in their house (1 Corinthians 16: 19) so that doesn’t prove she was a leader, and Junia was known by the apostles, (Romans 16: 7) and there is nothing in Paul’s text to say that Junia was an apostle. Thus, despite the revisionists claims, these verses do not affirm woman leadership at all and in reality if Paul did affirm female leadership he would be totally contradicting himself.
On the contrary, Paul does not contradict himself and a majority of the Bible is crystal clear that leadership in the Christian church is reserved for men. If you don’t believe me ask yourself why Jesus chose twelve men to be His disciples and then read Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus. Read them for yourselves and let the Bible speak. Don’t turn to revisionist teachers who promote their agendas and use you as tools for their rhetoric. Paul is very clear to Timothy that the reason men alone are to be leaders in the Church is because man was formed first then Eve and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression (1 Timothy 2: 13-14)
It is clear from 2 Corinthians 11: 3 that Paul was afraid that as the devil deceived Eve so also the Christians in Corinth would also be led astray by the same cunningness. Now imagine what St. Paul would say if he was writing to the Church of England today. They would probably reject his initial application for ministry and try and indoctrinate him with a series of sermons led by woman curates and liberal vicars and then hope and pray that he changes his mind when they’ve finished.
In Colossians 1: 18 Paul explicitly states that Christ is the head of the church and as far as I am concerned if Christ is not the head of this church then the body does not belong to Him.
Since the CofE has been attempting to liberalise practically every Biblical viewpoint in history and distance itself from the great reformers of the past, it has been anything but stable and I think their decision to make woman leaders will eventually be their ultimate downfall. Whether the decision to make the Archbishop of Canterbury a woman comes into effect this year or the next time around, it is only a matter of time before we witness yet again another great apostasy within the CofE.
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 