Posts Tagged Jesus
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.
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.
Does Romans 16: 1-2 say Phoebe was a minister?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on August 23, 2025
Throughout Christianity today we see many Christian’s believing that women can be leaders in the church. Although a number of Scriptures are used to argue that point, some don’t even want to discuss the subject. They say female leadership is now established and it’s a secondary issue. We need to lay aside our differences and work together for the cause of the gospel.
But I can’t do that. I do not believe the idea of women in leadership is Biblical or a secondary issue. The New Testament is clear on the matter and I have not been persuaded to believe otherwise. In the Bible God always chose men to be religious leaders. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Peter, James, John, Paul, Barnabus, Timothy and Titus were all men chosen by God. In order for a woman to be a minister, she too would have to be chosen by God and we do not find that in Scripture.
Yet today many leaders claim the church has been wrong for 2000 years and they seem to pull New Testament passages out of thin air to support their weak claim of women leadership.
Now before I continue, I want to clarify that I am not writing against women leaders in a secular sense, neither am I supporting misogyny I am talking purely about church leadership, ministry and preaching within the complimentarian perspective. The opposite viewpoint does not agree with the Bible so it seeks to revise it to make the church fit in with a changing world. The Church of England is one such establishment. Revisionists make claim upon claim and hardly any of them are legitimate.
One such claim primarily begins with a 1st century woman by the name of Phoebe, who revisionists claim was a deacon in office in the early apostolic church. Yet very little is known about her and the singular reference does not provide enough certainty to make such a significant claim. All we have are two verses.
St. Paul writes,
“I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and myself also.” (Romans 16: 1-2. NKJV)
According to some, Phoebe is described by Paul as a deaconess and in a regular order which implies she held the office of leadership in the church at Cenchrea. This I argue is a false claim and unsupported by Scripture. Let me show you why.
Firstly, in the Epistle to the Romans the apostle was not speaking to a modern 21st century church, neither was he writing to the church where Phoebe was from, he was writing to a congregation in Rome (Romans 1: 7). This congregation probably met in a Roman house church and Paul “commends” Phoebe to them. This act of commending someone is significant and should not be overlooked. In 2 Corinthians 3: 11 Paul uses the same custom of commendation, but if Phoebe was already known for being in office as a deacon Paul would not need to commend her. The very fact that Paul commended her implies that she was not acquainted with the congregation at Rome, or she would have already be assumed a deacon by them. This implies that Paul’s request to make her welcome was that the Roman Christian’s would receive her, why? Why would he need to make such a request if she was already a known preacher and teacher?
Paul follows this important point by using the word “servant” “diakonos” which does mean deacon and can also mean “to run on errands” (G1249 Strongs) This word is used in a variety of places in the New Testament and is used in around thirty contexts, including John 2: 5 where Mary (the mother of Jesus) calls for the servants. The greek word used in John 2: 5 is also “diakonos” yet the servants mentioned in this passage were not leaders in the church, they were simply servants. John also uses this word in 2: 9.
Likewise, we also find “diakonos” in Matthew 22: 13, which does not imply a position of leadership. This means that New Testament Greek has a limited vocabulary that uses words in a broad spectrum.
When Paul refers to deacons in office he does not always use ‘diakonos‘ but rather“diakoneo” (G1247 Strongs) which means a minister, or teacher or a deacon in office. When Paul uses “diakonos” he places deacons and bishops in the same sentence (Philippians 1: 1) and makes it very clear that deacons are to be the husbands of one wife (Timothy 3: 12) thus, if he was affirming that Phoebe was a deacon in office he would be totally contradicting himself. There is no way that Phoebe could be the husband of one wife.
When Paul uses diakonos in Romans 16: 1-2 he is simply presenting a position compatible with a ‘complimentarian view’ teaching that some women in the apostolic church were appointed to visit the sick, mainly women, and to help out. Paul is not implying that women were to teach or have the pastoral office of a deacon. He is merely using a general word to communicate a servant of the church.
John Wesley in his commentary on this passage wrote this,
“In the apostolic age, some grave and pious women were appointed deaconesses in every church. It was their office, not to teach publicly, but to visit the sick, the women in particular, and to minister to them both in their temporal and spiritual necessities.”
Obviously modern churches can and do disagree with a correct understanding of Paul’s use of diakonos but people should also consider that if Scripture interprets Scripture Acts 6: 3 affirms how the apostles gave instruction for seven men to be chosen as deacons, not seven women. The Biblical criteria is very clear and although many are now persuaded against this, the institution of women leaders in the church is just one of many signs of national apostasy and these revisions have caused the very foundations of church leadership to be weakened.
In Romans 19: 2 Paul affirms that the people of Rome should “assist her (Phoebe) in whatever business she has need of you”. The Greek word translated “business” (G4229) is used 11 times in the New Testament and does not mean preaching or teaching, it only means a task or a legal process. In fact Paul mentions nothing about Phoebe teaching or preaching but rather that she has helped many people including himself. This is within the context of a servant to run on errands or have some kind of business to attend to rather than an ordained ministry of preaching and teaching. If Phoebe were to be here today she would be a clerical worker in the church.
Thus, to claim Romans 16: 1-2 proves Phoebe was an acting deacon in office is a far fetched claim and makes the Bible out to be self contradictory. The Bible does not support the idea that Phoebe was a deacon in office, and if Scripture interprets Scripture Phoebe was merely a servant, and possibly the widow of a deacon. She helped many people and Paul out and delivered his letter, that’s all. There is no mention of preaching or teaching and certainly no hint whatsoever that any woman could be a bishop, archbishop or pastor.
I will address the other Scriptures in due course as time moves on.
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.
Martyr George Marsh 510th anniversary 2025
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, Martyr George Marsh, Reformation 2017 on June 26, 2025
2025 marks the 510th anniversary of the birth of Martyr George Marsh.
Marsh was born in Bolton, in 1515 into a family of farmers. He attended Deane Church and had a great zeal for Biblical faith and following the tragic death of his wife he became a curate in the Church of England. Serving under the reign of Edward V1 his ministry was grounded to a holt when the boy king died and Mary Tudor ascended to the throne.
Christians and leaders were hunted down and executed and on April 24th 1555 Marsh was burned alive in Boughton, Chester and his ashes were collected and laid to rest in a nearby leper colony.
His story was collected by John Foxe and included in the Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and his martyrdom became widely known for many centuries.
His story remains of significant importance since it continually reminds us of the evils of bad religion and extremism. Yet Christian’s are still persecuted around the world so mankind hasn’t properly learned the lesson yet. It is for this reason that we must never forget our own history and we must always be aware that religion in the wrong hands can be very dangerous, especially when people get hurt.
George Marsh was a good man, and the Church of England failed to protect and preserve him. They should have embraced his zeal and passion for the truth instead of falling headlong into the bondage of the Roman Catholic Church.
Contrary to popular beliefs Britain has gained an enormous benefit from the cause of the reformation, and I have covered these points in a previous article.
So let us remember George Marsh and the martyrs who gave their lives in the cause of truth.
Today a number of dedicated memorials can be found in his memory in Deane Church grounds, Smithills Hall, St John’s Cathedral and at the site of his execution in Boughton, Chester.
May the memory and legacy of Martyr George Marsh live long.
“From Obedience To Freedom” Out Now!
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Reform, The Bible, Theology on June 12, 2025
In my previous post I write about my new book on the Ten Commandments. In this book I explore the topic of the Ten Commandments from a New Testament perspective asking questions such as these: Have the Ten Commandments been abolished by the coming of Christ? Or are the two tablets mentioned in Exodus 20 the same as those found in Matthew 22: 37-40? If the answer is yes then there is no Biblical evidence to reject these commandments as irrelevant to the holy living of the Christian man.
In an original edition of this thesis, dating back to 2007, I had originally been inspired by an old Puritan book called The Ten Commandments by Thomas Watson. I loved reading the puritans back then.
Thomas Watson (1620-1686) was one of the most popular English preachers in London during the puritan era. I was certainly intrigued by this book during my earlier years of theological study. Since then however time moves on and my book has changed. It has gone through revision upon revision until I finally reached a point where I was ready to publish.
Obviously the topic is controversial on all sides. For some Christians there should be given no place whatsoever for any aspect of law in the Christian life. I disagree with that. Yet if that concept was true, then what are we left with in Christianity? Outright lawlessness or a life governed by obedience to Christ in faith. Surely there is nothing within any of the Ten Commandments to contradict what the New Testament says about holy living.
When I originally began to write this book I was much younger and I was very convicted within my soul and daily I yearned for more of Christ. My soul eagerly awaited the presence of my dear Lord and that passion can be caught within the pages of the book. However much has changed since then and I’m older. Nowadays I read Puritan books much less, however I have retained my passion for the writings of Richard Baxter. likewise the King James Bible remains my favourite translation. For this reason, I have continued to use the AV within the book and perhaps I’ll save the reasons why for some other post.
But in the meantime, I hope the Lord uses my book and that it inspires many believers to do right in the eyes of the Lord. We must love the commandments of our Lord and live them by faith in Christ. When we do this we will find inner freedom within the divine legislation.
I have experienced this freedom many times.
However, I am presently in the Church of England (in some sense) and I feel a continuous burden for the apostacy that is crippling it. Will I remain, and for how long I do not know? All I can say is that if there was ever a time for the Law of the Lord to be remembered and loved, that time is now.
The 500th Anniversary of the Tyndale New Testament
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, The Bible on March 10, 2025
2025 marks the 500th Anniversary of the very first Tyndale New Testament to have ever been published.
In 1524 William Tyndale had been self exiled from England where he headed for Germany and began translating his New Testament into English. It was there where Peter Quentell published his groundbreaking and monumental New Testament.
For those who may not know, William Tyndale (c 1494-1536) was an English priest and scholar and the very first person to translate the New Testament into English from the original Greek. Tyndale was educated at Oxford and Cambridge and became a chaplain in Little Sudbury. There he ran into conflict with a Roman Catholic priest and Tyndale left for London and eventually for Europe and Cologne. His aim of translating the New Testament into English was fulfilled in 1525 and 1526, and his greatest revision was accomplished in 1534. In 1536 he was executed for his faith in Vilvoorde. But his work did not end there. His translation became the bedrock of all English Bibles from the 16th century and even to the present day.
The Tyndale New Testament would impact, influence and formulate the English language more than any works of English literature apart from Shakespeare.
It is still quoted even today, and for many Christians around the world his work can be appreciated through his undeniable influence in the pages of the King James Bible. A staggering 93 per cent of the New Testament (in the KJV) is the work of Tyndale. The Old Testament is about 85 per cent.
Melvyn Bragg writes, “Shakespeare quotes from the Bible about 1,350 times. These quotations are from the Bibles he heard and read – the Great Bible, the Matthew Bible and probably the Geneva Bible – all of which were Tyndale in disguise.” (William Tyndale A very brief history. Melvyn Bragg. P. 89).
In 2017 I had the pleasure of meeting Melvyn Bragg and as he handed me a copy of his biography on William Tyndale I thanked him for his documentary on “The Most Dangerous Man in Tudor England”. This was an excellent film and the BBC would do well to broadcast it again this year for the anniversary.
Likewise churches up and down the country would do well to remember Tyndale this year and start using either his New Testament or the King James Version once again.
I am not a King James onlyist but I believe the Church of England made a big mistake when it removed the King James Version from all services. It makes no sense to me that such a great and monumental translation should be abandoned and replaced with the extremely inferior NIV translation. I believe the King James Version should be regularly used, even if for special occasions or seasons. And where has the abandonment of old English translations got the Church? It has fallen into disrepair and apostasy and utter chaos, and her identity is lost. No wonder, it is because they removed the great translation.
But let us ask, what version has translated Genesis 1: 1 better than Tyndale? Read for yourselves his opening lines,
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The world was void and empty; and darkness was upon the deep and the spirit of God moved upon the water.”
And who can forget the beauty of the Lords Prayer.
19th century English hymn discovered
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Hymns, Music, Theology on January 16, 2025
The tradition of composing Christian hymns goes back centuries and back in times of antiquity ministers of local churches actually wrote their own hymns for their own congregations. For example, John Newton wrote Amazing Grace while he was minister at Olney and that hymn was first sung in that place.
Such is the case with an original handwritten hymn I have discovered.
The hymn is written in English on a small piece of paper and dates to 1842 and likely originated in Wales. Written by a minister for Sunday school teachers the author based this hymn on John 21: 17 and 1 Corinthians 9: 27. The word “castaway” is used repeatedly in the hymn and is likely based upon the King James Version of Paul’s letter. In this Scripture the apostle advocates a strict subjection of his own body, lest after preaching to others he himself “should be a castaway”.
The sad reality is that this passage of Scripture has been abused. But such is not the case with this hymn. It is a sad reflection and is written out of deep concern, by a minister, for his Sunday school teachers. The Wesleyan interpretation of Scripture implies the hymn most likely has its origins in that denomination and it is not found in any Wesleyan hymn books. So it appears to have never been published. The hymn does not have a tune, which is normal since many hymns in those days did not have accompanying melodies. Many congregations used the popular tunes of the day to sing the words. Such would have been the case with this hymn.
I’ll post more about it as time goes on and research continues, but in the meantime, if anyone knows of any hymns from this era that contain references to 1 Corinthians 9: 27, please feel free to get in touch.
The Promise of God for all mankind
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Census of Luke, Christmas, Christmas or Nisan, Documentaries, Eschatology, Theology on December 18, 2024
Many years ago, when I was a boy, I was asked what my favourite New Testament Gospel was, and I replied “Luke’s Gospel”. For me, I think that claim still stands. The Gospel According to St. Luke is still my favourite of the four Gospels.
Luke’s Gospel gives us the greatest account of Christ’s birth. I say this because I believe chapters 1 & 2 contain the actual words of Mary herself given to St Luke. Luke’s Gospel gives us the reference to the census of Quirinus. I have discussed this census in a previous article showing that it may have been referenced in the Mausoleum of Augustus on the funerary Res Gestae Divi Augusti in Rome.
Luke was a very reliable historian as my documentaries have shown. In Kos and the Gospel According to St. Luke I demonstrate elements of his accuracy by visiting the Greek island of Kos and discuss how he interviewed surviving witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ. Luke references his accuracy himself in Luke 1: 1-4 and Luke’s desire was for the Roman official (Theophilus) “to “know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”
Luke follows up his Gospel with part two (Acts of the Apostles) and those who know it are assured of the certainty of the events that happened.
As previously mentioned “I believe chapters 1 & 2” of Luke’s Gospel “contain the actual words of Mary herself given to Luke.” The nativity account contains elements of feminine Greek and in Mary’s account of the angelic announcement of Christ’s birth the angel says to Mary “behold you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-32. NKJV)
This statement concerning the kingdom of Christ and Him being given the throne of David was not some reference to a futuristic kingdom that Jesus sets up when He returns to earth at the second coming. Luke tells us that this kingdom was established during the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and was revealed to the people of Judea and Jerusalem by St Peter in his sermon contained in Acts 2: 14-39.
In Acts 2: 30-31 Peter says “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sword with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he forseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption” and in verse 32 Peter states that the things which they saw when the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 1) is what they “now see and hear.”
The important point to note here is that the promise made to Mary in Luke 1: 32-33 has been fulfilled for all mankind. God in Christ Jesus has set up His kingdom and it has no end and as Peter stated to the people in Judea and Jerusalem, “the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2: 39)
This Christmas remember what Christ has done for us and for all mankind. Let us turn our backs upon the things of this world and whatever you do keep your eyes upon Christ, and know that He is our Saviour, and our God, if we believe in Him and receive forgiveness for our sins and make Him Lord of our lives.
I have written my first hymn
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Hymns, Music, Theology on July 30, 2024
For many years I have been a great lover of wonderful old hymns. Guide Me O, Thou Great Jehovah, The Day Thou Gavest, Lord, is ended and How Great Thou Art. All of these hymns have inspired me greatly throughout my life and I have been a worship leader a number of times and sung many great Christian worship songs.
Last year I read Keith and Kristyn Getty’s book “Sing” and it’s all about Christian music and the value of hymn writing. I was very motivated by this and while revisiting the Greek Island of Kos I wrote my first hymn.
Kos is very important to me as a Christian and I’ve made documentaries about it and explored St. Paul’s connection to the island (Acts 21: 1). It has been a long journey and this has contributed to my writing this song.
The hymn is not presently released but my wife and I have sung it. Jenny has been very instrumental in helping me make my documentaries and I’m very thankful to her and I have faith to believe that the Lord has given me this song as a nice gift and He will use it to His own glory and praise.
I believe the hymn will one day be a blessing to Christian’s everywhere, regardless of denomination or circumstances.
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 