In keeping with the journalistic tradition of looking back at the recent past, we present the top 50 stories of the year that were read on The Aquila Report site based on the number of hits. We will present the 50 stories in groups of 10 to run on five lists on consecutive days. Here are numbers 11-20.

In 2021 The Aquila Report (TAR) posted over 3,000 stories. At the end of each year we feature the top 50 stories that were read.
TAR posts 8 new stories each day, on a variety of subjects – all of which we trust are of interest to our readers. As a web magazine TAR is an aggregator of news and information that we believe will provide articles that will inform the church of current trends and movements within the church and culture.
In keeping with the journalistic tradition of looking back at the recent past, we present the top 50 stories of the year that were read on The Aquila Report site based on the number of hits. We will present the 50 stories in groups of 10 to run on five lists on consecutive days. Here are numbers 11-20:

Why I Oppose Mask Mandates

Churches should respect individual liberty by not regulating or restricting worship. Churches should neither forbid nor require masks. They should not forbid elderly people from attending service. They should not be paternalistic. They should treat people like responsible adults and trust them to make wise decisions. And through their preaching they should encourage members to do the same: to respect the decisions of others, whether to wear a mask or not, so that we might worship together in love and unity.

A New Organization: Alliance of Reformed Churches (ARC)

We are 3 months into this 18 month launch period (May 2021-December 2022) and some leaders have been asking for a brief blog that shares the scale of the Alliance of Reformed Churches activity in the first three months after staffing for growth.

A Single Woman’s Response to Greg Johnson

Christians ever identified themselves by inner desires?  Don’t we all experience a multitude of desires we deal with besides sexual ones?  As a single female Christian, it never occurred to me to identify myself related to any sexual desires.  I am not alone.  Among Christians, there are life-long single men and women, widowed men and women, divorced men and women, who have obeyed God’s commandments while remaining celibate during periods of their lives.  Furthermore, they never identified themselves by any desires they experienced during those same periods of their lives.

Dissenting Opinion On the SJC Decision In the Missouri Presbytery-Greg Johnson Case

In his arguments TE Johnson rests on appeals to his own authority, first as a same-sex attracted man, then as an academic, then as a theologian, and then as a minister. He communicates authoritatively and effectively, and he has clearly convinced many that his understanding of how God interacts with same-sex attracted people is the right one: God’s ability to change people affected by this particular sin is only a remote possibility and should not be held out as a realistic hope for Christians; it would be extremely rare that they might change.  There cannot be a more succinct denial of God’s power to sanctify.

A PCA Worth Having is a PCA Worth Fighting For

They would say it is because Scripture and the Westminster Standards support the idea that SSA is not a disqualification for a minister because SSA is not necessarily sinful, or at least that it is no more heinous than other sins. This is a theological difference. Unless the supporters of Revoice theology prove to have discovered a truth that has eluded the Reformed churches for the last 500 years, many reasonably suspect that the mission (reaching or transforming the culture) is shaping the message and doctrine.

15. A Clear Message from the 48th General Assembly of the PCA

Many men rightly pointed out that we’ve had people who mortify the lust of SSA for many years within the PCA. What doesn’t occur to them is that this is the first time this has come up as a controversy. Why? Because nobody, prior to a few years ago was saying and platforming that SSA is like the man born blind. No Presbytery was judging, until a few years ago, that an illicit desire is not sin itself until one actually lusts for it. Nobody, until years ago was not only adopting Roman Catholic views on sin but promoting conferences within our Churches that outsourced sanctification about a particular lust to a conference of notionally Reformed and other semi-Pelagian (including Roman Catholic) views on sanctification.

Did the Little Guy Really Win? – The 48th PCA General Assembly

There are enough loopholes in the proposed changes to continue to allow Side B Homosexuals to continue as officers in the PCA (or be admitted to the PCA).  All a man needs to do is to say that his identity in Christ is greater than his identity as a homosexual.  All he has to say is that he struggles with this sin, that he knows that some have been delivered from it, and that he wishes to make progress over this sin – but he has not.

Tears for the National Partnership™

There is a profound and disturbing conundrum humming in the background of these eight years and many emails: the secrecy of the majority. By repeated assertion and articulated reasoning, these emails show a small group of officers claiming to stand for the majority in our communion. Their discussion manifests a concern to ensure that the majority view in the denomination is not slighted by the vigorous efforts of minority positions– views purportedly unrepresentative of the majority among us.

First Presbyterian Church Session, Ft. Oglethorpe, GA, Report on the National Partnership

In response to questions regarding the pastor’s role in disseminating files associated with the National Partnership that had  previously been made public, Session was forced to consider the nature of those files before making any other determination. The report of that study is below.

The Definitive Meaning of Overture 23 Approved by the PCA GA

“Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.”

Gouge presented a remarkably insightful treatment of the beauty and glory of Christian marriage. His vision for matrimony was holistic and practical, yet very much centered around the Lord. Husbands and wives have different roles, but do not live on separate levels. Instead they live together as companions and coworkers for the glory of God, for the good of each other, and for the good of others, especially their children.

The Puritans often spoke of “duties,” and Gouge was no exception. By “duty” he did not mean something done out of mere obligation and without heartfelt joy. We must serve the Lord with gladness (Ps. 100:2). But the word duty does remind us that God’s will is not just a principle for successful living or personal fulfilment; it is God’s command and our responsibility. Like most Puritans, Gouge treated the duties of marriage in three sections: mutual duties, the husband’s duties, and the wife’s duties. The following four principles come from Gouge’s first section on mutual duties.
1. Guard the oneness of your marriage.
The Author of marriage is God, and by His ordinance He makes two people into “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Gouge called this “matrimonial unity,” and said that “they two who are thereby made one, [are] constantly to remain one, and not to make themselves two again.” He quoted 1 Corinthians 7:10–11: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”1
Husbands and wives should stay together, not only in the legal bond in marriage, but actually sharing life as they dwell together (1 Peter 3:7). At times, “weighty and urgent affairs” of church or state require absences, or one’s occupation takes one away on travels for a time. But such separations should be received with sadness, and the couple should quickly return to share the same home and the same bed. The first step to helping each other is being with each other.2
2. Enjoy the sexual purity of your marriage.
Gouge called this “matrimonial chastity,” for the Puritans regarded as chastity not only single people abstaining from sex, but also married people enjoying sexual intimacy with their spouses (1 Cor. 7:2–4; Heb. 13:4).3 Adultery was a horrendous crime against the marital covenant, and Gouge condemned it in both men and women.4 To avoid this, Gouge urged spouses to give each other “due benevolence,” which was a euphemism for sexual love. He wrote:
One of the best remedies that can be prescribed to married persons (next to an awful fear of God, and a continual setting of Him before them, wherever they are) is, that husband and wife mutually delight each in the other, and maintain a pure and fervent love between themselves, yielding that due benevolence to one another which is warranted and sanctified by God’s word, and ordained of God for this particular end. This “due benevolence” (as the apostle calls it [1 Cor. 7:3]) is one of the most proper and essential acts of marriage: and necessary for the main and principal ends of it.5
This teaching was revolutionary in its day. Marriage and especially sex had fallen under a dark cloud in the early church. Such notables as Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome believed that, even within marriage, intercourse necessarily involved sin.6 This attitude inevitably led to the glorification of virginity and celibacy. By the fifth century, clerics were prohibited from marrying.7 The archbishop of Canterbury wrote in the seventh century that a husband should never see his wife naked and that sex was forbidden on Sundays, for three days before taking Communion, and for forty days before Easter.8 Tragically, romance became linked to mistresses and adultery, not marriage.9
Puritan preachers taught that the Roman Catholic view was unbiblical, even satanic. They cited Paul, who said that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4:1–3).10
The Puritans viewed sexual intimacy within marriage as a gift of God and as an essential, enjoyable part of marriage. Gouge said that husbands and wives should make love “with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.”11 However, the couple’s sexual life should be tempered in measure and timing by proper concern for each other’s piety, weakness, or illness.12
The ideal of marriage as romantic companionship was a far greater revolutionary concept in Puritan teaching than is often realized today.
Read More
Related Posts:

We can clearly say that Jude is aware of 1 Enoch (cf. Jude 14–15), and that if he has Genesis 6 in mind, which I will argue below, then he likely has the stories of 1 Enoch in mind too. This does not mean he accepts everything 1 Enoch says, but we can make the following observations. Both 1 Enoch and Genesis 6 report the same historical event, albeit 1 Enoch 6–16 has vastly more details. Without making a distinction, it appears that 1 Enoch and Genesis 6 inform Jude. Or at least, both books report how the sons of God fell, if we take sons of God in Genesis 6 to be angels, as the Alexandrian Text of Septuagint did. We do know that Jude relies on both the Old Testament and the pseudepigrapha. In that vein, he doesn’t make any qualifications, nor does he have to qualify one as Scripture and the other not. Instead, he cites these events assuming that his Jewish audience would know both.

In Genesis 6 we find the curious introduction to a group of people (?) called the Nephilim. In verse 4, the ESV reads, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
Thus concludes one of the strangest passages in all the Bible. For centuries, the four verses that begin Genesis 6 have occasioned debate on whom the Nephilim are, who the sons of God are, who the daughters of man are, who the mighty men of old were, the men of renown, and how these characters all fit together. Are these all descriptions of human beings, sons and daughters of Adam? Or, is something more nefarious afoot? Are the sons of God fallen angels? And if so, who are their offspring?
To these questions and more, I will attempt to give an answer in this post and three more to come. Below, I will consider what it means for Christians to use extra-biblical sources, and how we can properly benefit from reading 1 Enoch. In the next post, I will lay out the options for reading Genesis 6, and explain the strengths and weaknesses of various positions. Then third, I will make a canonical argument for understanding the sons of God as fallen angels and the Nephilim/mighty men as giants. Fourth, I will draw some theological conclusions related to Genesis 6 but also to Christ and his rule over the cosmos.
Always Begin with the Bible
Whenever evangelicals read the Bible, we do so as heirs of a great tradition. Among other things, that tradition is summarized in two words: Sola Scriptura.
Going back to the Reformation, the Protestant heritage has prioritized the Word of God as the only inspired and authoritative revelation of God. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church which put the Apocrypha on the same level at the other sixty-six books of the Bible, Protestant confessions always set Scripture apart from the other books. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, after delimiting the canon to sixty-six books,
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (WFC 1.3)
This statement articulated in various ways by other Protestant confessions makes it clear that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) is the source for all doctrine and the substance for all that God has revealed to his covenant people. And accordingly, when we study the Bible and formulate doctrine, the Bible has a special place. While studies investigating the language, history, and customs of the people surrounding God’s people, whether the Ancient Near East or Second Temple Judaism in the Greco-Roman world, Scripture itself is the first and final authority.
By consequence, we should strive to understand the Bible on its own terms. As Andy Naselli has framed it with respect to history and culture,
I can’t overstate how important this is. You can discover so much about the historical-cultural context by simply reading the text carefully. Never lose your anchor to this one text: the Bible. Everything else is supplementary. So in your zeal to understand the historical-cultural context, don’t neglect the one text that matters most. Give it preeminence. Read the text more often than you read any other. Let this text be supreme over all others.[1]
On this basis when we consider the various views related to Genesis 6, we should make our case for a given interpretation based upon what we find in text of Scripture, not outside of Scripture. That being said, there are ways that extra-biblical resources, understood to be non-inspired human writings, provide help in understanding the biblical text. As the Belgic Confession, Article 6, notes concerning the Apocrypha.
The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.[2]
While these statement does not directly apply to 1 Enoch, its sentiments do. The church has long recognized the importance of extra-biblical books that “agree with the canonical books.” And in fact, this point actually coheres with Naselli’s point above when read in the context of his own argument.
To speak personally for a minute, I found Naselli’s quotation when Graham Cole cited it in his book Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels, Satan, and Demons.[3]Ironically, in a section describing evangelical theology and its engagement with extra-biblical resources, Cole only cited Naselli’s argument for the Bible; he said nothing of Naselli’s ongoing argument for other literature too. If he had, Cole would have found arguments for a wise and selective use of ancient literature that would be included in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.
Benefitting from Extra-Biblical Sources
To be sure, the faithful student of Scripture does not read the Bible alone, even if the Bible alone has magisterial authority. Rather, students of Scripture will also “use primary (extracanonical) Jewish sources,” as Naselli notes. That is to say, the man who is committed to Sola Scriptura does not read the Bible only, he reads everything else—including ancient sources—through the lens of God’s inspired word. This is the point that Andy was making when he prioritized Scripture among all the other ancient documents.[4]
Critically, Naselli states, “With that exhortation [to use the Bible] ringing in your ears, let’s survey two other categories of resources to understand the historical-cultural context.”[5] In light of Cole’s appropriation of Naselli to argue against the application of 1 Enoch to Genesis 6, the first “other category” includes the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, which is the classification where one finds 1 Enoch. Listing “six bodies of Jewish literature for New Testament studies” (e.g., OT Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, and Targums and Rabbinic Literature), Naselli makes this entry on the pseudepigrapha,
In a handful of cases, New Testament writers apparently display direct dependence on sources belonging to early Judaism and their handling of the Old Testament (e.g., Jude). What is to be inferred from such dependence?[6]
Interestingly, Naselli cites Jude, because of the epistle’s dependence on 1 Enoch. Continued in a footnote, he writes,
In addition to several possible allusions, Jude refers to two stories not taught in the Bible: the story of Michael’s dispute with the devil over Moses body in v. 9 (apparently from The Assumption of Moses, OT pseudepigrapha) and the prophecy of Enoch in v. 14-15 (from 1 Enoch 1:9, a Jewish writing from the OT pseudepigrapha). Some wrongly conclude from this that the standard set of OT books (i.e., the OT ‘canon’) was not fixed in Jude’s day. Yet Jude cites neither of these books as ‘Scripture, nor does he use traditional formulas to introduce them. He implies nothing about his view of the books in which the stories are found. He may cite them simply because they are well-known to his audience.”[7]
Read More
Related Posts: