Matthew Henry, Presbyterian Minister and Bible Commentator
Matthew Henry is known primarily because of his commentary on the Bible. The massive work shows his dedication to the systematic exposition of Scripture which he learned from the Puritans as taught to him by his father. It was his practice to systematically preach through Scripture which then provided exegetical information for his commentary series. Henry’s comments show his faithfulness to preach the whole counsel of God.
Matthew was born prematurely October 18, 1662, at Broad Oak, Flintshire, to Katharine and Philip Henry (1631-1696). His mother was the only child of Daniel Matthews; his father was the minister of the Worthenbury Church. The infant was baptized the day after he was born. It may seem unusual to baptize a child so shortly after birth but because of the high infant mortality rate parents often had their babies baptized as soon as possible. Given that Matthew was premature and weak, the mother and father sensed increased urgency.
In May, just five months before Matthew was born, recently restored King Charles II enacted an Act of Uniformity to make the Church of England and its prayer book supreme in the land. Charles’s edict let all know that he was in charge of not only the kingdom but also its church. The Act of Uniformity required all ministers to affirm all of the Book of Common Prayer for ordination by the Church of England. They also had to renounce the Solemn League and Covenant. The act was a particular problem for Philip Henry because he was a loyal Presbyterian, a dissenter, ministering in a Church of England pulpit. In the first half of the seventeenth century, Presbyterians had hoped that England would become a nation with churches ruled by elders and not prelates, but the events of the Civil War years and Interregnum had not gone well for them. Pastor Henry’s refusal to comply with Charles’s act led to his dismissal from the Worthenbury Church October 27, 1661. Some historians say that Philip Henry was one of the dissenting ministers included in the more than two thousand removed from churches in the Great Ejection August 24, 1662.
Matthew’s birth place, Broad Oak, was the ancestral home of his mother’s family and it was where he would live and return for visits during his later life. One biographer says the boy could read the Bible at the age of three and that he showed signs of great intelligence. When Matthew was about ten years old he survived a severe fever which his family had feared would lead to his death. After receiving preparatory education in a nonconformist academy, Matthew entered Gray’s Inn in 1685 to study for the bar, but as an adolescent he had professed faith in Christ in his father’s church and his interest soon turned from law to ministry. Henry had come to faith in Christ through a sermon preached by his father on Psalm 51:17, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” He continued law studies for a time as he began the study of theology. Matthew’s early ministry was through occasionally supplying pulpits but as word of his expository ability spread, he was invited in the summer of 1686 to preach to a group of dissenters gathered in the home of a confectioner named Henthorne who lived in Chester. He continued preaching sermons in Chester and eventually received an invitation to be the congregation’s minister.
Before Matthew Henry could be ordained, he had a problem to resolve. His father was thoroughly convinced of presbyterian polity, but Matthew was not so sure. He struggled regarding whether he would adopt episcopal polity over prebyterian and become a bishop instead of an elder. One factor influencing his thinking was, according to Henry, Presbyterians recognized Church of England ordination but vice-versa was not the case. That is, he could always change to a Presbyterian church as a Church of England minister, which meant if he decided later to minister in a Presbyterian congregation, he could do so. There were other factors influencing his decision as Henry concluded his internal debate of the subject.
The doubt is not whether episcopal ordination be lawful, especially considering that the bishop may be looked upon therein as a presbyter in conjunction with his co-presbyters, (and the validity of such ordination is sufficiently vindicated by the presbyterians in their Jus Divinum [see notes]), but whether it be advisable or no? (Williams, 75)
Ordination by presbyters seems to me more regular and conformable to Scripture, and more becoming one that disowns a prelatical power. (ibid. 76)
-
Beggars Should be Choosers: Part 2
Christ-centered worship, a set liturgy with its roots in the Reformation, a liturgy that isn’t pared down to mere outline, a church holding to a Reformed confession, a gospel-centered worship around the Lord’s Supper, and preaching that presents not law as the food for faith but Christ crucified as found in the gospel.
From the previous post – “Yet when it comes to a finding home church, I want to suggest that Christians (beggars all) indeed should be choosers!”
Picking up where I left off (Here) in my history tour:We eventually landed in a small Anglican church. It was there that we began to not only appreciate but value the weekly repetition of the Holy Communion service in Book of Common Prayer – the reading of the Law, the unabashed and fully biblical general confession of sin, the declaration of absolution with the comforting words of Scripture, and the thoroughly gospel-centered Holy Communion liturgy.
The effect of this historic and Reformed liturgy was like participating in a weekly catechism of the faith once delivered to the saints. The liturgical worship assumed nothing, but rather led the believers through the essential cycle of the Christian life: repentance, forgiveness, and gospel grounded obedience. That path was via the reading of the Law’s with its holy standard of perfection (Lord have mercy), the confession of sin which highlighted not only sins “done and undone” but ourselves as “miserable offenders”, the declaration of pardon for all those who trust in the gospel of Christ, the confession of faith (Nicene Creed), a full presentation of the gospel of Christ as the church worships at the Lord’s Table, and the final corporate prayer of thanksgiving acknowledging the great salvation that God has given us through the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Read MoreRelated Posts:
-
Intersectionality Devolves
Written by Christopher F. Rufo |
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
In 2015, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors led a delegation to the Palestinian territories, so that the group’s activists could learn from the “Palestinian struggle.” She condemned Israel as an “apartheid state,” and the running theme of the trip was revolution, “from Ferguson to Palestine.” The same year, Cullors signed a statement drawing parallels between the Palestinian fight against Israel and the black one against America. During a speech at Harvard Law School, Cullors went further, telling the audience: “If we don’t step up boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project called Israel, we’re doomed.”For years, left-wing intellectuals have treated “intersectionality” as an inevitability. The social theory, which holds that all oppressed peoples must join together to overthrow their common oppressor, has been an essential strategy of the Left.
There is some truth to this theory. When the fortunes of the Left are rising, intersectionality seems like a juggernaut: identity groups get aggregated into the mass, internal conflicts are subordinated to the cause of liberation, and a policy of “no enemies to the left” shifts political life in favor of the radicals. But the aura of inevitability surrounding the intersectional coalition is an illusion moments of crisis can bring suppressed contradictions to the surface and begin a process of fragmentation.
The recent Hamas terror campaign against Israel might become such a crisis. Following the attack, the foot soldiers of intersectionality—most notably, Black Lives Matter (BLM), the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the academic “decolonization” movement—celebrated the militants who murdered civilians, raped women, and butchered babies. BLM’s Chicago chapter published a graphic lionizing the Hamas paraglider terrorists who killed innocents. The DSA blamed Israel for the terror attack against it, arguing that it was the “direct result of Israel’s apartheid regime.” Ivy League professors with expertise in “decolonization” called it a “stunning victory” and said that “Palestinians have every right to resist through armed struggle.”
For years, these academics and groups had been able to hide their ideological commitments and operate with an air of respectability. But after last week’s statements, they have encountered a well-deserved backlash. Jewish groups, including the generally left-wing Anti-Defamation League, have condemned BLM’s anti-Semitism. A Democratic congressman quit the DSA in protest. Major donors have rebuked Ivy League universities for failing to condemn Hamas forcefully. The Financial Times warned that the “left’s take on Hamas” could lead to a “Democratic party split.”
Read More
Related Posts: -
Israel, Hamas, and Evangelicals
Written by Dean C. Curry |
Wednesday, November 29, 2023
Indeed, there are many prudential reasons for Christians as Citizens to support Israel. Among them, Israel is the only free, democratic nation in the Middle East. Also, Israel is a close ally of the United States, sharing a similar cultural heritage, values, and interests. Lastly is the moral imperative. The meaning of Israel is powerfully captured at Yad Vashem – the Jewish holocaust memorial – located in the hills of West Jerusalem. The existence of Israel is a symbol of a people’s survival of tyranny and their quest for freedom. The United States, therefore, has a moral obligation to ensure that Israel survives into the future.A few days ago, a Facebook friend posted in all caps, “A MUST SEE!!” The focus of my friend’s enthusiasm was a YouTube video of a prominent evangelical dispensationalist explaining “what’s next” in Israel’s war against Hamas. My friend concluded his post repeating the video presenter’s closing Bible verse from Psalm 121:4: “He who watches over Israel, neither slumbers nor sleeps.”
George Marsden, the premier historian of American evangelicalism, has written extensively about the important role that dispensationalism played in shaping American Protestant fundamentalism, the precursor of contemporary American evangelicalism. Central to dispensational theology is the belief that the 20th century return of Jews to Palestine, and the birth of the modern state of Israel in 1948, was a key prophetic marker pointing to the Second Coming of Christ.
Dispensationalism played no role in the actual creation of the modern nation of Israel. In fact, in 1948 American fundamentalists were cloistered in their era of cultural and political exile that followed battles with theological liberalism earlier in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, fundamentalists and their evangelical heirs welcomed the birth of Israel as confirmation of biblical prophecy. For their part, Israel officials have certainly welcomed evangelical support, as evidenced, for example, by Benjamin Netanyahu’s embrace of dispensationalist John Hagee. Israel’s relationship with American evangelicals is strategic in nature and not rooted in any theological affinities. Relatedly, most American dispensationalists are likely ignorant – or at least unaware – of the secular roots and nature of the Zionist nationalist movement. As far as the Israeli Jewish population is concerned, only 20% of Israelis have a positive view of evangelicals while 75% have no opinion or are neutral in their perspective towards evangelicals. However, it is worth noting that as Orthodox Jews become more influential in Israeli public life Israel may in the future become less hospitable to evangelicals.
While historian Daniel Hummel has recently pointed to the demise of dispensationalism among evangelical theologians, dispensationalism continues to influence the vast majority of evangelicals and profoundly shapes their attitudes towards Israel. A 2022 Pew survey reveals that 86% of white evangelicals have warm views towards Israel, compared to 66% of Americans generally. And 70% of white evangelicals believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people.
It is not surprising, therefore, that many evangelicals are relying on their dispensational theology to decipher current events in Israel. This reality points to an important component of evangelical engagement of public life; namely, the importance of responding in a “Christian” way. Dispensationalism provides a ready-made Christian framework for such a response for many, if not most, evangelicals. However, it is not the only framework. Tracking social media and listening to my evangelical friends, I read and hear other “Christian” responses. For example, some evangelicals seem reluctant to express outright support for Israel fearing that such support will betray the Christian mandate to “love mercy” which presumably includes even Hamas. While some dispensationalist-anchored evangelicals embrace this perspective, it is especially evident among younger evangelicals who, according to most surveys, are much more sympathetic to Palestinians and less supportive of Israel than older evangelical cohorts. There are also evangelicals who assert that since the Christians primary allegiance is to God, any response to the events in Israel and Gaza based on our national identification as Americans is inappropriate.
Finally, in assessing evangelical attitudes towards Israel and the current Israeli-Hamas war, we need to remember that while dispensationalism continues to cast a wide net of influence over evangelical thinking about Israel, not all evangelicals are dispensational. This is especially true among many – though not all – in Reformed and Anglican traditions. I am not aware of polling of among these group, but I suspect that the majority – like their dispensational sisters and brothers – strongly support Israel, but with an important difference. Their support is not grounded in a putatively biblical framework, but rather in prudential considerations. Indeed, there are many prudential reasons for Christians as Citizens to support Israel. Among them, Israel is the only free, democratic nation in the Middle East. Also, Israel is a close ally of the United States, sharing a similar cultural heritage, values, and interests. Lastly is the moral imperative. The meaning of Israel is powerfully captured at Yad Vashem – the Jewish holocaust memorial – located in the hills of West Jerusalem. The existence of Israel is a symbol of a people’s survival of tyranny and their quest for freedom. The United States, therefore, has a moral obligation to ensure that Israel survives into the future.
Dean C. Curry lives in the Lowcountry of South Carolina and has spent many years teaching and writing on subjects related to international relations, foreign policy, and religion and public life. This article is used with permission.
Related Posts:
