# What was Matthew Henry`s Eschatological beliefs?



## Average Joey

Did he believe that the people of Israel would in the future come to Christ?


----------



## Scott Bushey

If I am not mistaken, Henry was Amil.


----------



## Average Joey

I thought so too.However I was reading his Commentary of the Whole Bible and in chapter 19 verse 11 of Revelation he says 

"No sooner was the marriage solemnized between Christ and His church by the conversion of the Jews...."

I was confused by this.Of course you know how big this commentary is.I cannot find anything before and after this statement clarifying his meaning behind these words.


----------



## ANT

He was dispensational, wasn't he?






J/J :bigsmile:


Sorry, I'm in a playful mood. 




[Edited on 2-18-2005 by ANT]


----------



## ANT

On a more serious note .... Here's a quote by Matthew Henry ...



"Now two things he exhorts the Gentiles to, with reference to the rejected Jews: ­To have a respect for the Jews, notwithstanding, and to desire their conversion. This is intimated in the prospect he gives them of the advantage that would accrue to the church by their conversion, Rom. 11:12, 15. It would be as life from the dead; and therefore they must not insult or triumph over those poor Jews, but rather pity them, and desire their welfare, and long for the receiving of them in again. 

Another thing that qualifies this doctrine of the Jews' rejection is that, though for the present they are cast off, yet the rejection is not final; but, when the fullness of time is come, they will be taken in again. They are not cast off for ever, but mercy is remembered in the midst of wrath. 

The Jews are in a sense a holy nation (Exod. xix.6), being descended from holy parents. Now it cannot be imagined that such a holy nation should be totally and finally cast off. This proves that the seed of believers, as such, are within the pale of the visible church, and within the verge of the covenant, till they do, by their unbelief, throw themselves out; for, if the root be holy, so are the branches....Though grace does not run in the blood, yet external privileges do (till they are forfeited), even to a thousand generations...The Jewish branches are reckoned holy, because the root was so. This is expressed more plainly (Rom. 11:28). 

Though particular persons and generations wear off in belief, yet there having been a national church-membership, though for the present suspended, we may expect that it will be revived...It is called a mystery (Rom. 11:25), that which was not obvious, and which one would not expect upon the view of the present state of that people, who appeared generally so obstinate against Christ and Christianity that it was a riddle to talk of their unanimous conversion. Alas! who shall live when God doeth this?" 

(Matthew Henry's Commentary, V.6, MacDonald Publishing Company, pp. 448-453.)




[Edited on 2-18-2005 by ANT]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Matthew Henry, like virtually all of the Puritans, was a historicist postmillennial. CRTA lists him among the prominent postmill theologians. Thus, he believed, for example, that the Pope was AntiChrist and that the will be a future general conversion of the Jews and a future golden age for the Church. 

His Commentaries are the best source of first-hand information on what he believed, and Iain Murray's _The Puritan Hope_ mentions him frequently as well.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Matthew Henry was significant in me becoming a Partial Preterist. His commentary on Matthew 24 put to rest all silly notions of, "This Generation" for me.


----------



## Average Joey

After arguing with the Dispensationalists I really hope they are right about one thing.I hope there where be a time the majority of the Jews come to repentance and turn to Christ.After all,what a great example of God`s soveriegnty being shown in salvation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Matthew Henry didn't write the whole Commentary. I think he got up to around Acts. The rest was added by his freinds. I think some was post humous work, other parts written by others.


----------



## Average Joey

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Matthew Henry didn't write the whole Commentary. I think he got up to around Acts. The rest was added by his freinds. I think some was post humous work, other parts written by others.



I`m still impressed.Do you see the size of that book!?It has 2,500 pages and it is in the smallest print.If you resized the letters to normal print size,the book would be probably around 15,000 pages.


----------



## ANT

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Matthew Henry didn't write the whole Commentary. I think he got up to around Acts. The rest was added by his freinds. I think some was post humous work, other parts written by others.



I have heard something similar.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Patrick is correct and this is something to bear in mind when citing Matthew Henry's teachings.

Here is more info on the history of his commentary:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/


----------

