...why then did Christ here urge the testimony of John? Why, these things I say, that you may be saved. This he aimed at in all this discourse, to save not his own life, but the souls of others; he produced John's testimony because, being one of themselves, it was to be hoped that they would hearken to it. Note, First, Christ desires and designs the salvation even of his enemies and persecutors. Secondly, The word of Christ is the ordinary means of salvation. Thirdly, Christ in his word considers our infirmities and condescends to our capacities, consulting not so much what it befits so great a prince to say as what we can bear, and what will be most likely to do us good.Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), 1946.
March 28, 2010
Matthew Henry (1662–1714) on John 5:34
Posted by Tony Byrne at 3/28/2010
Labels: John 5:34, Matthew Henry, The Will of God
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
He stood in no need of an human testimony, nor did he rest the truth of his deity and divine sonship thereon: he had other and greater testimonies to produce; as he needed not that any man should testify of man to him, he had no need that any man should testify of him; and if the testimony of men was received, as this of John could not well be objected to, the testimony of God is greater, and which he had; and therefore should not have mentioned John's for his own sake:
that is, he produced this testimony of John, who was a person of so great a character among them, that they might be induced by it to believe in him as the Messiah; and so be saved from that ruin and destruction, that would come upon their nation, city, and temple, for their rejection and disbelief of him.
-John Gill commenting on John 5:34
Great quote by Henry! I love the question he raises in response to this affirmation of John's testimony.
Hi Brandon,
Matthew Henry and John Gill are not teaching the same thing. As Gill's The Cause of God and Truth makes plain, Gill thinks that God only wishes the temporal well-being of these people, not their eternal well-being. Jesus is warning and rebuking those in John 5:34 in order that they may escape coming temporal ruin, not eternal hell.
Moreover, as other Calvinists have pointed out (click), Gill distinguishes between civil and evangelical repentance. Civil repentance concerns external conformity to civil law, while evangelical repentance concerns an internal change of heart. Gill thinks it is man's duty to do the former, but it is not man's duty to do the latter. This is the way Gill denied "duty-faith," or human responsibility to believe in an evangelical sense.
The Reformers and Puritans did not deny duty-faith, so they didn't teach that God was merely calling me to repent in a civil sense. They taught that God was calling and commanding men to believe savingly, unto eternal salvation.
Gill was a hyper-Calvinist because of the following reasons:
1) He rejected free offers, partly because he rejected the idea that God desired the eternal well-being of any non-elect person, but also because "offers" suggest conditionalism in the evangelical covenant.
2) Gill rejected the notion that evangelical faith/repentance is man's responsiblity.
These two theological presuppositions undergird his interpretations of every verse that prior Calvinists (like Henry) rightly used to sustain belief in free offers and in God's universal saving desire. Keep these issues in mind as you read the Puritans, and you will see how Gill actually departs from their teaching on free offers and God's will.
Grace to you,
Tony
p.s. For additional explanation and documentation about Gill, go here (click). For tons of Calvinistic and Puritan sources and teaching, go here (click).
Hi Tony,
Thank you for the explanation and advice. I knew that Gill was a hyper-calvinist but I forgot how his theological bent in this area really does effect all of his interpretation of Scripture.
This also reminded me of Piper's biographical sketch on Andrew Fuller. Fuller having dealt extensively with the hyper-calvinist, pointing out that hyper-calvinism and arminianism rest on the same logic concerning grace.
"Fuller steadfastly refuses to let ostensible Calvinistic or Arminian logic override what he sees in Scripture. And ironically, High Calvinism and Arminianism are here standing on the same pretended logic against Scripture. Both argue that it is absurd and cruel to require of any man what is beyond his power to perform. Or to put it the way Fuller does,
'They are agreed in making the grace of God necessary to the accountableness of sinners with regard to spiritual obedience. The one [High Calvinism] pleads for graceless sinners being free from obligation, the other [Arminianism] admits of obligation but founds it on the notion of universal grace. Both are agreed that where there is no grace there is no duty. But if grace be the ground of obligation, it is no more grace, but debt.'
'The whole weight of this objection,' he says, 'rests upon the supposition that we do not stand in need of the Holy Spirit to enable us to comply with our duty.' In other words, both High Calvinists and Arminians rejected the prayer of St. Augustine, 'Command what you wish, but give what you command.'"
Thanks again Tony for the advice and links! I am enjoying perusing through your blog. Also, I came across your blog through 'Calvin and Calvinism.' Good stuff there too.
God bless,
Brandon
You're very welcome, Brandon. Feel free to share with me whatever gems you find in the Puritans.
God bless and stay in touch,
Tony
Post a Comment