# Matthew Henry -- Current thinking?



## Alexander Whyte (May 3, 2013)

What is the current thinking on the Puritan Matthew Henry?


----------



## KSon (May 3, 2013)

A gift to the Lord's church, much in every way.


----------



## py3ak (May 3, 2013)

My mother has expressed 2 points of view over Matthew Henry. One, years ago, was that whenever she tried to look something up it seemed he never answered the question she had about the text she was considering. The other, more recently, is that she loves him and finds him of great profit. No doubt the intervening years have not been wasted in the way of growth in grace, so that factor has some influence. But perhaps a larger place should be given to the impact of a different approach on her perceptions.

Many people use commentaries solely to look something up. But Matthew Henry is not that kind of commentator. His commentaries on different books should be read straight through - not dipping in here and there, but starting at the beginning, and continuing with a chapter or two at a time until the end. Read in that way, I think he has few equals. But if you are studying a passage of Scripture, other commentaries will often present a needed supplement to him. And it would be like wading through quicksand to try to read straight through some of those commentaries that are helpful when you do have a particular question in mind. And Matthew Henry is not the only person to have written commentaries meant for _reading_ rather than _reference_. C.H. Dodd's commentary on Romans is a model of readability; more recently (and more soundly), the _Reformed Expository Commentary_ series is meant to be readable; but if you tried to look something up in them, it could be quite frustrating.

If someone can't appreciate Matthew Henry for what he did, or has no value for that sort of meditation on Scripture, it is their loss.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 3, 2013)

Interestingly enough, while some critical scholars laugh at him, Richard Muller used him as an example of mature Protestant Scholastic exegesis. Granted he's "pre-critical," his commentaries show facility with Grotius and other key thinkers of the day.


----------



## py3ak (May 3, 2013)

Yes, I've always felt that people who sneer at Matthew Henry's critical skills (from a pre-critical age, of course) are themselves not reading very critically; the fact that he doesn't focus on those questions or parade his knowledge of them wouldn't serve to mask from any but the undiscerning that he has considered them and come to sane conclusions.


----------



## MW (May 3, 2013)

For that which Scripture principally teaches, faith and obedience, it is among the best of its class. For exegesis per se, (1) one does not need to see inside the kitchen in order to appreciate a good meal, and, (2) to be pointed in the right direction is helpful even if it does not point out the specific location.


----------



## bookslover (May 3, 2013)

Here's D. A. Carson, from the 6th edition (2007) of his _New Testament Commentary Survey_ - "Matthew Henry's work, originally written to complement the work of Matthew Poole, is available...Both Calvin and Henry are still worth reading. The latter makes shrewd, practical comments. The former is a more reliable interpreter of Scripture. Both should be used only in conjunction with modern commentaries." (p. 32)


----------



## bookslover (May 3, 2013)

py3ak said:


> C.H. Dodd's commentary on Romans is a model of readability;



Dodd may be readable, but I don't think I would trust him either exegetically or theologically.


----------



## py3ak (May 3, 2013)

bookslover said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > C.H. Dodd's commentary on Romans is a model of readability;
> ...



No, certainly not, though at least on Romans he is not without some value (see below). But it shows that it isn't merely simple-minded obscurantist conservatives who can find value in a commentary meant to be read through rather than occasionally consulted.



> In effect Paul says: 'It is not a question of justice, for justice would imply an inherent right of the creature over against his Creator. It is a question of the mercy of God upon those who in justice have merited, and can merit nothing at all. The mercy of God, as Scripture declares, is determined by nothing beyond itself; I will have mercy on whom I choose to have mercy.' This is, indeed, the quality of mercy. If it counts desert, it is not mercy. But there can, in the nature of things, be no desert on man's part before God. The 'prevenient grace' of God is a necessary condition of any salutary activity of man. The mercy of God is an original act of His creative will.


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 4, 2013)

I read a variety of commentaries in preparation for preaching and teaching each week, and try to balance between the old and the new. Suffice it to say that I don't preach until I have consulted Calvin, Poole, and (as Spurgeon said with reverence) "the great Matthew Henry." What a tremendous gift he is to the Church.


----------



## Alexander Whyte (May 5, 2013)

I want to thank those who replied to my request about Matthew Henry. 

Yesterday, my six-volume Matthew Henry Commentary arrived. I have been using the online MH whole Bible commentary at the online Bible Suite website. I decided to obtain a copy of the commentary for my personal library. I looked at a recent edition from Hendrickson (2009) with a very small font--"You will need a magnifying glass to read this commentary" is what I read in one of the reviews. Thus, I looked around and found a used 6-volume Matthew Henry Commentary published by Fleming H. Revell Company (New York). There is no date on the copyright page, however, I am going to say this edition rolled off the presses in the U.S. sometime before World War II. I will have to find some book tape and repair the spine covers that have been torn loose by previous owner(s). The best part about the Revel edition is the readable font size. Last night I sat in an easy chair and read the Introduction to Genesis in Volume 1--without my reading glasses! I am very pleased with this purchase.


----------



## py3ak (May 5, 2013)

Congratulations! There are many blessings awaiting you as you proceed.


----------



## Wayne (May 5, 2013)

Bob

Now that you have the set, you're ready for the reading challenge:

Virginia is for Huguenots: Matthew Henry Commentary Challenge


----------



## sevenzedek (May 5, 2013)

It was only after I learned that Henry's commentary is a devotional commentary that I began to appreciate him. If someone wants information about a bible passage, a critical commentary will do the job better than Henry's. However, if someone wants to have their heart warmed, Henry's will do far better than a critical commentary. I can see why others would say Henry's commentary represents maturity. It is so relational. After all, isn't Christianity all about having a relationship with God?


----------



## Eoghan (May 6, 2013)

John Gill's commentary I find to be more pertinent in almost every case. Sorry Mathew.


----------



## Josh Williamson (May 6, 2013)

When I was at seminary we were told never to use: Henry, Gill, Poole, or Calvin as they are all outdated and haven't progressed with modern scholarship. Needless to say, all those men appeared in my assignments, and they are still frequent helps in my Christian walk and sermon preparation.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 2, 2013)

Josh Williamson said:


> When I was at seminary we were told never to use: Henry, Gill, Poole, or Calvin as they are all outdated and haven't progressed with modern scholarship. Needless to say, all those men appeared in my assignments, and they are still frequent helps in my Christian walk and sermon preparation.



Interesting. I was told the same thing while studying at NOBTS, but it was "because those men would lead to Calvinistic thinking." Upon transferring to SBTS, the only one they cautioned against was Henry, and even that was qualified by saying "Use him after consulting exegetical commentaries." A good process to follow, for sure; so I consulted him then as per the directions, and continue to do so today, with joy and thankfulness to God for Mr. Henry's labors.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 2, 2013)

Josh Williamson said:


> When I was at seminary we were told never to use: Henry, Gill, Poole, or Calvin as they are all outdated and haven't progressed with modern scholarship.



Can one assume this was not a seminary that appreciated the Puritans?


----------

