# WHI Guys Critique Matthew Henry



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 24, 2008)

Hit 'em pretty hard on yesterday's program. What do y'all think? Did you hear it?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 24, 2008)

actually started listening to it this morning. I will give my thoughts upon completion


----------



## nicnap (Nov 24, 2008)

Forgive my ignorance...who are WHI? OOOPS...White Horse Inn...nevermind..took me a minute this moring. Nothing to see here. Move along.


----------



## nicnap (Nov 24, 2008)

What, exactly, did they say about Matthew Henry?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 24, 2008)

About 1/2 way, maybe 3/4 of the way into the program (which was a great program by the way, a must listen) Kim (I think) is cautioning Pastor's away from using Matthew Henry's commentaries in preparing a sermon because of what he sees as Henry's over reliance on allegory in his interpretation. (But listen to it because I could be summarizing the critique incorrectly )...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 24, 2008)

Nope, that was his critique of Matthew Henry. You are right, he states that Henry allegorizes too much which causes him to give good devotional insight, but misses the mark hermeneutically.

Here is something else Kim stated that we interpret the OT through the NT, but I have heard DeMar state that we have to interpret the NT prophecy through the OT examples (speaking predominately about metaphorical language in prophecy). Which train of thought would you fall in line with?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 24, 2008)

to Joshua. I have been _feeling_ the same thing and could not come to put it into words. Thanks Josh.


----------



## satz (Nov 24, 2008)

Joshua said:


> It _seems_ to me that the WHI & Company are more and more distancing themselves from the concept of _biblical_ piety as stressed and emphasized by the Puritans. Whether that has anything to do with MH's hermeneutics or not, I don't know.



Josh,

Could you elaborate just a little on what you mean?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 24, 2008)

Joshua said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



I don't know if I've heard it specifically from WHI since I have seldom listened to the program, but some with similar views tend to denigrate prayer meetings, etc. 

WRT Matthew Henry, I have heard some opine that his commentary is excellent for devotional purposes but can at times be a little weak or even off base when it comes to exegesis. Since I haven't heard the program in question, I don't know if that's what they were getting at or not. It's also been a few years since I've consulted Henry on a regular basis, although I still use the commentary when I'm looking into specific passages.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 24, 2008)

Does anyone have a link to the program in question?

Also, could this be simply an over-reaction to/unconscious-grouping-together of the Lutheran pietism that they have discussed previously?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 24, 2008)

White Horse Inn (Dr. Michael Horton) - Today's Broadcast


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 24, 2008)

Joshua said:


> It _seems_ to me that the WHI & Company are more and more distancing themselves from the concept of _biblical_ piety as stressed and emphasized by the Puritans. Whether that has anything to do with their critique MH's hermeneutics or not, I don't know.



That's one reason why I stopped listening to them. It's easy to critique evangelicism and others; it's like trying to hit a big red barn with your hand.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 24, 2008)

Blue Tick said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > It _seems_ to me that the WHI & Company are more and more distancing themselves from the concept of _biblical_ piety as stressed and emphasized by the Puritans. Whether that has anything to do with their critique MH's hermeneutics or not, I don't know.
> ...



If they're going to hit on Matthew Henry, they might as well go for Poole and many others, including of course CH Spurgeon.

I believe that not enough pastors today refer to Matthew Henry, rather than the other way around. its not as if we just follow the words of one man. Rather, Henry's work is a valuable part of the armoury.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 24, 2008)

It was certainly an interesting comment that caught me off guard and was thinking about starting my own thread on this point.

Josh: It's really hard to say what they believe on Reformed piety because they're usually picking on distortions of the Word that I would generally agree with. I do agree that there have been some comments, at times, that make me wonder. I think we have to remember that this year their focus has been focusing on how preaching has removed Christ and Him Crucified in favor of helpful advice. The shows have been really good and I've never seen them level their canons at Reformed piety.

There was only one time, and that was the discussion on Politics, that I really raised an eyebrow about a "hands off" mentality to the political landscape. I found myself agreeing in the main with their observations about how Churches get distracted away from the Gospel but then being concerned they had gone a bit too far in the discussion.

All: Stepping away from the concerns that the WHI doesn't believe in Reformed piety (which I haven't been able to document), do you think there is any validity to the concern that one be careful with the Matthew Henry commentaries? I've read his stuff before and it simply did not strike me as allegorical in nature.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 24, 2008)

They've made this same criticism of Matthew Henry in previous programs.


----------



## asc (Nov 24, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> All: Stepping away from the concerns that the WHI doesn't believe in Reformed piety (which I haven't been able to document), do you think there is any validity to the concern that one be careful with the Matthew Henry commentaries? I've read his stuff before and it simply did not strike me as allegorical in nature.



In passing I've heard this criticism of Matthew Henry's commentary before. Don't have any examples, though. I'd be interested in hearing more if anyone has details.


----------



## SolaGratia (Nov 24, 2008)

The question then is; 

Is it warrant to criticized M Henry for his usage of allegories in his commentaries?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 24, 2008)

I felt that it was unwarranted to criticize Mr. Henry without giving an example as proof. WHI may be right, but point me in the direction so I can see for myself.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 24, 2008)

The WHI guys are probably correct that Henry takes liberties with the text at times. But, remember, in the context of last night's program (which I have only managed to get 1/2 way through on the way to work this morning), their major target is the tendency to be sooooooo grammatical/historical that you lose the Christocentric focus of the whole Bible. They want to use the Luke 24 template to preach the whole Bible as fulfilled in Christ and not merely another set of stories about heroic characters and maudlin moralisms. In thise sense, my guess is that they want to be careful not to appear to be endorsing the opposite error: rampant allegoricalism and spiritualizing away the plain sense of the text.

I only know one of the WHIkeepers personally and that from more than 30+ years ago when he was one of my profs in theology at Westmont. Rod was pretty "rough" then and despised pietism as the forerunner of liberalism. I can see where he (as well as Mike and Kim) do come off a bit negative about piety generally, almost sounding opposed to it in principle. My guess is that it is more an issue of balance and emphasis. 

I love WHI for what it does well, not for what it gets wrong. Give me Beeke AND Horton.


----------



## Hippo (Nov 24, 2008)

Joshua said:


> It _seems_ to me that the WHI & Company are more and more distancing themselves from the concept of _biblical_ piety as stressed and emphasized by the Puritans. Whether that has anything to do with their critique MH's hermeneutics or not, I don't know.



I am sure that the WHI would say that they are distancing themselves from Pietism not Piety.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 24, 2008)

I thought it was harsh. Did they mean Spurgeon?!? There was a man given to a bit of allegory. I haven't seen so many egregious extremes in MHenry.

I have read enough of the _extreme_ RedemptiveHistorical camp to say that I'm positive there is some serious allegorization going on there.

Fact is, considered all by itself, allegorization is not "typical" or endemic to any specific school of hermeneutics. Why? Because it is the technique that is the problem, the tendency to read-into every little item and detail any meaning you like, based on the bent of your _a prioris_. Frankly, this is not a tendency I've seen in MH.

If you go back in history, you can see where the church has drifted off the rails interpretively, to the left and to the right. One needs to have the "literal" (call it grammatical-historic), AND he needs the the "theological" (call it christological).

The error to the right has always been reductionist, turning a treatment of a passage of Scripture into nothing more than a linguistic enterprise. "I've done my job if I understand the words on the page, in context." This sort of "Bible-study" approach to the text has led to plenty of errors, all the worse for that the "conservatives" have claimed this "Antiochican" approach as THE grammical-historical method recovered against Rome in the 16th century. How many of you have heard that before?

The error to the left has frequently gone by the name of "allegorical". We should understand that the allegorical "sense" was the "end point" of the perversion of the "theological-christological" HALF of proper hermeneutics. The "Alexandrian" school supposedly came to dominate the church's interpretation of Scripture, to the detriment of good Bible-interpretation over the course of the Middle Ages. They were erring in trying to force a moralistic interpretation from the text, and "religious" meanings that surpassed the lower, literal sense. They did not understand their own mistaken _a prioris_ they brought TO the text. But they did understand that radical Antiochians had reduced biblical interpretation too far.

"Antiochian" literalism, unchecked by "Alexandrian" spiritualism, 
leads to an atomized Bible, 
leads to a Bible with no "center", 
leads to competing "theologies" within the Bible, 
leads to barren antiseptic readings, 
leads to reading the Old (or New) Testament simply for "examples of Christian/moral virtue",
leads to a "that's what it meant to them; what it means to us is something completely different",
etc.

In short it leads to just as many failures as the allegorizers. The spiritualizers held the ascendancy for almost a thousand years. The literalists have been dominating the field for about five-hundred years now. Sometimes it takes a while to see where a certain mistake will take you, if you follow it far enough.

Bottom line, MH may have missed a few things, he may have made some allegorizing errors (give us a for instance, please). But he was pretty balanced, over all in my opinion. He pursued a Christian interpretation of the text, based on an understanding of its literal meaning. He was Puritan and christological, at the end of an era of great sermonizing. I think you can do a lot worse than learn from him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 24, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > It _seems_ to me that the WHI & Company are more and more distancing themselves from the concept of _biblical_ piety as stressed and emphasized by the Puritans. Whether that has anything to do with their critique MH's hermeneutics or not, I don't know.
> ...



I agree. They went through Romans last year and discussed piety in its context when they got to Romans 12-16.

I really think WHI sees itself as addressing the Evangelical culture in general and that culture has a huge problem of neo-Pentecostalism, Gnosticism, Narcissism, and Dispensationalism (among other -isms). These are the "big fish" out there and I really don't ever see them doing too much navel gazing - for instance, they don't ever debate the baptism issue and rarely touch Sacramentology. I think they see themselves as trying to provide a corrective to the rampant departures from the Gospel in favor of "Jesus as life Coach".

I guess I find their criticisms as so incisive in the main that I really find them to be a very important voice that gives expression to why the Reformed world ought to stay clear of some of these movements because some Reformed Churches are tempted to do so for "relevance". I, for one, appreciate the clarity of their criticisms because it gives me a perspective on the problem that I might otherwise lack.

It's one of many things that I put in my "kit bag". I hope to have dinner with Mike next Spring and I may ask him about his views on Reformed piety then but I've never seen anything in the WHI or MR that puts him beyond the pale.


----------



## Seb (Nov 24, 2008)

This is timely to me, just the other day I was thinking I need to quit using MH's *abridged* commentary. 

I don't know if that's what the WHI guys were talking about, they didn't clarify, but for some reason (poor editing?) the abridged version strikes me as much more allegorical / devotional in nature than the unabridged version does.

In the unabridged version the allegorical parts are there, but overall they are only a small part of MH's work.


----------



## MW (Nov 24, 2008)

Concerning Matthew Henry's commentary -- it shows a genuine Christ-centred character when one can miss the letter of Scripture (as is alleged) while still vividly and forcefully manifesting its spirit; and this forms a marked contrast with those who are able to hit the letter of Scripture (as they think) and still somehow manage to conceal its life-giving qualities.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 24, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I thought it was harsh. Did they mean Spurgeon?!? There was a man given to a bit of allegory. I haven't seen so many egregious extremes in MHenry.



Wow! Talk about harsh.


----------



## Seb (Nov 24, 2008)

I think this is a good example of the weakness of the concise / abridged version of the MH commentary. It's fine for a devotional, not so much for a commentary.

[bible]Jer 17:19-27[/bible]



> THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. (Jeremiah 17:19-27)
> The prophet was to lay before the rulers and the people of Judah, the command to keep holy the sabbath day. Let them strictly observe the fourth command. If they obeyed this word, their prosperity should be restored. It is a day of rest, and must not be made a day of labour, unless in cases of necessity. *Take heed, watch against the profanation of the sabbath. Let not the soul be burdened with the cares of this world on sabbath days. The streams of religion run deep or shallow, according as the banks of the sabbath are kept up or neglected.*The degree of strictness with which this ordinance is observed, or the neglect shown towards it, is a good test to find the state of spiritual religion in any land. Let all; by their own example, by attention to their families, strive to check this evil, that national prosperity may be preserved, and, above all, that souls may be saved. —Matthew Henry Concise (abridged)



I can't help but think that this is the "commentary" from MH that they were complaining about. 

Of course if you read the unabridged version it's more of what you'd expect from MH:



> GOD, BY THE PROPHET, WARNS THE PEOPLE TO KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH DAY (17:19-27)
> These verses are a sermon concerning sabbath-sanctification. It is a word which the prophet received from the Lord, and was ordered to deliver in the most solemn and public manner to the people; for they were sent not only to reprove sin, and to press obedience, in general, but they must descend to particulars. This message concerning the sabbath was probably sent in the days of Josiah, for the furtherance of that work of reformation which he set on foot; for the promises here (v. 25,26) are such as I think we scarcely find when things come nearer to the extremity. This message must be proclaimed in all the places of concourse, and therefore inthe gates, not only because through them people were continually passing and repassing, but because in them they kept their courts and laid up their stores. It must be proclaimed (as the king or queen is usually proclaimed) at the court-gate first, the gate by which the kings of Judah come in and go out, v. 19. Let them be told their duty first, particularly this duty; for, if sabbaths be not sanctified as they should be, the rulers of Judah are to be contended with (so they were, Nehemiah 13:17), for they are certainly wanting in their duty. He must also preach it in all the gates of Jerusalem. It is a matter of great and general concern; therefore let all take notice of it. Let the kings of Judah hear the word of the Lord (for, high as they are, he is above them), and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for, mean as they are, he takes notice of them, and of what they say and do on sabbath days. Observe,
> 
> I. How the sabbath is to be sanctified, and what is the law concerning it, v. 21,11.
> ...



Big difference huh?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 24, 2008)

If that is indeed what WHI was talking about, then they need to clarify.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 24, 2008)

I have not yet listened to the podcast, but I don't think anyone woud quible with the idea that MH is more "devotional" in character then "exigetical".

I read Henry almost every week. However I do so to find aplication and illustration type of material. I do not, nor does anyone that I know of, read MH for his view on a particular texts meaning. Everyone reads him for how he applies the text.

BTW avoid the "mini-Henry", & go for the real thing. It is much better.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > I thought it was harsh. Did they mean Spurgeon?!? There was a man given to a bit of allegory. I haven't seen so many egregious extremes in MHenry.
> ...



Ivan,
I didn't mean it as a real "dog" on Spurgeon, just really wondered if they had the name they meant. Because MH has never sounded like an allegorizer to me.

And Spurgeon, well, you'd have to admit (surely!) that he would preach texts--verses or even phrases--that made a good sermon, but weren't always tied too closely to exegesis of those words. And honestly, that's what "finding" spirituality in a text is doing: reading something into it that isn't there by nature.

So it was a comparative statement. MH I hadn't found to be allegorical, CHS I had found "a bit" (to quote myself). If that was still too harsh for you, I'm sorry.


----------



## Grymir (Nov 25, 2008)

I too have found Mathew Henry's commentary to be, shall I say, less technical than others. He seems to have a 'devotional quality' to it. Most of the items in the quote above are self evident and better if you direct a person back to the Pentateuch to see the relationship to the covenant that God made with Israel, and the conditions for the sabbath, and curses for breaking the sabbath. 

There are better one's for in-depth analysis that deal just with the text. I like to use Jamieson Faussett Brown's commentary alot, because it gives me 'just the facts'. They main point is to make the text clear, the application is secondary. I like to make the application 'fit' who I'm teaching to myself. Some like just the simple application, and some like a complex analysis going into the original languages.

BTW, I know that WHI says that piety is good, but that it's brought about in the people by the preaching of the gospel, not by preaching 'piety methods'. I haven't listened to that episode yet, but I will be soon.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2008)

Just listened to this. I have to say I was very disappointed, and not just by the Matthew Henry part. For my part, the supreme weakness in Reformed preaching is not imperative moralism, but insipid, repetitive redemptive historicalism.


----------



## JDKetterman (Nov 25, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Just listened to this. I have to say I was very disappointed, and not just by the Matthew Henry part. For my part, the supreme weakness in Reformed preaching is not imperative moralism, but insipid, repetitive redemptive historicalism.



I think there can be a weakness on either side of the fence. Bad redemptive historical preaching takes these great big leaps over the text without actually paying any attention to the particular verses of the text. I forgot who made this analogy, but it's like taking a 747 Airplane through a park. You're getting a broad view of the picture, but you are completely missing the details of the trees. 

On the other hand, some verse by verse preaching can be atomistic and can ignore the broader context of what these particular verses are saying. You really won't get what the whole story is. Some ministers will try to so hard to pull some application out of the text of each verse. It's like trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Application is good and should be done, but only when it's flowing from the text and not when its something someone is trying to put into the text. 

I tend to agree with the WHI guys about redemptive historical preaching when it is done rightly, but I have seen some pretty bad redemptive historical preaching.

As far as Matthew Henry, I have read a little of him, but not enough to make a judgment about his hermineutics. I am kind of interested in finding some examples...


----------



## Theogenes (Nov 25, 2008)

It just goes to show that we always have to be good Bereans and evaluate everyone we read or listen to (including the WHI guys) by the Scriptures. This sort of situation also shows how we in the Reformed tradition are not immune from elevating people or personalities (perhaps not to the level or infalliblity like the Papists) but beyond what we should.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Just listened to this. I have to say I was very disappointed, and not just by the Matthew Henry part. For my part, the supreme weakness in Reformed preaching is not imperative moralism, but insipid, repetitive redemptive historicalism.



I have to admit to being conflicted because I really like the show and the things they say but I also agree with this statement.

I remember talking to Dave Crum a number of years ago. He was (is?) a missionary from the SoCal OPC to Tijuana. He was staying overnight with us and we got to talking about RH preaching.

I mentioned that there were people in the congregation that accused our Pastor of preaching the Law and I simply couldn't understand how they could say that. I'd ask them what they meant and they would say: "Just give me Christ, just give me Christ." They were huge fans of Lee Irons.

Dave mentioned that there were some ministers in the SoCal OPC that were trying to make a motion in the Presbytery to define the RH Hermeneutic as the _only_ valid Biblical hermeneutic. Literally, some ministers were arguing that you are supposed to give zero application of a Scripture: just preach what Christ has done and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

This reminds me of the type of philosophy that some dilettantes who have nice ideas but they don't comport to reality.

The cognitive dissonance for these people was remarkable. _They_ only wanted to hear what Christ had done but do you suppose they simply "preached Christ" to their kids as they were raising them as if the Holy Spirit was going to make application of the Scriptures to "look left, look right, and then look left again?" If the application of Scriptural principles is of life giving (or saving value) of our own children then how much more is it so for those of us who are spiritual children.

Again, I want to assume the best in the WHI gang. I simply want to note that a hyper-RH hermeneutic is spiritually irresponsible for the Pastorate. Our consciences need to be trained and it is irresponsible to leave application to the untrained conscience. Just like children need training in the way they should go, so do we. There's a reason our overseers are called Elders.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2008)

JDKetterman said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Just listened to this. I have to say I was very disappointed, and not just by the Matthew Henry part. For my part, the supreme weakness in Reformed preaching is not imperative moralism, but insipid, repetitive redemptive historicalism.
> ...



JD,

I am not talking about whether preaching should be on one verse or 100. I have done both, preaching through a chapter (or two!) of OT narrative on a given Lord's Day, and one verse of an NT epistle.

What I am referring to is the RH tendency (and I have seen it first hand from some of the "poster boys," not simply bad preachers) to limit all application to "believe in what Christ has done." It is taking a part of the counsel of God (a critically important one, no doubt) and making it the whole of truth. After a couple of months where the only application is "cheer up, you are worse than you think, and Christ is better than you think," you get stagnant, complacent Christians.


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 25, 2008)

Well said, Fred.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2008)

I would also add that ironically RH preaching gone amok does what I call "finding Christ under every rock" which winds up in near allegory of OT passages. It is not "dare to be a Daniel" but it is "Christ in the bushel" "Christ in the seven cows" etc....


----------



## Ivan (Nov 25, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...



A misreading on my part, kind sir. I apologize to you. I like MH very much, but he is basically devotional in his approach, which I still enjoy and benefit from. Spurgeon....yes, I enjoy reading Spurgeon's sermons, yet I would never preach like Spurgeon for the very reasons you give. Your point is very well taken.

Still, I love Spurgeon. I do benefit greatly from reading his work and the many biographies of him. He had a powerful Gospel ministry that God greatly blessed.


----------



## nicnap (Nov 25, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Well said, Fred.


----------



## Jon Lake (Nov 25, 2008)

I used to enjoy White Horse (has been a while since I listened) but I am sorry they hammered on Henry. I have his commentaries and it is true that the emphasis is piety and devotion, I still view it as a "classic" and a thing of value in reformed thought when I refer to it I always keep that in mind.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 25, 2008)

Would men like Keller and Clowney be considered hyper-RH preachers? I ask this with great respect for both men (I realize Clowney has passed on), but I am also fairly new to the R-H hermeneutic and I want to temper my understanding of it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2008)

Ryan,

I don't even want to call any of the men on WHI hyper-RH because I've not heard it personally. I'm speaking of at least a few that have taken it way too far. I really want to assume the best in folks and I want to reiterate that I do benefit greatly from Horton's work at WHI and MR.

As far as Tim Keller goes, I would be surprised to discover that he was. My Pastor is actually using some of his study materials on Judges right now and it has some decent Reformed piety in it.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 25, 2008)

I'm working from memory here, but I think D. A. Carson has said that Calvin is the better exegete of Scripture but Henry is more applicatory and devotional.

Also, it seems to me that I've read that Henry's commentary is not made up of his sermons, but rather from his devotional Bible readings given during his worship services _before_ he preached his sermon. If true, this could enhance our understanding of just what it is Henry's commentary is supposed to be, and how we are to approach it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 21, 2009)

Joshua said:


> It _seems_ to me that the WHI & Company are more and more distancing themselves from the concept of _biblical_ piety as stressed and emphasized by the Puritans. Whether that has anything to do with their critique MH's hermeneutics or not, I don't know.


----------

