# WHI guys bemoan Matthew Henry



## CDM (Jan 5, 2009)

On the White Horse Inn, during the 11/23/08 episode, entitled "We Preach Not Ourselves," at mark 25:23ff, Michael Horton brings up an allegorical hermeneutic of scripture that the liberals use. The Lutheran (I think) says that Matthew Henry is a perfect example of one who is allegorical in their interpretation of scripture. Horton, exclaims, "...if you're relying on M.H. if you're a pastor listening, I think a lot of, a lot of reformed people would say, If you're relying on M.H. find someone else, that's not, that's ...there are real problems with M.H."

The group all heartily agrees. One of them throws the poor Henry a bone and says, "there are some useful devotional reflections there...' but immediately following says, "but the general hermeneutic [M.H. employs] is pretty bad." They go on to include him among the conservative" stripe of allegorical interpreters in contradistinction to the "liberal" allegorical interpreters.

I'm curious, what do those on the PB think about this? Do you agree with the above? Do you find M.H. worth a read?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2009)

Chris,

Look here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/whi-guys-critique-matthew-henry-40410/


----------



## CDM (Jan 5, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Chris,
> 
> Look here:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/whi-guys-critique-matthew-henry-40410/



Thanks, it appears I'm a bit behind in my podcasts...


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 5, 2009)

I very much agree with what was said in the white horse inn he is very allegorical and often goes out from the text, never to return again...
But if you do not use him as your primary source he helps you to see the text from different angles that you might not have seen on your own.
Anyway I have his works and I will not be throwing them out any time soon.

But then again, getting books out of my hands is harder than teaching pigs to dance.

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 02:01:15 EST-----

 did not know that


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 5, 2009)

I agree. I've never thought much of Matthew Henry's commentaries. Really. I'm glad to hear others who are "higher on the totem pole" of credibility agree with what I've maintained for years.


----------



## CDM (Jan 5, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> I agree. I've never thought much of Matthew Henry's commentaries. Really. I'm glad to hear others who are "higher on the totem pole" of credibility agree with what I've maintained for years.



Interesting. I read the original thread, that Fred linked to, it seems most there took a contrary view to yours. Could you elaborate just a bit?


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 5, 2009)

I have Henry's unabridged commentaries and refer to them. I do find however that they are a bit too allegorical at times. But, it must be remembered the WHI guys were stating that they should not be used as a primary commentary; 'relying' was the word they used. I agree with that wholeheartedly.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 5, 2009)

mangum said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. I've never thought much of Matthew Henry's commentaries. Really. I'm glad to hear others who are "higher on the totem pole" of credibility agree with what I've maintained for years.
> ...



Um, I'm referring to the folks at WHI who cautioned against relying on Henry. What people think here... well... 

Henry is great for devotional reading because he clearly has a love for Christ and is concerned with application. 

But for sermon prep I've long maintained that Henry is a poor source.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 5, 2009)

"getting books out of my hands is harder than teaching pigs to dance."


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 5, 2009)

Better watch out!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMOJQcKK0q8]YouTube - The 3d dancing pig[/ame]


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 5, 2009)

Well I did not say it was impossible


----------



## py3ak (Jan 5, 2009)

Matthew Henry was not trying to write a critical commentary. If you read the original preface to the volume on the Pentateuch you will see that. Also, he planned to be read in conjunction with Matthew Poole, so that he was brief on texts that Poole covered more extensively, etc.

That being said I would challenge people to go to Genesis 5, and find any commentary that at comparable or even greater length gives you as much food for thought in that chapter as Matthew Henry does.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jan 5, 2009)

I agree with Spurgeon:



> First among the mighty for general usefulness we are bound to mention the man whose name is a household word, MATTHEW HENRY. He is most pious and pithy, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse and trustworthy. You will find him to be glittering with metaphors, rich in analogies, overflowing with illustrations, superabundant in reflections. He delights in apposition and alliteration; he is usually plain, quaint, and full of pith; he sees right through a text directly; apparently he is not critical, but he quietly gives the result of an accurate critical knowledge of the original fully up to the best critics of his time. He is not versed in the manners and customs of the East, for the Holy Land was not so accessible as in our day; but he is deeply spiritual, heavenly, and profitable; finding good matter in every text, and from all deducing most practical and judicious lessons. His is a kind of commentary to be placed where I saw it, in the old meeting house at Chester—chained in the vestry for anybody and everybody to read. It is the poor man's commentary, the old Christian's companion, suitable to everybody, instructive to all. His own account of how he was led to write his exposition, affords us an example of delighting in the law of the Lord. "If any desire to know how so mean and obscure a person as I am, who in learning, judgment, felicity of expression, and all advantages for such a service, am less than the least of all my Master's servants, came to venture upon so great a work, I can give no other account of it but this. It has long been my practice, what little time I had to spare in my study from my constant preparations for the pulpit, to spend it in drawing up expositions upon some parts of the New Testament, not so much for my own use, as purely for my own entertainment, because I know not how to employ my thoughts and time more to my satisfaction. Trahit sua quemque voluptas; every man that studies hath some beloved study, which is his delight above any other; and this is mine. It is that learning which it was my happiness from a child to be trained up in by my ever honoured father, whose memory must always be very dear and precious to me. He often minded me, that a good textuary is a good divine; and that I should read other books with this in my eye, that I might be the better able to understand and apply the Scripture." You are aware, perhaps, that the latter part of the New Testament was completed by other hands, the good man having gone the way of all flesh. The writers were Messrs, Evans, Brown, Mayo, Bays, Rosewell, Harriss, Atkinson, Smith, Tong, Wright, Merrell, Hill, Reynolds, and Billingsley—all Dissenting ministers. They have executed their work exceedingly well, have worked in much of the matter which Henry had collected, and have done their best to follow his methods, but their combined production is far inferior to Matthew Henry himself, and any reader will soon detect the difference. Every minister ought to read Matthew Henry entirely and carefully through once at least. I should recommend you to get through it in the next twelve months after you leave college. Begin at the beginning, and resolve that you will traverse the goodly land from Dan to Beersheba. You will acquire a vast store of sermons if you read with your notebook close at hand; and as for thoughts, they will swarm around you like twittering swallows around an old gable towards the close of autumn. If you publicly expound the chapter you have just been reading, your people will wonder at the novelty of your remarks and the depth of your thoughts, and then you may tell them what a treasure Henry is. Mr. Jay's sermons bear indubitable evidence of his having studied Matthew Henry almost daily. Many of the quaint things in Jay's sermons are either directly traceable to Matthew Henry or to his familiarity with that writer. I have thought that the style of Jay was founded upon Matthew Henry: Matthew Henry is Jay writing, Jay is Matthew Henry preaching. What more could I say in commendation either of the preacher or the author?


----------



## Neogillist (Jan 5, 2009)

I read Matthew Henry's commentary every day as part of my devotion. His commentary is devotional in character, and that is how it ought to be used, of course. It is true that at times he tends to be allegorical, but especially when the text will permit, such as with the ceremonial law in the Old Testament, or with description about the details of the temple vessels and other things that we would tend to skip as being irrelevant today. However, in places were more exegesis is required, he also provides it in the typical 'mainstream' kind of puritan tought. You must also keep in mind that Matthew Henry is not a High Calvinist like Gill or Owen, and so some of his comments in regard to certain themes might be dismissed as not 'analytical' enough by some of us.

Matthew Henry's commentary should be used as a good devotional. If one is looking for sound exegesis however, then Calvin or Gill's commentary should be consulted instead.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 5, 2009)




----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 5, 2009)

Call me ignorant but I fail to see how Calvin's commentaries are any less "devotional" and "practical" than what Matthew Henry offers. I have a feeling anything prior to the pre-critical era may be written off nearly carte blanche by some as being merely "devotional" and "allegorical" in nature (especially when it comes to the 5 books of Moses, the Prophetic works, and Revelation) because it fails to jive with current methods and theories behind exegetical development as well as contemporary moves in certain theological circles.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jan 5, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Call me ignorant but I fail to see how Calvin's commentaries are any less "devotional" and "practical" than what Matthew Henry offers. I have a feeling anything prior to the pre-critical era may be written off nearly carte blanche by some as being merely "devotional" and "allegorical" in nature (especially when it comes to the 5 books of Moses, the Prophetic works, and Revelation) because it fails to jive with current methods and theories behind exegetical development as well as contemporary moves in certain theological circles.





Good point. I think too often, in the rush to gravitate to the lastest and best critical works, too many people needlessly cast aside some of the best older works.

There's room for both. Just recognize the areas where Henry (or others) are not so good...but let's not "throw out the baby with the bath water," so to speak.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 5, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> What people think here... well...


Tell me about it. Some don't even realize when they just shot themselves in the foot!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 5, 2009)

I think Mangum just simply misunderstood him. Hardly "shooting himself in the foot".


----------



## py3ak (Jan 5, 2009)

I don't think it was mangum who shot himself in the foot....


----------



## turmeric (Jan 5, 2009)

If you're going to shoot those things, be careful!


----------



## Archlute (Jan 5, 2009)

Hey, 

Matthew Henry is great for devotional reading, and some good illustrations and applications can be found in his works, but it really cannot be argued that his exegetical contributions are either "top notch" or "the final say" in many instances. 

Arguing that a preference for modern commentaries stems from some acceptance of critical theory or an evolutionary styled "history of religions" approach is just facile and unstudied. There are many great modern commentaries written both devotionally and theologically that have incorporated better exegetical insights than MH, and even the critical commentaries prove quite helpful to those ministers who are trained well enough to see through the poor argumentation and still benefit from some of the fine historical/archeological/linguistic studies that have gone into their writing.

I would take the approach advocated by D.A. Carson in his little work on commentaries - use men such as Poole, Henry, and others, but make sure to use them in conjunction with modern exegetical works to make sure that something is not being overlooked or misunderstood. 

Btw, I would put Calvin in a class all of his own. He wrote in a pre-critical era, but his commentaries exhibit a clarity of thought, theological insight, and linguistic skill that is indeed unique.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 5, 2009)

The commentary I go to most frequently is Calvin. He writes in a way that really works with my brain. I was using his as I taught through Galations and a friend suggested Martin Luther's commentary. I started reading it and didn't find it nearly as helpful as Calvin's for teaching (though it was great devotion). I have used Henry before but never as a primary source.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 5, 2009)

Archlute said:


> ...Arguing that a preference for modern commentaries stems from some acceptance of critical theory or an evolutionary styled "history of religions" approach is just facile and unstudied...



I hardly think it to be "facile" and "unstudied". Spending time in the belly of the beast at a liberal PC(USA) seminary makes one keenly aware of the fallacy of chronology in selecting commentaries for study and exegetical work.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > ...Arguing that a preference for modern commentaries stems from some acceptance of critical theory or an evolutionary styled "history of religions" approach is just facile and unstudied...
> ...



The problem is that there are garbage modern commentaries and there are good ones. 1 & 2 Kings is a good example. You can get the Word Biblical commentary or Gray, and they are near worthless. But I challenge anyone to find any commentary as good as Ralph Davis'. It is far and away better than any older commentary. Why? Because Davis is solidly Reformed, a brilliant Hebraist, and pastoral. And he is interacting with pastoral issues of this day.

We need not be chronologically snobbish in _either_ direction - taking what help we can from the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and modern writers.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 5, 2009)




----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 5, 2009)

I would agree Rev. Greco. The point being that just because something is "new" does not ergo make it "better". Neither can it be because it has a "name" behind it. We must be good Bereans in all areas.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I would agree Rev. Greco. The point being that just because something is "new" does not ergo make it "better". Neither can it be because it has a "name" behind it. We must be good Bereans in all areas.



Absolutley, Ben! And just because something is old does not make it bad, or good! (There are a great many dull, lifeless works produced during the Puritan age. The advantage we have is that they have not been reprinted for the most part!

We must study to show ourselves approved.


----------

