Matthew Henry Question

[VirginiaHuguenot]

In this thread, I recently cited comments by Matthew Henry on Numbers 22.20. There, speaking of God's permission for Balaam to go with the princes of Moab, with respect to the text which says "God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him," Henry then says "God came to him, probably by an anger, and told him he might, if he pleased, go with Balak's messengers."

I gather that in some versions of Henry's commentary the word highlighted reads "angel." Grammatically speaking, I believe "angel" is correct, as in "God came to him, probably by means of an angel." I think it is likely that the word "anger" is a typographical mistake made by someone perhaps because Henry does use the word "anger" later in the same paragraph and such mistakes are easy to make when a similar word is found in close proximity. However, I would like to receive any thoughts from the PB about whether "anger" or "angel" is the word Henry meant to say.

Thoughts? Here is the paragraph from Henry that I have available:

III. The permission God gave him to go, v. 20. God came to him, probably by an anger, and told him he might, if he pleased, go with Balak's messengers. So he gave him up to his own heart's lust. "Since thou hast such a mind to go, even go, yet know that the journey thou undertakest shall not be for thy honour; for, though thou hast leave to go, thou shalt not, as thou hopest, have leave to curse, for the word which I shall say unto thee, that thou shalt do." Note, God has wicked men in a chain; hitherto they shall come by his permission, but no further that he does permit them. Thus he makes the wrath of man to praise him, yet, at the same time, restrains the remainder of it. It was in anger that God said to Balaam, "Go with them," and we have reason to think that Balaam himself so understood it, for we do not find him pleading this allowance when God reproved him for going. Note, As God sometimes denies the prayers of his people in love, so sometimes he grants the desires of the wicked in wrath.

 

[brymaes]

"Anger" is nonsensical both from a grammatical and theological point of view...

 

[panta dokimazete]

check out this google of "an anger" Matthew Henry

note - How art thou fallen, O Lucifer! from an anger of light, to be a lord of flies!

I think it is just a typo.

-JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
check out this google of "an anger" Matthew Henry

note - How art thou fallen, O Lucifer! from an anger of light, to be a lord of flies!

I think it is just a typo.

-JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]

Thanks. This is very helpful and lends credence to the typo theory.

 

[Peter]

I've noticed in Poole some of the scripture references appear to be incorrect.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Peter
I've noticed in Poole some of the scripture references appear to be incorrect.

Peter -- That is interesting. If you don't mind, perhaps you could u2u me some of the references that you have in mind. It will be useful in our Matthew Poole project.

 

[Peter]

I can't remember anything in particular, but I have the vague recollection of looking up a verse that isnt in the bible or that is irrelevent. Anyone else notice something like this? I'll keep you posted if I find anything.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thanks Peter!

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Thanks Peter!

Ya, Thanks for NOTHING

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by Peter]