WHI Guys Critique Matthew Henry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forgive my ignorance...who are WHI? OOOPS...White Horse Inn...nevermind..took me a minute this moring. Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
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 )...
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Josh,

Could you elaborate just a little on what you mean?
 
Joshua said:
satz 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 MH's hermeneutics or not, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Josh,

Could you elaborate just a little on what you mean?
Click to expand...
It just means that there's a lot of negative stigma attached to piety in their programs, and if there's one thing the Puritans have taught us, it is the important role personal piety and holiness holds in the sanctification of a believer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
Click to expand...

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.

1. They must rest from their worldly employment on the sabbath day, must do no servile work. They must bear no burden into the city nor out of it, into their houses nor out of them; husbandmen's burdens of corn must not be carried in, nor manure carried out; nor must tradesmen's burdens of wares or merchandises be imported or exported. There must not a loaded horse, or cart, or wagon, be seen on the sabbath day either in the streets or in the roads; the porters must not ply on that day, nor must the servants be suffered to fetch in provisions or fuel. It is a day of rest, and must not be made a day of labour, unless in case of necessity.

2. They must apply themselves to that which is the proper work and business of the day: "Hallow you the sabbath, that is, consecrate it to the honour of God and spend it in his service and worship." It is in order to this that worldly business must be laid aside, that we may be entire for, and intent upon, that work, which requires and deserves the whole man.

3. They must herein be very circumspect: "Take heed to yourselves, watch against every thing that borders upon the profanation of the sabbath." Where God is jealous we must be cautious. "Take heed to yourselves, for it is at your peril if you rob God of that part of your time which he has reserved to himself." Take heed to your souls (so the word is); in order to the right sanctifying of sabbaths, we must look well to the frame of our spirits and have a watchful eye upon all the motions of the inward man. Let not the soul be burdened with the cares of this world on sabbath days, but let that be employed, even all that is within us, in the work of the day. And,

4. He refers them to the law, the statute in this case made and provided: "This is no new imposition upon you, but is what I commanded your fathers; it is an ancient law; it was an article of the original contract; nay, it was a command to the patriarchs."

II. How the sabbath had been profaned (v. 23): "Your fathers were required to keep holy the sabbath day, but they obeyed not; they hardened their necks against this as well as other commands that were given them." This is mentioned to show that there needed a reformation in this matter, and that God had a just controversy with them for the long transgression of this law which they had been guilty of. They hardened their necks against this command, that they might not hear and receive instruction concerning other commands. Where sabbaths are neglected all religion sensibly goes to decay.

III. What blessings God had in store for them if they would make conscience of sabbath-sanctification. Though their fathers had been guilty of the profanation of the sabbath they should not only not smart for it, but their city and nation should recover its ancient glory, if they would keep sabbaths better, v. 24-26. Let them take care to hallow the sabbath and do no work therein; and then,

1. The court shall flourish. Kings in succession, or the many branches of the royal family at the same time, all as great as kings, with the other princes that sit upon the thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David (Psa. 122:5), shall ride in great pomp through the gates of Jerusalem, some in chariots and some on horses, attended with a numerous retinue of the men of Judah. Note, The honour of the government is the joy of the kingdom; and the support of religion would contribute greatly to both.

2. The city shall flourish. Let there be a face of religion kept up in Jerusalem, by sabbath-sanctification, that it may answer to its title, the holy city, and then it shall remain for ever, shall for ever be inhabited (so the word may be rendered); it shall not be destroyed and dispeopled, as it is threatened to be. Whatever supports religion tends to establish the civil interests of a land.

3. The country shall flourish: The cities of Judah and the land of Benjamin shall be replenished with vast numbers of inhabitants, and those abounding in plenty and living in peace, which will appear by the multitude and value of their offerings, which they shall present to God. By this the flourishing of a country may be judged of, What does it do for the honour of God? Those that starve their religion either are poor or are in a fair way to be so.

4. The church shall flourish: Meat-offerings, and incense, and sacrifices of praise, shall be brought to the house of the Lord, for the maintenance of the service of that house and the servants that attend it. God's institutions shall be conscientiously observed; no sacrifice nor incense shall be offered to idols, nor alienated from God, but every thing shall go in the right channel. They shall have both occasion and hearts to bring sacrifices of praise to God. This is made an instance of their prosperity. Then a people truly flourish when religion flourishes among them. And this is the effect of sabbath-sanctification; when that branch of religion is kept up other instances of it are kept up likewise; but, when that is lost, devotion is lost either in superstition or in profaneness. It is a true observation, which some have made, that the streams of all religion run either deep or shallow according as the banks of the sabbath are kept up or neglected.

IV. What judgments they must expect would come upon them if they persisted in the profanation of the sabbath (v. 27): "If you will not hearken to me in this matter, to keep the gates shut on sabbath days, so that there may be no unnecessary entering in, or going out, on that day-if you will break through the enclosure of the divine law, and lay that day in common with other days-know that God will kindle a fire in the gates of your city," intimating that it shall be kindled by an enemy besieging the city and assaulting the gates, who shall take this course to force an entrance. Justly shall those gates be fired that are not used as they ought to be to shut out sin and to keep people in to an attendance on their duty. This fire shall devour even the palaces of Jerusalem, where the princes and nobles dwelt, who did not use their power and interest as they ought to have done to keep up the honour of God's sabbaths; but it shall not be quenched until it has laid the whole city in ruins. This was fulfilled by the army of the Chaldeans, ch. 52:13. The profanation of the sabbath is a sin for which God has often contended with a people by fire.
—Matthew Henry Unabridged
Click to expand...

Big difference huh?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Wow! Talk about harsh.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
WHI guys bemoan Matthew Henry
Replies
27
Views
4K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Adam Olive
  • Locked
Reading through Matthew Henry
Replies
7
Views
2K
Josh Williamson
Josh Williamson
B
Reading Matthew Henry
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
bookslover
B
B
Shy About Publishing Matthew Henry?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
SolamVeritatem
  • Locked
The Life of Matthew Henry
Replies
8
Views
725
SolamVeritatem
SolamVeritatem
Back
Top