Matthew Henry?

[jennywigg]

As a newly Reformed gal, I'm really picky about what and who I read, so as not to let any bad theology seep back into my thinking. I have Matthew Henry's commentary and have read it some, but before I delve into it further, I want to make sure: Is he solid, someone whom I can trust? I just don't hear a lot of respected Reformed pastors, etc. refer to him and wondered why...

 

[Notthemama1984]

They probably do not refer to him because he writes in a simple way vs. academic. An old episode of White Horse Inn mentioned something like this.


I think it is perfectly fine to read Matthew Henry. In fact, our own Joshua is reading through his entire commentary. He has mentioned that it has been a great blessing.

 

[fishingpipe]

My guess is that the overwhelming majority of reformed folks would tell you that Matthew Henry is a valuable read. His commentary on the Bible, which I own, is a great tool to aid in studying the scriptures.

 

[py3ak]

If you own only one commentary, let it be Matthew Henry. If you read only one commentary, let it be Matthew Henry.

 

[Edward]

Are you reading the Complete or the Concise? Both are available online for free.

I was able to pick up a nice copy of the Concise at Half Price Books for $3.00

 

[bookslover]

Here's D. A. Carson on both Matthew Henry and John Calvin:

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 commentators.

New Testament Commentary Survey; 6th edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 32.

About Henry, it should be said that, from Romans through the end of the New Testament, the comments are not by Henry himself, but by his colleagues and friends working from his notes (Henry died after having completed the commentary from Genesis through Acts).

 

[jennywigg]

Thanks so much for the advice! The funny thing is that the commentary I own (probably 20-25 years old) was given to me by my Southern Baptist and very much non-reformed mom, who is absolutely in love with Matthew Henry. She reads him every day along with her Bible. She's in I Samuel right now, but I can't wait til she makes it on over to his commentary on Romans!

 

[bookslover]

Matthew Henry is a priceless jewel, befitting of the highest praise a man should receive from men. I dare say one can't go wrong with the beloved Henry.

Joshua, how far along are you in reading through Henry?

 

[jennywigg]

Richard, that is very interesting...thanks!

 

[EKSB SDG]

We've got a bazillion books in our house. The ones I treasure most and use the most are in our bedroom. Matthew Henry's (five volume) Commentary on the Whole Bible are in the bedroom.

 

[MLCOPE2]

One of the finest, In my humble opinion.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As a newly Reformed gal, I'm really picky about what and who I read, so as not to let any bad theology seep back into my thinking. I have Matthew Henry's commentary and have read it some, but before I delve into it further, I want to make sure: Is he solid, someone whom I can trust? I just don't hear a lot of respected Reformed pastors, etc. refer to him and wondered why...

Well, as has been said, if you could only own one commentary...

One Year Bible OnLine

AMR

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Every Puritan would carry with himself Matthew Henry's Bible commentary.

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

I would skip the Concise and go with the complete edition. Even though, admittingly, I own both.

It's not too hard to find solid deals for the six volume set. Christian Books Distributors puts it on sale very often, and its so popular that individual volumes from the set will pop up from time to time at prices so cheap you think you're dreaming.

I remember when my set came in the mail. I happened to discovered that CBD had a "slightly imperfect" section, and was selling off two or three sets for $20 because it was "damaged". I snapped it up, and got it in the mail 5 days later. Opened it up, got out the six volumes, and you need a REALLY good eye to pick up the damage; I almost missed it at first glance. You could've easily passed it off as new with most people.

One note, and I'm sure others can attest to this. If you purchase the set (or any other reformed book set), be very careful when handling the packages that arrive. Some of them may look small, but you can easily throw a back out lifting them up. The phrase "big things come in small packages" really holds meaning in the reformed book community. When I bought Calvin's commentaries about a month ago, I would've sworn that someone put an anvil in the box instead of the books.

 

[Andres]

They probably do not refer to him because he writes in a simple way vs. academic.

I've always viewed Henry as more devotional than academic. Perhaps this is what you meant brother.

 

[JohnGill]

The other option is of course the PDF version of Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary. It and John Gill's Exposition of the Bible are some of the pdfs I read on my Nook. Both are free.

 

[sastark]

Many have already said this, but I'd like to add my voice to the choir: Matthew Henry is the best commentator available, modern or historical. Modern commentators would do better to learn from him than deride him as "devotional not academic." Please! Henry was a scholar of the first rate. That modern academia has forgotten how to write a commentary is no charge against Henry.

Jennifer, I lead the midweek Bible study for my church and Henry is the first (and often only) commentary I consult. I am constantly shocked at the jewels he draws out from Scripture. Read him! You will love him!

 

[py3ak]

I am close to finishing up Leviticus: Matthew Henry seems like the one commentary you could recommend to anyone. No matter how advanced you are in the study of Scripture, Henry will stimulate and refresh you; and yet his language is so clear and simple that all but the simplest of believers should be able to profit.

When people conceive of a commentary as a reference work - something to be consulted for help in answering a precise question, Matthew Henry can be frustrating. But for reading (rather than referencing), I don't think Henry has any equal.

On a related note, Seth, though the ideas are often wrong, I think C.H. Dodd could teach the modern church a thing or two about writing a readable commentary.

 

[Notthemama1984]

They probably do not refer to him because he writes in a simple way vs. academic.

I've always viewed Henry as more devotional than academic. Perhaps this is what you meant brother.

Yeah that would be better wording. I can't remember the wording the WHI used though. In the end though I love Henry and recommend him greatly. I find it amazing that I get wrapped up in modern commentaries and forget Henry too often. Every time I come back to him I think, "Why haven't I been reading him more?"

 

[Notthemama1984]

 

[Andres]

Modern commentators would do better to learn from him than deride him as "devotional not academic." Please! Henry was a scholar of the first rate.

I presume you are referring to my comment. I never intended to deride Henry in any way. I very much respect and enjoy his work. But thanks for thinking of me as a modern commentator!

 

[sastark]

Modern commentators would do better to learn from him than deride him as "devotional not academic." Please! Henry was a scholar of the first rate.

I presume you are referring to my comment. I never intended to deride Henry in any way. I very much respect and enjoy his work. But thanks for thinking of me as a modern commentator!

Sorry, Andrew, but I wasn't referring to you specifically, but to the White Horse Inn crowd which seems to look down on Henry for his lack of being "academic."

 

[bookslover]

We've got a bazillion books in our house. The ones I treasure most and use the most are in our bedroom. Matthew Henry's (five volume) Commentary on the Whole Bible are in the bedroom.

Literally? A bazillion books? Must be a big house! LOL

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

Richard, that is very interesting...thanks!

You're welcome, my dear.

 

[Jeffriesw]

Jennywigg, With endorsements like these, I don't think you can go wrong with Matthew Henry.

In fact, I thinking will also puchase a set!

Sent from my iPhone

Bill Jeffries

 

[JohnGill]

Modern commentators would do better to learn from him than deride him as "devotional not academic." Please! Henry was a scholar of the first rate.

I presume you are referring to my comment. I never intended to deride Henry in any way. I very much respect and enjoy his work. But thanks for thinking of me as a modern commentator!

Sorry, Andrew, but I wasn't referring to you specifically, but to the White Horse Inn crowd which seems to look down on Henry for his lack of being "academic."

I've never understood why devotional is somehow worse than academic. Seems like a faulty comparison. How are they, not WHI specifically but all those making such a comment, defining devotional and academic? I suppose I could call Turretin academic and a Brakel devotional. But so what? a Brakel's "devotional slant" doesn't make his work less than Turretin's "academic slant". Just means they tackled the same issues from a different perspective. Or compare the WLC with the HC. Is the HC less because it's considered more devotional? I trow not. This idea of pitting "academic" against "devotional" is purely arbitrary. What objective foundation is there for picking one above the other? None.

Henry's commentary is invaluable. Gill's exposition is invaluable. When Gill's "academics" tire me on some point, Henry's "devotions" comfort me. But when Henry's "devotions" tire me, Gill's "academics" comfort me. How off-kilter would we be without both mind and heart?

But back to my previous comment: PEOPLE GET AN EBOOK READER!!! A theological library on one device!!!!! Excuse me, I started drooling again. Now if I could just bring myself to slaughter Turrentin's 3 volume BOOK set so that I can scan it. Sigh.

 

[Andres]

Modern commentators would do better to learn from him than deride him as "devotional not academic." Please! Henry was a scholar of the first rate.

I presume you are referring to my comment. I never intended to deride Henry in any way. I very much respect and enjoy his work. But thanks for thinking of me as a modern commentator!

Sorry, Andrew, but I wasn't referring to you specifically, but to the White Horse Inn crowd which seems to look down on Henry for his lack of being "academic."

I've never understood why devotional is somehow worse than academic. Seems like a faulty comparison. How are they, not WHI specifically but all those making such a comment, defining devotional and academic? I suppose I could call Turretin academic and a Brakel devotional. But so what? a Brakel's "devotional slant" doesn't make his work less than Turretin's "academic slant". Just means they tackled the same issues from a different perspective. Or compare the WLC with the HC. Is the HC less because it's considered more devotional? I trow not. This idea of pitting "academic" against "devotional" is purely arbitrary. What objective foundation is there for picking one above the other? None.

Who said devotional was worse than academic? I certainly didn't. I'm not familiar with the WHI guys explanation so did they say this?

It seems to me like you answered your own question above. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but when I made previous reference to Henry being more devotional over academic, it was simply my take on the style or perspective that I happen to get when I read Henry. You are correct, that many times reading something with a devotional slant is just as helpful, if not more, than reading something considered academic.

 

[JohnGill]

Who said devotional was worse than academic? I certainly didn't. I'm not familiar with the WHI guys explanation so did they say this?

It seems to me like you answered your own question above. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but when I made previous reference to Henry being more devotional over academic, it was simply my take on the style or perspective that I happen to get when I read Henry. You are correct, that many times reading something with a devotional slant is just as helpful, if not more, than reading something considered academic.

Andrew,

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you, but to Seth's overall question dealing with WHI or others who try to put one up as a higher standard the other. My apologies if by quoting you with him I gave that impression. Your comment to CIT above cannot be construed to mean you were putting devotional or academic above one or the other. And I agree with your assessment that Henry is more devotional in nature than say Gill or Calvin.

But I noticed you failed to quote the most important part of my post.

But back to my previous comment: PEOPLE GET AN EBOOK READER!!! A theological library on one device!!!!! Excuse me, I started drooling again. Now if I could just bring myself to slaughter Turrentin's 3 volume BOOK set so that I can scan it. Sigh.

I mean think of it! The contents of the following site on one device!!! http://puritanlibrary.com/

 

[Andres]

Chris, I have a Kindle so it's all good.

 

[JM]

I check Gill and Henry in that order. Henry's work on prayer and family religion should also be read.

j