Or, alternately titled "Why I don't trust Bible commentators."
Matthew Henry is a very well respected Bible commentator from the late 1600s and published his six volume Exposition of the Old and New Testaments in about 1706. Many refer to him for background information or insight as they form their opinions on Scripture.
Well, I am currently reading Martin Madan's Thelyphthora, volume I, and I just laughed and laughed as he completely ripped Henry. This is a fun read, so I'll try to set it up and then cite Madan and his quotes of Henry.
Page 144, well into chapter IV, which is 226 pages long!!, titled Of Polygamy. Madan says,
"The first instance of polygamy which is recorded, we find Gen. iv. 19. And Lamech took unto him two wives, the name of the one was Adah, the other Zillah. Here our commentators think they have found the sin of polygamy-- "It was one of the degenerate race of Cain," saith one, "that first transgressed the law of marriage, that two only should be one flesh." These are the words of one of the wisest and best (Mr. Henry) among our English commentators, and serve to shew how far men will go to support a popular notion, or pre-conceived opinion, even to the * corrupting of the Bible. There are no such words as "two only" in the law of marriage referred to. -- It stands, Gen ii, 24. they shall be one flesh. So Mark x. 8. Had the words "two only" been there, we should not have red so frequently afterwards of God's countenancing, their practicing ....
The extended footnote, wherein Madan rips Henry:
* See Henry on Gen. iv. 19. When I saw the word only interpolated by Mr. Henry, I really thought it a corruption worthy of the church of Rome. In this I find I was not mistaken, for the Council of Trent thus dogmatizes -- "Adam did pronounce the bond of matrimony to be perpetual, and that only two persons may be joined therein; a thing more plainly declared by Christ." See Brent. 784. -- Now, here is an interpolation of the word only, and a downright lie to justify it -- for where does Christ more plainly declare that only two persons can be joined together in marriage?
Mr. Henry goes on to tell us, that "Hitherto one man had but one wife at a time."-- (How did he know that? See Le Clerc on Gen. iv. 19. and Thelyph. vol. ii. p. 161. n.)-- "But Lamech took two wives -- From the beginning it was not so"-- this he would prove from Mal. ii. 15. which is nothing to the purpose. See above, p. 132-139. He then falls into the usual misapplication and perversion of Matt. xix. 8. where the words "in the beginning it was not so" -- clearly and necessarily refer to the preceding sentence, which mentions nothing but "putting away wives."
Mr. Henry concludes his annotation on Gen. iv. 19. with two practical inferences: -- "1. That those who desert God's church and commandments" (which said commandments are, on this occasion, the entire forgery and invention of the commentator) "lay themselves open to all manner of temptation. -- 2. That when an ill custom is begun by ill men, sometimes men of better character are, through unwariness, drawn in to follow them: Jacob, David, and many others, who were otherwise good men, were afterwards ensnared in this sin, which Lamech had begun." --N.B. This is called an Exposition of the scriptures in the Old Testament!
Footnote over... I laughed on several counts. Madan was a bulldog that we really need to reach back to and study/applaud. He stood for truth long before we got here. I laughed, because commentators are put on such a pedestal, but we have to remember, their words and thoughts are NOT inspired and MOST, Jewish (middle ages and later) and Christian commentators (from the 200s on) approach the Scriptures with a presupposed monogamy bias that taints many, many expositions that are not directly related to PM, never mind their outright undermining of the Word by adding or taking away words to make their case for MO if the passage is clearly PM.
Did I mention how much I enjoyed Madan ripping Henry?
Matthew Henry is a very well respected Bible commentator from the late 1600s and published his six volume Exposition of the Old and New Testaments in about 1706. Many refer to him for background information or insight as they form their opinions on Scripture.
Well, I am currently reading Martin Madan's Thelyphthora, volume I, and I just laughed and laughed as he completely ripped Henry. This is a fun read, so I'll try to set it up and then cite Madan and his quotes of Henry.
Page 144, well into chapter IV, which is 226 pages long!!, titled Of Polygamy. Madan says,
"The first instance of polygamy which is recorded, we find Gen. iv. 19. And Lamech took unto him two wives, the name of the one was Adah, the other Zillah. Here our commentators think they have found the sin of polygamy-- "It was one of the degenerate race of Cain," saith one, "that first transgressed the law of marriage, that two only should be one flesh." These are the words of one of the wisest and best (Mr. Henry) among our English commentators, and serve to shew how far men will go to support a popular notion, or pre-conceived opinion, even to the * corrupting of the Bible. There are no such words as "two only" in the law of marriage referred to. -- It stands, Gen ii, 24. they shall be one flesh. So Mark x. 8. Had the words "two only" been there, we should not have red so frequently afterwards of God's countenancing, their practicing ....
The extended footnote, wherein Madan rips Henry:
* See Henry on Gen. iv. 19. When I saw the word only interpolated by Mr. Henry, I really thought it a corruption worthy of the church of Rome. In this I find I was not mistaken, for the Council of Trent thus dogmatizes -- "Adam did pronounce the bond of matrimony to be perpetual, and that only two persons may be joined therein; a thing more plainly declared by Christ." See Brent. 784. -- Now, here is an interpolation of the word only, and a downright lie to justify it -- for where does Christ more plainly declare that only two persons can be joined together in marriage?
Mr. Henry goes on to tell us, that "Hitherto one man had but one wife at a time."-- (How did he know that? See Le Clerc on Gen. iv. 19. and Thelyph. vol. ii. p. 161. n.)-- "But Lamech took two wives -- From the beginning it was not so"-- this he would prove from Mal. ii. 15. which is nothing to the purpose. See above, p. 132-139. He then falls into the usual misapplication and perversion of Matt. xix. 8. where the words "in the beginning it was not so" -- clearly and necessarily refer to the preceding sentence, which mentions nothing but "putting away wives."
Mr. Henry concludes his annotation on Gen. iv. 19. with two practical inferences: -- "1. That those who desert God's church and commandments" (which said commandments are, on this occasion, the entire forgery and invention of the commentator) "lay themselves open to all manner of temptation. -- 2. That when an ill custom is begun by ill men, sometimes men of better character are, through unwariness, drawn in to follow them: Jacob, David, and many others, who were otherwise good men, were afterwards ensnared in this sin, which Lamech had begun." --N.B. This is called an Exposition of the scriptures in the Old Testament!
Footnote over... I laughed on several counts. Madan was a bulldog that we really need to reach back to and study/applaud. He stood for truth long before we got here. I laughed, because commentators are put on such a pedestal, but we have to remember, their words and thoughts are NOT inspired and MOST, Jewish (middle ages and later) and Christian commentators (from the 200s on) approach the Scriptures with a presupposed monogamy bias that taints many, many expositions that are not directly related to PM, never mind their outright undermining of the Word by adding or taking away words to make their case for MO if the passage is clearly PM.
Did I mention how much I enjoyed Madan ripping Henry?
