Chapter 6 Matthew Henry’s Commentary in Context: Reading Ecclesiastes (continued)
Matthew A. Collins
1. Introduction
The summer of 2014 marked the tercentenary of the death of Matthew Henry (1662–1714), a leading figure among early eighteenth-century Dissenters and perhaps best known for his six-volume Exposition of the Old and New Testament, with Practical Remarks and Observations (published between 1707 and 1725).1 As indicated by the title, his magnum opus adopted a decidedly practical approach to the biblical text and proved so popular that by 1855 it had already appeared in twenty-five different editions with unconfirmed estimates of over 200,000 copies in circulation.2
In 1687, Matthew Henry began what would be a twenty-five-year ministry in the English city of Chester, where much of his commentary was written. Notably, he utilized his first Sunday sermon there to provide an exposition of Nehemiah 8. The biblical passage relates how, shortly after their return from exile, Ezra gathered the people together in order to read and expound the law:
8:2Accordingly, the priest Ezra brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding.… 8So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.
Neh 8:2, 83
In his own account of his Chester ministry (written in 1710, just four years before his death), Henry explains that his reason for doing so was to set out his own agenda from the outset, namely the emulation of this expository practice:
The first Lord’s Day after I came, in the morning I expounded Neh. 8, concerning the Exposition of the Scriptures signifying my purpose to keep up that exercise: and accordingly the following Sabbath began with the Book of Joshua, afterwards went back to Genesis, and in about twenty years I expounded over all the Old Testament … and am now going over it the second time, and am got as far as 10 Numbers.4
Henry’s choice of Nehemiah for this initial sermon was dictated primarily by this underlying concern to outline and scripturally contextualize his intention to expound the biblical texts for his congregation (an undertaking which is clearly echoed in his later commentary).5 However, this choice of text is perhaps interesting for another reason too, since there is a further well-known theme in Ezra-Nehemiah which appears to play a similarly prominent role throughout Henry’s commentary – that of foreign or ‘strange’ wives.
This essay will explore how Henry deals with the issue of ‘strange wives’, why he believes they continue to pose a very real threat, and (in view of the overall intention of his commentary) what ‘practical observations’ he offers to his reader as a result.6 In particular, it will be demonstrated that Henry’s concern for this issue extends beyond merely a superficial ‘reading out’ of the biblical text, such that it is perceived by him to lie also behind other events of the Hebrew Bible ostensibly unconcerned with the topic, most notably the flood narrative. In doing so it will be argued that Henry’s commentary traces (indeed, creates) a far more prominent thematic thread running from the antediluvian age to the post-exilic period of calamities resulting from mixed marriages between ‘professors of religion’ and their ‘strange wives’.
2. Strange and Foreign Wives in Matthew Henry
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah are particularly concerned by the practice of intermarriage. It is discovered that a large number of the returning exiles have married foreign (‘strange’) women (
),7 something which both Ezra and Nehemiah condemn as in direct violation of scriptural legislation prohibiting such liaisons (Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13).8 For instance Deuteronomy 7:1–6 (cf. Exod 34:11–16):
7:1When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you – the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you – 2and when the LORD your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughter to his son or taking his daughter for your son (
), 4for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. 5But this is how you must deal with them: break down their altars, smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles, and burn their idols with fire. 6For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
Deut 7:1–6
Both Ezra 9:10–14 (also 9:2) and Neh 13:25 seem to allude specifically to Deut 7:3, while the list of nations in Ezra 9:1 appears to reflect ‘an interesting exegetical blend’ of Deut 7:1 and 23:3–8 (MT 23:4–9).9
9:1After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, ‘The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons (
). Thus the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands, and in this faithlessness the officials and leaders have led the way’.
Ezra 9:1–2
9:10And now, our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken your commandments, 11which you commanded by your servants the prophets, saying, ‘… 12Therefore do not give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons (
), …’ 13… 14[S]hall we break your commandments again and intermarry (
) with the peoples who practise these abominations?
Ezra 9:10–1410
13:25And I contended with them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, ‘You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves’ (
).
Neh 13:2511
Deuteronomy 23:3–6 (MT 23:4–7), concerning the exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites, is moreover further drawn upon in Neh 13:1–3.12 Marriages with 
are thus condemned and, as a result, in the final chapter of each book as currently divided (Ezra 10 and Neh 13) the returnees from exile are forced to send away their foreign wives and children.13
Although especially prominent in Ezra-Nehemiah, the theme of foreign (or ‘strange’) wives and Israelite intermarriage is one which occurs throughout the Hebrew Bible, and accordingly throughout Matthew Henry’s commentary upon it. Where it appears, the practice of intermarriage is characterized by Henry as (at best) unwise and (at worst) a very real threat to both social and religious cohesion. Judah’s marriage to a Canaanite woman in Gen 38:2, for instance (reported without comment in the biblical text),14 is described by Henry as ‘foolish’, of which ‘the consequences were very bad’.15 Blaming Judah’s choice of wife on his Adullamite friend, Hirah (mentioned in 38:1, 12, 20), in commenting upon the episode Henry takes the opportunity to observe that:
Many have been drawn into marriages scandalous and pernicious to themselves and their families by keeping bad company, and growing familiar with bad people: one wicked league entangles men in another. Let young people be admonished by this to take their good parents for their best friends, and to be advised by them, and not by flatterers, who wheedle them, to make a prey of them.16
Of more serious consequence is the Baal of Peor episode in Num 25. Intermingling with Moabite/Midianite women (25:1; cf. 25:6) leads to divine punishment and the death of 24,000 Israelites (25:9):
25:1While Israel was staying at Shittim, the people began to have sexual relations with the daughters of Moab (
). 2These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3Thus Israel yoked itself to the Baal of Peor, and the LORD’s anger was kindled against Israel. 4The LORD said to Moses, ‘Take all the chiefs of the people, and impale them in the sun before the LORD, in order that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel’. 5And Moses said to the judges of Israel, ‘Each of you shall kill any of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor’.
Num 25:1–5
Israel’s sin here is seemingly twofold (both relations with foreign women and, as a result of this, idolatry), reflective of the aforementioned legislation in Deut 7:3–4 which prohibits intermarriage on the grounds of the potential for idolatrous behaviour.17 Henry is quick to alert his readers to the same:
The sin of Israel, to which they were enticed by the daughters of Moab and Midian; they were guilty both of corporal and spiritual whoredoms, … [W]horedom and idolatry went together.18
More specifically, Henry lays the blame for this disastrous episode firmly at the feet of ‘the strange woman’:
Ever since Eve was first in the transgression the fairer sex, though the weaker, has been a snare to many; yea strong men have been wounded and slain by the lips of the strange woman…19
In a similar vein, in 1 Kgs 11:1–8 it is said that Solomon loved ‘many foreign [“strange”] women’ (
; 11:1),20 who likewise led him astray to follow other gods (
; 11:4), events which, in the eyes of the biblical author, ultimately resulted in the division of the kingdom (11:9–13, 29–36).21 Henry, while also condemning Solomon’s multiplication of wives,22 is most critical of the fact that they were ‘strange women’ and that he ‘was drawn by them to the worship of strange gods, as Israel to Baal-peor by the daughters of Moab’ (thereby explicitly linking 1 Kgs 11 with Num 25).23
In considering the post-exilic events of Ezra-Nehemiah, Henry utilizes the example of Solomon cited in Neh 13:26 (‘Did not King Solomon of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless, foreign [“strange”] women [
] made even him to sin’), to expound further upon his ‘fall’:
Solomon was famous for wisdom; there was no king like him for it; yet, when he married strange wives, his wisdom could not secure him from their snares, nay, it departed from him, and he did very foolishly. He was beloved of God, but his marrying strange wives threw him out of God’s favour, and went near to extinguish the holy fire of grace in his soul: he was king over all Israel; but his doing this occasioned the loss of ten of his twelve tribes. You plead that you can marry strange wives and yet retain the purity of Israelites; but Solomon himself could not;…24
In this post-exilic context, we are told that not only the people, but even the priests, the Levites, and other officials had ‘not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands’ (Ezra 9:1) but had likewise taken ‘strange wives’ (
).25 Henry comments:
The scandalous sins of professors [‘professors of religion’, i.e., ‘those who profess religion’] are what we have reason to be astonished at. We may stand amazed to see men contradict, disparage, prejudice, ruin, themselves. Strange that men should act so inconsiderately and so inconsistently with themselves! Upright men are astonished at it.26
Citing Deut 7:3–4, Henry draws particular attention to the fact that the returnees from exile thereby once more ‘exposed themselves, and much more their children, to the peril of idolatry’.27 With regard to the prohibition of Deut 7:1–6 itself, he submits that:
To intermarry with them [the ‘strange women’] was therefore unlawful, because it was dangerous; this very thing had proved of fatal consequence to the old world (Gen. 6:2),…28
Interestingly, he adds a cross-reference here to Gen 6:2. Herein lies a nod towards the fact that Henry perceived the threat of ‘strange women’ to lie behind other events of the Hebrew Bible as well, most notably the flood narrative.
3. Professors of Religion and the Origins of the Flood
Genesis 6:1–4, the passage immediately preceding the flood narrative of 6:5–9:17, is rather unusual and has generated considerable discussion, somewhat disproportionate to its length. It reads:
6:1When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw the daughters of men (
) that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. 3Then the LORD said, ‘My spirit shall not abide in mortals for ever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years’. 4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days – and also afterwards – when the sons of God went in to the daughters of men (
), who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.
Gen 6:1–4
This provokes a number of intriguing questions, not least concerning the identity of ‘the sons of God’ (
) who married ‘the daughters of men’ (
), and how they relate to the Nephilim (
; ‘the giants’) who were said to be ‘on the earth in those days’.29 The passage appears to be related in some way to traditions preserved in works such as Jubilees (4:15; 5:1–7), the Book of Giants (1Q23–24; 2Q26; 4Q203; 4Q206 2–3; 4Q530–33; 6Q8), and especially 1 Enoch (in particular, the Book of the Watchers = 1 En. 1–36), where seemingly expanded versions of the story recount how ‘the Watchers’ (a group of fallen angels) took human women and fathered a race of giants, the Nephilim, events leading to the sending of the flood.30 Thus the most common interpretation of the biblical passage (reflecting an ancient precedent) is that ‘the sons of God’ in Gen 6:1–4 are fallen angels who mingled with ‘the daughters of men’.31 This is consistent with the use of the phrase ‘the sons of God’ elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1; 89:6 [MT 89:7]; Dan 3:25), where it is usually taken to refer to heavenly beings or a heavenly council.32
Henry, however, interprets the passage somewhat differently. He understands ‘the sons of God’ here as referring to righteous humans, specifically male members of the line of Seth (the true ‘professors of religion’), and ‘the daughters of men’ as women of the line of Cain (i.e., foreign women and ‘strange wives’).33 Thus, the flood itself is attributed by Henry, not to the actions of fallen angels, but to the practice of ‘mixed marriages’:
The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain … That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers…34
He moreover goes on to draw explicit parallels with some of the other passages we have already seen:
This was forbidden to Israel, Deu. 7:3, 4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon’s apostasy (1 Ki. 11:1–4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1, 2.35
In doing so, he identifies the theme of ‘mixed marriages’, and the calamities caused thereby, as stretching back to the antediluvian period, indeed regarding this practice as the very source of the ‘abounding iniquity of that wicked world’ which necessitated the flood.36
Henry’s interpretation of ‘the sons of God’ in Gen 6:1–4 as the line of Seth is not without precedent. The angelic interpretation, attested in 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Book of Giants (as well as other ancient sources, such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, and even the writings of Josephus and Philo),37 and reflected explicitly in some variants of the Greek Septuagint (which read ‘angels of God’ [ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ] in place of ‘sons of God’),38 certainly appears to be the earlier. It also appears in some of the earliest Christian literature, such as the works of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Lactantius.39 However, beginning in the first centuries CE, there appears to have been a concern to avoid the problem of fallen angelic ‘sons of God’ in this passage, with Sextus Julius Africanus (ca. 160–240 CE) seemingly being among the first to explicitly interpret ‘the sons of God’ (
) as the human descendants of Seth.40 By the fifth century CE, this became the dominant view in Christian circles,41 before a gradual re-emergence of the angelic interpretation in early medieval Judaism and in Christianity from the eighteenth century onwards.42
Henry would not, however, have been unaware of the angelic interpretation of the passage. Not only would he presumably have had access to at least some of the early sources which cite it, it is also clearly attested (though dismissed in favour of the Sethian interpretation) in one of the sources which was most influential on Henry’s own thought – the writings of his father, Philip Henry.43
Philip Henry (1631–1696) preceded Matthew by producing his own Exposition, with Practical Observations, his being simply ‘upon the First Eleven Chapters of the Book of Genesis’.44 The manuscript is dated 1682 and handwritten by his son, Matthew Henry.45 In his treatment of Genesis 6:1–4, Philip states:
By the sons of God are not meant, as some fancy, the angels; for the evil angels are never called the sons of God, and the holy angels neither marry nor are given in marriage … but the sons of God, that is the posterity of Seth, professors of religion, who were so called as having a covenant interest in God, …46
He goes on to note:
Now these professing sons of God married the daughters of men, that is, the posterity of Cain, that were profane; … The marriage of professors with the profane was an evil. Sons of God should marry with daughters of God; ay, and daughters of God with sons of God too; … I doubt not but the sons of God were led aside by them into the wicked ways of the daughters of men. … If professors marry with the profane, I do not wonder if they soon quit their profession, and become profane too.47
As with Matthew Henry, Philip draws upon Deut 7, 1 Kgs 11, and 2 Cor 6:14 in order to condemn marriage with ‘strange women’.48 Similarities in both language and structure suggest a strong influence on the younger Henry’s commentary, where these ideas are further developed and crystallized.49 It is this adoption of a Sethian interpretation (in line with that of his father), and identification of the subsequent ill-advised matches as the root cause of the flood, that allow Matthew Henry to trace (indeed, create) a far more prominent thematic thread running throughout the Hebrew Bible, from the antediluvian age to the post-exilic period, of calamities resulting from mixed marriages between ‘professors of religion’ and their ‘strange wives’.
4. Some ‘Practical Observations’
The resulting practical message of Matthew Henry’s commentary is, therefore, one which comes across as profoundly anti- foreign or inter-faith marriage.50 In relation to Deut 7:1–6, he claims:
[T]housands in the world that now is have been undone by irreligious ungodly marriages; for there is more ground of fear in mixed marriages that the good will be perverted than of hope that the bad will be converted.51
He further notes (in commenting upon Ezra 9–10) that ‘such marriages, it is certain, are sinful, and ought not to be made’.52 In discussing Neh 13:23–24, Henry appears to rail against bilingualism in children (‘In the education of children great care should be taken about the government of their tongues, that they learn not the language of Ashdod, any impious or impure talk, any corrupt communication’),53 and, in his comments on 2 Cor 6:14 (a New Testament passage frequently cited in his discussion of mixed marriages in the Hebrew Bible), advocates separation from ‘unbelievers’, not only in marriage but also in friendship:
We should not yoke ourselves in friendship and acquaintance with wicked men and unbelievers. Though we cannot wholly avoid seeing, and hearing, and being with such, yet we should never choose them for our bosom-friends.54
Henry’s chief concern with regard to intermarriage thus appears to echo that which is found also in Deut 7:3–4 (and Num 25; 1 Kgs 11; etc.), namely the negative influence of ‘unbelievers’ and the subsequent threat of ‘idolatry’.55 For Henry, the true nature of the ‘foreign (“strange”) women’ (
) is governed rather more by religious identity than questions of ethnicity/nationality. This would seem not to be at the denominational level (indeed Henry’s sermons explicitly advocate friendship with all Christians, regardless of denominational divisions), but reflects instead a perceived danger of intermingling (and especially intermarrying) with adherents of other religions (with which he would appear also to group Roman Catholicism).56
In keeping with the overall purpose of his commentary (‘an exposition, with practical observations’), Henry offers some further ‘practical observations’ and advice to his reader in his discussion of the particular passage in question, the diluvian discord of Gen 6:1–4:57
Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.58
There is, however, a glimmer of hope for the outsider. Texts like the book of Ruth provide Henry with indisputable scriptural instances of intermarriage which are positively portrayed. Indeed Ruth, despite being a Moabitess (with whom marriage is explicitly condemned in Deut 23:3 [MT 23:4] and 1 Kgs 11:1–2),59 becomes the ancestor of King David (Ruth 4:13–22) and thus also appears in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:1–17).60 In commenting upon the book of Ruth, Henry condemns Elimelech for taking his family to Moab and blames the death of his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, on the fact that ‘they transgressed the law in marrying strange wives’ (Orpah and Ruth).61 Nevertheless, he allows for Ruth’s transgression of the social boundary and identifies Ruth 1:16–17 (‘Where you go, I will go’, etc.) as ‘a pattern of a resolute convert to God and religion’.62 Indeed, Henry utilizes this example in order to offer his readers, by way of ‘practical observations’, a five-step pattern for the ‘resolute convert’.63 He further tempers his exposition of Deut 23:3–8 (MT 23:4–9) by allowing that, ‘With the daughters of these nations (though out of the nations of Canaan), it should seem, the men of Israel might marry, if they were completely proselyted to the Jewish religion’.64 Thus, in Henry’s commentary, Ruth is portrayed as a model of true conversion. And in this sense, she is no longer ‘strange’.
5. Conclusion
Given his ‘practical observations’ regarding foreign wives, foreign speech, and foreign friends, the words of Neh 13:30 could just as aptly have been written by Henry himself:
13:30Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign (
),…
Henry’s concern for the issue of mixed marriages and ‘strange wives’ extends beyond merely the surface level of the biblical text. By adopting a Sethian interpretation of Gen 6:1–4 and establishing explicit ideological correspondences with (and between) a diverse plethora of passages from throughout the Hebrew Bible (chiefly Deut 7; 1 Kgs 11; Ezra 9–10; and Neh 13; though also Gen 38; Exod 34; Num 25; Deut 23; etc.),65 Henry’s commentary transforms the issue into a far more prominent thematic thread running all the way from the antediluvian age through to the post-exilic period. As a result, the dangers posed by intermarriage, and the associated threat of idolatry, are highlighted repeatedly throughout his exposition and serve as a perpetual (indeed, somewhat excessive) warning to the reader of their ruinous potential.66 Marriage between ‘professors of religion’ and their ‘strange wives’ is held responsible for the flood, alongside a multitude of other calamities, and is thus discouraged in the strongest possible terms. Ruth may offer a model of true conversion (allowing the outsider to transgress the boundary, become an insider, and shrug off the label ‘strange’), but Henry is clear that this requires full assimilation within the ‘insider’ group and thus the complete abandonment of the individual’s original culture and religion. In the eyes of Matthew Henry, true religious pluralism and ethnic/cultural diversity are simply not possible, and thus, following the pattern of the Israelite returnees from exile, in order to remain part of society, ‘professors of religion’ have no option but to cast off the lure of ‘strange wives’.
1. Four volumes were published before his death (covering Genesis through Malachi), with the manuscript for the fifth (Matthew to Acts) completed in April 1714 and ‘entirely committed to the press’ shortly before his death on 22 June that year (see appendix to the preface to vol. 5, cited in full in Philip Alexander’s contribution to the present volume; also Allan M. Harman, Matthew Henry: His Life and Influence [Fearn: Christian Focus, 2012], 161–66). The sixth volume (Romans to Revelation) was completed after his death (1721) by a group of fourteen dissenting ministers, anonymous at the time but listed in full in J.B. Williams, Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings of the Rev. Matthew Henry (London: B.J. Holdsworth, 1828), 308 (cf. 235). Williams notes, however, that ‘the continuators were aided by his [Henry’s] copious manuscripts’ (Memoirs, 247); in particular Henry had already done extensive work on Romans and Revelation, along with some notes (and expository sermons) on the other epistles (Memoirs, 301–9). The first ‘complete’ (‘third’) edition, in six volumes, appeared in 1925 (see P. Alexander in the present volume). There is some suggestion in the funeral sermon by John Reynolds that Henry originally intended ‘a seventh volume, that was to be critical on difficult places of scripture; and an eighth, that was to be a body of divinity, in sermons’ (John Reynolds, ‘A Funeral Sermon Preached at Nantwich’, in The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. Matthew Henry, ed. J.B. Williams [London: Joseph Ogle Robinson, 1833], 2:1282–92 [1292]), though it is unlikely that these would have formed part of his Exposition, especially since Henry’s own preface to vol. 5 (written in 1714) states that ‘One volume more, I hope, will include what is yet to be done’.
2. Harman, Matthew Henry, 194; David L. Wykes, ‘Henry, Matthew (1662–1714)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. David Cannadine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12975. Writing in 1828, J.B. Williams suggests: ‘To reckon the number of households in which the Exposition has descended from father to son, with all the care of the most venerated heirloom, for more than a century, is impossible’ (Memoirs, 249). Similarly, in 1859 Charles Chapman writes that ‘if possible, every family of England should be enabled to obtain a copy of this valuable work’; Charles Chapman, Matthew Henry, His Life and Times: A Memorial and a Tribute (London: Arthur Hall, Virtue & Co., 1859), 148. Additional ‘testimonials’ can be found in Williams, Memoirs, 235–37. See further, Allan M. Harman, ‘The Impact of Matthew Henry’s Exposition on Eighteenth-Century Christianity’, Evangelical Quarterly 82/1 (2010): 3–14.
3. See too, 1 Esd 9:37–55. All English translations of biblical passages follow the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), albeit with occasional minor alterations for reasons of terminological consistency. Note, however, that Henry himself would have utilized the King James (Authorized) Version (KJV/AV).
4. Matthew Henry, ‘A Short Account of the Beginning and Progress of Our Congregation’ (1710/12), transcribed from the original handwritten manuscript (preserved ‘in the old Chapel Book’) in H.D. Roberts, Matthew Henry and his Chapel: 1662–1900 (Liverpool: The Liverpool Booksellers’ Company, 1901), 72–101 (79) (my italics); cf. 263. See too, Harman, Matthew Henry, 75–76.
5. Note in his commentary on Neh 8:8, Henry states: ‘It is therefore required of those who are teachers by office that they explain the word and give the sense of it.… Reading is good, and preaching good, but expounding brings the reading and the preaching together, and thus makes the reading the more intelligible and the preaching the more convincing’ (Henry on Neh 8:1–8). See also Williams, Memoirs, 112.
6. Each biblical book in his commentary is introduced by the formula, ‘An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of [e.g.,] the First Book of Moses, called Genesis’.
7. E.g., Ezra 10:10–14; Neh 13:26–27. Cf. the 
(‘foreign/strange woman’) of the book of Proverbs (e.g., 2:16; 7:5; cf. 5:3; 5:20; 22:14). Interestingly, Henry associates the 
with adultery and ‘fleshly lusts’ but not explicitly with intermarriage or ‘foreignness’ (Henry on Prov 2:10–22, 5:1–14, 5:15–23, 7:1–5, and 22:14). Cf. also Henry on Judg 11:1–3 (where the KJV similarly renders 
[11:2] as ‘strange woman’). On the multivalent character of the ‘strange woman’, see Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible, JSOTSup 320 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
8. Cf. 1 Esd 8:68–9:36. For identification of the parties involved, see Donald P. Moffat, Ezra’s Social Drama: Identity Formation, Marriage and Social Conflict in Ezra 9 and 10, LHBOTS 579 (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 68–79.
9. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1989), 175. On the stereotypical/ideological nature of the list of nations in Ezra 9:1, see further, Moffat, Ezra’s Social Drama, 73–77.
10. The ‘quotation’ in Ezra 9:11–12 in fact draws upon various scriptural passages, including Deut 7:3 and 23:6 (MT 23:7) (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 184–85). Cf. 1 Esd 8:82–85.
11. Also Neh 10:30 (MT 10:31): ‘We will not give our daughters to the peoples of the land or take their daughters for our sons’ (
).
12. On the development and redaction history of intermarriage discourse in the Hebrew Bible (especially Ezra-Nehemiah), see Christian Frevel, ed., Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period, LHBOTS 547 (London: T&T Clark, 2011); in particular: Christian Frevel and Benedikt J. Conczorowski, ‘Deepening the Water: First Steps to a Diachronic Approach on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 15–45; Juha Pakkala, ‘Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Tradition (Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8)’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 78–88; Benedikt J. Conczorowski, ‘All the Same as Ezra? Conceptual Differences Between the Texts on Intermarriage in Genesis, Deuteronomy 7 and Ezra’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 89–108. See further: Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Moffat, Ezra’s Social Drama, 52–66; Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers, BZAW 348 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 243–69.
13. Indeed, Ezra 10:18–44 provides a list ‘naming and shaming’ all those who had sinned in this way (cf. Neh 13:3, 30). On the composition history, structure, and division of Ezra-Nehemiah, see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 38–47; Sara Japhet, ‘Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah’, in Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period, ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards, JSOTSup 175 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 189–216; H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), xxi–xxxvi. Cf. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, Hebrew Bible Monographs 17 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008); David Kraemer, ‘On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JSOT 59 (1993): 73–92; James C. VanderKam, ‘Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?’, in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., JSOTSup 149 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 55–75.
14. Cf. Jub. 41:1–2, 7; T. Jud. 10:1–11:5; 13:3–8; 14:6.
15. Henry on Gen 38:1–11.
16. Henry on Gen 38:1–11.
17. Cf. also Deut 7:4b (
) and Num 25:3b (
). Note further Exod 34:15–16.
18. Henry on Num 25:1–5.
19. Henry on Num 25:1–5.
20. Also 11:8 (
). Cf. LXX 11:1 (καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Σαλωμων ἦν φιλογύναιος).
21. Cf. Exod 34:11–16; Deut 7:1–6; 23:3–8 (MT 23:4–9).
22. Drawing upon both Deut 17:17 and the example of his father, David (‘David had multiplied wives too much, and perhaps that made Solomon presume it lawful.… Probably Solomon, when he began to multiply wives, intended not to exceed his father’s number. But the way of sin is down-hill; those that have got into it cannot easily stop themselves’) (Henry on 1 Kgs 11:1–8). For Henry on polygamy, see, e.g., Henry on Gen 4:19–22, 7:5–10, 26:34–35, and 29:15–30.
23. Henry on 1 Kgs 11:1–8.
24. Henry on Neh 13:23–31. In this context, it is perhaps worth noting Charles I’s marriage to Henrietta Maria of France (a Roman Catholic) in 1625. As a Catholic she was generally unpopular among Protestant English society and looked upon with suspicion as a bad influence upon the king’s religious sympathies, with the marriage blamed by some for the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the ‘fall’ of the king (see initially Michelle Anne White, Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006]). Charles I’s execution in 1649 was just 13 years before the birth of Matthew Henry and was actually witnessed by Henry’s father, Philip Henry (Matthew Henry, An Account of the Life and Death of Mr. Philip Henry, 3rd ed. [London: n.p., 1712], 17–19; Roberts, Matthew Henry, 8–9). Moreover, the subsequent Bill of Rights prohibiting the monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic was passed in 1689 (two years into Henry’s Chester ministry) and confirmed by the Act of Settlement of 1701, shortly before Henry began work on his commentary (a prohibition which lasted until the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013). It is not inconceivable that Henry’s concern for Solomon’s ‘foolishness’, resulting in the division of his kingdom, may in some way reflect or have been shaped by these recent contemporary events. At the very least, it is plausible that Henry’s readers may have made this connection. [I am grateful to Alan Clifford for bringing to my attention the potential significance of these events in relation to Henry’s commentary.]
25. Ezra 9:1–10:44; Neh 13:1–3, 23–31. See too, 1 Esd 8:68–9:36. Cf. Mal 2:11.
26. Henry on Ezra 9:1–4.
27. Henry on Ezra 9:1–4.
28. Henry on Deut 7:1–11.
29. Cf. Num 13:32–33.
30. See, for example: Philip S. Alexander, ‘The Enochic Literature and the Bible: Intertextuality and its Implications’, in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (London: The British Library, 2002), 57–69; Matthew J. Goff, ‘When Giants Dreamed About the Flood: The Book of Giants and its Relationship to the Book of Watchers’, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, ed. Eibert Tigchelaar, BETL 270 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 61–88; Matthew J. Goff, ‘Warriors, Cannibals and Teachers of Evil: The Sons of the Angels in Genesis 6, the Book of the Watchers and the Book of Jubilees’, SEÅ 80 (2015): 79–97; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts, WUNT 335 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); James C. VanderKam, ‘The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees’, in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone, STDJ 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 151–70. Elsewhere the Nephilim (literally ‘fallen ones’) are seemingly identified with the angels themselves rather than their offspring (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. 6:1–4; b. Yoma 67b; Pirqe R. El. 22).
31. This angelic-human divide is made somewhat more explicit in the NRSV translation, which renders ‘the daughters of men’ (
) as ‘the daughters of humans’ (6:4). Note too that Codex Alexandrinus and a number of other LXX witnesses render 
(‘sons of God’) as ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (‘angels of God’); see further, Robert C. Newman, ‘The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4’, Grace Theological Journal 5 (1984): 13–36 (15–16); Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1–4 in Early Jewish Literature, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 62–63. See too Josephus (Ant. 1.73) and Philo (Giants 6; cf. QG 1.92). Cf. 1 Cor 11:10; 2 Pet 2:4–5; Jude 6 (Newman, ‘Ancient Exegesis’, 27–31).
32. Also Deut 32:8 (cf. 4Q37 [4QDeutj] and LXX). Wright, Origin of Evil Spirits, 62–63. Cf. Ugaritic bn ʾil and bn ʾilm (‘sons of El/the gods’); John Day, From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11, LHBOTS 592 (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 79; Ronald S. Hendel, ‘Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4’, JBL 106 (1987): 13–26 (esp. 16–17 n. 16). See further, Ronald S. Hendel, ‘The Nephilim Were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1–4 and its Ancient Near Eastern Context’, in The Fall of the Angels, ed. Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, TBN 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 11–34.
33. Interestingly, however, in commenting upon Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, Henry regards ‘the sons of God’ there as angelic beings. In his discussion of Job 1:6, he does allow for the possibility of a human interpretation (citing his understanding of the use of ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6:2), though throughout the book of Job appears to favour an angelic interpretation (Henry on Job 1:6–12, 2:1–6, and 38:4–11).
34. Henry on Gen 6:1–2.
35. Henry on Gen 6:1–2 (my italics).
36. Henry on Gen 6, 6:4–5, and 6:6–7. Note that he also interprets Gen 6:3 (‘their days shall be one hundred and twenty years’) in relation to delayed judgement (i.e., 120 years before the coming of the flood) rather than lifespan (Henry on Gen 6:3). See further, David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967–1998, JSOTSup 292 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 1:348–50.
37. T. Reu. 5:5–6; T. Naph. 3:5; 1QapGen I–II; V, 2–10; VI, 11–21; CD II, 16–21; 4Q266 2 II, 16–21; Josephus, Ant. 1.73; Philo, Giants 6 (cf. QG 1.92). Cf. also: 1 Cor 11:10; 2 Pet 2:4–5; Jude 6. See further, Newman, ‘Ancient Exegesis’; Kevin P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU 55 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 197–225. Also n. 30 above.
38. E.g., Codex Alexandrinus (see n. 31 above).
39. Justin Martyr, 2 Apol. 5; Irenaeus of Lyons, Haer. 4.36.4 (cf. 1.10.1; 4.16.2); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.1.10; Tertullian, Idol. 9; Marc. 5.8; 5.18; Virg. 7; Lactantius, Inst. 2.15. See further, Newman, ‘Ancient Exegesis’, 21–22.
40. Sextus Julius Africanus, Chronographiae (no longer extant, but quoted in George Syncellus’ Extract of Chronography); see Martin Wallraff, ed., Iulius Africanus Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments, GCS 15 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 48–51. Similarly, Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE), Civ. 15.22–23 (cf. 3.5). See further: Emmanouela Grypeou and Helen Spurling, The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: Encounters between Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 169–70; Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 218–21.
41. Grypeou and Spurling, Book of Genesis, 170–75; Reed, Fallen Angels, 190–26 (esp. 218–26); L.R. Wickham, ‘The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men: Genesis vi 2 in Early Christian Exegesis’, in Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis, ed. James Barr et al., OTS 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 135–47. See too, Cav. Tr. 6:22–7:2; 12:16–17; 15:1–8. For the parallel growth of non-angelic interpretation in Jewish circles, see: Philip S. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and Early Exegesis of “Sons of God” in Genesis 6’, JJS 23 (1972): 60–71; Newman, ‘Ancient Exegesis’, 24–27; Reed, Fallen Angels, 136–40, 206–18; Helen Spurling and Emmanouela Grypeou, ‘Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer and Eastern Christian Exegesis’, Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 4 (2007): 217–43 (esp. 224–32); Wright, Origin of Evil Spirits, 64–67.
42. See, e.g., Nina Caputo, ‘Sons of God, Daughters of Man, and the Formation of Human Society in Nahmanides’s Exegesis’, in Medieval Exegesis and Religious Difference: Commentary, Conflict, and Community in the Premodern Mediterranean, ed. Ryan Szpiech (New York: Fordham University Press, 2015), 171–86, 270–74; Reed, Fallen Angels, 213–14, 226–32, 233–72. Cf. Franklin T. Harkins, ‘The Magical Arts, Angelic Intercourse, and Giant Offspring: Echoes of Watchers Traditions in Medieval Scholastic Theology’, in The Fallen Angels Traditions: Second Temple Developments and Reception History, ed. Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, S.J., CBQMS 53 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2014), 157–79.
43. On the profound influence of Philip Henry on Matthew’s education, upbringing, and thought, see initially: Harman, Matthew Henry, 39–46, 51–56, 154–55. In particular, Harman notes that ‘[virtually] all of Matthew’s biblical and linguistic training was done by his father’ (Matthew Henry, 154). See further, Henry, An Account of the Life and Death of Mr. Philip Henry; also Matthew Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, A.M., corrected and enlarged by J.B. Williams (London: Holdsworth, 1825). For other individuals who had a significant influence on Matthew Henry, see Williams, Memoirs, 251.
44. Philip Henry, An Exposition, with Practical Observations, upon the First Eleven Chapters of the Book of Genesis (London: J. Nisbet and Co., 1839).
45. John Lee, preface to Philip Henry, An Exposition, v–viii.
46. Philip Henry, An Exposition, 163–64 (my italics).
47. Philip Henry, An Exposition, 164–66. Cf. David Suter, ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16’, HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35 (119–24).
48. Like Matthew, Philip also interprets the 120 years of Gen 6:3 in relation to delayed judgement rather than lifespan (Philip Henry, An Exposition, 168–70; cf. Henry on Gen 6:3). See n. 36 above.
49. Williams notes Matthew Henry’s ‘access to the invaluable remarks of his renowned father upon the sacred volume, with which from a child he had been familiar, and which he, no doubt, often adopts’ (Memoirs, 251), suggesting that, ‘An opportunity of acquaintance with these, and other interesting manuscripts yet preserved, warrants the conclusion, … that in the Commentary, those admirable papers were fully, but very judiciously used’ (Memoirs, 235; cf. 251–52). Harman further highlights that ‘he listened to his father expounding the Scriptures in the family all that time, as well as hearing him lecture and/or preach on many Sundays. It would be most surprising if he did not pick up many of his father’s ideas and expressions’ (Matthew Henry, 154; cf. 154–55).
50. On Henry’s concern for practical application, see Harman, Matthew Henry, 142, 166–68.
51. Henry on Deut 7:1–11. Similarly, ‘If either side be bad, the corrupt nature will incline the children to take after that, which is a good reason why Christians should not be unequally yoked’ (Henry on Neh 13:23–31). So too, Henry on 2 Cor 6:11–18.
52. Henry on Ezra 10:1–5. Where the marriage has already taken place, however, Henry does not advocate emulation of the practice in Ezra 10 of simply dismissing the foreign wives: ‘Shechaniah’s counsel, which he was then so clear in, will not hold now; such marriages, it is certain, are sinful, and ought not to be made, but they are not null. Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet – That which ought not to have been done must, when done, abide. Our rule, under the gospel, is, If a brother has a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away, 1 Co. 7:12, 13’ (Henry on Ezra 10:1–5).
53. Henry on Neh 13:23–31. On issues of identity, assimilation, and integration arising from Neh 13, see Katherine E. Southwood, ‘ “And They Could Not Understand Jewish Speech”: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah’s Intermarriage Crisis’, JTS 62 (2011): 1–19 (esp. 14–17).
54. Henry on 2 Cor 6:11–18. See too, Henry on Exod 23:20–33. His association of ill-advised friendships with ill-advised marriages is especially prominent in his discussion of Gen 38 (Henry on Gen 38:1–11). In his own life, Henry was himself careful to practice: ‘the caution which had been instilled into him from infancy, and which he habitually recommended to others. “Those who profess religion profess friendship to God: and is it not”, he would say, “a contradiction to that profession for us to make those our bosom friends whom he ‘beholds afar off’.… Especially take heed of choosing and courting such, into near and standing relations. He that goes near the fire is in danger; but he who takes fire into his bosom, and goes upon hot coals is a madman” ’ (Williams, Memoirs, 169–70).
55. See too, e.g., his use of 1 Cor 7:12–13 (and its emphasis on belief) in his exposition of Ezra 10 (Henry on Ezra 10:1–5; see n. 52 above).
56. Henry’s promotion of friendship across denominational divides does not extend to Roman Catholicism (or ‘popery’), which in his eyes is effectively grouped together with other non-Christian religions (indeed, especially vilified) and thus presumably considered ‘strange’. See, for example: Matthew Henry, ‘Right Management of Friendly Visits’, in Williams, Miscellaneous Works, 1:573–84 (e.g., ‘But since the communion of saints is intended to be the furtherance of our holiness and comfort, … let us acquaint ourselves with some who appear to be serious Christians, without distinction of parties, and converse with them; let such only be our bosom-friends’ [583–84]); Matthew Henry, ‘Popery, A Spiritual Tyranny’, in Williams, Miscellaneous Works, 1:615–28 (e.g., ‘Far be it from me to possess you with hatred against the persons of any; … but it is the way of popery, as it is contrary to the way of Christianity, that I think we all ought to conceive and retain a dislike of, and an antipathy to’ [626]); Matthew Henry, ‘A Brief Inquiry into the True Nature of Schism’, in Williams, Miscellaneous Works, 2:850–56 (e.g., ‘as long as we believe the same Christian faith, and agree in the same protestant abhorrence of papal delusions, we may easily be looked upon as one and the same church’ [854–55]); Matthew Henry, ‘The Lay-Man’s Reasons for his Joining in Stated Communion with a Congregation of Moderate Dissenters’, in Williams, Miscellaneous Works, 2:857–60 (e.g., ‘All these assemblies concur, in their testimony, not only against Jews, Pagans, and Mahometans abroad, but against atheists, infidels, and profane at home; and likewise in their protestation against the tyranny and idolatry of the church and court of Rome’ [857]). In this context, see also n. 24 above.
57. As Harman notes, ‘His sermons never ended without some practical application. The teaching of Holy Scripture was not just of theoretical concern but something that should move hearers to action’ (Matthew Henry, 142).
58. Henry on Gen 6:1–2. Here too the influence of Philip Henry can be detected, with the instruction to ‘Keep within the bounds of Profession’ being advice ‘he us’d to give, both to his Children and others, in their Choice of that Relation’ (Henry, An Account of the Life and Death of Mr. Philip Henry, 140). Likewise, an almost identical warning to that which appears here features in Philip’s own exposition of Gen 6:1–2: ‘The bad will sooner corrupt the good, than the good reform the bad’ (Philip Henry, An Exposition, 166). Matthew Henry again practiced what he preached, and in relation to his second marriage (following the death of his first wife in childbirth), Williams states: ‘On this occasion, as on the former, the predilection for the “seed of the righteous”, which Mr. Henry had been taught to cherish, was strongly marked’ (Memoirs, 58).
59. See too, Ezra 9:1 and Neh 13:1–3. Also Num 25:1–5.
60. See further: Edward Allen Jones, Reading Ruth in the Restoration Period: A Call for Inclusion, LHBOTS 604 (London: T&T Clark, 2016); Gary N. Knoppers, ‘ “Married into Moab”: The Exogamy Practiced by Judah and his Descendants in the Judahite Lineages’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 170–91; Ralf Rothenbusch, ‘The Question of Mixed Marriages between the Poles of Diaspora and Homeland: Observations in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 60–77; Karen S. Winslow, ‘Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 132–49.
61. Henry on Ruth 1:1–5
62. Henry on Ruth 1:6–18.
63. Henry on Ruth 1:6–18.
64. 64. Henry on Deut 23:1–8 (my italics). Henry’s keen interest in the topic of conversion is attested by the focus of much of his early ministry: ‘In planning his preaching at Chester, Matthew Henry was very systematic. His first series of sermons was on the misery of being in a sinful state. He followed on with sermons dealing with conversion, and this took him two years’ (Harman, Matthew Henry, 139).
65. Equally prominent is his frequent citation and interweaving of 2 Cor 6:14.
66. It may even be possible here (especially in Henry’s consideration of the fall of Solomon) to detect some implicit allusion to the much-maligned marriage of Charles I (see n. 24 above).