What do you think?
Rate this book
Commentaries on Ecclesiastes
Matthew Henry was a Nonconformist minister and author best known for his extensive commentaries on the Bible, which were published in the early 18th century shortly before his death.
112 pages, Paperback
First published January 15, 2010
2 people are currently reading
4 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Henry
1,218 books129 followersMatthew Henry was an English non-conformist clergyman. Henry's well-known Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (1708–1710) is a commentary of a practical and devotional rather than of a critical kind, covering the whole of the Old Testament, and the Gospels and Acts in the New Testament.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 18, 2025
An insightful look at Ecclesiastes. In many instances I feel like Henry is right on the money in adding clarity to the book's many challenging themes. Out of his commentaries I have read so far, this one is among the strongest.
Similar to his other works, I do think his writing is a bit weighed down in these ways:
1. He can be overly wordy and hard to follow. Part of this is because he writes in 17th century English; many words and phrases from his writings are no longer used in modern English. This creates a high barrier to entry for modern readers. His style also can have run-on sentence issues, pretty reminiscent of Paul, actually! His commentaries would benefit greatly from cutting out some of the fat/fluff.
2. Sometimes, he is flat-out incorrect on things, or applies scripture far too loosely (for example, why so frequently reference Nabal? I get he is a good picture of stubbornness, but Nabal isn't exactly a major player in the Biblical narrative). It feels like he is grasping for straws on some tough passages instead of saying he doesn't fully understand what they are getting at.
Nitpicks aside, I have been thoroughly impressed with Henry's notes on Ecclesiastes. It is remarkable that his writing can be as timeless as it is.
Similar to his other works, I do think his writing is a bit weighed down in these ways:
1. He can be overly wordy and hard to follow. Part of this is because he writes in 17th century English; many words and phrases from his writings are no longer used in modern English. This creates a high barrier to entry for modern readers. His style also can have run-on sentence issues, pretty reminiscent of Paul, actually! His commentaries would benefit greatly from cutting out some of the fat/fluff.
2. Sometimes, he is flat-out incorrect on things, or applies scripture far too loosely (for example, why so frequently reference Nabal? I get he is a good picture of stubbornness, but Nabal isn't exactly a major player in the Biblical narrative). It feels like he is grasping for straws on some tough passages instead of saying he doesn't fully understand what they are getting at.
Nitpicks aside, I have been thoroughly impressed with Henry's notes on Ecclesiastes. It is remarkable that his writing can be as timeless as it is.
Displaying 1 of 1 review