I've Been Using Vernon McGee's Commentary More Than Matthew Henry's Commentary
It's no secret that Matthew Henry's commentary is indeed used that much. Charles H. Spurgeon even said that every minister ought to read it entirely and carefully through once at least." I've tried reading Henry's commentary though I ran into another Presbyterian preacher named Vernon McGee. McGee himself seems to be more relatable than Henry for the modern-day English speaking preacher. It's because Henry uses Old English and the language evolves over time. I may use the King James Version (KJV) as my favorite version but I'd want to have a commentary in modern-day English.
So why am I using McGee's commentary more than Henry's commentary? It's because like John F. MacArthur - he's a dispensationalist and uses a mix of historicist and futurist views for studying Revelation. Dispensationalist means having a literal interpretation and believing that the Bible is divided into time periods. Personally, I don't agree with the purely historicist view of prophecy and I laugh at the idea that futurism was supposedly a doctrine invented by the Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera. No, he didn't invent it and I still find that claim ridiculous. It wasn't even meant to distract the people from the idea that the Pope is Antichrist. Also, to say that MacArthur and the late Robert C. Sproul Sr. are drinking from the cup of the Jesuits is just utterly ridiculous.
I really think every serious pastor needs to read the McGee commentary carefully at least once too. Sure, Henry's commentary does provide a lot of insights but McGee does add insights for the modern-day reader. I still find myself disagreeing with how often Henry uses a purely historicist approach in the interpretation of Revelation. McGee uses the futurist approach which I think is more accurate than just the purely historical view alone. If you're done with Henry then why not try reading the McGee commentary too?
I really think every serious pastor needs to read the McGee commentary carefully at least once too. Sure, Henry's commentary does provide a lot of insights but McGee does add insights for the modern-day reader. I still find myself disagreeing with how often Henry uses a purely historicist approach in the interpretation of Revelation. McGee uses the futurist approach which I think is more accurate than just the purely historical view alone. If you're done with Henry then why not try reading the McGee commentary too?