Now this next part may sound a bit snide, and I don’t really mean it personally toward Ray or anyone else. Yet I have to ask: how long does one have to be dead before one’s sermons are hallowed enough to be cited in academic papers as time-honored wisdom? If we take a snapshot of Christian belief across the US population today, the sermons of Billy Graham and Rick Warren have arguably made a greater impact in that context than have the sermons of Luther or Calvin (maybe not Augustine, depending on how much of Augustine filters through in Catholic homilies—but also depending on how many nominal Catholics are actually there to hear the homilies). Yet nobody suggests that Billy Graham’s sermons, or Rick Warren’s, should be cited in academic exegeses because of their “impact.”

Granted, I would never cite Henry either in an exegesis paper, but to not even engage his views while at the same time debunking them seems equally non-academic.

From my perspective it certainly raises the larger question as to when one is warranted in citing a sermon of Augustine, Luther or Calvin on an exegetical issue. Presumably, because these “big three” have had an impact on the history of interpretation, whereas Matthew Henry has not, the weight of their views still matters–irrespective of whether or not their exegesis is simply bad.

Peter, you also are quite right. In this particular post, I was focusing on Michael Bird’s original point. As a taste of things to come, I will mention that I largely agree with Charles’s “sharp retort,” and will be blogging my own views about that soon (in fact, a partial draft is saved on my computer already, but I’ve been down with a migraine the last few hours).