Ernst Hengstenberg's "History of the Kingdom of God Under the Old Testament:" Strange Fire," Costals, Baptists, R2K & Liberals

Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. History of the Kingdom of God Under the Old Testament, Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871. Volume 1 is 469 pages. http://www.amazon.com/History-Kingdom-Under-Testament-Transl/dp/B009MXNY8G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381869400&sr=8-2&keywords=hengstenberg+history+of+the+kingdom+of+god

This brief section contains the seeds that, if developed, addresses several modern disorders. It's just amazing: Costalists & the "Strange Fire" Montanists, Baptists and covenant signs, liberals (think mainline), even R2K (no theocratic statehood until Moses) and more. Mr. Hengstenberg was dealing with German rationalism and Schleiermachian pietism.

Introduction: the Extent, Nature, Division, Import and Method of Treating the Old Testament

Of interest, “two kingdoms” emerge: one is the kingdom of nature and the other the kingdom of grace. The first deals with God as the Creator, Preserver and Ruler, e.g. divine providence. The second kingdom is the kingdom of grace. The Old Testament is the establishment and confirmation of the kingdom of grace amongst humans. It deals with guilt, disordering of the image of God, the divine sentence, the Deluge, confusion of foreign languages (to impede unity, communication, and hubris), and serves up an “economy of preparation” or an “economy of promise.”

Offhand, we would add that this orientation serves to dissever the Baptists from the discussion, to wit, the unity of the gracious covenant of salvation.

Varied aims and the importance:

• OT studies are an independent discipline yet related to other disciplines

• Initiates, confirms, strengthens faith (a theme Mr. Hengstenberg repeats)

• Evinces internal coherence and preparation for Chirst

• Unity of doctrine

• Shows divine judgment and allowance of persecution; we would add that immediately one sees rebuttals here to the modern Montanists.

• Shows the “being and attributes of God”

• Provides the supplies: “makes the theologians a theologian.” We would add that this phrase is extremely potent! Vitally so!

• Provides for “awe and “reverence”

• Is a “rich source for humility”

• Rich source for strength and stedfastness, e.g. Martin Luther, Psalm 46, and his “Ein Feste Burg ist unser Gott”

• Helps those who “waver and totter”

Isolated comments on some liberals (German rationalism, Schleiermachian pietism, Deism):

• Lucke, De Wette, and Meyer: in reading their works, one sees a “guide not competent for his task.”

• “Many have gone astray”

• A “mass of prejudices, distorted views, and false arguments”

• “Half-dealing”

• “Ever increasingly deism and rationalism”

• They know “nothing of the living God”

• Deny the authority of Christ and the apostles; Mr. Hengstenberg gives the standard list of texts

• Deny the antiquity of the historical books and have “tried by all means to throw suspicion on the antiquity of the separate books,” yet Moses was able to write

• Deny the Psalms and Prophets who follow closely the historical books and who reflect the kingdom of God

• The “impossibility of miracles is purely dogmatic”

• We are “living in an age of monstrous exaggerations”

A notable quote worth preserving by a historian Woltmann (35), a quote that suitably defangs the Munsterites, the Radical Reformers (Anabaptists), the frenzied Montanists, and the “Strange Fire” Costals in their disorder and distempered minds and affections:

"The history of the Old Testament has a truly iron connection, by virtue of the unchangeable nature of revelation, which constantly continues alike, and the historical personality of God;--by the absence of that love of the marvelous which leads to the fabrication of miracles, exemplified by the fact that wonders are related only where some object worthy of God can be pointed out, where manifestly a grand crisis takes place, where the question relates to the existence or non-existence of the kingdom of God—as in Egypt, in the time of Elijah, and during the captivity;--and by the circumstance that in many periods where no such phenomena are record, the narrative adheres to the ordinary course of nature; as, for example, in the period of the death of Joseph to the appearance of Moses; throughout nearly the whole time of the Judges; in the time of David and Solomon; and in the period succeeding the Babylonish captivity, the history of which is recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah;--and finally, by the fact that, even in the relation of wonderful events, as, for instance, the Egyptian plagues, the passage through the Red Sea, the feeding of manna and quails, etc., there is no concealment of those natural causes whose efficacy was merely intensified by God, or directed in a peculiar manner, so that the supernatural, as it is most clearly set forth in the plagues of Egypt, rests almost thoughout upon naturalistic ground, while a mythical representation either ignores this connection, or willfully destroys it.”

Mr. Hengstenberg notes that the holy God is an “enemy to every lie and scorns fictitious praise,” the “highest and only aim of all the historical books of the Old Testament” (35). 

This absolutely levels the frenzied Montanists like Hinn and the Costalist-questers for signs and miracles. This statement by Mr. Woltmann and Hengstenberg largely lines up with the sober Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 5.3: “God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.”

Contrary to other national histories, deifying their leaders, the Old Testament does not do this, but show foibles, faults, sins, and wickednesses with God and His divine grace overcoming and prevailing. Other histories show “a self-interested attempt to glorify itself, to place its origin in the most remote antiquity…” or, in short, to brag, puff and appear as deities. (Think about many Anglican blowhards here, puffing away about their supremacy as well.) The Old Testament does the opposite, defining depravity and exalting God’s conquering grace:

• Abraham’s weakness in Egypt

• Isaac’s weakness

• Jacob’s deceits

• Atrocities of Jacob’s sons at Shechem

• Reuben’s incest

• Joseph’s brothers’ malice, envy, kidnapping and slave-traffickry

• Moses’ murder of Egyptians

• Moses’ denial of the Abrahamic covenantal sign of circumcision to his son

• Aaron’s failure in the Golden Calf fiasco

• Rebellion and complaining of Aaron, Miriam and associates

• Corruption of Aaron’s priestly sons, Nadab and Abihu

• Korah, Datham and Abiram’s rebellion

• Constant complaining and failures in the wilderness more largely

• Moses denied entry to the promised land

• Book of Judges: Samson and others

• Eli’s failures and the corruption of his sons

• Saul’s failures

• David’s failures

• Solomon’s failures

• Kings and Chronicles chronicle regal, priestly and prophet corruptions

• The Prophets uniformly address the same

Wilhelm De Wette’s triumphalist and devolutionary liberalism is worth noting (50).

“Happy were our ancestors who, in ignorance of the art of criticism, themselves truly and honestly believed all they were taught. History lost at least this respect, that she faithfully related myths which she was obliged always to continue to relate as truth, even while from love to the doubter, adding the warning that they were myths; but religion gained. I have not been the first to commence criticism; but since the dangerous game has begun, it must be carried through, for only that which is perfect of its kind is good. The genius of humanity watches over the race, and will not suffer it to be robbed of the noblest which exists for men.”

Mr. Hengstenberg notes that this view “has been born to the grave. Now it has risen again with the church” (50). To wit, while the liberals attempted to bury the OT account of God’s providence, abilities, and the divine record, new voices are arising to defang and bury Mr. De Wette.

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) R.K. Harrison: Old Testament Through the 18th Century

Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969.

It is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Old-Testament-R-Harrison/dp/1565633997/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1376525920&sr=8-4&keywords=roland+k.+harrison+introduction+to+the+old+testament

Part One: Development of Old Testament Study

1. Background through the Eighteenth Century, 3-18

Early/medieval period

• 1st century church accepted the “law, prophets, and writings” as divinely “inspired and authoritative”

• Gnosticism brought “an onslaught of destructive criticism of the Old Testament”

• Epiphanius in the Clementine Homilies cites Simon as criticizing the Old Testament “anthropomorphisms,” e.g. God has hands, feet, etc. Interesting that he “names names” of destructive critics in this “generous orthodoxy” [our sarcastic term for a certain occupant of Canterbury who used the term "generous orthodox" to allow any old-flea-bitten dog, or, bad idea, into the Christian sanctuary].

• Satornilus of Antioch, a contemporary of Ignatius (c. 110), stated that certain OT prophecies were interpolated by Satan. He also was a Gnostic.

• Even Tatian the Syrian, compiler of the Diatessaron, believed the OT was compiled by an “inferior deity” (4).

• Valentinus of Alexandria, Egypt, another version or variety of Gnosticism, directed an “assault on the text of the Old Testament” (4). He rejected the Torah and Prophets as unauthentic. We would add the following. Well, at least he made a conscious decision on the issue; the moderns presume to simply dismiss the Old Testament, by and large. Or, the lectionaries are anorexic and near-death-thin. We get "10-verse snippets" and expect Biblical literacy? Functional Marcionites, but we get ahead of ourselves.

• Marcion railed against the “authority and authenticity of the Scriptures.” He was the son of a Christian bishop. He took up residence in Rome about 138 B.C. Like other Gnostics, he held a complicated version of philosophic dualism. His approach was entirely subjective and his posture “entirely presupposed”…as are all systems of belief—chockfull of assumed presuppositions and predispositions often not consciously known. Marcion thought “God was weak, unjust, lacking in prescience and essentially fickle” (4). He threw out the entire Old Testament and all Gospels except an expurgated version of Luke.

• The Ebionites, an early Christian sect, rejected certain parts of the Torah and “completed disregarded the writings of the prophets” (5). Rather modern, actually.

• Celsus, c. 180. We learn of him through Origen’s rebuttal in "Contra Celsum." While he disparages the ancient Jews and their Bible, he actually reveals that he knows little of them. We would add that he sounds like some FB chaps—all talk, little learning and no bibliographies. Mr. Harrison summarizes Mr. Celsus this way: he has “the dubious distinction of assembling most of the arguments which have been leveled against Christians by subsequent generations of rationalists, atheists, and agnostics” (5).

• Cassiodorus, from an orthodox perspective in the fifth century, gathered up the varied views on “text and canon” in De Institutione Divinarum Scriptuarum. There are several sections on guidance for “textual transmission” and the “study of the text.” Mr. Harrison puts it this way: “…a valuable contribution to the beginnings of Biblical criticism, as applied specifically to the text of the Hebrew Bible…in a later age which came to be known as `lower criticism’” (6-7). A lovely little find here on Mr. Cassidorus.

Cassiodorus. Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning and On the Soul. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2004. http://www.amazon.com/Cassiodorus-Institutions-Divine-Secular-Learning/dp/0853239983/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379280731&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=cassiodorus+divine+scriptures

• 10th/11th centuries. Ibn Hazam of Cordova (994) stated that the Pentateuch was written by Ezra. Mr. Harrison attributes this to his wider effort to defend Islam. A Spanish exegete, Ibn Ezra (1092-1167), rebutted him and defended essential Mosaicity of the Pentateuch.

• Reformation period. Luther (1483-1546). Luther’s infamous rejection of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the NT canon, a difficult moment for his admirers and other enthusiasts. His was another subjectivist canon, albeit theological: admission “to the extent they promoted Christ” (7).

• Calvin (1509-1564). Was not convinced that Joshua and Samuel was penned by the names of the books. But, he had a “high view of the inspiration of the Scripture” and saw “the essential spiritual unity of the Old and New Testaments” (8).

• Andreas Rudolf Bodenstein (1580-1541). Denied Pentateuchal Mosaic authorship.

• 16th-17th centuries. Papal Roman lawyer, Andreas Masius (d. 1573). Ezra penned Pentateuch. Hugo Grotius (1683-1645) followed his arguments. Thomas Hobbes, followed both the above and believed that Samuel, Kings and Chronicles were post-exilic.

• Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) also rejected Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and believed Genesis to 2 Kings were penned by Ezra. On a better hand or another hand, Mr. Spinoza also issued this interpretative canon: “…consideration of the life, character and aims of each author of the various books as means of determining their purpose, occasion and date of writing” (10). That might be stated as an excellent hermeneutical canon, but it needs modification to include the "history of exegesis," that is, the history of views on any given text.

• Source Criticism, 18th century and the Enlightenment. Mr. Harrison says the “Enlightenment was the enthroning of human reason accompanied by a revolt against external authority" (13).

• Campegius Vitringa, an orthodox theologian, 1689, in Observationes Sacrae believed Moses had access to earlier documents or written memoirs. For the record, that is our view, although we refuse to repeat what Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Young called “the dreary monotony”—the dreary monotony of domineering doctoral discourses of theorems piled upon theorems ad infinitum ad nauseum, e.g. Graf-Welhausen’s notoriously subjectivistic scissors-and-paste-model-of-hopeless-confusion. Moses was educated in Egyptian literature.

• J.S. Semler (1725-1791), Professor at Halle, played the Elohim-Jehovah card for source analysis. Mr. Harrison calls him a “rationalist.”

• J.G. Eichhorn (1762-1827), a “conservative rationalist” (13). He was called the “Father of Old Testament criticism.” He reacted "against the position of the Reformers and orthodox theology generally regarding inspiration and authority” (13).

• W.M.L. De Wette developed in “fragmentary theory of the Old Testament” in 1807 in Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament.
• A number of scholars “vigourously opposed” these developments. Georg Henri Ewald issued a “devastating attack upon the fragmentary theory,” holding to “essential Mosaic authorship” based on the “underlying unity on philological and other grounds” (15).

• J.F. Tuch in his Kommentar uber die Genesis (1838) continued a 2-sources view, but Mr. (Dr. Prof.) J.H. Kurtz (whom we are reviewing elsewhere) gave “heavy criticism” to Mr. Tuch.

• Other orthodox scholars arose. Ernst Hengstenberg (1802-1869), a distinguished classical scholar, turned himself to Semitic studies at Berlin. He “disliked every form of rationalism” and was a “consistent challenger to Biblical liberalism” (17).

• Other famed scholars in the True Catholic (= Non-Papal and Non-Roman) tradition were Misters (Profs.) M. Drechsler, H. Ch. Havernick, C.F. Keil, and F. Delitsch.

Two volumes of interest emerged from digging here. These are on the "buy list."

Hengstenberg, Ernst Wkilhelm. History of the Kingdom of God Under the Old Testament. No location: Forgotten Books, 2012. There are 2 volumes. http://www.amazon.com/History-Kingdom-Testament-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008WNX4E6/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1379207841&sr=8-11&keywords=ernst+hengsten

Lichtenberger, Frederic Auguste. History of German Theology in the Nineteenth Century. No location cited: Filiquarian Legacy Publishing, 2012. http://www.amazon.com/History-German-Theology-Nineteenth-Century/dp/B0092B3JOW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379278867&sr=1-1&keywords=Lichtenberger+history+of+german+theologyberg

However, in this handy little summary, suitable as it is, Mr. Harrison has failed, entirely, to account for Misters (Rev. Dr. Profs.) William Henry Green and Robert Dick Wilson of old Princeton who indeed stand, as ably and as notably, as Old Testament scholars, right alongside Misters Hengstenberg, Keil and Delitzsch. Odd and needs correction. And even more odd, no mention of the Tudor theologian, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) William Whittaker, and his Disputations on Holy Scripture, one of those premiere documents that crosses the centuries backwards and forwards.

But, this old Canadian Anglican Professor of Old Testament, Mr. Harrison, in his summary, does all a good service here.