John Mark Hicks

This is the second of two woe oracles in Amos. The first (5:18-20) was followed by a legal indictment (5:21-27). The second (6:1-7) is followed by a judgment pronouncement (6:8-14). Together, as the third major section of Amos, they lament Israel’s sin and warn the nation about impending doom.

The woe oracle in Amos 6 itself falls into three parts: (1) woe to those at ease in Zion and Samaria (1-3), (2) woe to those who live in luxury; and (3) the consequence of exile for their ease and luxury. The “woes” are describing the same group of people, but now includes not only Israel (“Samaria”) but Judah (“Zion”). The “woes” address those who live in ease and security, that is, they sleep on ivory beds, lounge on couches, eat choice meat from their livestock (lamb and veal), sing idle songs, drink wine in bowls rather than cups, anoint themselves with expensive oils, and pay no attention to the injustices within Israel and Israel’s imminent demise. Despite their replescent circumstances the “day of disaster” will come upon them and they will go into “exile.”

It is important to remember the historical setting of the eighth century B.C. The imperial powers early in the century were consumed with their own internal problems which permitted Israel and Judah to rise once again to heights that rivaled Solomon himself. It appears that just as Solomon had controlled Hamath (150 miles north of Dan in modern Syria), extended his influence near the Euphrates (where Calneh [Calno?] was probably located; cf. Isaiah 10:9), and dominated the Philistines located to the southwest of Israel along the coast (including Gath), so Israel and Judah’s influence exerted a similar influence. The early eighth century was a prosperous period. The powerful grew rich and the nation was secure The rise of the Assyrian empire in the mid-eighth century will threaten this “ease” and “security.”

However, these regions are presently or soon to be subject to distress. The Assyrians will conquer these territories as they experience their days of “disaster” and “violence.” Israel is neither “better” nor “greater” than any of these regions though a healthy covenantal relationship would have ensured their greatness and better position. Instead, despite their ease and false sense of security, they, too, like the other regions, will experience the Assyrian onslaught.

This first woe is addressed to both Zion (Judah) and Samaria (Israel), but is particularly directed at their rich and powerful leaders living in the capital cities (Jerusalem and Samaria). Metaphorically, they live high on the heights in their great houses. They are the leaders (notable or distinguished men) to whom Israel “comes” for justice. They occupy the positions of power that discern and execute justice in the land.

The second woe expands on the situation of these leaders. Amos paints a luxurious picture. They soak in the pleasure of their wealth while at the same time neglect the injustice that surrounds them. They revel in their riches and are unmoved by the “ruin of Joseph” (which indicates that Israel is the main target despite the inclusion of Judah in the address).

The description drips with sarcasm. As Niehaus (Minor Prophets, 439) writes, “The privileged classes of Israel were living like kings, and Amos even likens them to a king–David.” They enjoy the leisure, food and comforts that the poor cannot imagine. They flaunt their wealth as they sing “idle songs” (only time this Hebrew word is used in Scripture) and strum their harps. Their lives are frivolous and self-serving. They have no heart for justice but only for their own comforts. They consume and do not share.

“Therefore,” Amos says, “they shall now be the first of those who go into exile.” The leaders (heads) of the nation (6:1) will be at the head of the exilic line. The Assyrians are coming! Exile will extinguish their “revelry.” The party is over. Dancing will turn into mourning.

The judgment pronouncement begins in Amos 6:8 with an three-fold declaration from the mouth of Yahweh:

I abhor the pride of Jacob, and

I hate his strongholds. and

I will deliver up the city.

The word of the Lord begins the judgment announcement followed by the prophet’s comments. The “I’ language is quite strong. The parallel between pride and strongholds reflects the “ease” (pride) and “security” (citadels) Israel felt within the walls of Samaria. God hates the nation’s luxury and its military confidence. The woes against the ease and security reflect God’s abhorrence of their luxury and neglect.

The brief scenario of Amos 6:9-11 underscores how thorough God’s judgment will be. Everyone in the house will die and those who remain will either bury their relatives or cower in fear at the very mention of Yahweh. There is no escape and there is no hiding in the Day of the Lord.

“Behold,” Amos writes. He highlights the reality of the disaster to come. Both great and small houses will tumble–neither the rich nor the poor will escape the judgment to come.

But why will such devastation come upon Israel? Amos provides the rationale in 6:11-14. It is two-fold:  (1) because they perverted justice, and (2) because they boasted in their military capabilities.

Amos uses a metaphor to describe the unexpected (even unnatural) situation in Israel. As the people whom God choose from among the whole earth, Israel’s injustice and unrighteousness was as unnatural to their calling as horses running on or oxen plowing a rocky crag. Everyone would be shocked to see horses running or oxen plowing in such circumstances but yet Israel has no fear of God regarding their injustice and unrighteousness. Israel has poisoned the well of God’s kingdom upon the earth. This is a mockery and it must be judged.

Moreover, Israel takes pride in its military power. It appears that Israel had, in its recent prosperity and expansion under the reign of Jeroboam II, captured Lo-debar (meaning, “no thing/word”) and Karnaim (meaning “pair of horns”). The former was located in Gilead a few miles south of the Sea of Galilee while the latter was located on the plain of Bashan between Damascus and the Sea of Galilee. These towns symbolize Israel’s ability to regain territory. They rejoiced in their victory and boasted in their military accomplishments.

But those who boast in such military feats and take pride in their abilities also poisoned the land with injustice. They rejoiced in their military might but failed to grieve over the ruins of their judicial system.

So, judgment is coming. For the second time the prophet uses the conjunction “because” followed by “Behold.” Pay attention! This is the reason God will raise up an empire to swallow you whole. The declaration of Yahweh in 6:8 is paralleled by the declaration in 6:14. A nation will destroy the source of your pride by taking away your wealth and demolishing your citadels. Assyria will “oppress” you just as you have oppressed the poor in your own nation, and the whole of the nation will be engulfed from Lebo-hamath (northern regions of Israel) to the wadi Arabah (the chasm that separates Moab and Edom on the east side of the Dead Sea). No part of Israel will escape; it will experience divine judgment from north to south.

Luxury, military pride and the neglect of the poor are themes that should ring in the ears of a superpower such as the United States. Do we fare any better than Israel under the scrutiny of Yahweh, the God of hosts?

During the summer of 1858 Tolbert Fanning, President of Franklin College and a leader in Middle Tennessee for over twenty-five years, toured the congregations surrounding Nashville. He recounts this tour in the September 1858 edition of the Gospel Advocate (“Prospects in Middle Tennessee,” pp. 257-263).

He visited Hartsville and Bledsoe’s Creek congregations in Sumner county; Lebanon and Bethel in Wilson county; New Hope in Canon county; Ebenezer, Millersburg and Murfreesboro in Rutherford county, Shelbyville in Bedford county; Fayetteville in Lincoln county; Petersburg, Berea and Lewisburg in Marshall county; Williamsport and Columbia in Maury county; and Nolensville, Hillsboro, Thompson’s Station and Boston in Davidson county.

He drew three conclusions from his tour (pp. 262-263):

1. We have labored in Tennessee in word and teaching for twenty-nine years, and we never witnessed half the anxiety generally to hear and examine the Truth.

2. We never before saw half so many brethren determined to labor for the Lord. More churches are meeting for worship than have been at any previous date engaged.

3.  We conscientiously believe that the brethren no where on earth possess a higher appreciation of the Truth, and of spiritual life, than in Tennessee, and with all our reverses the prospects are flattering. A faithful perseverence [sic]  in well doing will remove mountains.

The recent “reverses” is an allusion to the devolution of the Nashville church under the leadership of Jesse B. Ferguson who embraced “spiritualism” as a theological method. His youth, popularity, and rhetorical flourish led the church away from its 1820s-1830s roots, according to Fanning.

However, this has occasioned a revival of sorts.

The apostacy and opposition of several popular men, who were numbered with us, have doubtless had the effect to induce the brethren to re-examine the foundation on which we are building, and the result is, that an unusual degree of intelligence is evinced by all who read and study, especially the Divine oracles. We regard it not the least flattery to intimate the probability that there are perhaps more independent thinkers, and devoted and intelligent Christians in Tenn., in proportion to the numbers professing faith, than in any other State in the Union. Our church afflictions have had the effect to weaken the confidence in the infallibility of men, to teach us humility, and we are not sure but they have had an influence to better qualify us for grappling with difficult questions.

Fanning reports that he has seen evidence of a great growth in the “spiritual life” of congregations in Middle Tennessee (p. 257). One of the major pieces of evidence for him was the growing practice of “meeting weekly to worship” (p. 262). It was more common, as Fanning notes, for churches to meet only once a month or only when an Evangelist was in town (as was still the case for some communities like Lebanon). For Fanning the “Lord’s Day” is a critical part of what it means to be a church, to cooperate in the work of the Lord, and to fulfill the mission of Christ.

In future blogs I hope, as time permits, to explore this theological idea as Fanning seeks to inculcate a reverence for the Lord’s Day on the part of Middle Tennessee congregations.

David Lipscomb wrote a wonderful biography of Tolbert Fanning which was published in Franklin College and Its Influences (Nashville: McQuiddy Printing, 1906). There are many historical gems in this piece, especially concerning the history of the Nashville Church. One particular theme struck me as I read through it again.

After Philip Slater Fall, who had led the church into the Restoration Movement in 1827, left the Nashville Church in 1831, it was led by the elders of the church. The congregation practiced mutual edification and equipped while Tolbert Fanning and Absalom Adams were supported as Evangelists from 1832 to 1836. An “Evangelist” at that time was not the “local preacher,” but one supported to evangelize in the community and region. They were supported to plant churches. The Nashville Church planted, through Fanning, Adams, its elders and others, congregations at Franklin, South Harpeth, Hannah’s Ford, Sam’s Creek, Burnet, Philippi, Sycamore, and other places in the surrounding counties (pp. 48-49).

One of the disappointing aspects of the hiring of Jesse B. Ferguson in 1846 the church became consumed with their lead pastor and the congregation lost its equipping and church planting fervor, according to Lipscomb and Fanning.

When the congregation fell apart–falling from 600 members–it was reorganized with only a couple of dozen members. They asked P. S. Fall to return and he arrived in 1858. By the  Civil War the congregation was around 200 about half of what it was when Fall left in 1831. Fall assumed the role of Pastor in th church such that, as Lipscomb remembers it, there were few who would even lead a prayer or give thanks at the table in the congregation. Fall did all the “public work” (p. 58).

This focus is problematic for Lipscomb. To his knowledge in the forty years since the end of the Civil War this pastor-led church “has not sent out a preacher or planted a church” (p. 60). In contrast, Lipscomb began meeting with others in the “suburbs of the city” in 1865 (p. 59). This congregation and its daughters have since established “about twenty churches in the city and suburbs.” The old, established congregation failed to multiply whereas the new plants multiplied. 

How did Lipscomb account for the difference? The established downtown church employed a pastor who “preached to it, conducted the worship, and [drew] large audiences composed of talented, wealthy, and fashionable people.” This situation encourages a passivity such that “a church with wealth and numbers and talent and social position and attractive entertainments will be a helpless church” (p. 60).

Lipscomb thinks there is a better model. He planted churches among the “working classes, accustomed to doing their own work at home, and ready to do what was needed to keep te worship alive in their midst.” If churches are to grow and mature spiritually, they must do their own work rather than support “a preacher to minister to and for them” (p. 59). Church planting results when congregations focus on equipping members rather than supporting preachers, according to Lipscomb.

If a congregation among the “common people” is to support a preacher, then they will never “become self-supporting,” and this is unacceptable. “Christ intended his religion for the poor, adapted it to their necessities, and it is a perversion of the church of Christ to so change its character that it cannot live without money from wealthy churches” (pp. 59-60).

Let the church be the church, Lipscomb pleads. “The common people can do their own work at home and can sound the gospel out as no other people can” (p. 60).

Lipscomb believed that he followed Fanning on this points. He summarizes Fanning’s church planting method in this way:

The result of his teaching on the subject of the members doing the work of the church without a regular preaching or pastor was the establishment of a great number of churches in the towns and counties of Tennessee in which the entire services were conducted by the members of the churches; and a preacher was called in only to hold a protracted meeting. This in its beginning does not make a show before the world, nor is it attractive to those who seek entertainment; but it educates the members of the church in the study of the Bible and the practical performance of all the duties connected with the worship and work of the church. This is the best education of the members of the church that they can receive. No one can be said to properly understand a thing until he puts it into practice. No idea or sentiment is made his own until he practices it. The best and most sacred truths, although he may approve and admire them, do not enter into the make up of his character until he practices them in his life; so the reading, commenting on the Scriptures, praying, exhorting, and teaching others is much more effective teaching to those doing this work than hearing others.

Peter Jay Martin, following in the footsteps of his father Joseph Lemuel Martin, authored a book that surveyed Revelation. Published by the McQuiddy Company (the Gospel Advocate publisher) in 1913, it was entitled The Mystery Finished, or The New Heavens and the New Earth. Peter’s book is not as well known as his father’s (The Voice of the Seven Thunders), but it was published in Nashville and advertised in Wallace’s Bible Banner as late as the early 1940s. Both Martins read Revelation, like Alexander Campbell, in the continuous-historical tradition, that is, Revelation is a “historfy of the church of Christ from A. D. 98 to its final trimuph” (Mystery, v).

Both were postmillennialists, like Alexander Campbell. They both envisioned a triumphant church upon the earth before the second coming of Christ.When Satan is released at the end of the 1000 years and the nations gather to assault the Church, then Christ will come to defeat Satan, raise the dead and judge humanity.

But they differed on the nature of the “new heavens and new earth.” P. J. identified the new earth with the postmillennial reign of Christ through the church while J. L. believed the new earth is the new creation of God after the first earth was “gone.” J. L. was uncertain whether the new earth would be created out of the materials of the old or out of nothing, but he was convinced that the new material earth would be the eternal dwelling place of God with humanity.

P. J.’s understanding is more political than J. L.’s. The story of the emerging “new earth” is a “political” one where the “everlasting kingdom cut out of the mountain without hands shall fill the whole earth” (Mystery, 9). According to P.J., the present “political conditions” are demonic (Mystery, 174):

A government of the reich, by the rich, and for the rich, in which women and children, little children, slave in the cruelest form, for the most menial wage; exploited without voice, & forever beyond the hope of redress, because the courts of injustice are moved by the rich, and legislation, desired to control and limit exploitation, is, as was understood before the enactment of these laws, held as unconstitutional, or by injunction without law, leaves the poor wage worker in the position of an outlaw; while, in addition to receiving the lowest remuneration(!) for his labor, he is also made to pay the highest price for the poorest quality of all necessities of life.

The postmillennial kingdom of Christ–which is the new heavens and new earth– will involve a “radical change” such that there will be “no exploitation; no separation of parents and children, no foreclosing of mortgages, no sorrow nor crying” (Mystery, 179). P. J. Martin hopes for a political culture governed by the gospel as the church rather than the nations becomes “the political organization” that is “for the uplifting of the poor and needy and that stands for justice between man and man and between the rich and the poor” (Mystery, 180). In this way Christians will “posses the earth” (Mystery, 183) because in that postmillenial reign “the church has absorbed the world” (Mystery, 196).

P. J. has no confidence that the nations as political entities will serve the poor or place others first. Only people transformed by the gospel are able to serve out the self-emptying spirit that energizes the gospel itself. He writes (Mystery, 199):

…when this old world has been gospelized; ‘when every man seeks not his own, but another’s wealth;’ when men do unto others thus; every man seeking the welfare of the other man, thus fulfiling in acts, in actuality, the Golden Rule in doing unto other as you would have the other do to you, the gospel triumphant from the rivers to the ends of the earth, his will done on earth as in heaven, for which the writer ever prays in an absolute faith, then he has as lief to live in Oklahoma as to go to heaven.

When the “whole world,” this world, becomes the “habitation of God” in the postmillennial kingdom, “surely [even] Oklahoma will be good enough for us” (Mystery, 215). This is the “blessed hope of a redeemed earth–‘the new heaven and new earth'” (Mystery, 221).

The millennium–which precedes the second coming of Jesus–is a political embodiment of the gospel. There all the hopes of the prophets are fulfilled in the reign of Christ through the triumphant church. The gospel, in this vision, is both “political” and “religious.”

This text begins the third major section of Amos. In the first section (Amos 1-2) the prophet addressed eight nations and climaxed his message with an extended application to Israel. In the second section (Amos 3:1-5:17) the prophet declares the word of the Lord in three brief speeches (“hear this word” in 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1) as he focused on the coming divine visitation, its rationale, and lament. Now, in this third section, Amos offers two prophetic woes against Israel. The first is found in Amos 5:18-27 and the second in Amos 6:1-14.

Each Woe oracle contains two components.  Each begins with the Woe itself and is then followed by a further pronouncement. The first Woe (5:18-20) is followed by an indictment (5:21-27) while the second Woe (6:1-7) is followed by a judgment proclamation (6:8-14).

Woe oracles function as either curses, warnings, or both. Woes pronounce judgment but at the same time warn about participation in the community to which the Woe is addressed.  Woes, then, are both exhortations and imprecations.

The Woe (5:18-20).  The first Woe declares the nature of the “day of Yahweh.” Apparently many are hoping and yearning for that day. They are under the illusion that the day will be good for them. Perhaps they believe that the “day of Yahweh” will be the day when God defeats the nations that surround them or that day will secure their safety, wealth, or power. Whatever they imagined that day to be or its circumstances, they believed its arrival would be in their own self-interest. But they are mistaken and deluded.

For Israel the “day of Yahweh” is darkness rather than light. It will not be redemption but judgment. It will not be a day of light as in the day of creation when everything is new or renewed. Rather, it will be a day of darkness, a day of chaos, death and destruction. This is uncreation, the reversal of creation itself. Though God created Israel, he will now uncreate them.

Further, the effects of the day, like the day itself, will be unavoidable. One might think they could run from it like they might run from a lion, but they will only meet a bear instead. They may even arrive home and think the danger has passed only to be bitten by a snake in the security of their own home. There is no escape. Yahweh’s day will come and it will complete its work despite all human attempts to avoid, flee, or escape it.

The Indictment (5:21-27). The structure of the indictment is: “I hate this…but I want this!” God hates their festive celebrations of divine grace through the sacrificial system, but he wants justice and righteousness to flow over the nation like an everlasting life-giving stream of water.

What does God hate? We must be careful that we do not miss the rhetorical intent here. We could literalize this in such a way that God hates all (1) assemblies, (2) sacrifices, and (3) music. Of course, God does not hate any of these per se. Each of these are present in the life of Israel as prescribed responses to God’s grace in their lives. The Torah directs Israel  to assemble (Leviticus 23:26) and sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7). The use of music–both singing and playing–was present at least from the time of David forward (2 Chronicles 7:6; Amos 6:5) and is part of the Psalter (Psalm 150). God did not literally hate or despise these; indeed, God enjoyed them as Israel assembled in the presence of God (Deuteronomy 27:6-7).

So, what does God hate? The contrast answers the question. God hates assemblies that lack justice. He hates Israel’s assemblies because they approach  God with hands stained with injustice. God refuses sacrifices from those who do not practice righteousness. God stops his ears to music played by a community that neglects or oppresses the poor. God desires assemblies, sacrifices and music, but they must flow from a people who practice justice and righteousness.

But what is “justice” and “righteousness” in this context? This is the language of Amos 5:7. The words are primarily focused on how the community treats the poor and needy among them. The larger meaning is ethical. Justice has a broad sense of practicing the ethical intent of the Torah while righteousness has the sense of doing what is right (ethical). In general, God desires a people whose ethic reflects God’s own and the practical effects of that lived ethic flows like water through a thirsty community.

The practice of injustice subverts true religion and invalidates religiosity . Assemblies, sacrifices and music offered by those who fail to practice righteousness are rejected.

The rhetorical question of Amos 5:25 solidifies the point. The expected answer to the question is “No.” Amos believes that during the forty years of wilderness wandering Israel offered no sacrifices. It appears the sacrificial system was designed for living in the land of promise and not for the wilderness experience. Whatever the history, Amos’s point is rather obvious. God’s covenantal relationship with Israel did not depend on their assemblies, sacrifices and music. Rather, it is expressed through covenant faithfulness to justice and righteousness.

Indeed, Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness is not only about injustice and unrighteousness but also their idolatry. Whether Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:42-43), in the present, in the future exile “beyond Damascus” (Assyria) worshipped the Babylonian gods Sikkuth and Kaiwan, they will be exiled because of their covenant unfaithfulness. They did not honor the name of Yahweh who is the God of the armies of heaven. Yahweh is the Creator God who rules the nations. To worship any other god is to break covenant.

This Woe oracle speaks to the heart of worship. God delights in assemblies, sacrifices of praise, and music, but these are expressions of worship rather than its heart. The heart of worship is the practice of justice and righteousness; it is a sacrificed life devoted to good works. God delights in praise and sacrifices of assembled practitioners of justice, but despises those who assemble before him with spoils gained from the neglect or the oppression of the poor.

Let whoever has an ear to hear, listen to the word of the Lord.

1938-1939 were significant years for the Churches of Christ. In 1938 E. W. McMillan, one time chair of the Bible department at Abilene Christian College, began preaching for the Central Church of Christ in Nashville, TN and in January 1939 assumed the editorship of the Christian Leader which was now under new management (Clinton Davidson). The journal intended to reflect a kinder, gentler approach to Christian thought, practice and fellowship. In October 1938 the 20th Century Christian began in Nashville under the leadership of Norvel Young among others. J. P. Sanders, the preacher for the Hillsboro Church of Christ, was the first editor. The magazine intended to promote undenominational Christianity but it a kind spirit that emphasized the practical as well as the pietistic spirituality. Even further, the Gospel Advocate was under new editorship as B. C. Goodpasture took the reins in 1939.

In July 1938,  Foy E. Wallace launched the Bible Banner which intended to combat the “general softness” which pervades among the “plus-mouthed and velvet-tongued moderns among us” (Bible Banner [July 1938] 2). Wallace was set for the defense of the gospel and would leave no stone unturned as he rooted out “Bollites” (among others) from the schools and leading churches of the Restoration Movement. In the spring of 1939 Wallace held a meeting at the Chapel Avenue Church of Christ in Nashville. One of his sermons was entitled “What Must the Church in Nashville Do to be Saved?” Part of his answer was that they must dismiss the Bollites from their colleges (aiming at David Lipscomb College where Ijams was president) and stop practicing the Social Gospel (aiming at the Central Church of Christ where McMillan preached).

Further, in 1938 N. B. Hardeman returned to Nashville for another “Tabernacle Meeting” at the Ryman Auditorium. Unlike previous meetings where the target audience was the community-at-large, this time the audience was the Churches of Christ. Hardeman dealt with issues that faced the “brotherhood,” particularly premillennialism.

This brief background provides the context for the article by J. D. Tant copied below. (For more information about this background, see Richard Hughes, Reviving the Ancient  Faith, chapter 9.) Tant’s article is illuminating on several counts if one remembers its context.

In particular, Tant sees the issue of “sect baptism” or “Baptist baptism” (the rebaptism question) is still alive. In fact, it needs to be publicly debated in Nashville in order to silence its promoters. Far from being put to rest back in the 1910s, the issue still festers, at least in the eyes of Tant.

Further I would suggest that the tensions present here are the vestiges of the conflict between the Tennessee Tradition and the Texas Tradition. Many of those associated with the new Christian Leader had their roots in the Nashville Bible School and the Tennessee Tradition.

Here is the article.  Soak in a bit of history.  Brackets [] are my own comments added to the article.

J. D. Tant, “On the Firing Line Again,” Firm Foundation 56 (6 June 1939) 3.

After being out of work for seven months, by paralysis, I am glad to state that I am on the firing line again.

Just closed my second meeting in Oklahoma, and am booked for one more meeting in Oklahoma, three in Tennessee, one in Texas, one meeting and two debates in California. Then back to the farm.

This letter will also inform my old time friend, Brother [F. B.] Srygley, that I am still able to kick with both feet, and if he had been kicking with both feet all the tie, we would not now have the departures from God’s word in Tennessee that we have.

I notice we now have in Tennessee a new paper which wants to be soft and not preach it straight like the Advocate once did [referring to 20th Century Christian]. I also heard that one church [Central Church] and their preacher [McMillian] in Nashville absolutely refused to announce Hardeman’s great meeting in that city. But through some means the meeting leaked out, and more than six thousand people heard Hardeman preach the gospel. If that preacher and that large church had announced the meeting and worked in it, no doubt, ten thousand would have attended. We are taught in the word of the Lord not to put a tumbling block in a brother’s way. But many good brethren forget that when they oppose a meeting.

I am also receiving another paper with a soft pedal to drown out the Advocate [referring to the Christian Leader]. As Brethren Sam Hall, G. C. Brewer, Dr. Ijams, A. B. Lipscomb, Adamson, J. P. Sewell, and others are all gone over to the new paper they will not give such strong medicine now.

Look out for Brothers Boll and Klingman [both premillennialists] to come next. In five years I look for the new paper and Word and Work to be consolidated. Now if we can get Jim Allen [editor of the Apostolic Times in Nashville, JMH] and Goodpasture [editor of the Gospel Advocate, JMH] to consolidate it will be fine.

As some of the contributors to the new paper are now endorsing sect baptism, and calling on Baptists to lead prayer in their meetings, it will be necessary for me and all lovers of the truth to kick with both feet when I get back to Tennessee.

So I am making a standing challenge to all you boys: Will any, or all of you affirm that baptism as taught and practiced by the Baptist church is scriptural, and all who have it should be welcomed into fellowship of the church of Christ? I want one debate held in the Central Church of Christ, and one in the Russell Street church in Nashville. Will these boys defend their practice? I’ll wait and see.

After my last meeting in Oklahoma, wife and I had a kind invitation from the Highland church in Abilene, where Homer Hailey preaches, to attend their meeting, and hear our son, Yater Tant, in a gospel meeting. We both went, and were treated kindly along all lines, and shall ever cherish with love and appreciation the members of the church there.

Yater is a strong gospel preaching, yet young. In ten years he will stand up with N. B. Hardeman, A. G. Freed, F. W. Smith, Foy Wallace as one of our sgtronges men.

I was invited while at Abilene, to preach one sermon, and I did so to a large congregation. When I saw such men as Charles Roberson, J. F. Cox, President of Abilene Christian College, Harvey  Scott, Homer Hailey, and fifteen to twenty more up-to-date preachers sit at my feet and learn wisdom from me, I felt like if only had my degree in penmanship, I would be in the ring as a big preacher. But such is life.

I used to be a preacher, but I am a farmer now. But I am not too good to go back to preaching if I can get me a degree and find a located job that suits me.

But withal I had a find [sic] time and hope to visit the college again at Abilene.

I hear that Foy Wallace’s write-up of Abilene College had a wonderful influence for good [referring to Wallace’s opposition to put Colleges in church budgets and his response to a circular letter defending Abilene on several counts], and we should rejoice and give  God the glory.

San Benito, Texas.

Nancy Koester’s The History of Christianity in the United States (Fortress, 2007) is my current supplementary text in my undergraudate Stone-Campbell Movement course at Lipscomb University. I use it to provide the American context for Stone-Campbell history.

I was surprised to read this sentence in the book (p. 61):  “[Alexander Campbell] also rejected the doctrine of Trinity because he did not find it in the Bible.”  She would have been more accurate if she had written that he rejected the term “Trinity,” but Campbell did not reject the theological idea of the tri-unity of the Christian God.

For example, in a series entitled “Elementary Views,” Campbell summarizes what he thinks is the heart of the Christian faith (Millennial Harbinger [July 1854] 367):

One Jehovah in three personalities, and one Mediator in three offices constitute the true faith and the true religion of the Christian Church, or the Reign of Heaven. And these are the centres [sic] of the Jewish and Christian dispensations of the doctrine of human redemption, in its typical and anti-typical manifestations. This is·the Alpha and the Omega of the Bible. On this broad, and strong, and enduring basis, the new heavens and the new earth, and all their tenantry will rest forever.

Campbell’s Protestant “orthodoxy” on Trinity and Christology is also obvious in this selection from “Millennium” (MH [December 1856] 700-701):

Our creed as christians is drawn up by a council of thirteen apostles presided over by the Lord Jesus Christ, and inspired by the Holy Spirit.  It is in contrast with the Theocracy, properly set forth as the Christocracy.  The central idea of the Jewish Religion is one Jehovah—absolute in all his perfections, self-existent, eternal and immutable—of whom are all things.  The central idea of christianity is “one Lord Jesus the Christ; by and for whom are all things.”  He is infinitely Divine and perfectly human, possessing all Divinity and all humanity in one personality.  A perfect God man, “the only begotten of the father full of grace and Truth.”  His sacrifice “expiated” and took out of God’s way and out man’s way “the sin of the world.”  “By offering up of himself” on the cross on Mount Calvery [sic], “he made an end of all sin offerings,” introduced “an everlasting justification” or righteousness for fallen humanity; and “perfected forever all them that are sanctified through the faith” in his person, offices, and work.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God in another personality, equally Divine, and equally co-operant with the Father and the word incarnate, who illuminates, sanctifies, and perfects every sinner in whose heart he becomes the Holy Guest; sometimes improperly called, in our common vernacular, “Holy Ghost.”

It is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that any sinner, can be pardoned, justified, sanctified, and perfected in holiness and in happiness—for his blood alone can justify God in justifying any penitent, believing sinner.

In these views, the whole Revelation of God centres [sic].   Jesus the Christ being the centre of that circle, which is itself the centre of all the spiritual systems of the universe.  His blood, alone, which is his human life, on the altar of Jehovah, becomes the justifying cause of the justifying grace vouchsafed to fallen man, through the gospel of the reign of heaven.

Alexander Campbell considered himself in the mainline of Protestant “Orthodoxy” on the traditional questions of Trinity and Christology. His problems with Protestantism were significant, but these were not among them except the use of scholastic and creedal terminology as tests of communion and modes of understanding.

I’m seeking some help regarding G. C. Brewer’s (1884-1956) undertstanding of the earth. Concerning Isaiah 65, 66, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21, Brewer wrote (Gospel Advocate [4 April 1946], 314):

“The New Testament references describe a condition that will come after the destruction of the present heaven and earth. That this earth—this existing order of things, including the material earth—is to be destroyed, Peter tells us in terms we cannot misunderstand. That this earth was cursed because of sin and that thorns and briars and noxious weeds came as a result of the curse seems plain also. (Gen. 3:17-19.) Beasts of prey—ferocious and destructive animals—seem to have come after the curse also (Gen. 2:18-20.) And that the earth itself is to be redeemed from the curse seems to be the teaching of the Bible—seems to be the promise of God. (Rom. 8:20-22; 2 Peter 3:13; Daniel 7:14-22.) Man was given dominion over the earth, but transferred his allegiance to Satan, and the curse came, bringing suffering, sorrow, and death. But Christ came to remove the curse and to bring “joy to the earth.” When the earth is redeemed, it will first be renovated by fire. Then there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Then the meek shall inherit the earth. (Ps. 37:9-11; Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:10; 21:1-7; 2 Peter 3:10-13.)”

That is the summary at the beginning of the article where he asserts, what seems to him, obvious realities in Scripture. He is responding to a question about the meaning of the “new heavens and new earth.” The rest of the article pursues several trajectories. I have reproduced below his final paragraph which contains his conclusion:

“But there is another view as to when the promise that Peter mentions was given. This view is that the promise of a new heaven and a new earth was included in the /322/ promises God made to Abraham and that Isaiah and all others who mention the new heavens and new earth were simply referring to what had been the hope and expectation of God’s people from Abraham down; that this is the heavenly country that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were seeking.

“But now we must try to find where and when that promise of a heavenly country and the city that hath the foundations was given to Abraham. It must have been in that land promise (Gen. 15:18; 17:7, 8), though it would be hard for us to see it without the aide of the New Testament. The city promise must be that made in these words: ‘Thy seed shall possess the gate [the city] of his enemies.” (Gen. 22:17.)”

“Paul says (Rom. 4:13-16) that the promise to Abraham was that he and his seed should be heirs of the world, and he says this promise must be made sure to all his spiritual seed. We, then, who are by faith children of Abraham and heirs of the promise (Gal. 3:28-29) are yet to inherit the world, though it must be the new earth. We will never get this one. Even Abraham himself was a pilgrim and a stranger on this earth.”

It appears to me that Brewer believes that the Abrahamic inheritance is fulfilled when the saints inhabit a renovated earth. This is consistent with Lipscomb and Harding. I did not expect this from Brewer, so I wonder if I am misreading in some way.

What do you think? And do you know of other occasions when Brewer discusses this?

This is the third of Amos’s three prophetic speeches against Israel. They each begin with “Hear this word” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). The first announced God’s coming visit in judgment against Israel. The second highlighted divine patience and persistence in seeking to turn Israel from its sins. The third is a divine admonition and lament for Israel.

Harold Shank (College Press NIV Commentary), adapting a chiastic outline from Waard in Vetus Testamentum (1997) 170-177, suggests this structure for Amos’s oracle:

First Lament (1-3)

First Admonition (4-6)

First Accusation (7)

Hymn (8a)

Yahweh is the Name (8b)

Hymn (9)

Second Accusation (10-13)

Second Admonition (14-15)

Second Lament (16-17)

This chiastic structure climaxes in the announcement of the name of Israel’s God in 5:8b. This the centerpiece of the oracle. “Yahweh is his name!” In effect, this is a doxological battle cry. The language is exactly the same as in Exodus 15:3:  “Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.” This is the God of the Exodus who delivered Israel from Egyptian slavery (cf. Amos 3:1). The Warrior God who fought to deliver Israel now warns Israel about the coming disaster.

Hymns. “Yahweh is his name” is also a doxological praise (cf. Amos 9:6). The exclamation is surrounded by hymnic lines that remind Israel that Yahweh creates both good and evil (disaster; cf. Isaiah 45:7; Amos 9:4). Yahweh made the constellations that appear in the heavens–Pleiades is part of the constellation Taurus and Orion (also known as “the hunter”) is a bright constellation. Both are visible to the naked eye (Job 9:9; 38:31). Yahweh also rules over the morning and night–God turns the darkness into morning and the day into night. God rules over good and evil (chaos), over light and darkness. Yahweh also rules over the chaos of the seas; indeed, Yahweh pours out the water upon the earth. God is sovereign over chaos. With chaos Yahweh destroys the strong, even those fortified behind their seemingly impregnable walls (fortresses). The chaos that will envelope Israel is no coincidence; it is the work of the Creator God who releases the forces of chaos against Israel.

Accusations.  Israel’s problem is “justice” and “righteousness.” Just as God “turns deep darkness into the morning” (5:8), so Israel “turns justice in wormwood” or bitterness (5:7)–the same Hebrew verb is used in both instances. Israel’s core problem is injustice; this is the accusation upon which their destruction turns. But what is the injustice? While the first accusation introduces the idea (5:7), the second accusation articulates the specifics (5:10-13).

The second Hebrew term in Amos 5:10 is the next to last Hebrew term in Amos 5:12–“gate.” Everything Amos notes between those two terms happens at the “gate.” The city gate is the place where the elders and other leaders met to consider issues of justice and adjudicate legal problems (cf. Deuteronomy 21:19; 22:15; 25:7; Job 5:4; 31:21; Psalm 127:5). But justice does not prevail in the gates of Israel. Rather, they

hate whoever reproves them
abhor whoever speaks the truth
trample on the poor
exact portions [taxes?] on grain from the poor
afflict the righteous
turn aside the needy

The above six lines appear in three pairs. The first pair emphasizes the inability of the leaders to hear the truth; they cannot stand to be corrected. They are not interested in the truth but in profit. The second pair specifies a particular way in which the poor are mistreated. The leaders exact “portions” from the poor. In some way, they demand the poor make payments of grain in order to continue in their livelihood. This may be excessive rents on land owned, perhaps previously seized through unjust means, by the wealthy. It may be excessive taxation that hurts the poor. The third pair reminds the reader of Amos 2:7 where the poor are trampled and the afflicted are turned aside (same Hebrew verb as here in 5:12). The same pair of words–righteous and needy–also appear in Amos 2:6 and 8:6. “Needy” is a general synonym for poor (cf. Isaiah 14:30; Jeremiah 29:16). The city leaders are not willing to hear the plight of the poor and give them justice. Instead, they take bribes from the wealthy and dismiss the poor.

These conditions create societal chaos at many levels. One is specifically noted in Amos 5:13.  The prudent (or wise) will remain silent during such chaotic and unpredictable times. When justice does not prevail–when evil reigns–the wise will keep to themselves. It is too dangerous to speak and speaking is ineffective. This is a social consequence of pervasive injustice. This silence is not necessarily sanctioned, but it is acknowledged. This is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

The accusation includes consequences. Though they have built “hewn” stone houses and planted extravagant or desirable vineyards, they will never enjoy them. Their wealth and power enabled them to build houses out of “hewn” stone which assumes skilled labor. Such homes and vineyards were status symbols in ancient Israel. But, ultimately, their injustices will not pay out. Their sins will found them out.

Admonitions.  “Seek” is the key word in the admonitions. It is used four times in Amos 5:4-6, 14. It is an aggressive term that reflects orientation and direction. What or whom will one seek? The choice is laid out for Israel:  seek Yahweh or seek Bethel (including its complements–Gilgal and Beersheba). The former leads to life, but the latter leads to exile, destruction, and death. The fire of destruction that characterized the consequences described in Amos 1-2 returns in Amos 5:6.

Life, however, is offered. The verb is used three times in Amos 5:4, 6, 14. While the nation has no hope, this does not translate into hopelessness. The Lord may yet be gracious in astounding ways, especially to the “remnant of Joseph.” Even as the Lord passes through Israel and leaves destruction in the wake, God’s grace will overflow to the remnant that seeks God. Amos once again reminds Israel of God’s faithfulness by using language that evokes memories of the Patriarchs. Just as God was present among them, so he will be “with” those who seek him (cf. Genesis 12:4; 17:3; 26:24; 39:3). This is the covenantal promise to which God is faithful.

Seeking Yahweh, however, is not merely avoiding idolatrous worship at Bethel. It is to love good and hate evil (Amos 5:15). Specifically, it is to “establish justice in the gate.” In other words, Israel must practice justice in its courts, uphold the rights of the poor, and serve the needy. One cannot seek Yahweh when they ignore or neglect the needs of the poor. Seeking Yahweh includes practicing social justice.

Laments. Israel will weep and mourn because, Yahweh declares, “I will pass through your midst” (5:17; cf. Amos 8:10). This is ominous language. In Israel’s past history, Yahweh “passed through the land of Egypt” in order to kill Egypt’s firstborn (Exodus 12:12, 23). Now Yahweh will pass through Israel with devastating effect. Every vineyard, farm, street and square (open spaces near the city gate) will be filled with lamentation.

But Amos himself, as the mouthpiece of Yahweh, begins the lament. The speech opens with God’s own lament over Israel. Even though Israel yet exists as a nation, the prophetic lament assumes its fall is a reality. Israel will not rise again as there is no one to help her. 90% of Israel–a metaphorical number–will disappear. Though they send out an army of 1000, only 100 will return. Israel is about to face a slaughter.

Yahweh does not deliver this message with a smile. God is not happy about these circumstances. Nevertheless, the God who loves righteousness must prosecute injustice in the land. God will act; God will set things right. Though patient and longsuffering, God ultimately does what is right.

God’s own lament evidences the divine pain as Yahweh grieves over Israel and, at the same time, Yahweh grieves for the poor and needy who have suffered at the hands of the powerful in Israel.

Amos calls us to grieve with him over both the sins and destruction of the wicked. The prophet calls us to social justice. “Seek good and hate evil” is to “seek” Yahweh.

In a previous blog I copied a 1933 article by J. D. Tant in which he honored the work of the Firm Foundation over its first fifty years. He believed the FF had served the church well in winning the battle over rebaptism among other issues.

Fanning Yater Tant, J. D.’s son, wrote a similar article in 1957.  He believd that the FF was instrumental in the battle over rebaptism and that “sect baptism” was defeated because the “truth” was rather obvious. Below is his article (Fanning Yater Tant, “‘Pride, Prejudice, and Papers’,” Gospel Guardian 9.11 [18 July 1957] 4):

Elsewhere in this issue, and under the above caption, will be found an editorial from the Firm Foundation of May 28, 1957. This is the kind of writing that made this great paper a bulwark of strength in days gone by; it is the kind of Christian journalism that is all too rare in our generation. Brother Reuel Lemmons, editor of the paper, has sounded an appeal to truth, common sense, and straight thinking that ought to challenge every Christian in the land.

It should be remembered that the Firm Foundation was born for this very thing. Old brother “Aus” McGary became convinced that Brother David Lipscomb and brethren east of the river generally were in error in their teaching and practice in the matter of “sect” baptism. While the pages of the Gospel Advocate were open to McGary to refute this teaching, he nevertheless felt that a more effective campaign for truth could be waged if he had his own medium. In the heat of controversy, the Firm Foundaiton had her “baptism” into the realms of Christian journalism. (This editor has some reason to know about that battle: His maternal grandmother, Fannie Mills Yater, living at Hartsville, Tennessee, was an ardent admirer of David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning, even naming one of her sons Tolbert Fanning Yater. The family moved to Bosque County, Texas in 1878, just when the “sect baptism” issue was beginning to get hot. When the Firm Foundation began, Grandmother Yater read every issue of it, as well as continuing to read the Gospel Advocate. She became convinced, totally and forever, that A. McGary had the better of the argument with Lipscomb — and persuaded the brethren in the little congregation where she worshipped to get a preacher named J. D. Tant, who shared McGary’s views on “sect” baptism, to hold a meeting. He came, met Nannie Yater, married her a couple of years later, and raised a family — of whom this editor is one of which.)

That battle over “sect baptism” raged for years — through the papers, in public and private debates, in gospel meetings, and just about everywhere else that brethren got together for any length of time. And out of controversy — came TRUTH! As a matter of fact, the extreme elements in both groups gave a little. The Gospel Advocate brethren gradually got away from their insistence that “the vast majority” of people who had been immersed had been scripturally baptized; and the brethren who were with Brother McGary little by little, began to concede that in some rare, isolated case it might conceivably be possible that an individual had understood God’s teaching on baptism, and had been scripturally baptized by a denominational preacher, if he could have found such a preacher with sufficient courage to defy denominational doctrine and practice.

But the Firm Foundation almost certainly saved the day in that battle. By her courageous stand for truth, and her insistence on free, open, and unfettered discussion of the issue, the church was finally brought to a general agreement and understanding as to Bible teaching on this vital matter. Let it be devoutly hoped that this editorial by Brother Lemmons will be the clarion call, sounding the opening of a new phase in current discussions; and that once again we will see this great, old paper stand like a bulwark against the threatening tidal wave of innovations and human organizations in the church which some are so ardently defending and promoting.

Three generations of Tants testify to the influence of the FF in the rebaptism question. Fannie Mills Yater, raised in the heartland of Tennessee, was convinced by the FF, J. D. Tant waged the battle through the FF, and Fanning Yater Tant observed its conclusion. What was a minority position in 1878 had become the majority position by 1957.

It seems to me, contrary to Fanning Yater Tant, that neither side (extremists on either end) gave very much ground. On the contested point–must one know that baptism is for the remission of sins for an acceptable immersion–neither gave ground.