John Mark Hicks

The bloody stress of the Civil War strained relationships between northern and southern members of the Stone-Campbell Movement to a breaking point. While sectional attitudes created tension as well as the diverse response to participation in the war, the gut-wrenching reality–as Lipscomb saw it–was that northern brethren were more interested in high-salaried preachers, worldly buildings and higher education than they were in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked among their southern brothers and sisters. This, perhaps more than most other strifes, created a gap between north and south in the postbellum era.

Lipscomb penned a brief but pointed article on “fellowship” which charged northern churches with indifference toward the suffering of the south. More than indifference, it charged that they had a preference for their own self-interests rather than “fellowship” with the south.

For Lipscomb, “fellowship” in this context was more than shared beliefs, it was benevolent action. It was not about agreed opinions or common “tenets of religion,” but a “mutual, kindly feeling and love one member of the body of Christ” has for another. While the north fretted about the potential loss of “fellowship” with the south, Lipscomb asked: “Now, brethren, what Christian fellowship really exists throughout the Churches of Christ?” What fellowship exists when southern disciples go hungry and starve? Where there is no “Christian beneficence,” there is no fellowship.

Based on his perceptions of how northern disciples had responded to his earlier pleas for help, he “naturally conclude[s] you have not much fellowship for us, when we are too poor to be of service to you.”

The text of the article is copied from Bobby Valentine’s contribution to Hans Rollmann’s Restoration Movement Lipscomb webpage. The article appears under the title “Fellowship” in the Gospel Advocate 8 (22 May 1866) 335-336.

Fellowship in ancient days referred not to an agreement in theories or tenets of religion, but to the mutual, kindly feeling and love one member of the body of Christ had for another. They exhibited their fellowship by aiding and helping one another with their substance and by deeds of good service to those in need. There seems to be a fear that the fellowship, so-called, of brethren North and South will be interrupted. Now, brethren, what Christian fellowship really exists throughout the Churches of Christ? An agreement in certain articles of faith and theories of religion? I doubt not that the demons and spirits of the wicked in hell have just as much fellowship as this. If we wish to have fellowship one with another, we must be willing to impart of our subsistence to aid those that are in suffering and need. Our brother writes that he has heard his children cry for bread, when he was not able to satisfy their hunger with bread. Another, “I with my family, have set down to our meals (?) with only potatoes and syrup (sorghum molasses) to eat.” These were worthy preaching brethren that wrote these things, not for publication, but in reply to questions propounded them as to their ability to devote their time to preaching. Now what benefit is it to these men, and thousands of others in their condition, to say we have fellowship for them, but never impart of our substance to relieve the hunger and nakedness of their families and themselves? The heartless selfishness of the age has corrupted and perverted the spirit of Christian beneficence so that professed Christians, we fear, give more with a view of attaining some ulterior selfish end than from a pure spirit of Christian fellowship. But all of our professions of love to God, all of our gifts by the thousand and tens of thousands for schools, meeting-houses, and such like, notwithstanding they may acquire for us great names with men, in the sight [p. 336] of God are but empty, hypocritical pretences, so long as we see our brethren have need and fail to relieve their necessities. If our brethren North wish to form and cement the bonds of lasting fellowship between themselves and their brethren South, the true, scriptural, effectual way is open and inviting. We appealed to you for relief for Bro. Smith, of Ga., a man of unexceptionable character in every respect, a man who has given thirty-six years of his life, almost at his own charges, to the cause of Christ, who, in his old age, with a large family of orphaned grand-children upon his hands, is impoverished by no wrong or imprudence of his. Our appeal was almost wholly in vain. We naturally conclude you have not much fellowship for us, when we are too poor to be of service to you. Bro. Smith’s necessities will, to some extent, at least, be supplied by our churches in Tennessee. We will subject the feelings of no more of our brethren to the unpleasant publicity to which we subjected his. But if any wish to exhibit true fellowship to their suffering brethren, we will give the names of such as need, on application.

The situation in the South through 1866 and for several years thereafter was critical. The hungry, naked and homeless were present in overwhelming numbers. The War had devastated the country. I think this is one reason we see a constant stream of small blurbs from Lipscomb in the 1866 Gospel Advocate on the poor and the responsibility of Christians to share with others.

In addition, there is a not-so-subtle protest against wealthy religion and how it fosters something other than the kingdom of God. In the following two blurbs–both appearing on the same page (March 27, 1866, p. 205)–we see the two themes in juxtaposition.  The first is titled “Giving,” but the second is untitled.

The two seem related.  Lipscomb encourages a private, daily sharing of resources instead of a public, occasional large gift. The former arises out of a lifestyle but the latter arises out of a desire for reward. The former is the daily life of a Christian but the latter is more tuned to the formal religion with its love of a holy place that is “worldly.” The former practices the gospel in sharing with the poor but the latter practices the religion of building and forms.  I think this all sounds a bit too familiar.

Perhaps the two blurbs are not connected in Lipscomb’s own mind as they are in mine. See what you think.

It seems to me, as well, that there are hidden agendas in his words.  There is a class consciousness present (maybe even class envy?) as well as a latent sectionalism. The Civil War with its wealth and sectional dimensions still lies in the background. Moreover, one hears the plea for simplicity in life and worship as the key to faithful obedience to the will of God.

First blurb, “Giving”:

He who wants to be able to do a great amount of good before he does any, will die without benefitting his race.  “Do good as opportunity offers,” is Heaven’s law. He who takes an interest only in doing good on a large scale, generally does it for the sake of display. He who does good for the sake of obeying God and benefitting the oppressed and afflicted, will relieve the wants of the needy in the quiet, humble, unobserved walks of life, wherever he may find them. Will avoid all ostentation and publicity in giving. The reason it is so much easier to raise means for a public charity than a private one, is because the greater portion of the human family wish to be seen of men in their giving, hence will give publicly when they refuse to add more needy and deserving private objects of charity. The true Christian acts not so. “When thou doest alms, let not they left hand know what thy right hand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father, who seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly.” God has never promised to reward alms that are done openly. We should not await to be able to give largely before we give. A pittance, a kind word, an encouraging smile, a cup of cold water, in the Master’s name, to the suffering, distressed, weary, faint-hearted children of misfortune and sorrow, comes in remembrance before God, and verily, has its reward.”

Second blurb:

A letter from Hannibal,Missouri, contains the following: “Brother Wilkes appeared at Palmyra for trial on Monday last, to answer to the charge brought against him, viz: Preaching the Gospel. The man who had sworn to the fact, did not appear, consequently the suit was dismissed. When he first informed against  Bro. Wilkes, he charged him simply with preaching. When asked what he preached, he replied the gospel. He was then asked, “What is the Gospel?” He frankly answered, he did not know.”

So it goes. Why is it that zealous religionists do not know what the Gospel of Christ is? Ask almost any one you meet, of any denomination, and you get no answer. Is it because the preachers are so indefinite in their discussions that is is impossible to learn? They are, then, blind leaders of the blind. The prevailing ignorance is almost lamentable. It is appears to be the popular feeling that anything will answer to save a sinner. A large house of worship, called a church, a grand organ, and music by a choir, rented pews, respectability, a handsome preacher, a soulless sermon, containing no [sic] one word of Scriptural instruction, a ritual unknown to the New Testament–performed by a  clerical dignitary, and an exclusive and selfish spirit, seem to satisfy the longings of such, and they are legion as love to worship? In “a worldly, holy place.” When will a dying world learn that the gospel itself, in its original simplicity and beauty, as found in the New Testament, is, alone, “the power of God under the salvation of every one that believes” and obeys it.

The February 27 issue of the 1866 Gospel Advocate contains two short blurbs by David Lipscomb about the poor (p. 141).  The first expresses his concern that the poor “should, above all others, feel at home in the church.” The second encourages believers to continually share with the poor.

This first blurb reminds us that our church buildings, our dress and our attitudes should be shaped by an incarnational posture that welcomes the poor. Do we create spaces, relationships and opportunities where the poor feel welcome? Given our upper middle class buildings and fashionable dress and expensive stuff, it is little wonder that the poor are generally uncomfortable. I don’t know exactly what to do about that, but here is a reminder from David Lipscomb.

The poor often feel backward in the church, because in the corruptions that wealth has brought into the church, it has been so changed that they cannot conform to its customs and they do not feel at home there. This is a wrong feeling. The church is the especial legacy of God to the poor of the earth. The poor then should, above all others, feel at home in the church. Should feel they had special privileges there above all others. It is the rich that are out of their element in Christ’s Church. They should feel the backwardness, not the poor.

The second blurb tackles the oft-heard retort that “the poor ye have with you always” as a potential excuse for less attention to the poor than we might otherwise give. Lipscomb does not believe this Jesus saying means less giving but more giving to the poor.

“The poor ye have with you always,” therefore give always and continually. The Christian must cultivate a disposition to give–must so school his heart to giving, that he realizes that “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Only then has he brought himself to the true Christian spirit.

The kingdom of God is for the poor; it is the rich who should not feel at home there. Wow!  That is quite a statement. It has some biblical roots in James 2, for example, as well as in the prophetic tradition.

Lipscomb’s statement should at least, it seems to me, remind us that while our American churches–for the most part–are oriented toward the middle class and rich, this is not the fundamental orientation of the kingdom of God within the narrative of Scripture.

As the Gospel Advocate begins again in January 1866–this time as a weekly rather than a monthly–one of the constant emphases of the editors, particularly David Lipscomb, is the privileged position of the poor within the kingdom of God. No doubt this is contextualized by the economic and social conditions of the postbellum South, but it is also a principal thread of Lipscomb’s kingdom theology.

One of his first statements on the topic appears under the title, “Christ the Savior of the World” (GA 8 [20 February 1866] 124). Lipscomb wrote:

The sealing testimony in behalf of Jesus Christ being the Son of God is his own estimation, as divine to the disciples of John, was, ‘The poor have the gospel preached to them.” The world to-day needs this same sealing testimony, that it may believe that, Jesus is the Son of God. Every preacher that pretendedly, in the name of Jesus Christ, seeks the rich and the learned and the fashionable to preach to, instead of the poor and simple-hearted and unpretending, by that course nullifies the power of the great truth, that Jesus is the anointed one that was to come into the world to save the world. Such a preacher is no co-laborer with God; no true minister of Christ, but a servant of the wicked one in the livery of Heaven.

As one of among the rich, learned (at least by the standards that Lipscomb would think) and fashionable (though my daughters would disagree), this is a chilling reminder. Can I identify in my own ministry where I minister among the poor and advocate for the poor? It is a question we must all address and, hopefully, respond by joining Jesus in sharing good news with the poor.

September 11 means something to us. It raises questions about forgiveness, war and our future.

I don’t think that date meant anything particular to David Lipscomb, but on that date in 1866 Lipscomb addressed the problem of war and forgiveness (Gospel Advocate 8 [11 September 1866] 579-583). How do we forgive those who sought our lives in war? Ought we to forgive them even if they have not repented? How can we make peace with others while memories of violence, horror and hostility fills our minds?

Nathan W. Smith asked Lipscomb this series of questions: “If, then, it is true God forgives none but those who repent, does he require more of us? Does he require us to forgive those who have injured us, in word and deed, and who give no signs of repentance? Let those who think I am wrong, show it by the word of the Lord if they can. I am willing to pray for our enemies, to do good to those that hate us, and if our enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; but to forgive those who injure us, without any repentance, I am not willing to do so, unless it can be shown that my Lord requires it.” (p. 579).

Lipscomb’s fundamental response is: Yes, of course, we should. The Christian “should be possessed of that kind, forebearing [sic] and forgiving spirit that the Savior exhibited to his murderers and crucifiers, and that allows him to return no ill, to cherish no bitter, vindictive feelings, but ever to do good to our enemies, and under all circumstances return good for evil. Christ’s feelings, work, suffering for the human family while it was yet in sin and rebellion, is the model for our treatment of the impenitent sinners and offenders” (p. 582).

As Christ-followers, we forgive those who seek to crucify us just as Christ forgave his enemies. Does this apply to our own September 11 just as, according to Lipscomb, it applied to combatants in the Civil War, both north and south?

Lipscomb encouraged forbearance, making amends, healing and disengagement from worldly powers. In particular, he prays that “peace and harmony will be restored to our divided and sundered brotherhood” and “too many sacrifices cannot be made to attain this happy state.”

Forgiveness only takes one–I forgive my enemies. Reconcilation takes two–a mutual search for peace. But reconcilation cannot happen unless forgiveness comes first.  That was true for Lipscomb postbellum and it is true for us post-September 11.

********

Below are the last couple of pages of Lipscomb response to Smith’s question (pp. 582-83).

“His full and free acceptance of the penitent, obedient believer as righteous and a coheir with himself in the honors and glories of the universe, is our pattern for the treatment of the repentant wrong-doer. Taking Christ as our model in these things as others, is the only infallible guide to right. In our country there is a class of crimes and wrongs that have been committed by professed Christians in the name of and as subjects of the world powers of earth, that are more difficult to settle than any others. Our connection with civil governments and the partizan feelings that enter into these questions, greatly embarrass them. War, strifes, politics, worldly governments are all corrupt and corrupting. War is wholesale murder and robbery. Whoever votes for, encourages, or in any manner excites war, is just as guilty for all the crimes that are legitimately the consequences of that war, as is the individual who personally commits the crimes. Again, in war, such as we have passed through, men engaged in the conflict upon each side from equally honest motives. The different teachings in political science, their surroundings, and above all, their interest, real or supposed, (for this is usually the controlling influence in politics and with nations,) led them to different courses of action. For professed Christians of one part or one section to suppose that all the honesty of sentiment or purpose was confined to their party or section, exhibits a remarkable degree of narrowminded bigotry. Men were equally honest in their views of duty on each side. And when once they entered the contest, violence, plunder and slaughter were the necessary results. The individuals then became the mere instruments in the hands of the power controlling them. So we are inclined to think that the sin was in yielding themselves instruments of an unrighteous power. So, too, we think that no individual who has himself entered the service of a world-power ought to complain of another who has merely served a different one. One these questions of difference in which, from our standpoint, both parties did wrong, the greatest forbearance should be exercised. Both parties acted as they thought best, and one party had, religiously as much right to act upon his convictions as the other. In the same neighborhood and in the same church, one had been taught to believe that the supreme authority was vested and should rest in the State. Another held, from equally satisfactory grounds, that the paramount obligation of the citizen was due the general government, and each acted on his convictions in the matter. In carrying out their convictions, each party acted as all men do when engaged in war. The wrong, we repeat again, was not in the acts that were performed, but in Christians putting themselves under the control of ungodly powers. That individual may have made excuses of their position, and taken advantage of their opportunities to exhibit a depraved and corrupted heart, and to have indulged in crimes and wreaked vengeance on those who were at their mercy, is true, and such should be dealt with according to the spirit they exhibited, yet we should be careful that no party spirit controls us in this. Yet to cherish prejudices against individuals, is not exactly fair. Forbearance, Christian forebearance, is what is needed now to allay the passions, heal the divisions and strifes, and put us in a condition that we may all be brought to see our wrongs, and that we may be prepared to avoid those difficulties in the future by keeping ourselves free from entangling alliances with the world-powers. Every one should strive to see how much of wrong he had done and make amends for it, and to see how much he can overlook and forgive in his brother. Thus peace and harmony will be restored to our divided and sundered brotherhood, and as one people in the Lord we may labor and toil and rejoice in the Lord. Too many sacrifices cannot be made to attain this happy state, provided we do not sacrifice God’s truth and God’s authority.”

In the second issue of the rebirthed Gospel Advocate in 1866, Lipscomb addresses the question of how God was or was not involved in the Civil War which ended eight months ago. He asks, “Does God Take Part in the Conflicts of the Kingdoms of this World?”  His answer, “Yes!”

God has a role in everything within the creation.God uses the nations to accomplish his purposes, including their bloody conflicts. God is a sovereign over the nations, including their wars.

While I have included the full article below, I wanted to highlight what Lipscomb says to his southern and northern friends.  Here is his advice:

We would say to our friends of the South then, their duty and interests are to submit quietly and cheerfully to the decision Providence has made in the fearful arbitrament of their own choosing. While taking this decision as a providential indication that God intends them not to run a race of political human nationality, let them accept it as a divine call to find labor and honor in a higher, holier, heavenly nationality. While it, to some extent, weans them from their undue affection for the worldly, may that affection be transferred and concentrated in the glorious and immortal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Then, indeed, would the chastening rod prove a blessing, and the hour of humiliation be the moment of highest exaltation. To our friends of the North we say, “be not high-minded, but fear.” The self-sufficient spirit has ever been offensive to God.

*********Lipscomb’s  Article*****

David Lipscomb, “Does God Take Part in the Conflicts of the Kingdoms of this World?” Gospel Advocate 8.2 (9 January 1866) 22-24.

It is a question of interest with many, whether God, in his providence, takes part in, or in any manner overrules the strifes and conflicts in which people and nations frequently engage in the present age of the world. It is clear, from the teachings of the Bible, that in ancient days he directed and controlled the Jewish nation. He fought their battles for them when they obeyed and trusted him, withdrew his aid and overthrew them when their faith grew weak or they refused obedience to him. God’s dealings with the Jews were had, not alone for themselves, as Paul says but for us who should come after them. “Now these things were our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” “Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of serpents—neither murmur ye as some of them murmured and were destroyed of the destroyer.” “Now all these things happened unto them for examples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom are come the ends of the world.” 1 Cor. X, 6, 11. Yet no political government at the present day occupies the same relationship to God, that the Jewish did. It was the type, not of the political governments of the world, but of the Church of Jesus Christ. God deals with the church, not the nation, to-day, as he dealt with the Jews in the days gone by.

The Jews, the natural branches were broken off, through unbelief, and the believing Gentiles engrafted into their position. These teachings, admonitions, examples, &c., are instructive lessons to the church and to Christians, but whoever applies them to the governments and the unbelieving of earth, grossly perverts the scriptures of truth. We must seek for our example in some other institution than the Jewish nation. We may easily find these types in the human institutions of the ancients. The human governments of the present are the direct, legitimate descendants of the human governments of ancient times. The Kingdom of Babel, the first organized human government known either to sacred or profane history, founded by Nimrod, the grandson of ham, soon grew into the mighty Babylon, reigned as a hectoring tyrant over the weaker nations of the earth, that sprang into existence after its own example, rioted in sin and died weltering in the blood of its own subjects, leaving as the inheritor of its possessions, pretensions and wickedness, the Medo-Persian Empire, which inherited, too, its fate, as presented to us by Daniel in his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. It soon gave way to the Grecian, an it, in turn, to the Roman; of which last, all the governments and nations of earth, are but the broken and severed fragments. Do we wish to learn then the nature, mission, and destiny of these earthly governments, the true position they occupy with reference to God and his church, together with the principles of God’s dealings with them, we must go to the record of his dealings with those ancient governments of human mould [sic]. No one certainly can doubt, but that he took cognizance of these wicked nations, and to a certain extent overruled their actions and destinies. He used them often to accomplish his purposes, not as his approved institutions, but as fitted for certain kinds of work. See Isaiah x, 5. “O, Assyrian the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the prey and tot read them down like the mire of the streets. However, he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so, but it is in his heart to destroy and to cut off nations not a few.” Here we find it distinctly stated that God used th Assyrian government, to punish his own hypocritical nation, the Jewish people, who professed to obey him, yet did it not. Still he says that this Assyrian does it not with the view of honoring God, “he meaneth not so,” or for the purpose of punishing and so purifying his servants. In the 15th verse the prophet represented him as merely an instrument in the hands of God, yet has himself no idea of honoring God. “It is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.” From the 10th to the 19th verse, God’s punishment of this same Assyrian for his crimes in cherishing this wicked spirit, is plainly foretold. Again, Jeremiah xxv, tells how he uses Babylon, wicked, ambitious and blood-thirsty as she was, to destroy other wicked nations around, and to punish by captivity and slavery, his unfaithful children. In the 1st chapter, the prophet gives an account of the fearful day of reckoning with Babylon, for the blood-thirsty spirit, which God had not made, but simply overruled and directed. Thus we find God using and controlling the world—institutions of ancient times, as instruments for punishing his wicked children, destroying his enemies, and in turn destroying those he has thus used, with a fearful desolation. We find no intimation of a change of God’s course with reference to them, but rather that he still thus uses them, and will, to the end, Rev. xvii, 17. “For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will , and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” It is no evidence then at all that one nation is more wicked or less approved of God than another, because in their conflicts the latter overcomes or overthrows the former. Babylon was not less odious in the sight of god than the world kingdoms which she destroyed, and especially was she not more approved and beloved than Judea whom she carried captive. The day of her reckoning had not come. Judea was punished, Babylon was destroyed. The Jews continue in a state of punishment to this day, but, doubtless, have yet a glorious future in store. Babylon is a howling waste, and her people have long been extinct. See Isaiah xxvii, 7.

We would say to our friends of the South then, their duty and interests are to submit quietly and cheerfully to the decision Providence has made in the fearful arbitrament of their own choosing. While taking this decision as a providential indication that God intends them not to run a race of political human nationality, let them accept it as a divine call to find labor and honor in a higher, holier, heavenly nationality. While it, to some extent, weans them from their undue affection for the worldly, may that affection be transferred and concentrated in the glorious and immortal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Then, indeed, would the chastening rod prove a blessing, and the hour of humiliation be the moment of highest exaltation. To our friends of the North we say, “be not high-minded, but fear.” The self-sufficient spirit has ever been offensive to God.

The vindicative [sic], vengeful temper, even when overruled by God to the punishment of his enemies, always had meted to it a full, overflowing measure of its own dealings. “Recompense her according to her work, according to all that she hath done, do unto her.” Jeremiah iv, 29, was the fiat of God with reference to the nation he had called his own battle-axe “the hammer of his wrath.” Her king was even denominated “my servant,’ in punishing his enemies. Yet because he did these things not for the honor of God, but to gratify his own ambition and vindictiveness, and to promote his own earthly grandeur, God said, “recompense him according to all he hath done.”

The idyllic description of a restored (enlarged borders) and united (Judah and Ephraim reunited) Israel in Zechariah 10:4-12 under a peacemaking king (9:9-10) is shattered by an opening lament in Zechariah 11:1-3. The shepherds of Israel lament the destruction of the land of Lebanon and Bashan (or Gilead).

While some think the lament envisions the wailing of the nations whose lands were destroyed, it seems best to link Lebanon and Bashan in Zechariah 11:1-2 back to Lebanon and Gilead in Zechariah 10:10. Ephraim is promised land as an inheritance but now the shepherds (leaders; cf. Zech 10:1-3) of Israel lament the destruction of that promised land. The cedars are burned and fallen, the forests of Bashan are cut down, the rich pastures are destroyed and the lush Jordan thicket is devastated. The land has lost its value and has become uninhabitable. There is no inheritance. Israel’s leaders, therefore, lament.

Why do Israel’s shepherds lament when the previous message is filled with such hope, joy and promise? That is the tale of two shepherds which Zechariah narrates in Zechariah 11:4-17.

Zechariah, as Yahweh’s representative, becomes a shepherd over Israel, God’s flock. In fact, Zechariah enacts a story in his narrative. This enactment announces the reality of the situation from the divine perspective and it also anticipates future events.

Yahweh describes the situation in which he has called Zechariah to become a shepherd over Israel. Symbolically, Zechariah is taking on a royal task, the Davidic task. Zechariah assumes this role metaphorically or allegorically in order to announce God’s judgment on the situation.

Israel’s shepherds do not protect their flock but they sell them to buyers who slaughter them. They are motivated by profit. “Praise Yahweh, I am rich!” they say. Instead of protecting them, they send them to the slaughter. This may allude to earlier condemnations of economic injustice in Zechariah (7:9-10; 8:10) where neighbor abused neighbor for the sake of profit.

Whatever the case may be, God’s judgment has returned to Israel—he will no longer pity them or rescue them. Rather, God will “hand everyone over to his neighbor and his king.” God will give them over to their own devices, practices and self-destruction. The leaders of Israel will complete the slaughter of their own people. The “king” will oppress the land without relief.

Zechariah plays the role of a good king—perhaps symbolizing Zerubbabel—who pastures the flock compassionately as he cares for the oppressed among them. He uses the tools of a shepherd—two staffs (e.g., “rod and staff” in Psalm 23)—to care for the flock. One staff is called “Favor” and the other “Union.” The names are significant. The former typifies covenantal blessing while the latter refers to a pledge such as the land grants to the tribes of Israel (Joshua 17:5, 14; 19:9; Ezekiel 47:13). Boda (Haggai, Zechariah: NIV Application Commentary, 464) translates it “Inheritance.” The staffs, then, represent God’s protection (blessing) and gifts (land). Consequently, the good shepherd (Zechariah symbolically) is able to eliminate the corrupt shepherds (“three” is probably a symbolic number for totality or completeness).

But, just as God—the Shepherd of Israel—was often rejected by Israel, so this good shepherd (Zechariah/Zerubbabel) is rejected by the people. This resistance to God’s gracious blessing and covenant life wearies God and thus he rejects them and removes the good shepherd. Instead, he will let the consequences of their sins devour them as they destroy each other.

As a rejected shepherd over Israel, Zechariah performs three “sign-acts”—prophectic actions that symbolize or embody divine messages: (1) he breaks the “favor” staff (11:10), (2) he throws his payment into the temple (11:13), and (3) he breaks the “union” staff (11:14). Each of these acts reinforces the message—God has appointed an abusive shepherd over Israel in lieu of his good shepherd because the people rejected him.

First, he breaks the “Favor” staff which revoked the covenant God had made with the nations. This probably refers to God’s protection of Israel from the nations. God had destroyed Babylon and returned Judah to the land. But now God will no longer protect them from the nations. Thus, Israel will be continually oppressed by the nations in the post-exilic period.

Second, as a resigned leader, he asks for his wages. They paid him thirty pieces of “weighed” silver. The fact that he was not paid in coinage may indicate an early Persian date as coinage becomes more common in the middle Persian era. He was paid the price of a slave (cf. Exodus 21:32). He returns the insult by throwing the money into the temple treasury. The word “potter” can refer to metal workers (smelters) as well and silver workers in the temple may have been employed in some kind of idolatrous activity (so Boda). Both worked in the temple supplying vessels for the temple cultus. Consequently, the returned money may symbolize rejection of the temple leadership and activity.

Third, he breaks the “Union” staff which revoked, for the time being, God’s pledge to reunite Judah and Ephraim in the land. There would be no grand reunion at this time. Instead, the land itself would become a source of hostility and woe (as the lament indicates). Some see an anticipation of the role of the Samaritans in this sign-act who will occupy Ephriam’s land in the future.

Replacing the good shepherd (Zechariah/Zerubbabel) is a “foolish/worthless shepherd.” The term “fool,” reflecting the wisdom tradition, indicates a corrupt or immoral leader. God raises up or installs this leader in Israel as a way of giving the people what they want. And the corrupt leader does what corrupt leaders do—they devour the helpless and marginalized (Boda suggests “exhausted” is a better rendering than “healthy” in Zechariah 11:16). This shepherd abuses his flock rather than caring for them. He leads them to the slaughter.

Though God appointed him, Yahweh nevertheless issues a “woe” against the corrupt leader. This leader, who deserts his flock, will suffer the consequences of his own actions in blindness and disability. In other words, God will not leave this corrupt shepherd unjudged.

But what of Israel? The nations? And the land? What will become of God’s promises? Ah….Zechariah has yet another “oracle” (Zechariah 12-14).

While Zechariah (or whoever the writer is) describes a situation in his own time as corrupt leaders remove or supplant Zerubbabel (or whoever it may be), early Christians heard in this message a part of their own story. The despised shepherd is the rejected Messiah for whom leaders paid thirty pieces of silver (cf. Matthew 26:14-15; 27:6-10), the leaders detested him and Jesus spoke a word against the temple leadership of his day (cleansing of the temple; Mark 11:12-26), and the nations (Romans) oppressed the leaders. They saw the suffering Messiah in this text, but they also saw a triumphant Messiah in Zechariah 12-14.

Judah, presently a small backwater province of the Persian Empire, is promised that its future borders will spill over into Philistia, Lebanon and Syria (Zechariah 9:1-8). The land will yield grain and new wine as God restores Judah (Zechariah 9:16-17). God will accomplish this through a king who will bring peace to the nations (Zechariah 9:9-10).

Zechariah brings hope to a despondent, discouraged Judah. The people of Judah have returned to the land from Babylonian exile, the temple has been rebuilt, and Judah awaits the glory of restoration. But it has not yet come. Further, what is the future of Ephraim (Israel), the northern kingdom that was taken into Assyrian exile? What will become of them? Will God show compassion on Ephraim just as he has on Judah? Is the promise for all twelve tribes?

The oracle about the land, king from Judah and the restoration of Judah continues in Zechariah 10 to include Ephraim. The Lord will have compassion on Ephraim just as he did on Judah (Zechariah 10:6; cf. 1:12-14).

However, a perennial problem exists. Judah is shepherdless, at least godly shepherds. Judah’s leaders continue to seek advice and counsel, to seek rain and blessing from sources other than Yahweh. Idolatry is yet a problem in Judah.

Rain is the lifeblood of Israel. Unlike Egypt with the Nile and the rivers of the Mesopotamia, there is no river in Israel that waters the soil and prepares it for planting and harvesting. The land of Palestine is wholly dependent upon rain (Deuteronomy 11:10-12). Since Baal is the god of the storm, Canaanites and ultimately Israel itself turned to Baal for rain.

Instead of asking Yahweh to bring the rain with its storm clouds, the leaders of Judah sought it through “idols,” “diviners,” and “dreams.” Divination was a frequent method of discerning the will of the gods in the ancient world (e.g., Ezekiel 21:21). The leaders of Judah had turned to these false hopes rather than seeking Yahweh and thus they are no shepherds at all.

Yahweh will resolve this problem. The true Shepherd, Yahweh, will raise up new leaders for his flock. God will punish the old leaders and make Judah like a proud war horse who is prepared for battle. They will be a cornerstone of a building, a peg for a tent and a battle bow. These rulers—perhaps a royal court that is associated with the king who is coming (9:9-10)—will defeat the enemies of God as mighty warriors because “the Lord is with them.”

In other words, though the present picture of Judah is nowhere near the idyllic scene of Zechariah 9 due to its corrupt leaders, God will yet act in the future to depose those leaders and raise up new ones who will lead God’s flock. They will make Judah like a proud war horse that defeats all foes.

But what is to become of Ephraim? Have the promises of God failed for all Israel or is only for Judah? The parallelism of Zechariah 10:6, God will make the house of Judah/Joseph strong/victorious, answers the question. The destiny of Judah is also the destiny of Ephraim. God intends to restore Ephraim as well.

Like Judah, Ephraim will become a mighty warrior (10:5, 7) and drink new wine (9:17; 10:7). Just as Judah’s children will play in the streets of Jerusalem (8:) and people joyfully celebrate feasts within its boundaries (8:19), so Ephraim’s children will see the joy of the coming work of God for them (10:7).

This blessing is rooted in God’s compassion for Ephraim (cf. Jeremiah 31:19-22). God, grieved by a series of faithless kings in the northern nation and by their adoption of Baal worship under Ahab, had sent them into Assyrian exile. It has seemed that for over two hundred years God had totally rejected them. But God is faithful and remembers his promise to Abraham; Yahweh is their God and they are his people. He will renew Ephraim and it will be as though he had never rejected them (10:6).

So, what will Yahweh do? He will whistle (translated “signal,” 10:8). Earlier in history, God had whistled to Egypt and Assyria to come and punish Israel (Isaiah 7:18), but now he whistles to his people living in Egypt and Assyria to come home. God will again gather his people through a new Exodus.

This action recalls the Abrahamic promise. When they return to the land, they will prosper and become so numerous that there is no room for them in the land. Judah, it should be remembered, was a lightly populated province, and the north was even less populated by Abraham’s descendents. The promise, however, is that so many will return that both Gilead (the region east of the Jordan River) and Lebanon (including the cities of Tyre and Sidon) will fill with Ephraim’s descendents. While Gilead was part of the original division of the land at the time of Joshua, it was sparsely populated. But Lebanon was never inhabited by Israel though it is part of the Abrahamic promise (Genesis 15:17) and was included in the border expansion of Zechariah 9:1-8.

The return of the Ephraimites will be like a new Exodus, just as Judah’s return from Babylon was as well. The pride of Assyria and Egypt will be humbled and Abraham’s descendents will pass through the seas and rivers on dry land. Ephraim will be renewed; they will be strengthened so that they might be a people who, in the name of Yahweh, “will walk” before  God (that is, live the life of God in the land). God will strengthen Ephraim (10:12) just as he will strengthen Judah (10:6).

When will this happen? Has it already happened? When Jesus walked the earth, the Jews believed they were still living in exile. These promises had not yet been fully realized. Abraham’s descendants stilled lived under oppression; the nations (Rome, in particular) ruled.

The Christian story claims to realize these promises, but there is significant disagreement about how they are realized. Some suggest these promises are realized spiritually through the church as the twelve tribes are restored as the people of God in the kingdom of God. Some suggest they will be realized through some kind of millennial reign either before or after the second coming of Christ. Others suggest they are realized in the new heavens and new earth.

So….we keep reading and hear the rest of the story that Zechariah announces.

In the last issue of the Gospel Advocate during the Civil War, December 1861, Fanning noted the death of an “old friend,” Pierce Butler Anderson. It is Fanning’s last comment on the Civil War until the Gospel Advocate was rebirthed in January 1866.

Fanning is gracious in reporting his death knowing “the Lord of all the earth will do right.”

P. B. Anderson (1806-1861) was the son of U. S. Senator Joseph Anderson (1757-1837). Joseph Anderson was the first senator from Tennessee sent to Washington, a lawyer who served eighteen years and then as the United States Treasurer from 1815 to 1836. He served in the American Revolution from the Battle of Monmouth in NJ through Valley Forge to the victory at Yorktown, and was discharged at the rank of Major. He served in the Tennessee House of Representatives from 1843-1847.

P. B. Anderson attended West Point with Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. He resigned from the Point when he was permanently disabled by a bayonet through the wrist after three years at the institution. He returned to Tullahoma, TN, where he studied law as an apprentice. At the start of the Mexican-American War, he raised a volunteer company from Tennessee and participated in major engagements in Mexico. He practiced law but also taught mathematics at Franklin College for two years.

Joining the Confederate army on April 25, 1861, he raised a company of volunteers in Tennessee at the start of the Civil War, and then raised an artillery corp of 100 men.  He joined Robert E. Lee’s command in Western Virginia as a Captain. He died in the battle of Greenbrier on October 3, 1861.  He was killed when he mistook a Union advance line for a returning Confederate picket line and invited them into the Confederate trenches. He was killed immediately. He was 56 years old at his death and was buried in Tullahoma, Tennessee.

****Fanning’s Notice****

Tolbert Fanning, “A Brave Soldier of His Country Has Fallen,” Gospel Advocate 7.12 (December 1861) 364.

We learn from recent dispatches that our old friend and quondam brother, Pierce Butler Anderson, fell at a late battle in Western Virginia. He was educated at West Point, was for sometime a legislator of the State from McMinn, served bravely through the Mexican war, afterwards spent some two years as Professor of Mathematics in Franklin College; while with us submitted to the King of Zion, but soon afterwards, from bad health and other causes, retired to Tullahoma, where he led a quiet and perhaps not a very profitable life till the opening of the present civil war. He went to Virginia in Col. Turney’s regiment, soon after was appointed Captain of Artillery by Gen. Lee, and conducted himself as a soldier till he was called from earth.

He was a high-toned soldier, and were we superstitious we might conclude he had a presentiment of his fatal death. When he bade us farewell in Nashville, he said, with tears in his eyes, he would go to the war but never expected to return. The Lord of all the earth will do right. His will be the reward of an honored defender of his country. Our old friend has fought his last battle.

The church in Murfreesboro was divided over the war. Previously Fanning had published a letter from Lillard, Harding and Ransome, and he had printed an article by “Disciple” who responded to that letter from within the same church. Fanning now feels compelled to comment on their exchange. He uses the occasion to clarify his position.

Fanning has every intent to obey civil authorities as long as he does not thereby disobey God. The present circumstances, he believes, has made it difficult “to tell who are Christians and who are not, or to define clearly the line between the church and the world” since so many professed disciples are compromised by their participation in “worldly powers.” It is not surprising, according to Fanning, that he is charged with disloyalty and thus “perverting the nation” because Jesus himself was so charged (Luke 23:2) “for maintaining that his kingdom was not of this world.”

Fanning, nevertheless, encourages discussion because “there is no subject of greater moment to Christians” than their relationship to “worldly powers.”

Fanning would not be able to continue that discussion, however, because mail service in the South was disrupted by the war. The Gospel Advocate would cease publication with the December 1861 issue but it would have a new birth in January 1866 under the editorship of Tolbert Fanning and his favored mentee David Lipscomb. At that year, Lipscomb would take up the challenge Fanning laid down in December 1861 and thoroughly study the subject of “worldly power.”  That series would ultimately issue in his book Civil Government. 

****Fanning’s Article****

Tolbert Fanning, “Subjection to Worldly Powers,” Gospel Advocate 7.12 (December 1861) 356-357.

Whilst we feel no disposition to interfere in the controversy of Brethren Lillard, Harding and Ransome with “Disciple,” we find ourself [sic] involved in so singular a manner, that we consider it proper and necessary to briefly notice a few points in the following article:

1st. We would willing suppress the names of our brethren, were we not satisfied that by publishing their communication from “Murfreesboro,” some might conclude that all the members of that congregation, entertain similar opinions, when we are conscious there are some who differ widely. We, however, feel responsible for the name of Disciple, and suggest to him that we would prefer giving it to any remarks he may desire to make. This is the only proper mode of procedure.

2d. Our reason for giving the remarks of Disciple without comment was, that we considered that there was no question of scripture involved. Disciple’s effort was to show the supposed inconsistency of our brethren, and no positive ground was taken by him.

3d. We are sorry to witness the effort of our brethren to place Disciple as well as ourself [sic] in a position we never occupied. Neither has Disciple or ourself [sic] intimated a doubt as to the Scriptures requiring disciples of Christ to live in subject to magistrates and any civil government in which their lot may be cast, so long as they are permitted to enjoy the liberties of the kingdom of God. Unfairness in representing those from whom we differ is not calculated to add to the honor of the Lord’s cause. While we doubt, not our brethren at Murfreesboro, as well as Disciple, are all loyal to Caesar, we see not the propriety of any of them becoming Caesar or of occupying his chair. Hence we find no authority for the charge that some of us oppose worldly governments for the world. We would respectfully suggest to our correspondents, that our controversy gives the strongest evidence that there is urgent necessity for us all to study the scriptures with more care. The times may not be the most favorable for examining the true characteristics of the spiritual kingdom in comparison with worldly institutions, but it strikes us the period may not be very far distant when the servants of God will look at the Bible and the church without the interference of the heavy and dark veil of worldly wisdom which has so long obscured the light of truth. Religious teachers must soon open a new chapter or desist from their profession. It would require one of some discrimination, judging from surroundings, to tell who are Christians and who are not, or to define clearly the line between the church and the world. When Jesus claimed to be head of a spiritual empire, the people said, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute unto Caesar.” (Luke xxiii, 2.) He was not only charged with disloyalty, but lost his life for maintaining that his kingdom was not of this world.

Will our brethren pardon us for requesting them to exercise a little more cautiousness in their wholesale charges of disloyalty to human authority, against their friends who perhaps may be as well read in the institutions of the world as themselves, and are as tenacious to respect all proper human authority as any men living. A little more time and patience, with a good degree of careful examination of the Sacred Oracles, we trust will bring us all to the full measure of the truth. We hope brethren L, H, and R. will continue to furnish us with their views. There is no subject of greater moment to Christians.