John Mark Hicks

Fanning printed a critical response to his peacemaking articles in the September issue of the Gospel Advocate, but not without his own reply to their questions (“Reply to Brethren Lillard, Harding and Ransome,” Gospel Advocate 7.9 [September 1861] 265-276).

Fanning characterized his previous articles for peacemaking as an attempt to be as “wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” He used language that he hoped would soothe rather than incite. He bent over backwards in an attempt to persuade disciples that they should not take up arms to fight each other. He hoped that 400,000-500,000 disciples would stand aloof from the fight like “Shakers, Quakers, and perhaps, a few kindred sects” did. Unfortunately, he estimates that about “one fourth of northern professors [disciples] are thirsting for the blood of their professed brethren south” and a larger percentage in the south are “engaged in war.” But, he hopes, the larger portion will remain steadfast that though “politically, they differ” the “differences of opinion” will not “interfere with their christian fellowship.”

The cause of Christ, Fanning writes, is “suffering from political strifes,” and thus he had to speak. And he has said nothing more or less than he has been saying for the past twelve years. Christians as “a peculiar people” must stand above all political alliances, including the temptation to “idolize the American Union” (italics mine, JMH). Christians have equated Americana with eternal blessings, but God’s kingdom will “conquer them all.”

Fanning thinks the present crisis was, in part, precipitated by “higher lawism,” which sought to find a “higher law” than the U.S. Constitution. Fanning is a strict constructionist in reading the Constitution, and more importantly, Scripture. “Higher Lawism” seeks “direct spiritual and political light” from sources other than the Constitution or Scripture. This is the root problem in both political and religious circles, and he has seen it among the disciples as well as other politicos and religionists. Without naming him, Fanning is talking about Robert Richardson of Bethany College whom he had engaged in a dispute on how to read Scripture, pneumatology and epistemology.

Fanning counsels that Christians confess that God is the Lord of the nations–he will decide this outcome. In their confession they should neither “interfere with him or even pray to him to take this side or that, of any national controversy, as the heathen do.” Instead, Christians pray “for the preservation of the people of God, and then, [that] the right, justice and humanity may prevail every where.” Though there may be early indications how God will use this fight and even bring victory to the South, “still we do not know what God has in reserve. We should not be presumptuous, but fear.”

Consequently, the course that the Murfreesboro disciples recommend is to return to “the days of Constantine” where the “partnership between church and state” was the “most deadly enemy to pure religion.” But Lincoln is even more at fault for doing so as he usurps government in order to pursue a form of “higher lawism.”

But whatever the case, “it may be God intends to punish all of us for our wickedness, but we should kiss the rod that smites us.” He concludes:

If then, the Savior and his Apostles preached such doctrine as applicable in their day, and as peculiar to this dispensation, if, when he could have called twelve legions of angels to his defense, he employed no offensive or defensive weapons save the sword of the Spirit, and if all early christians, “took joyfully the spoiling of their goods,” and submitted not only to the sacrifice of their earthly inheritance, but yielded their lives willingly rather than lift the sword for protection, it seems to us, that professed Christians in the nineteenth century should examine the subject carefully, before they attempt with Islams, Romans and Protestants, to propagate morality by the sword. Still, we say, as we have said from the beginning, this is a day of trial.

****Fanning’s Reply****

Dear Brethren:–From the first indication of war in 1860, to this moment, we have been much troubled as to our duty to our country, to our brethren and to our Maker. Not that, we have had any doubt as to the place of human institutions, the mission of the church or the teaching of the Bible in reference to either; but, as christian teachers, are to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves,” the future at every step, has been so portentuous of evil, that we have feared the capacity of our poor brain, to determine the points involved in the great political and moral struggle of our beloved country, that should be discussed by us and to what extent, it was, or is, our duty or privilege to examine them. Owing still to the embarrassments that, attend out pathway, we consider it proper, before noticing particularly, the essay; to remind our readers of a few important points to which we have heretofore invited attention.

1. We have not considered it the duty of Christians;–men devoted to Christ—not policy professors—to construct, or control worldly institutions; such as civil governments, pseudo-religious organizations, in the form of party churches, or professedly moral reform societies, such as Masonic, Temperance or Odd Fellows, whilst there is a spiritual association quite adequate to employ all of our means for the benefit of our race. We have not denied at any time, that civil institutions, ecclesiastical bodies originating in the wisdom of men, or moral reform societies, have not accomplished some valuable results; but we have been of the judgment that, all the light that shines through these, is borrowed from the great foundation of spiritual life,–the church of God, and that whilst we as Christians are employing our energies to ameliorate the condition of the world by inferior machinery, we must neglect the superior to the discredit of the only organization and government, which have stood the test of the revolutions of eighteen centuries, and which we think, will endure to the end.

But as the war cloud began to rise, and the deep mutterings of Heavens [sic] thunder reached our ears, we observed that, the professed people of God were so deeply involved in the political whirlwinds that threatened the country, that we ventured to utter words of caution to the saints. We dictated nothing, but only exhorted christians to count well the cost in every step. For this, perhaps, by vicious and unthoughtful persons, we have been blamed. Our chief purpose has been to impress upon the brethren, the weight of personal responsibility that rests upon each, and that we all must account to God individually. The decision has been made by each north and south, and no discussion can now change the result; consequently, we have seen not the propriety of any lengthy discussion of matters which cannot be changed. The state of the case, is about the following. Civil war has really been inaugurated in our once prosperous and happy country, political parties, religious factions and reform societies are in deadly hostility to each other. Brethren, in the dominant ecclesiastical bodies, now freely embrue [sic] their hands in each others [sic] blood, but all in the name of their Gods, as it has been from the beginning. Shakers, Quakers, and perhaps, a few kindred sects stand aloof; but the four or five hundred thousand of the professed disciples of Christ in the States, are not entirely assured as to their duty. From all that we have been able to learn, a few of the writers and preachers north, say, “Put down this great rebellion—peaceably, if you can, forcibly if you must.” Perhaps one fourth of northern professors are thirsting for the blood of their professed brethren south.

Possibly, a shade larger proportion of the professed disciples south are earnestly engaged in war. Their position is, that aggressive war is murder, but defensive, to protect home and families, if no really christian, is at least proper in the circumstances. Some, bnth [sic] north and south, are of the judgment, that while all Christians are bound by the law of Christ, to respect civil governments, pray “for kings and all in authority, that they may lead quit [sic] peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty,” and in as much as they hold their property by virtue of their respective governments, all is subject to their maintenance; but that, there is no power in heaven or on earth adequate to force them to imbrue their hands in their fellows blood. Politically, they differ, toto ceolo, but differences of opinion are not to interfere with their christian fellowship.

2d. Touching what we have considered our own duty in the politico-religious strife of the country, we have a few words to say. We have not considered it our privilege to join any political faction, interfere in any of the election struggles, or even to attempt to control in the slightest, degree, any human government of our time, and yet, when we have seen Christians, as we believed, ensnared in political meshes, and the cause of Christ suffering from political strifes, we have deemed to proper, to utter a warning voice. This is mainly, what we have intended by our essays on “the crisis”—the war, and kindred subjects. To be sure, we have not considered ourself [sic] entirely ignorant, of passing political events, and when we were satisfied morality was in danger, we have not hesitated to speak, and we take the present occasion not only to repeat the sum and substance of our political preaching for more than a dozen years, but to more plainly than heretofore, given publicity to convictions repeatedly expressed as to the causes of the civil revolution which has so seriously involved the church of Christ in our century.

We have taught that, Christians are a “a peculiar people,” the kingdom of which they are members, is above all human fabrics, and is destined to conquer them all. It has also been a studied effort to satisfy our brethren that, they had no right to direct the governments of men, but were to submit and be satisfied while permitted to enjoy their christian privileges.

Our grand fathers both fought through the revolution of ’76, to achieve what we have been proud to call our “American Independence” and from our earliest recollection to manhood, we were aught to idolize the American Union. We considered it of eternality duration, till we studied more carefully the nature and purpose of all human governments, when we became satisfied that in the very nature of things, all earthly governments must vary with the circumstances that gave them birth and the fluctuations of time, and thought we plainly saw frailty and death, written upon them all. Thirty years ago, we were satisfied that at least one faction was attempting to seize the helm of our ship of state, and since, we witnessed the great Webster and Clay legislating to give the letter of the constitution authority. It required not a prophet then to see the instrument had had its day, had lost its force, and like the law of Moses, when it grew old, was ready to vanish away. The best system in the world was inaugurated to complete its overthrow. “The Higher Law” of man’s inward promptings usurped the place of constitutional and legislative authority over most of the north, and a part of the south. We had seen Christianity partially nullified in both sections under the influence of this demon. We had seen that the constitution of the country and the Word of God, did not, and could not weigh a feather with political and religious teachers who vehemently preached the higher authority of a “feeling sense” within which defined civil right and constituted and infallible religious test. The doctrine, first approved in this country, amongst the New England clergy, but soon found its way into the halls of Congress and ran like wild-fire amongst the less enlightened. Soon after its appearance in the east, an unlettered politician by flattering the lowest passions of humanity, crawled into the gubernatorial toga of Tennessee, and preached to the great wonderment of the multitude in his inaugural, the inherent ability of man to erect not only a perfect human government, but a kind of divine capacity to construct a spiritual temple, like Jacobs ladder, to reach to heaven. Through the influence of this dreamy philosophy, borrowed from the old world, as reflected by Theodore Parker, Tennessee governor and others, we saw a bright go meteor fall to the ditches and grog shops in our state metropolis. He talked with ghosts, and is still a wizard. Then it was; be it remembered to our credit, that we published and preached every where that, the doctrine subverted the very constitution, essence and spirit of Christ’s religion, and must sooner or later, subvert the constitution and laws of the United States, [sic] More recently, our readers will recollect that we gave a broad side to the monster—direct spiritual and political light—as we thought we saw him looming up in Bethany College. This ghost seeking was the death of Russell, Carman, Young, Happy and others, and so distempered the heart and soul of Richardson, that we fear all christian manliness has forsaken him. He confess his error? No, never.

The demon still walked about as a roaring lion, particularly north seeking whom he might devour, till he seized the dolt who is now president north, and inspired him and his coadjutors to swear that his party should rule or ruin the country. Then it was the ruling people should have said, “How can two walk together except they be agreed?” and finding no agreement, they should have claimed the right of release from oppression and to walk in their own ways. They waited too long, and failed to co-operate with all the states unable to bear the yoke. Eleven, however, have declared their independence, and others must soon do likewise. As a consequence, civil war, bloody and relentless with its thousands of evils exists in our country; and once for all, we wish to say that in governments of earth depending mainly upon force for existence, it is the bounden duty of those who have a right to politically control, to defend vi et armis, by all mans in their power and to the last extremity. One more thought and we shall close our prefatory remarks.

While we maintain that Christians are a peculiar people, and that the church of Christ is spiritual, needing no offensive or defensive weapons to support it, and that it will and must triumph peaceably over all the governments of the world, we rejoice to believe that the nations of the earth, as nations, are objects of the special care of the Almighty. They are his by creation, are in his hands and in the word of David, “The Lord is the governor among the nations.” (Ps. 22, 28.) He controls them in ways which we comprehend not, neither do we wish to interfere with him or even pray to him to take this side or that, of any national controversy, as the heathen do. We can pray as a christian, first, for the preservation of the people of God, and then, the right, justice and humanity may prevail every where. It is true, we sometimes fear our superstitious proclivities are greatly strengthening. Really we have thought we have already seen the finger of God in the American struggle, just where it was not anticipated by the world. Jehovah has for the first time in an age, more than amply supplied the people of the south with all that earth could yield, and the armies of the south have been victorious where there were not more than two to one. Still we know not what God has in reserve. We should not be presumptuous, but fear.

We hope our correspondents have not grown impatient at our long travel in reaching their very respectful communication. We will notice each point with the best ability we possess and fear no evil.

1. In answer to their first suggestion that they “fear” there are “points of view” in which the “influence” of some of our teaching may prove “very undesirable” we beg leave to say that, the rule they adopt—“fear of influences”—is an unsrie [sic] one to determine the truth of any question. Had we been governed by apparent influences, and supposed tendencies, we would have been [sic] abandoned the christian religion long since. In spite of themselves, they have adopted policy, as their standard, and are preaching their own views of propriety, a king od natural higher law of public opinion,–outward pressure from the world, the flesh and the devil, which they think most control our religious teaching. A Christian should ask but one question in reference to all moral decisions, viz: What is truth? what does God say? What is the spiritual teaching? We hope our brethrens “fear of influences” will not more disturb them. We were born in Tennessee, and have preached in the state most of the time for more than thirty years, and have been told a thousand times that the influence of our teaching, was more than “undesirable”—perfectly ruinous to the country, and yet we have pursued the even tenor of our way, and still believe our religious influence has been for good. Our brethren will bear with our frankssne [sic].

2. We have not taught that Christians should “ignore the existence of the war,” as our brethren intimate, but rather that they should consider it as Christians, and not run frantic as many partizan [sic] religionists have done. We are candid to admit that, we are not sure Christians should have any thing more to do with the institutions of the world than to submit to whatever government is placed over them, if under it, they can enjoy their christian liberty, pay their taxes, pray for rulers, etc., that they may not be hindered in their labor in the Lord’s vineyard. We are also free to admit, that if according to our brothern’s [sic] teaching christians are the proper persons to take charge of the world, like Mohammed and the Pope, they should employ the sword, to protect their government, and in the words of our correspondents, “Put forth all their powers of defense and appeal to God to strengthen their arms.” At present, we wish not te [sic] enter further into the argument of this question! But we ask our brethren to determine if this is not what Rome, England and all politico-ecclesiastical establishments have done? Is it connecting church and state? Bringing the church to support the state, and in turn, seeking the friendship of the state to give the success to the church? We cannot be mistaken in the doctrine, and from the days of Constantine in the fourth century, this partnership between church and state has been the most deadly enemy to pure religion. Christianity needs no sword, bruised reed, or a quenching of the smoking flax, for its protection. It dictates no form of human government, may live in any, and asks not the protection of any, further than to be let alone.

3. We have opposed no “organized society,” or denied the necessity of human government, as our brethren charge, and we are sorry that they are inclined to make us say what we never believed or taught. Our view, and we believe the teaching of the Bible is, that “law is not made for a righteous man”—a man governed fully by the principles of Christianity needs nothing more,–but it is requisite for “the lawless and disobedient, for the profane, for murderers, and for all who are not susceptible of sound teaching. While men are rebellious and wicked, they will require governments of force, the sword will remain in requisition to keep them in bounds. We hope this will be satisfactory.

4. Regarding “the higher powers” mentioned by Paul, Rom. 13, 17, we certainly differ. In our interview in Murfreesboro, our positions were distinctly state, and I beg the liberty to stating them again. You assumed that, the higher powers, were not only the civil officers, but these were, or might have been Christians, and the idea of higher authority, was intended to show that when religious and civil authority came into contact, the religious must yield to the civil. This was, at least, the position of the writer of the strictures on our teaching.

Our view was that, if Paul meant civil officers, they were men of the world, and therefore, the necessity of employing the sword in the execution of law, did not necessarily rest upon christians. We did not say that, these higher powers were deacons and elders, as you write, but intimated that, they might have been the seniors, bishops, or overseers, whom the Holy Spirit had designated as the only authorized shepherds of the flock. We have long doubted whether these “ministers of God attending continually” upopn their service, and to whom the brethren at Rome were to be “subject” and “to pay tribute,” or rather, in a fair translation, contributions, in the plural, are constables, sheriffs, hangmen, etc. We are told, “they bear the sword.” Jesus came to “send a sword” and yet it was not of steel, “Out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword” by which his people conquered, and the word of God is the sword of the Spirit. We are disposed to conclude, the word sword, is employed as emblematical of the authority of rightful directors in the church. Our brethren’s remarks in reference to our supposed popish tendencies, we consider inappropriate. God has constituted certain persons in the church to execute his law on disobedient members, and it is no popery to maintain that, these are the seniors in each congregation.

5. When we expressed the belief that the church of Christ was destined “to break in pieces and consume” the kingdoms of the world, and “the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heavens shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High,” we intimated not that “anarchy would bring about that desired end sooner than good government,” as our brethren charge upon us. There is no evidence that any sort of human government will accomplish this end; and yet men in all ages have vainly flattered themselves that by their efforts in constructing governmental plans and systems, they could essentially aid the Almighty. This is the pith of our brethrens [sic] doctrine. They had just as well hold up their feeble tapers at noon to help the sun shine. God will accomplish the end by the sword that proceeds out of the mouth of Him on the white horse, as plainly taught by John, Rev. 19, 21. But Mohammed on the red horse,–the emblem of a bloody religion,–or the pope upon the black horse of mysticism, or modern religionists with swords to establish governments and religions to suit their bloody taste, will have no part in the achievements of the Prince of Peace.

6. While our brethren boast of “the rapid spread of Christianity in our own country, as being greatly due to the protection which it has given to our freedom of conscience, we think it might not be improper to ask, by what rule they have satisfied themselves of the rapid progress of “pure religion.” If we are not mistaken God is testing the genuineness of much of the religion of this country, and if we are not deceived some of it will prove base metal. When you glorify the civil governments for our liberty of conscience, if you mean to say these governments take not cognizance of religion, we fully agree with you, but if you mean to maintain the divine right of every aman’s worshipping God as seems accordant with the dictates of his own impulses, we would respectfully suggest that the Alwise has given no such licause [sic]. He has dictated the forms of belief and worship in the Divine Oracles, and pronounced eternal condemnation on all who do not submit.

We exceedingly dislike the brethren’s continual insinuations as to our disposition to oppose good government. Without boasting, we doubt not we are as loyal as any one of them; and are as anxious that the best human form of government on earth may be established in the south as any man living. We know the political creeds of the country,–have interfered with none,–never expect to do so—but we tell these brethren plainly that the rule or ruin doctrines of certain schools north and south we have always dreaded, and should they ever get complete ascendancy in the respective sections, we shall not consider property, our religious liberty or our life very secure. Brethern, do not preset us in an odious light before the public, to gratify the ignorant spleen of such religious speculators as have had the impertinence to refer to us in your city, in a style well calculated to stir up strife. We can maintain all of our positions when permitted, but both human and christian endurance have a limit.

7. Our brethren must consider us very patient, or they fail to fully appreciate the tenor of some of their remarks. In answer to our pleadings for “moral means” to secure peace in our distracted country, they ask us, “what sort of moral means must be employed when our homes are on fire? Must we stop to sing songs and pray to the neglect of means which are at hand to extinguish it.” Satisfy us that songs and prayer are the only agents to extinguish fire and we will employ no others, but all knowing that water is the proper agent, a maniac alone would sing psalms to the flames. What do our brethren mean? Do they intend to say that, the sword is the proper and only peace agent of earth? More, infinitely more, has been accomplished for the peace; prosperity and happiness of the world, by the love of the Savior, the kindness, innocency and humility of the saints than by all the wars from the debauched Alexander the great to the coarse and bloody Lincoln of the north. We trust in God that he is trying the last experiment of the world to conquer peace, in a civilized and enlightened age, by the sword. The truth is, if Lincoln ever had sound sense, he has lost it, and we verily believe that God has demented and maddened his advisers, enervated all thought, or power in his generals, and turned his soldiers into blinded demons in order to satify [sic] the world of the folly of attempting to unite into a great brotherhood, honest and intelligent men, by freely shedding the blood of the innocent; and yet our brethren in our judgment, are preaching the same doctrine. We must tell them in very great kindness that from the Alpha to the Omega of their remakes, their doctrine is, “Do evil that good may come.” Time and a little more careful study of the Spirit’s Oracles, we earnestly believe, will very much modify their religious sentiments and feelings.

8. Our brethren ask us, “Upon what ground do we assume that the Lord puts it into the hearts of the wicked to resist the oppressor”? We presume it will be sufficient on our part, to prove the fact, without attempting to define very clearly the mode of God’s operating on the nations. David prayed, “Deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword.” Ps. 17, 13. Jehovah called the wicked “Assyrian, the rod of his anger” and declared that, “the staff in their hand, was his indignation.” Is. 10, 5. As a punishment of the people of God, he “gave them over to the sword”—the Babylonians. Ps. 78, 62. Fifteen hundred years before it came to pass, the Lord threatened, if his people rebelled, to “bring a nation against them from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle that flieth, a nation of free countenance and whose tongue they should not understand.” Deut. 28, 49. This was literally fulfilled by the Romans when Jerusalem was destroyed in the first century of the christian era. For nearly eighteen centuries the Jews have been dishonored, and at “the fullness of the Gentiles,” God has threated to “put it into the hearts of the ten horns”—ten European divisions of the politico-religious divisions of the Romish “mother of harlots add abominations of the earth,” to do his will. Rev. 17, 16, 17. These ten powers are now the chief support of the mixed religions of Rome and Protestantism, but ere long, by an Alwise and over ruling Providence that strictly political element of the ten kingdoms will prevail over the false religions with which the nations are cursed, and “the horns shall hate the whore, shall make her desolate and naked, shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire.” This will be by the sword, by violence. Then will the words be fulfilled, “Rejoice over her, thou heaven (the church of Christ) and ye holy apostles and prophets for God hath avenged you on her.” Rev. 18, 20. Thus the Lord selects wicked agents to accomplish his purpose. To this end he “raised up Pharaoh.” When a people become too proud, arrogant and oppressive for endurance, God in his wisdom, often selects the weaker people and down trodden, for the punishment of the stronger. We wish not to be presumptuous, but it does seem to us, even in our country, as we previously said, we think we can see the finger of God every where, yet we wish not to be presumptuous. The future is dark. By a ruinous policy of government, a part of the people of these once United States, became like Greece and Rome, in the day of their wealth and pride, boastful, tyrannical, ungodly, and determined to rule. The President said, “we (a sectional, self-willed and arrogant faction) take charge of the government.” This monstrous declaration alone, was quite sufficient to put it into the hearts of the weaker people south, upon whom the regulation of governmental affairs devolved, “to fufil the Lord’s will” in humbling the Usurper. It seems to us that Heaven has not only blinded the greater offenders, but said to the less offensive, unsheathe the sword, kill and slay, till the transgressors are better prepared to appreciate the best form of human government ever entrusted to man. It may be God intends to punish all of us for our wickedness, but we should kiss the rod that smites us. In connection, with these, perhaps, speculative views, there is but one more point in the letter of our brethren to which we will call attention, viz: On whom devolves the necessity of shedding blood in defence of political right? We have answered the question in various forms, but we will reap our very deliberate conclusion. If the responsibility of furnishing laws for the disobedient, as well as their execution, rests peculiarly, as our brethren intimate, upon the saints, they are particularly called by God, to buckle on the armor and punish evil doers. They ought to be sure, in the first place, in consequence of their righteousness, to say to the world, “stand aside, we are better qualified to make laws for you than you are for yourselves, and by virtue of our superior qualification, we are Heaven’s chosen agents for the execution of our laws over you.” This is precisely what the North has attempted to do. The rulers have said to the south, preachers and politicians, “you are too ignorant and wicked for self government,” being guilty of too many sins damnable per se, and in the words of the great apostle Beecher, “you must be spanked into obedience.” This is a pretty fair statement of the dominant religious sentiment of the parties struggling for power. Now, if the rulers north or our correspondents are correct in their conclusion, they are perfectly justifiable in cutting the throats of all who are not disposed to yield to their authority. Our brethren tell us that Paul teaches that christian rulers bear not the sword in vain.

We confess, however, that we have misgivings as to the truth of the doctrine pleaded by these brethren, and preachers generally north and south. If we are mistaken, we hope our countrymen will bear with us till we can learn better. In conclusion we would respectfully submit some of the grounds of our doubts. We read in an ancient document called by some, The Book, that, “It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and many people shall go and say, come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Aad [sic] he shall judge among the nations and rebuke many people, and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their speers into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Is. 2; 3, 4.

Luke refers to this prophecy when he said “It was written that repentance and remission of sins shall be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24, 47. If then, the Savior and his Apostles preached such doctrine as applicable in their day, and as peculiar to this dispensation, if, when he could have called twelve legions of angels to his defense, he employed no offensive or defensive weapons save the sword of the Spirit, and if all early christians, “took joyfully the spoiling of their goods,” and submitted not only to the sacrifice of their earthly inheritance, but yielded their lives willingly rather than lift the sword for protection, it seems to us, that professed Christians in the nineteenth century should examine the subject carefully, before they attempt with Islams, Romans and Protestants, to propagate morality by the sword. Still, we say, as we have said from the beginning, this is a day of trial. The professors of religion who feel responsible for the creation and execution of worldly governments, are inexcusable and cowardly if they hesitate to employ force to carry out their creed. Though let every member of the church judge, determine and act for himself. We promise nothing, and cannot tell what circumstances may force us to do. Our reliance so far has been upon God, and our constant prayer to Heaven is, may the right prevail, may the wicked be humbled, the lowly and righteous be exalted, and may God be honored in his institutions, and in his dealings with nations.

Tennessee, a member of the Confederate States of America since July 1861, was now a full participant in an American bloody Civil War. Fanning had pursued every recourse to persuade disciples from joining the fight on either side.

Three disciples from Murfreesboro in Rutherford County penned a response to Fanning’s several articles, particularly his three articles in the July 1861 issue of the Gospel Advocate. William B. Lillard (a one time county official), G. S. Harding, and W. Ransome had been part of a group that had previously met with Fanning in Murfreesboro to discuss the war situation. They could not come to an agreement and now they, at Fanning’s request, submit their questions in the Advocate.

They ask Fanning why no Christian is justified in participating in the war when he himself had little doubt that the civil rights of the Southerners had been violated by the Northern aggression. They question Fanning’s position that Christians should refrain from defending the “frail institutions  of earth,” including civil governments. Though they, too, anticipate a time when kingdom of Christ will “break down all the kingdoms of the world,” they see the necessity of “good government” to protect lives, properties and rights. The Prince of Peace, they argue, has not yet overthrown governments and therefore Christians should participate in their just causes.

They argue that their “first duty is devotion to God, and next the improvement of our race and the world around us, and where we have a government…we should endeavor to sustain it.”  The ranking here is important:  God, race (!) and then government.  This ordering of priorities means that the good of the race is more important than government. Consequently, if a government oppresses or suppresses the race, then the race should overthrow the government by right of revolution. This is exactly the case with Northern tyranny, in their minds.

God gives good government to resist oppressors. This what the Confederate States of America are and they serve the just cause of God by preserving religious liberty and their race. Southern Christians should plead for peace but at the same time arm themselves for the defense of their homes and liberties, that is, for the defense of their race. Since God will not help those who do not help themselves, “every man should gird on his armor and assume the position which is most serviceable to his country” in “this her trying hour.”

****An Article Opposing Fanning****

William. B. Lillard*, G. S. Harding**, and W. Ransome***, “When the Duty of Christians to Shed Blood,” Gospel Advocate 7.9 (September 1861), 262-265.

Bro. Fanning: –In the July No. of the Gospel Advocate, after giving your views upon the duties of christians of the South in the present war, you express a willingness to “hear the arguments of any and of all upon this subject,” we therefore feel inclined to make a few comments upon the article referred to.

We are very much opposed to war, and think the circumstances must be very strong to justify it, and so far as your remarks go towards repressing the fanatical spirit of revenge which seems to animate the masses engaged in it, we are most happy to approve them, but in other points of view, we fear that their influence may be very undesirable. The design of your whole argument seems to be to show that although the people of the south not professing Christianity, are justified in resisting to the last extremity, the christian people should have nothing to do with it, nor indeed with the government at all, only so far as property extends. That we may not seem to misstate your position, I be leave [sic] to make a few quotations. You acknowledge on page 204, that “wars have been necessary,” and on page 211, you say, “if people were ever justified in resisting encroachments, we conscientiously believe the people of the Confederate States are.” Again on page 210, you say, “we have been asked again and again if we do not consider the people of the south fully justified in resisting the rule of the North?” You answer, “the right of revolution being admitted,” (we take this as an admission if you intend to answer the question at all) “we doubt not the civil rights of citizens South, to resist to the last extremity, but as religionists we should know neither North nor South.” While you think it right for citizens to resist to the last extremity, religious people should in all their actions even ignore the fact that war exists. Again, on page 211, you say “war in all its aspects is irreligious,” &c. So that whether it is an offensive or a defensive war, waged in defense of our lives and those of our families, no religious man can raise his hand in it. If a community of christians are not justifiable in taking up arms in defense of their lives and liberties, no christian man is justifiable in defending his own life; so that you seem here to be fully committed to the doctrine of non-resistance. He who advocates this doctrine, must also advocate the doing away with civil government, for the firs main design of government is to resist evil persons and consequently we were prepared to expect from you an argument endeavoring to prove the worthlessness of human government and that it is only a barrier to the reign of Christ on earth.

On page 197, you say, “and so soon as men shall complete” (it we presume is a misprint for forsake,) “their folly in originating and defending their frail institutions of earth, they will gladly admit the sovereignty of the Redeemer.” By “institutions of earth” you can only mean law and establishments pertaining to organized society, and therefore you think civil government is but the result of human folly, and should be forsaken. Further, in support of your argument against civil government, you object to Paul’s instructions to the saints in the 13th chapter of Romans, being so construed, as to recognize the authority in civil rulers to enforce obedience to law by the sword, for it is admitted that Paul recognized the necessity of civil government, and the duty of his brethren to sustain it, then your position, releasing Christians from any obligations to defend and sustain the “frail institutions of earth,” becomes untenable; therefore in reply to a question as to who were the “Powers that be,” and the rulers to whom the saints were instructed to be subject, and pay tribute, and to be afraid of, “for they bear not the sword in vain.” You said they were the deacons and elders of the church! Our greatest objection to popery has been that, the heads of the church held the laity in subjection, and we confess our surprise, Bro. Fanning, in hearing you, whom we have always supposed so much opposed to church castes, counseling us to be subject to, and hold in fear and terror the Elders and Deacons of our church, and we are sure that we have never seen any exercise of a authority on your part, which that sober minded apostle could have thought to represent as a ruler, exacting tribute of his subjects, and bearing a revenging sword to execute wreath upon evil doers.

You have quoted many prophecies that the kingdom of Christ is to break down all the kingdoms of the world, and we all agree in our desire for that happy state of things, but you have failed to show that anarchy would bring about that desired and sooner than good government. On the contrary—Christ and his apostles never advised his followers against government, but recognized the necessity of law and rulers, “law is made for the lawless and disobedient,” said Paul. The very idea of law and government, supposes thet [sic] its subjects must sustain it. It is idle to make laws, unless they are to be enforced even by the sword if necessary. A mere paper government amounts to nothing, and the success of the government depends upon the willingness of its subjects to assist in enforcing tis laws, and therefore, Paul instructs his christian brethren as subjects of the government, to be subject to the “the powers that be.” If the time had not then arrived when the Apostle thought the world could do without human institutions for the protection of society, upon what grounds can it be assumed that it has now! If the Prince of Peace is now ready to overthrow the governments of the earth and assume a direct sovereignty over the world, with the consent of the church, was he not them? and [sic] if so, would not his Apostles have advised his followers to leave the institutions of earth to take care of themselves? On the contrary, they enjoined upon them the necessity of sustaining these institutions.

If government is necessary, is not good government, better calculated to promote the spread of Christianity than bad, and are we not as Christians bound to “seek to control,” it in such manner as to most prosper our Master’s cause? By this we would not be misunderstood as advocating any civil interference to give shape or direction to church government, but a great deal may be done by removing the trammels, with which wicked governments impeded the church of Christ, as well as by organizing society in such a way as to protect us iu [sic] the enjoyment of religious liberty. The rapid spread of Christianity in our own country is greatly due to the protection which it has been given to our freedom of conscience. On the other hand, where in the history of the reign of anarchy has the cause of Christ been thereby prospered? We cannot regard man’s duties as a christian as being disconnected from the world from which he lives. Our first duty is devotion to God, and next the improvement of our race and the world around us, and where we have a government, giving us protection in property and life and religious liberty, and given free scope to the spread of christianity, we should endeavor to sustain it—and when because we refuse to assist in trampling under foot the principles upon which it is built, we are threatened with extermination by an invading foe, we should stand ready, as men and Christians to “resist to the last extremity.” How stands the case with us to-day? Our constitution has been broken, the clashing arms of a merciless invader are heard on our border, the handcuffs have been already forged for southern freemen, and you have well said that, “if a people were ever justified in resisting encroachments, the people of the Southern Confederacy are,” and yet you say to religious men, “employ none but spiritual weapons.” “You doubt whether the righteous can shed the blood of their fellows with impunity. “Peace must b secured by moral means alone.” What sort of moral means must be employed? When our houses are on fire must me [sic] stop to sing songs and pray, to the neglect of means which are at hand to extinguish it!? You say that “God strengthens the oppressed to resist the oppressor,” but while we pray to God to help us in tis our time of need to resist the oppressor, shall we fold our arms and disregard the promptings of our avenging helper? But when you reply that He “will put it into the hearts of the wicked to make this resistance,” we ask you, upon what authority you can assume that He makes such selections to accomplish His holy purposes? Our lives and liberties are at stake, and while we pray to God for His help and use all moral means in our power, we should remember that He will will [sic] never help those who refuse to help themselves. Every man should gird on his armor and assume that position which is most serviceable to his country iu [sic] this her trying hour. We have cryingly plead [sic] with the North for peace, and now we should put forth all our powers of defense and appeal to God to strengthen our arms. If we have misstated your position we should b glad to be corrected. We should be glad to hear your voice in these perilous times, when the cause of humanity and morality are involved, and when you say, “no good man has a right to silence.” Justifying us not only as citizens, but as religious citizens, in defending our homes and firesides.

Respectfully, Yours,
Wm. B. Lillard,
G. S. Haridng,
W. Ransome.

King Jesus, riding on a donkey, triumphantly entered Jerusalem hailed as the one who would usher in the kingdom of David. Surrounded by an expectant crowd, he entered the temple, looked at everything, and went home for the evening.

What did Jesus see? The next morning, Monday of Passion Week, Jesus tells us. The King who came to make peace (Zechariah 9:9-10), the Prince of Peace, went to the temple on Monday in judgment. Apparently, he did not like what he seen the previous day.

The enacted parable of the fig tree bookends the central judgment event. Jesus curses the fig tree on Monday (Mark 11:12-14) and the fig tree is dead at the roots by the next morning (Mark 11:20-21). Sandwiched between the fig tree stories, and thus interpreted by them, is the prophetic act of cleansing the temple. Whatever Jesus is doing in cleansing the temple is symbolized by the fig tree. The temple cleansing and the cursing of the fig tree share the same theme: judgment.

As Malachi anticipated (3:1-5), when the Lord comes to his temple, he will come to purify and refine through judgment. Malachi envisions a moment when God will judge immorality and economic injustice as well as those who deprive the alien of justice. God shows up at the temple in judgment rather than grace (cf. Psalm 50 for a similar theme). Jesus sees something in the temple that turns his first kingdom act in the temple—his first teaching moment—into a moment of judgment.

But first the fig tree. Prophets often used symbols and concrete actions to announce their message. Jeremiah uses a linen belt (13) and a clay jar (19). Ezekiel lay on his side for 390 days (4:1-5) and packed his possessions as if going to exile (12:1-8). Isaiah walked about naked (20). Jesus follows in the steps of earlier prophets by using the fig tree and enacted parable (and he will do the same in cleansing the temple).

Among the prophets, the fig tree was a popular symbol of Israel (cf. Jeremiah 24; Hosea 9:10; Joel 1:7). The image of the fig, either barren tree or tasking badly, was emblematic of Israel’s own barrenness or covenant-breaking (cf. Jeremiah 8:13; 29:17). In particular, Micah 7:1-7 compares the violence and injustice of Israel to the lack of figs on a tree. Further, to curse a fig tree is sometimes a symbol of God’s judgment upon Israel (cf. Hosea 2:12; Isaiah 34:4). When Jesus curses the fig tree so that it withers and dies, this is symbolic of his judgment upon Israel and particularly the temple authorities.

As Jesus approached the fig tree outside of Jerusalem he saw signs of potential food. A leafed tree might portend fruit of some kind but it was too early for figs which do not appear until the summer months. Since Jesus came to Jerusalem for the Passover, he would have approached this fig tree most in March-April which is too early for figs. Consequently, his curse might seem unreasonable. However, in the spring the buds of the tree were also edible (cf. Gundry, Mark, p. 636). The narrative did not say he was looking for figs but rather for “anything” (literally translated rather than “any fruit”) that might satisfy his hunger. Nevertheless, Jesus did not even find what anyone might expect to find in March-April.

Jesus comes to the temple to enjoy a pious, devout people dedicated to justice, peace and the worship of God just as he expected to find food on the fig tree. Yet what he finds is a temple as barren as the fig tree and deserving of as much judgment as the barren fig tree.

What did Jesus see in the temple? He saw “buying and selling,” which included the exchange of money (exchanging currency for shekels, the currency of the temple) and selling animals (including two doves for offerings by the poor) in the Court of the Gentiles. This merchandizing—or the conduct of exploitive business—was inappropriate for the temple courts. Jesus, by a prophetic sign-act, embodies God’s judgment by overturning tables and driving out the merchandisers.

Mark justifies this prophetic act of judgment through the lens of two texts in the Hebrew prophets. The first, Isaiah 65:7, reminds Israel that the purpose of the temple is prayer, including the invitation to all nations for pray. The Court of the Gentiles, where the merchandizing was taking place, diverted the purpose of the court from prayer to exploitive money exchanges or economic injustice.

The second, Jeremiah 7:11, accuses the temple authorities of treating the temple like a “den of robbers.” There may be a double meaning here. The temple had become a place for thieves because they defraud and steal from their fellows which is one the emphases of Jeremiah’s own temple sermon. In addition, temple, as Jeremiah noted, had become a place where injustice hides—like a den where robbers hide from judgment. The temple cannot, so it was thought, come under judgment and therefore people are safe in the temple. But they were wrong; the temple will come under judgment as Jesus will make clear in the Olivet discourse (Mark 13).

The temple authorities understand the implications of the symbolic act and its interpretation through the prophetic texts. They recognize it as a political act that judges their authority and power. The kingdom of God—and Jesus acted as king as well as prophet in this moment—judges all other authorities. They feared the loss of power through Jesus’ popularity and thus decided he must die so that their status might be preserved. Whereas earlier Herodians and Pharisees conspired to kill Jesus in Galilee (Mark 3:6), now the temple authorities intend to do the same. Ultimately they will gather a different kind of crowd than the one on Palm Sunday which cried “Hosanna.” On Good Friday, they will incite a mob to scream, “Crucify him!”

Whatever the disciples may have thought about all this, they were surprised to see the dead fig tree the next day. Jesus’ saying about “faith” is a response to Peter’s observation that the fig tree had withered. In other words, “Have faith in God!” is one of the lessons of the withered fig tree. Faith can move mountains; faith bears fruit. With faith, fig trees are no longer barren.

Disciples believe, pray and forgive. Jerusalem, with its magnificent temple, would fall under the weight of divine judgment, just like the fig tree. Disciples will find deliverance through faith, prayer and forgiveness.

In the wake of God’s judgment of Israel, Jerusalem and the temple, how do the disciples of Jesus respond? They trust God. They pray in faith. They forgive their debtors. In the midst of judgment, disciples live by faith rather than sight, seek reconciliation and pray that God would move mountains.

When God shows up, God does not always come in grace. Sometimes God prosecutes judgment. Either way, disciples believe, pray and forgive.

The first half of Zechariah concluded with the climactic announcement that the nations will recognize that “God is with” Judah (Zechariah 8:23). Zechariah 1-8, with the eight visions (Zechariah 1:7-6:15) that promise the rebuilding of the temple and the four messages that announce God’s transformation of their fasts into feasts (Zechariah 7-8), assures Judah that God will return to Israel.

The second half of Zechariah envisions the suffering yet triumphant King whose territory will encompass the whole earth and redeem not only Israel but the nations as well (Zechariah 9-14). This message is structurally divided into two oracles marked off by the phrase “An Oracle. The word of the Lord is…” (Zechariah 9:1; 12:1; also Malachi 1:1 as the only other place where the Hebrew term “oracle” occurs). Both messages carry similar themes: subjugation and then salvation of the nations by the divine warrior (9:1-8; 14:16-21), the coming and the suffering/rejection of the King (9:9-17; 11:4-17; 13:7-9), and the eventual victory of Israel over their enemies (10:3-11:3; 12:1-9; 14:1-15) The two messages serve as corresponding halves—some even placing them in a chiastic structure—that announce the divine reversal of the shepherd King who would be at first rejected but then reign, a reign over the nations as well as Israel.

Unlike the first half of Zechariah which is dated from 520-516 B.C.E., no date is attached to these final two oracles. Over the past two centuries scholars have variously dated them—some in the pre-exilic period (particularly in the 19th century) but most now in the post-exilic period (perhaps as late as the third or fourth centuries B.C.E.). Many have suggested that Zechariah 9-14 is an independent prophetic work (or even two works) that was attached to Zechariah at some point in its literary history. Whatever may be the case, it is appropriate to read Zechariah 9-14 as a further elaboration of themes in Zechariah 1-8 articulated during the Persian period (perhaps even in Zechariah’s latter ministry). Yet, the Persian period does not exhaust the meaning of these oracles. Rather, as we will see, they are eschatological oracles, that is, visions of the final victory of God’s reign over the earth.

Zechariah 9:1-10:1 announces the coming of the King who will subdue the nations and free Judah. The text sandwiches the arrival of the King (9:9-10) between two poetic descriptions of its significance—one applying to the nations (9:1-8) and the other to Judah (9:11-17).

The first section envisions a time when Judah will occupy the regions of Syria, Tyre and Philistia. There are descriptions of the borders of Israel’s inheritance that include these territories (cf. Numbers 13:21-24; Joshua 1:3-4; 1 Kings 4:21, 24). All “the tribes of Israel” will one day see the lands of their one-time enemies included in their kingdom. The Divine warrior king will defeat these nations but those who are left in the land will belong to God and become leaders in Judah. The Philistines, Zechariah says, will become like the Jebusites. In other words, just as the Jebusites—the inhabitants of Jerusalem before David arrived—were a conquered people they nevertheless became part of the clans of Judah, so the Philistines are included in Judah’s eschatological inheritance. The subjugation of the nations whereby their opposition to the kingdom of God is defeated will also become the occasion of their purification (9:7 refers to idolatrous practices) and inclusion.

The third section (I will discuss the central, and thus emphatic, section below) is a salvation oracle for Judah. Yahweh promises to free the prisoners—those of Judah and Ephraim—yet exiled. Yahweh will restore their inheritance; indeed, he will double it! This is enabled by a divine holy war against “Javan” (rendered Greece in the NIV). A reference to Greece is appropriate to the early Persian period when the Persians still sought to conquer it (especially 490-480 B.C.E.) but it is probably an allusion to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10:4. This echo identifies Israel’s inheritance as threatened by the nations and God therefore removes the threats by decisive action. But there is no description of the battle. The divine theophany is sufficient to ensure the result.

Yahweh marches in victory, destroy the enemies of Judah, and delights in his people. Yahweh who brings the storm clouds also brings the rain that refreshes the earth and grows the crops. Judah—with its borders fully realized—will enjoy the protection of their Shepherd, Yahweh. Crops and wine will bring renewal and rejoicing to Israel once again.

The center piece of this three-fold picture is the coming of the King who is not only King of Israel but King of the whole earth (Zechariah 9:9-10). Though described as the King of Zion, his reign extends to the “ends of the earth.” But the picture of this King is not that of a divine warrior even though Yahweh has been so described in this oracle. Rather, this King is gentle and rids the nations of war implements as he proclaims peace to the nations.

The appearance of the King on a donkey is not simply a sign of humility but rather the signature of his royal claim. Israel’s kings rode donkeys (2 Samuel 16:2; 1 Kings 1:33-34, 38) and this probably reflects their identification with the poor and lowly within the nation. The donkey, then, is both a sign of royalty and humility.

It is important to the context, however, that he does not ride a war-horse even though they were prominent in Zechariah’s visions. He rides a donkey; he comes in peace to make peace. He comes as a lowly, humble figure who brings the salvation of Yahweh. He comes to end war, even to the point that bows are broken and horse-drawn chariots are removed (cf. Isaiah 9:6-7; 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-5). This King proclaims “peace to the nations” rather than war among them.

His reign will fill the earth. Whatever the specific referent might be in terms of “sea to sea” or “the River to the ends of the earth,” these phrases are metaphors for a universal reign. Yes, he will reign over the new borders of Israel, but more than that he will reign over the whole earth and bring peace to the nations.

Zechariah’s description of the King is applied to Jesus in Matthew 21:5. When Jesus triumphantly enters Jerusalem on a donkey, Matthew sees the coming of the King. He comes humbly and peacefully. He seeks peace rather than a sword, even refusing to use the sword in his defense (Matthew 26:52). The people hail him but ultimately reject Jesus and the shepherd of God’s people is struck down (Zechariah 13:7; Matthew 26:31). He comes in peace but is met with violence.

The eschatological vision of Zechariah, however, does not end with a slain King but a victorious one—and this is the gospel story itself. The gospel does not end with a slain lamb but a resurrected one.

The eschatological vision of Zechariah announces peace among the nations but not before the nations assault the King. But peace will come, even to the ends of the earth. We still wait for that global peace.

As Jesus enters Jerusalem, we enter the last week of Jesus’ life—the passion week. The Triumphal entry on Palm Sunday leads to a cross on Good Friday which is reversed by resurrection on Easter Sunday. Mark 11-16, practically one-third of the Gospel, is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life.

The messianic entourage approached Jerusalem on the road from Jericho near the towns on Bethany and Bethphage which were located on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives. They were now only about two miles from Jerusalem. In a short time they will top the Mount and see the temple facing east in their direction. This is a momentous occasion—the Messiah comes to the temple (Mark 11:11).

Jesus, conscious of the Messianic overtones of this moment, instructs his disciples to secure a “colt” (a young animal) for his use. Jesus will ride a donkey into Jerusalem. Mark tells the story in such a way that Zechariah 9:9-10 lies in the background. Jesus will enter Jerusalem on a donkey as the city rejoices over his coming which is what Zechariah announced long ago—the king comes on a donkey as Zion rejoices. In Israel, the donkey—rather than a great steed or a war-horse—was used in royal coronations in order to identity the king with the people as a mark of humility (1 Kings 1:33). Jesus casts himself in this role as his journey now becomes a royal procession into the city.

The narrative’s focus on the colt seems, at first glance, incidental but Mark highlights a couple of particulars. First, the colt belongs to the Lord. Translations rarely render Mark’s wording as “His Lord (ho kurios autou) has a need,” that is, the colt’s true owner is Jesus though he will return it when he is finished. Second, the fact that the colt is tied up identifies this circumstance with the Judah oracle in Genesis 49:10-11 (as Lane has noted in his commentary). The ruler from Judah will tether his colt/donkey to a vine/branch. With these allusions Mark unites two messianic texts(Genesis and Zechariah) from the Hebrew Bible and thereby emphasizes the Messianic nature of this triumphal entry.

The narrator has brought us to this exciting moment. The announcement of the kingdom has dominated the first half of the Gospel (Mark 1:16-8:26) and the second half of the Gospel has identified Jesus as the Messianic king of the kingdom (Mark 8:27 to this point). The King has come to claim his kingdom; he has come to Jerusalem, to Zion. The king enters the city. He receives a royal reception though we know mistreatment and violence lies in his future.

The significance of this moment is not lost on those who lined the highway into Jerusalem. They lay their cloaks over the road as others have done for kings in the past (cf. Jehu in 2 Kings 9:13).. Others spread leafed branches (palm branches, presumably from Jericho, in John 12:13) across the road which mimics the triumphal entry of the Hasmonean Simon in 1 Maccabees 13:51.

More significantly, they praise God with the language of Psalm 118:25-26. Psalm 118 is the last of the Passover Hallel (Psalm 113-118). The Psalm saturated the atmosphere of Messianic hopes that pervaded Passover celebrations. It is the thanksgiving of a king who comes to Jerusalem to celebrate God’s salvation and at the end of the Psalm the people respond with a prayer and a blessing:

O Lord, save us.
O Lord, grant us success.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
From the house of the Lord we bless you.

Jesus hears this language when he enters Jerusalem:

Hosanna
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!
Hosanna in the highest

They pray “save us” (“Hosanna”) and recognize in the coming of Jesus into Jerusalem the coming of the kingdom of David. Here the Gospel climatically and publicly announces the identity of Jesus and the reality of the coming kingdom. The third line in the Markan praise (“Blessed is the coming of the kingdom of our father David”) is added to Psalm 118 and serves to make Mark’s point. This is his interpretation of the triumphal entry. The kingdom of God has come to Jerusalem in the person of Jesus.

As Malachi (3:2) anticipated long ago, the Lord will come to his temple. Jesus enters Jerusalem which is to also enter the temple court through the south-eastern gate. Curiously, Jesus looks around—he “sees everything”—and then returns to Bethany. Presumably, Jesus and his company had traveled in a single day up the Jericho road to Jerusalem which is a distance of less than twenty miles. Since they entered late in the date, they quickly returned to their lodgings two miles away.

What a day! The Son of David entered Jerusalem on a royal donkey. He was acknowledged and blessed by the people as they praised God. The king has come. The kingdom of God has come.

The message of Mark is “repent and believe the good news because the kingdom of God is near” (Mark 1:15). Jesus has come to Jerusalem to enact the good news of the kingdom of God.

The King has come to bring peace not only to Israel but to the nations.  Zechariah 9:9-10 is quite explicit that the King who comes to Jerusalem will reign over all the earth (“to the ends of the earth”) and his reign will mean peace among the nations. War-horses and chariots are no longer needed; implements of war are excluded from the kingdom of God. This King is the Prince of Peace.

Will Jerusalem receive him in peace? Ultimately, it will not.  Will we? Will we practice peace as followers of the Prince of Peace?

Leaving Perea, crossing the Jordan and passing through Jericho, Jesus heals the blind man Bartimaeus. This is no mere human interest story in the Gospel of Mark. On the contrary, it enacts and anticipates the kingdom of God.

Just prior to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah Mark’s narrative told the story of another blind man’s healing (8:22-26). The healing of Bartimaeus bookends Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and testifies to not only the reality of the coming kingdom but also its nature. The healing of the blind is part of the promise of the kingdom (see Isaiah 29:18-19; 35:5-6), and in the light of the emphasis of Mark 8-10, it also announces that the kingdom belongs to the last and marginalized which was the lot of the blind in first century Palestine. The kingdom of God belongs to the last, to the children, to the blind.

Kingdom expectation is high among this group travelling with Jesus to Jerusalem. James and John requested a place in the kingdom. The disciples are arguing about greatness in the kingdom. Jesus is headed to the seat of Davidic rule, the city where David and his descendants reigned for centuries. The Passover is near and consequently Messianic hopes are high. When Jesus enters Jerusalem he is greeted with the acclamation, “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” (Mark 11:10). Even Bartimaeus shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on us!” He gives Jesus a Messianic title.

Jesus is viewed as “Son of David,” as Messiah. He is recognized as one who comes in the name of the Lord and as a descendant of David. He walks through Jericho as the acclaimed heir of David’s throne. He is royalty.

He is royalty, and his royal entourage protects him. As the blind man—one of the “last” of society—cried out for mercy, “many” told him to shut up. This was no mere quieting but a rebuke. This is the word that Jesus used to rebuke demons (Mark 1:25; 9:25), waves (Mark 4:35) and Peter (Mark 8:33). Just as the disciples rebuked parents who brought their children to Jesus (Mark 10:13), so “many” (including the disciples?) rebuked this blind man whose sole request was for “mercy.” The royal entourage does not understand the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God is mercy for the last. Jesus stopped. He was not passing through Jericho to conduct a healing crusade, but he heard the cry for mercy and, no doubt, heard those who rebuked him. Such treatment cannot be allowed to stand in the name of the kingdom of God. Jesus, therefore, enacts the kingdom of God in this situation.

Jesus calls him, the blind beggar comes, Jesus heals, and the new disciple follows. Calling the blind…the blind come…Jesus heals the blind…and the healed follow Jesus is the story of the kingdom of God. Jesus, as the embodiment of the kingdom of God, reverses the brokenness of the world and brings mercy to the marginalized, to the last.

Jesus asks the blind beggar, “What do you want me to do for you?” It is a service question; a ministry question. “How can I help you?” “What can I do for you?” “What do you need?” It is the question we should be asking others.

His answer seems an obvious one but it is grounded in faith. The Messiah would heal the lame and give sight to the blind. He has confessed him as the “Son of David;” he has heard something about the Messianic mission of Jesus. He believes and therefore he speaks. He believes and therefore he asks. So should we.

And Jesus compassionately extends mercy. Through faith the blind man sees again. The kingdom of God is enacted! The encounter between this man and Jesus announces the kingdom of God. It is healing for the blind and mercy for the last.

The story is an invitation to believe the good news of the kingdom of God. But it is also a reminder that the kingdom of God belongs to the last.

Who are we in this story? We are the blind beggar before God. We are often the disciples who rebuke the last instead of showing mercy. We are called to become Jesus in this story, to be Jesus.

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

Leaving Perea and nearing Jericho, Jesus led the way towards Jerusalem. This is a determined, focused step in Mark’s description; Jesus is headed to Jerusalem. The disciples are alarmed (amazed) and others accompanying them are afraid. Apparently, they were astonished and concerned that Jesus was headed to Jerusalem where his enemies were numerous and powerful. Perhaps they feared the worst or they anticipated opposition to Jesus’ reign.

Jesus, as they are “going up to Jerusalem,” reminds the Twelve what this means. The Son of Man will be betrayed, condemned, flogged, humiliated and executed though raised three days later. There must have been an ominous foreboding among the disciples but their focus is not so much on these future horrendous events as much as it is on their role in the coming reign of the Messiah. They anticipate “glory.”

Mark 8-10 is peppered with both the ineptitude of the disciples (particularly as they debated who was the greatest and this misapprehensions about the nature of the kingdom) and the insistence by Jesus that whoever would be great must become a self-denying servant of all—one who lives at the bottom of the totem pole. Now, as they move toward Jerusalem, Jesus reminds them again that he himself will take on that role as he becomes last by suffering humiliation and death.

But some disciples have other things on their minds. Just as the rich young ruler had addressed Jesus as “teacher” with a question, so the brothers James and John address Jesus as “teacher” with a question. They come as supplicants, just as the rich young ruler. Perhaps presuming on their intimate friendship with Jesus as part of his inner circle (e.g., Peter, James and John), they request to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus in his “glory.” Whatever Jesus is talking about concerning his death, they believe that glory is coming–they saw it at the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-9). Perhaps they thought their close relationship with Jesus meant a greater role than other disciples in the coming kingdom. In other words, when the kingdom fully arrives, they request the highest honors in the kingdom other than sitting on the throne itself. They want to reign with Christ as regents who wield delegated royal power above all others. They request hierarchical power in the coming kingdom.

But they do not understand what they are asking for. Jesus uses two metaphors to describe the process of becoming “great” in the kingdom of God. He asks them, “Can you drink the cup?” and “Can you be baptized?” Both metaphors point to suffering. Jesus, having just told them about his future in Jerusalem, asks if they are willing to suffer as he will suffer. Are they willing to undergo a baptism of fire and to drink the bitter cup of suffering? Can they take on the role of Israel’s suffering servant?

James and John are, they say; and they both will, says Jesus. James, as we know from Acts 12, will suffer an early martyrdom. John, as we know from Revelation 1 (assuming it is the same John), will suffer exile under Roman persecution. They will both know suffering and death as disciples of Jesus. Those who follow Jesus will suffer.

But to give “greatness” in the sense of rank and power is not Jesus’ prerogative; it is not even the point. Those positions—whatever they are—are the decision of the Father. Jesus cannot grant their request though he assures them that they will suffer as he will suffer.

Their request, of course, angers the other disciples. They have had this discussion before and probably on many occasions; they have argued about who is the greatest. Despite Jesus’ focused teaching about greatness and his exemplary life, the disciples still hunger for rank, power and status in the coming kingdom.

Again Jesus attempts to modify their conceptions of “greatness.” While the disciples think of “greatness” along the lines of Gentile kings and high officials who exercise power through status and rank, this is not the nature of the kingdom of God. Within the kingdom of God a different sort of “power-ranking” exists. It is not rooted in the exercise of authority or power but rather in service. Greatness is defined by servanthood rather than power.

Jesus did not come to exercise power and reign as Gentile leaders do. The Son of Man—that eschatological figure who will reclaim the earth for God—did not come to be served as if others bowed down to his higher rank and served his every need. Instead, he came to serve and provide for the needs of others. He came to die as a “ransom for many. The mission of Jesus is to serve, and through this service he would become “great.”

James and John, as other disciples, would become “great” as well, but not through the exercise of authority and power but through their own suffering for the sake of the kingdom.

The kingdom does call us to “greatness” through popularity, fame or success. The kingdom calls us to “greatness” through self-sacrifice, self-denial and service to others. The one who would be first must become last, and the one who would be great must become the servant of all (Mark 9:35).

This is a difficult lesson for disciples to learn. It was difficult for James and John as well as the others. It is difficult for us. It reverses fallen human culture; it reverses the American Dream where greatness is about success, wealth and power. But greatness is not found in awards, honors and pulpits. Rather, it is found in self-denial, suffering and sacrificial service. Greatness is not defined by who many people hear a lesson from a particular pulpit; it is defined by those who visit the prisons, sick and marginalized.  It will not be found on the stages of the Academy or Grammies where the “first” of society honor themselves. It will be found in service among the last.

May God have mercy on us.

With Tennessee now a Confederate state and at war with the Union, Fanning published an article entitled “Taking up the Cross,” in the August issue of the Gospel Advocate 7.8 (1861), 244-245.

What did it mean to “take up the cross” in August 1861 for Tennesseans, Confederates or Unionists?

On the one hand, it meant abandoning all unnecessary provocations. Disciples seek peace and do not stir the pot of war. But, on the other hand, it meant affirming allegiance to the kingdom of God rather than to any “worldly power,” principality, or nation-state. Disciples, according to Fanning, could neither swear allegiance to the Confederacy nor to the Union though they would submit to whichever governed them. Ultimately Fanning did submit to both but he never swore allegiance to either.

The cross which Disciples bore in 1861 was to choose peace, nonviolence and disavow allegiance to any national state. Fanning called them to resist peer and public pressure for war. They must reject the siren call for war and follow their Christ to the cross. They must follow no banner or flag but the one belonging to King Jesus.

Taking up the cross is a willingness to die to self and follow Jesus to the cross rather than save one’s life by bowing to the pressure of the national state.  He writes:

Till Constantine, the simple avowal that Jesus as the Savior, placed all who ventured to make it, as enemies of the State, and consequently the taking of the cross, was not only treason, but christians renounced all confidence in earthly institutions, and looked for their reward in another state.

***Fanning’s Article***

In the early ages of the church, whoever ventured to make an open profession of faith in Christ, was certain to lose the respect of the world,–his property was subject to confiscation and his life was in perpetual danger. Hence, the taking up the cross, was performed after the maturest deliberation, and with all the startling dangers staring one fully in the face. The professor of the faith renounced “principalities,” abandoned all confidence in men as safe governors, took no interest in the world’s affairs, farther than to make proper efforts to secure the necessaries of life, but vowed allegiance to the King in Zion as superior to all other rulers. Christians walked with their lives in their hands for three centuries. Even the propraeter [sic] Pliny the younger, after having many of the Lord’s servants put to death, merely for professing the name of Jesus, wrote to Trajan the emperor stating “that as far as he had learned, they did nothing wicked or contrary to law, except that they rose with the morning sun and sang a hymn to Christ as to a god.” Till Constantine, the simple avowal that Jesus as the Savior, placed all who ventured to make it, as enemies of the State, and consequently the taking of the cross, was not only treason, but christians renounced all confidence in earthly institutions, and looked for their reward in another state. Still, Christianity was then healthful, pure, and invigorating and the children of God rejoiced that “they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus. It is scarcely possible at this great distance from these hale and joyful days of the people of the Most High, to fully realize the meaning of denying ourselves, taking up the cross of the Savior and following him through evil as well as good report.

When the civil authorities in three hundred and twenty five, took charge of the church, “the offence of the cross ceased,” the pure in heart and life, withdrew from the public gaze, went into the wilderness, still keeping their banner unfurled to the breeze.—but have been ever since regarded as the offscouring of all things. There is no cross in religions regulated, and acknowledged by “world powers,” and the honor of bearing the cross can be appreciated by no one, who considers not the authority of his King as the supreme government. We freely grant that, men through ignorance and stubbornness, may seek opposition, in order to glory in their persecutions; but genuine christians study to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves—they unnecessarily offend neither Jew nor Greek, but labor at all times to glorify God in their bodies and spirits which are his.” There is a continual tendency to lay down the cross in order to be “like other people” and unless we keep our eye upon the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, and struggle hard against the outward pressure, on minds and affections will become so engrossed by the “cares of the world” as to induce us to lose all taste for matters spiritual.

In conclusion, we would be glad to know if there is any cross bearing by the denominations and professors that act merely in conformity with the popular influences of the age? What party in all the land has any cross to bear? Who, all the region about are now meekly bearing the cross of the crucified, yet exalted Savior?

Below is the last of three articles Fanning wrote for the July 1861 Gospel Advocate where he attempts to persuade his audience (which extends from Virginia to Alabama to Texas) to resist the temptation to enter the fray between the Confederacy and the Union.  Christians, according to Fanning, must not participate in war “against their brethren and others” (“May Not Christians Engage in War Against Their Brethren or Others?” 7.7 [July 1861] 217-219).

Fanning lays much of the problem at the feet of preachers who use their position to promote violence rather than following the Prince of Peace. He is concerned that congregations are divided, brethren are killing each other, and some editors are calling for force rather than dialogue. Who is following Jesus, he asks?

In this article, Fanning clearly articulates his apocalyptic understanding that Christians are citizens of a different nation (the kingdom of God), and they have no role in constructing or remodeling any nation-state. They pay their taxes and respect the form of government under which they find themselves (whether monarchical or democratic or whatever), but they do not fight for it or against it except as kingdom people proclaim righteousness and peace as residents within any nation-state.

God may use the present crisis, Fanning surmises, as a test of Christian loyalty. Which “king” will believers follow? He writes in conclusion,

It may be that God intends to prove his people, and have a registry made of all who are worthy. The war may be the occasion for the test.

The righteous, he says, cannot shed the blood of their brothers or others.

****“May Not Christians Engage in War Against Their Brethren or Others?” Gospel Advocate 7.7 (July 1861) 217-219?****

We have received many enquirtes [sic] in reference to the duty and propriety of Christians voluntarily or otherwise engaging in war; but in our present issue, we are disposed to merely call attention to the position of parties, and add a few thoughts in regard to the character of the kingdom of the Savior.

We have not only been struck with the very hearty manner in which religious denominations of both sections of the country are engaging in the recently enaugurated [sic] war, but it must surprise the thoughtful to witness the conscientious zeal manifested by each in the frightful struggle. Both parties claim the sanction of Heaven, and very earnestly call upon God for help. Both cannot be right.

This is not the worst feature. Preachers and editors are leaders in the strife. We have thought, indeed, that we have heard not of more blood-thirsty exhibitions than have been manifested by preachers to excite the people to deeds of blood. The problem may be of difficult solution to men of the world, who have remained indifferent as to the authority of religion. Members of the same church are in deadly array against each other, all thinking they will render service to god in slaying their brethren, and in some instances their blood relatives. Not only are religionists foremost in the excitement, but are also in the very first ranks of the respective armies. A month ago, we had supposed that editors and preachers among the disciples were not disposed to imbrue their hands in each others blood, but we were mistaken. We notice in some of our exchanges, as The Christian Record for instance, by E. Goodwin, of Indiana,* the exhortation to put down opposition “peaceably if we can, forceably [sic] if we must.” What can, and must be the state of mind in such as write in this manner? Are these blood thirsty men followers of Jesus of Nazareth? Can any one be fully under two antagonistic systems at the same time? Regarding the Christian institution, however, some very honestly entertain the following position, viz: Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace, that in order to make his reign triumphant, a bruised reed was not to be disturbed or the smoking flax quenched, that from the moment the Master told Peter to put up his sword, no offensive or defensive weapons, save the sword of the spirit, have ever been authorized for the use of his people. Such men also, generally, conclude that the kingdom of God is superior to the kingdoms and governments of the world—may possibly exist in any of them, or independently of them; and that the subjects of the spiritual kingdom should take no part in constructing or remodling [sic] the institutions of men. Still they are to pay their taxes, and be subject to every ordinance of man, whilst they are permitted to lead quiet, and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. They also hold, that it is their right, if they find any civil government oppressive, to remove to another more favorable to their purposes, and in a word, they believe that Christians should take no part in the governments of the world, either to create them, fight for, or against them, or contribute in the least to their dissolution, unless it should be accomplished by the superior light of the truth, shining upon them. But quite religious men object to this view. Some of the grounds of their objection are the following:

1. They argue that, as Christians are lights in the world, they should have a controlling influence in the governments of men. This is answered by suggesting that possibly, the light of good men may be more successfully shed abroad, by keeping in their own sphere—the church,–in exerting all their influence through it, and that in attempting to control civil governments, they frequently become corrupt and lose all their power as Christians.

2. It is argued that, we cannot obey the powers that be, unless we shoulder our guns and fight for their defence [sic]. The answer of some is, that when the powers of the world require of the saints a course derogatory to the christian religion, it is not improper for them to say, “Whether it be right in the right [sic] of God to obey you, rather than God, judge ye.”

3. It is said unless Christians fight for their homes and families, they should not have the protection of the civil government.

It is answered that when the struggle is between two forms of government, or the administration of the same form by two contending parties, Christians may destroy themselves by interfering. We feel that it is proper in this connection to state our owo [sic] conviction touching the use of our property. It is evident, we accumulate and hold our property under the protection of civil government, and the civil authorities have the right at all times, to appropriate it, as they think best. We are to lay up enduring treasures in heaven.

But we did not introduce the subject of Christians taking the sword, for the purpose of at least for the present of arguing all the questions involved but mainly to call attention to the difficult points. We have looked at the matter calmly, and think we understand it, but we may be mistaken, and we are willing to hear the arguments of any, and of all, on both sides.

We have long been impressed with the belief that Christians should and must exert all their influence for good, through the church, and we are satisfied the time has come for trying our fealty to Christ. It may be the crisis will expose the utter worthlessness of most of the religions of our unhappy country, and enable believers to stand forth in their true colors. It may be that God intends to prove his people, and have a registry made of all who are worthy. The war may be the occasion for the test.

We may have more to say upon these matters as opportunity may offer, and yet we feel not a liberty to close without stating, that whilst all we have is subject to the call of our country, Christians and preachers particularly can perhaps accomplish the greatest amount of good, by employing none but spiritual weapons. If it should appear upon proper examination, that “the wicked are the sword of the Lord,” and that the righteous cannot shed the blood of their fellows with impunity, the sooner the brethren understand the truth the better. Peace must be secured by moral means alone. What influence are Christians exerting for the accomplishment of this earnestly desired end?

*Elijah Goodwin (1807-1881), of Indianapolis, IN, edited The Christian Record (which began in 1843) in 1861 and after the war merged it with the Christian Standard in 1866.

Though the overwhelming sentiment of western and middle Tennessee favored the decision of the state government to join the Confederacy and enter the war against the Union on July 2, 1861, Fanning pleads for Christians to stand apart in three lengthy and significant articles in the July issue of the Gospel Advocate.

His theology for peace is rooted in several fundamental theological convictions. First, he believes Christians are a separate, distinct and “peculiar” people. They are resident aliens–“pilgrims and strangers”–in the world. They must not align themselves with any institutions or nation-states that participate in the bloody conflicts of the age since the people of God have only one allegiance.

A second theological conviction is that the kingdom of God is a kingdom of peace which refuses to use the implements of war on the earth. Such wars are of the earth; they are worldly and belong to the world powers. Jesus came to end bloody conflicts and his followers do not participate in them. He went to a cross rather than to the head of a military parade.

Fanning’s view is succinctly summarized in this brief statement near the end of the article reproduced below: 

 “It occurs to us that the church of Christ is composed of faithful and true men, who bear his cross at all times, and resort not to violence. If we are correct, bloody wars are not Christian, but are of the world, and are worldly. Are indeed the result of wickedness, are waged by wicked men, for wicked purposes, and have not the sanction of God or good men.”

Tolbert Fanning, “Wars of Heaven and Earth,” Gospel Advocate 7 (July 1861) 199-205

“If ‘tis distance lends enchantment to the view,”* we may add, that distant danger has but little terror to men. Even relentless and bloody war, in a foreign clime, conducted by those in whose success we feel but little interest, possess not the power to stir the heart, but when it rages in our own beloved land—comes to our very doors and threatens all of earth we most value, the bravest are disposed to shrink back, and ask its intent. But fearful are the aspects of war when citizens of the same soil, brothers in religion, and brothers in the flesh, lift the sword against each other. The present distressing affairs in our once happy, but now rent and bleeding country, suggest to the thinking the propriety of taking counsel together, with reference to the best means of averting the terrible disasters that threaten the land. Having at an early age deliberately formed our judgment as to war,** and especially amongst an enlightened and Christian people, and to this hour having seen no reason to change our decision, we consider it entirely in keeping with our mission, to offer a few candid thoughts regarding its origin, history and tendencies. We feel more especially interested from the fact, that either we have not studied the Bible to profit, or many sincere brethren whose feelings are quite different from our own have failed to see the beauties of the Christian edifice. We have no advice to give, but it shall be our purpose, if possible, to present the subject of war as represented in the Holy Oracles, and leave all to act upon their convictions.

Whence comes wars into our world?

In answering this question, it would seem requisite, in the first place, to define the term war. After looking over the dictionaries, and critical works, we find nothing entirely satisfactory. Tobesure [sic], Webster says, “War is a contest between Nations or States, carried on by force.” But, if we are not mistaken, this definition accords not fully with the meaning in scripture. Webster had in mind national contests alone, but James asks the question, “From whence come wars and fightings among you?” indicating most clearly that wars and fightings, right or wrong, may exist in a church, in a family or between two individuals. The Apostle adds, “Ye kill, ye fight and war.” Hence we define war as a struggle between individuals, families, churches or nations, with intent to kill and destroy. Of course the purpose of war will vary with the causes that produces [sic] it. Dueling may be regarded as the highest style of war. The combatents [sic] are considered as honorable gentlemen, and their sole purpose is merely to seek each others [sic] life in vindication of honor. National wars are generally preditroy [sic]. Each party generally considers it proper to waste and take all the property of the others, and both strive to do each other the greatest amount of damage. Wars are called aggressive, when one people assail another, and defensive when the object is to repel invasion. It is also called offensive or defensive. But it is remarkable that while most men freely engage in war, either from a general conviction that, there is something wrong in it, or men are insincere, we seldom, if ever, hear of a party avowedly making aggressive or offensive war.

The mere mechanical act of a man’s killing another is neither right nor wrong in itself. It may be done by accident,–or an officer of the law may be required to take away a fellow creatures life. Hence the crime of murder depends neither upon the fact or mode of taking life, but solely upon the state of mind possessed at the time the deed is done. In law, the point is not whether one party killed another, but did he commit the deed, “with malice and forethought.” If then the guilt or innocence of a party depends upon the animus, may we not conclude that one is guilty who merely intends injury? “He that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart.”—Jesus.

This leads us to approach a little nearer to the answer of our question. Possibly, it has been from the fact, that crime universally arises from the intention that, no war originates in heaven, around the throne of the omnipotent. According to the philosophy, poetry and modern theology, of which we have knowledge, war began in heaven, amongst the highest angels. It is said, indeed, that Satan was the tallest son of the Omnipotent,–was next to the Father, aspired to the supremacy, and through ambition enaugurated [sic] a war which, hurled him from heaven. John Milton, in his Paradise lost, said:

“His pride
Had cast him (Satan) out of Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel angels; by whose aid aspiring
To set himself in glory above his peers,
He trusted to have equaled the Most High
If he opposed; and with ambitious aim
Against the throne and monarchy of God
Raise impious war in Heaven, and battle proved
With vain attempt. Him the Almighty proved
Hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky,
With hideous ruin and combustion, down
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In adamantine chains and penal fire
Who durst defy the Omnipotent to arms.”

Pollok says,

“That silence which all being held,
When God’s Almighty Son, from off the walls
Of heaven the rebel angels threw, accursed,
So still, that all creation heard their fall
Distinctly, in the lake of burning fire.”

These two quotations constitute the escence [sic] of modern theology regarding the first rebellion, the origin of war, the first battle in heaven, the sentence upon the fallen angels, and Jehovah’s triumph.

Perhaps we may be asked if this is not the doctrine of the Bible? The churches preach it as true, and it is very generally believed. Let us examine briefly the scriptures.

John says, “And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels. Neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the dragon was cast our, that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Rev. xii, 7-9.

He said again, “And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed.” Rev. xii, 17. “He saw a beast rise up out of the sea, and it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” Rev. xii, 7. John said, a “beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, maketh war against them and shall overcome them and kill them.” Rev. xi, 7. Daniel saw a “Horn make war with the saints and prevail against them.” Dan. vii, 21. Yet he adds, “Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time come that the saints possessed the kingdom.” This was the identical battle which John saw in heaven between Michael and his hosts, and the devil and his party.

Peter speaks, not of war in heaven but of God casting the angels down to hell and delivering them into chains of darkness. 2 Peter ii, 4.

Jude tells us, that “The angles which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” Verse 6

But what are the ligitmate [sic] conclusions to be drawn from these scriptures, if Milton, Pollok, and poetical teachers of religion do not justice to the word of God?

The bare admission that there has been, or ever will be disturbance, strife and war in heaven proper, dethrones the Almighty and destroys all hope of a pure clime. We may be asked, “If Satan did not fall from heaven?” The Savior speaking of the power taken from him said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” But this was a fall which occurred in the days of the Lord’s personal ministry.

If we could believe in so desperate a war around the throne of the Eternal as described by these fancy teachers, we could have no desire to attain such an abode. What has occurred might occur again. God’s people seek rest—a peaceful habitation.

The heaven in which this great battle was fought, to say the least, was on this earth. Jesus collected his elect, at the destruction of Jerusalem, “from the uttermost part of heaven.” Mark xii, 27. This was possibly the land of the Jews, as the Gentles were called, in contrast, the earth. “Oh earth,” said the prophet, “hear the word of the Lord.” Christians are said to “sit together in heavenly places, in Christ,” Eph. i, 3, and when John said, “Rejoice over her thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her,” he evidently had the church is his mind. Reve. xviii, 20.

We then conclude, that all the wars in heaven with the dragon, the beast; the false prophet—Micahel and the saints were, and will be, in the church. The world power has been assailing the authority of the King of heaven for eighteen hundred years, but the saints will triumph over the beast, and see Satans [sic] empire crumble to pieces. But we are told still, it is war. Tobesure [sic] it is; but the weapons of the Lord’s people are not carnal. John gave a beautiful picture of the war in heaven. “Michael and his angels fought, and the dragon and his angels, and prevailed not. And the dragon was cast out, and his angels into the earth”—that is, driven from all right even to profess the pure religion of the Bible, or occupy a place with Christians. John adds, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation and strength and the kingdom of our God and the power (authority) of his Christ, for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accuseth them before God day and night. And they overcome him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of his testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Rev. xii, 7-11. This war is still raging, and is in reference to the authority of Christ and his church. The conflict is between the true and false friends of Christ. The saints will overcome, and it is fondly believed, the date of the triumph in this war is not distant. So much for war in heaven. The angels of whom Peter and Jude spoke, were messengers who left their “first estate,” perhaps turned politicians, or speculatists in some direction and the Lord cast them down from heaven, and they will remain in chains till the judgment.

So far it has been a bloodless conflict, so far as Christians have been concerned; but the conflict between genuine and false Christians has been presented in military and so highly symbolic language, that many have imagined that God and all the hosts of heaven have been or are engaged in deadly conflict. Far be it from truth that Milton, Pollok, and speculative divines have well nigh subverted the light of revelation for the idlest dreams ever penned.

Still war exists and may exist forever, and we would know its origin and meaning.

We have satisfied ourself that all the wars of which we have knowledge, are of earth and are earthy. As to the idea of one next to the Supreme Being apostatizing through ambition, and creating war in heaven and earth, we have endeavored to show is highly preposterous. Still we have no theory in regard to the devil—his origin or history. We are taught in the word of God that there is a devil “going about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour,” and so far as we have learned to the contrary, he was the devil from the beginning, and from his constitution he may be a devil to all eternity. Jesus said of the opposing Jews, “Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” John viii, 44. It seems from this passage that the devil was a destroyer from the beginning, and yet was the father of men led by passion. The apostle James is still more explicit. In answering the question, “From whence wars and fightings,” he said, “Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members. Ye lust and have not; ye kill and desire to have and ye cannot obtain; ye fight and war.” The idea of James seems to be that men while following passion, are the children of the devil, and hence he exhorts the brethren in the same chapter, to “submit themselves to God.” “Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.” James iv, 1-8.

The doctrine of the Savior, of James, and of all the authors of the Bible, seems to be, that in our very constitution we are subject to two opposing influences. One is called the flesh, and the other the spirit. Some have called these opposing influences the two sides of human nature, one good, the other evil. Speculate on the matter as we please, the fact stares us in the face, that individuals or nations, led by their own impulses, feelings, passions, are always wrong, are but children of the wicked one; whilst those who renounce themselves, and follow heavenly instruction, are holy, harmless, peaceful—the children of God. While following the spirit, we are not in strife, in church or state, but are brethren,–at peace, walking by the faith of one who is invisible, and are always ready to declare that we are “strangers and pilgrims,” have no permanent habitation on earth, but are seeking a city in the skies. A failure to look on high, is a declaration of war against God and all good men. Whosoever is not for the Savior is against him. There is a no neutral ground. All are in the army of the faithful, or of the wicked one.

What then is the origin of war? It arises always from passion—from the love of power, and ambition to domineer over others. Such is the history of all war. When one people suppose themselves stronger, wiser, or richer than another, they are apt to be anxious to rule, and hence strifes and wars arise. Life is but a warfare, a conflict, and hence Paul at the close of his journey said, “I have fought the good fight and kept the faith.”

It will be perceived from the tenor of our remarks, that whether the struggles is in our own heart, between individuals, in churches, states or nations, the weapons are not always identical. Violence and wrong prevail on one side, while on the other, there is merely a resistance of evil.

But the plain and unvarnished question is, has war ever been right? It has been most unquestionably necessary. When the five nations of Canaan become too wicked for endurance, the Almighty ordained his own people Israel to execute his purpose in exterminating them, and when in time the Jews become corrupt God brought “a nation from afar, a nation of fierce countenance,’ a Roman army under Titus Vespasion [sic], against them, and overthrew them. This has been the course of things from the beginning, and may always be the course. We would in conclusion submit a few very respectful inquiries in reference to the bearings of war.

The, Lextalionis,–law of nations—the doctrine of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” preached over all the world till the Savior came and established a new order of things, destined in time to prevail over the whole earth. The prophet saw a little stone cut out of the mountain without hands, that increased till it become a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. Dan. ii. 34, 35.

The Messiah assumed to be a king of a new order, to reach his throne not by wading through the blood of others, but by freely shedding his own blood. He employed no offensive or defensive weapons, but was proclaimed the Prince of Peace.

Was it not his purpose to put an end to war,–to bloodshed and carnage, and has he not been successful in proportion to the progress of his religion in the world? After he told Peter to “put up” his sword, no violence has been employed by him. Jesus cannot take cognizance of them without, till they enlist under his peaceful banner. If, then, the Son of God established a “kingdom of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” and if his subjects were not anciently men of blood, on what authority can they now act differently from his servants of old? It occurs to us that the church of Christ is composed of faithful and true men, who bear his cross at all times, and resort not to violence. If we are correct, bloody wars are not Christian, but are of the world, and are worldly. Are indeed the result of wickedness, are waged by wicked men, for wicked purposes, and have not the sanction of God or good men.

Our conclusion of the whole matter is, that the wars of heaven, are moral conflicts between the church of Christ and the opposing world powers; and the wars of earth are struggles in the world without by men of the world, inaugurated by wicked men for wicked purposes, but which God may overrule for good. The history of the world sustains us in these conclusions, but the church of Christ is composed of “a peculiar people,” separate from others, are not of the world, engage not in its bloody conflicts, and yet the Lord has promised to sustain them to the end.

We have said nothing of the present civil, unnatural, ungodly, cruel, barbarous, unnecessary, meaningless, fruitless and disgraceful American war. It will settle neither the right nor wrong of any question, and though innocent blood has been, and may be liberally shed, better counsels will prevail, and its inhuman originators must ere long bow to a moral force that is struggling to be heard and must sooner or later triumph. God grant that the day may not be far distant. If genuine Christians but buckle on “the whole armor of God,” the hosts of false religionists that originated the conflict, and are leading their countrymen to the slaughter, may soon have cause to lament their treachery to Heaven, and the cause and people of the Most High, may attain the position to which they are entitled. Our confident trust is, that Heaven will vindicate the right, and put to shame and confusion the enemies of our peace.

*From “Pleasures of Hope” (1799) by Scottish poet Thomas Campbell (1777-1844).

**Fanning had earlier written on war and peace in opposition to the Mexican-American War.