Here we continue to fisk the absolute idiocy of political theory wrapped in the Cross as offered by the Godless Coalition. You can access the original article here.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/christian-nationalism-patriotism/

The author is one Thomas Kidd; Exemplar of Academic torpidity often put on display @ the Godless Coalition.

Thomas Kidd writes,

Obviously, traditional Christians ought to limit that kind of nationalistic fervor. As “strangers and exiles on the earth,” our ultimate allegiance is to Christ’s kingdom. Our love for a non-American brother or sister in Christ should exceed our comradeship with unbelieving American patriots, whose numbers are legion.

BLMc responds,

Here Kidd starts going all R2K (Anabaptist) on us. We find that understandable coming from a Baptist. It is when Horton, Hart, Van Drunen, and Clark start this routine that finds us suddenly going all WTF.

It is true that our ultimate allegiance is to Christ’s Kingdom but does that mean that therefore I should not have any allegiance to my children and grandchildren? Because of my ultimate allegiance to Christ’s Kingdom does that mean I need not care for my parents when they are elderly? What is Kidd trying to prove by the reality that my ultimate allegiance belongs to Christ. Ultimate allegiance does not universally negate all other allegiances such as lesser but still powerful allegiance to people and place.

Thomas Kidd writes,

But measured patriotism still seems appropriate, and somewhat unavoidable for most Christians. Even Romans 13’s injunction to be “subject to the governing authorities” suggests a default support for your nation. If nothing else, we pray for our leaders and communities so that, as 1 Timothy 2 puts it, believers “may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” When believers can live that kind of life in a nation (as they often have in America), we should be grateful. (See Kevin DeYoung’s helpful reflections on our national history and identity.)

BLMc responds,

Kidd calls for “measured patriotism.” But how measured is measured?

And don’t bother with DeYoung. He’s another perp who belongs to the Godless Coalition and does more harm than good to the cause of Christ like his co-authors at TGC.

Thomas Kidd writes,

America has long nurtured more problematic forms of Christian nationalism, though. In this, the United States is hardly alone. British nationalism was an enormously powerful commitment for white American colonists, one that most patriots only broke with great reluctance in 1776. Communist nations like North Korea also engender virulent forms of nationalism, since official atheism needs transcendent national commitments to fill the void usually occupied by theistic civil religion.

BLMc responds,

First of all in 1776 the universe of American colonists was, a handful of exceptions here or there, were white American colonists.

Second… did Kidd really just compare the British colonists with their Nationalism to the Nationalism of atheistic North Korea Communism?

Look, I’m quite willing to admit that Nationalism can become an idolatrous replacement for Biblical Christianity but does anyone really believe that the chief idolatrous problem we have in the contemporary American church is the idolatry of White Nationalism? Quite to the contrary I would say the chief idolatry of the church in America is the cosmopolitan Church-olatry of men like Horton, Kidd, Clark, etc. Their idol god is the god of deracinated man who belongs to nothing or to no one except some kind of god who has an abstract definition. Their god is the god of the conceptual idea that exists only between their ears. Their god is the god of the universal abstraction, the god of the man who has nothing to die for and no loyalties to cherish, the god of the rootless and the alien. I hate their God and I hate them when they seek to turn the God of the Bible into that idol god.

Thomas Kidd writes,

Still, since “evangelicals” (usually meaning white religious Republicans) are the Americans most often accused of Christian nationalism, it would behoove those of us who still accept the “evangelical” label to consider nationalism’s history.

BLMc responds,

Here it becomes clear that Kidd is not only being influenced by postmodernism and Anabaptist ideas but he is also quaffing the potions of Critical race theory. Kidd sprinkles the rest of his piece with White people in his sites. I can only conclude that someone who is animated by postmodern, Anabaptist, and Critical Race Theory assumptions is not a person I should take as Christian since Christianity opposes all these ideas.

I will offer again here that as we consider the history of Nationalism it is certainly the case that it has, at times, been a idolatrous curse. I am thinking of Billy Sunday’s revivals that ended with male converts going behind the stage to enlist into the US Army to fight in that cursed WW I. I am thinking of that cursed Nationalism that found American children pledging allegiance to the flag. I am thinking of that cursed Nationalism that Lincoln invoked that sent a Jacobin animated North to kill their Southern Christian countrymen. There is plenty to curse about the misuse of Nationalism in American history but somehow I think the things I curse the Thomas Kidds of the world would salute.

The exception I take to Kidd’s piece is the blanket condemnation of something he never defines. Nationalism as under the authority of Jesus Christ is not sinful.

Thomas Kidd writes,

History of Christian Nationalism

In The Cross of War: Christian Nationalism and U.S. Expansion in the Spanish-American War, Matthew McCullough defines American Christian nationalism as “an understanding of American identity and significance held by Christians wherein the nation is a central actor in the world-historical purposes of the Christian God.” War has generated the “strongest expressions of Christian nationalism,” he explains. As McCullough and others have shown, Christian nationalism can give an exaggerated transcendent meaning to American history, and undergird American militarism.

BLMc responds,

Certainly the nation, without being THE central actor in the world-historical purposes of God is a central actor in the world-historical purposes of God. We find the centrality of the nations all through Scripture. To deny that is to misread scripture is a major way.

I would agree that war is often used to get a cheap nationalism reaction from a dullard people who do not really understand nationalism.

Thomas Kidd writes,

Christian nationalism has often changed over America’s history. It originally took the form of British Protestant nationalism aligned against Catholic national powers, especially France and Spain. Britain became America’s rival in the Revolution and the War of 1812. Other Americans became the great national enemy during the Civil War. But today’s Christian nationalism dates back to the Cold War.

BLMc responds,

Here Kidd seems unable to understand what we were facing in the Cold War. Communism was a real existential threat and while the hats the West wore were hardly pure white they were white enough to be overwhelmingly distinct from the black hats the Christ hating atheistic blood spattered Communists were wearing. If it took a sometimes misguided nationalism to beat back Communism rolling over the whole globe then so much the better of that misguided nationalism. Has Kidd read Whitaker Chambers? Has Kidd read Solzhenitsyn? Has Kidd read “The Black Book of Communism?” Does Kidd know what the remnants of Christendom were facing as looking in the devil’s eyes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Minh, Castro, etc?

Thomas Kidd writes,

In many ways, the fight against Soviet communism set the modern template for white evangelical engagement with politics. This helps explain why many of today’s most ardent adherents of Christian nationalism are also children of the Cold War. White evangelical leaders, especially Billy Graham, framed the Cold War as a conflict between the Christian values of America and the atheism of the Soviets. (White people have been the primary, though not exclusive, purveyors of Christian nationalism, partly because they have been great beneficiaries of American national power.) As Graham would later admit, this spiritual framing led him and other evangelicals to see almost everything about Cold War politics through spiritual lenses. Thus, whoever was toughest on communism (e.g., Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan) got transformed into Christian warriors who had God on their side.

BLMc responds,

Notice Kidd’s repeated use of the word “white.” Is Kidd afflicted with self hatred over his being white?

First, Kidd is just wrong about Billy Graham. Maybe he has forgotten Graham’s trip to the USSR? A trip that gave legitimacy to the USSR at a time when they desperately needed Western legitimacy. Graham was no friend of Christian Nationalism.

Second, I find Kidd’s commentary about the Cold War indicative that the man knows next to nothing about the horrors of Communism. The problem with especially Eisenhower, but also Nixon, and Reagan is that they were not enough anti-Communist. I wish it really were the case that Ike, Tricky Dick, and Reagan really had been Christian warriors, but Eisenhower was a fellow traveler, Nixon shook hands with the beast Mao, and Reagan allowed the Reds to shoot down passenger planes with Americans on board.

Thomas Kidd writes,

The details of a politician’s personal faith didn’t matter so much as their bona fides as a Cold War stalwart. This association of Republican politicians with the cause of Christian nationalism became more pronounced when the GOP, out of both opportunism and principle, identified itself as the pro-life party after Roe v. Wade (1973). The fact that most traditional Protestants in America correctly regarded abortion as gravely immoral made it even more difficult, ironically, to maintain clear boundaries between Christian identity, Republican politics, and the American nation. As the secular left in the post-Vietnam War era portrayed American history as morally mixed, if not relentlessly abominable, key white evangelicals responded with “God and country” celebrations, even at church services, and with the formation of the Moral Majority.

BLMc responds,

Notice the self-loathing use of the word “white” above. It certainly seems to be the case that Kidd hates his own people.

Notice also how much ink Kidd spills on the evils of white people and their errant Nationalism and yet nary a word from the man on the evils of Black Nationalism as found in Black Lives Matter. Where are his long jeremiads against Antifa and their rioting this past summer?

Notice finally, how Kidd talks about the secular-left and its analysis of white America, and yet he says nothing about the bankruptcy of the secular left in terms of their ability to do sane analysis. This is the same post-Vietnam War era left who pushed abortion, sodomy, unilateral disarmament, New World Order policies, women in the military, sodomite marriage, sodomites adopting children, etc. Kidd wants to suggest the reprobate left somehow had some kind of morally superior vantage point from which to critique the bankrupted right? It is my conviction that Kidd is a man of the left posing as a Christian.

The Godless Coalition is at it once again. Over at this link,

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/christian-nationalism-patriotism/

One Dr. Thomas Kidd proves once again, how low ebb contemporary Academia has sunk. I suppose one could excuse Kidd because he is a Baptist but the Godless Coalition is an equal opportunity denominational employer when it comes to absolute academic Tom Foolery.

Below find my fisking of Dr. Thomas Kidd.

Thomas Kidd

During Donald Trump’s presidency many critics have reviled his base as adherents of “Christian nationalism.” Christian nationalism, we are told, is the real religion of Trumpian “evangelicals.” But the definition of Christian nationalism is often unclear.

Why is Christian nationalism a slippery category? First, it is usually a term of insult. Yes, the term reflects those who would describe America as a “Christian nation.” But there are far more pundits who label people as “Christian nationalists” than there are people who embrace the term themselves.

BLMc responds,

Kidd is about to give us an article bitching and moaning about Christian Nationalism but he doesn’t even bother to give a clearly defined definition as to what the Nationalism is that he is bitching and moaning about.

Let’s help Kidd out here. Christian nationalism is that people group movement that self identifies as a particular racial and ethnic people group who at the same time own the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life. It stands in contrast to the current mutliculturalism social order that we are currently enduring in the lands that were once Christendom.

Thomas Kidd

Second, actual Christian nationalism is more a visceral reaction than a rationally chosen stance.

BLMc,

Since Kidd has never defined the Christian nationalism he is attacking how are we supposed to know if it is a visceral reaction or a rationally chosen stance? Kidd demonstrates here he is an idiot.

Thomas Kidd

I recently saw a yard sign that read “Make Faith Great Again: Trump 2020.” I wondered, How can re-electing Donald Trump make “faith” great again? What faith? When did it stop being great? No coherent answers would be forthcoming to such questions, but that’s the point. The sign speaks to a person’s ethnic, religious, and cultural identity in ways easier to notice than to explain.

BLMc

I did not vote Trump in 2016 or 2020 and yet I am not as mystified as to what this slogan could possibly mean as the Baylor Professor. The sign could merely be communicating that the Christian voting for Trump in 2020 would be believing that by voting for Trump in 2020 he would be supporting someone who will support the Christian faith. Now, I don’t think that highly of Trump but the sign is not as mystifying as Kidd wants to make it seem. And the answer to the Kidd’s question; “When did faith quit being great,” we might reply “when Dr. Kidd began writing articles for TGC.”

So there are plenty of coherent answers possible but the Kidd is too jejune to be able to think through what those answers might be.

Again, I don’t think voting Trump is how to make the faith great again but I understand how a Christian might wrongly (IMO) think that. And I can sure understand how Christians looking at what Biden might do in attacking the Christian faith might reason that comparatively speaking Trump would make the faith great again.

Thomas Kidd wrote,

Finally, it is often not clear whether “Christian nationalism” is referring mainly to devotion to the American nation, to the Republican Party, or to an individual politician. The Trump era has definitely produced exotic beliefs related to the president as an “anointed” ruler, as illustrated by the recent vision-induced “Jericho March.” But here I want to focus on the concept of Christian nationalism as nationalism per se.

BLM

Again… Kidd tells us he doesn’t know what the Hades he’s writing about and yet knows enough to criticize in the extreme that which he doesn’t have any idea of. It just gets curious and curious-er. All Kidd really tells us in this article is that he don’t likes Trump and he doesn’t like Christians who vote for Trump and that he calls all of this he doesn’t like “nationalism.”

Thomas Kidd,

Christian Nationalism vs. Christian Patriotism

What’s the difference between Christian nationalism (bad) and Christian patriotism (good in moderation)?

BLMc writes,

This is more torpidity coming from Thomas Kidd. Consider the definitions of the two words he puts in contrast.

Patriotism (n.)

“love of one’s country; the passion which moves a person to serve his country, either in defending it or in protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions,” 1726, from patriot + -ism.

nationalism (n.)

“devotion to one’s country, national spirit or aspirations, desire for national unity, independence, or prosperity;

Thomas Kidd has put two words (patriotism and nationalism) that are synonyms and told us that one is acceptable and the other is not acceptable and that all the while not giving us the definition of the Nationalism he is critiquing. This is essay writing by the spin of the roulette table.

Thomas Kidd writes,

Political theorist Benedict Anderson described nations as “imagined communities”: though nations may be vast in geography and population, many of us cherish such intense patriotic commitment that we would lay down our lives (or those of our children) to defend our country, and to promote its power around the globe.

BLMc responds,

So, Kidd goes all postmodern by invoking the ludicrous idea that nations are imagined communities. Keep in mind that this idea of “imagined” this or that is all the postmodern rage today. We even have genders as “imagined sexuality.” So, all Kidd tells us here is that he is drinking from the pool of Rorty, Foucault, and Derrida.

Second, Kidd doesn’t tell us why it is such a terrible idea for one to lay down their life for their people and place as that people and place are being unjustly attacked by those seeking to destroy a people and place we are a part of in God’s providential assignment. The idea that nationalism automatically means promoting our power around the goal is part of the definition of Internationalism and not Nationalism.

Thomas Kidd writes,

Obviously, traditional Christians ought to limit that kind of nationalistic fervor. As “strangers and exiles on the earth,” our ultimate allegiance is to Christ’s kingdom. Our love for a non-American brother or sister in Christ should exceed our comradeship with unbelieving American patriots, whose numbers are legion.

BLMc responds,

Obviously?

Is the last sentence in that paragraph really true? St Paul in Romans 9 can say to the contrary,

3 “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”

Does this sound like someone with a lack of love for his kinsmen?

Kidd posits a false dichotomy here by suggesting that my love for an abstract Christian Japanese (as an example) that I don’t know should be greater than my love for my unbelieving flesh and blood father (as a hypothetical example). The problem is that it is not quite as clear cut as Kidd wants to suggest that it is. It is difficult to rank bonding levels in this kind of manner and Kidd is being disingenuous in doing so.

We can agree that as Christians we can never develop an attitude that says “My country, right or wrong; still my country.” However, to suggest that there is something unseemly about love for one’s own people — yes even those not yet in Christ — is indicative that something is fundamentally wrong with the person saying such a thing.

Christmas Eve day 2020 and I am surrounded by our twelve living grandchildren. Of course, 12 grandchildren ages 8 and under means a certain amount of bedlam. God says that I am surrounded by wealth and riches unspeakable. And so I am.

I can’t help but look both backwards and forwards. Looking backwards I remember when I was the age of my grandchildren celebrating Christmas at my own Grandparent’s homes. Did they look at me and fast forward 55 years in their mind’s eyes to see me as a Grandparent with grandchildren of my own playing about my feet as I now am looking into the future in my mind’s eyes to see my own grandchildren as grandparents with their grandchildren celebrating Christmas at their homes. It is the idea of generational continuity that finds me thoughtful. Will my grandchildren attend Christmas Eve or Christmas morning services with their grandchildren when they are grandparents? Will they and their seed honour Christ? What will the world be like in 55 years when my grandchildren are grandparents with grandchildren of their own? Will they remember Jane and I as I yearly remember my grandparents during this time of year?

As a child, Christmas at my Maternal Grandparents was about milking the cows and doing the chores. Only then, in the later evening, was Christmas celebrated. A late-night meal. It always seemed like we were eating these huge meals at Mid-night. Such was life on the farm. The meals were followed by large servings of Schwann’s Butter Pecan Ice Cream sprinkled liberally with Nestles Powdered chocolate. Then we would break out the euchre folding tables. Euchre and to a lesser extent Parcheesi were staples at the Jacobs household. I was my grandparents oldest grandchild and while I remember numerous cousins running about they were considerably younger and I don’t remember a great deal of interaction with my younger cousins.

If we were at my Grandma McAtee’s it was a meal with all hands on deck to help. Grandma McAtee had a hand pump in her house for her running water and so in order to do the dishes after the meal, it was required to heat the water up on the stove. Archie brand cookies were always the treat there and her family game of preference was Aggravation.

My father was a man who did not have peace in his soul and so holidays seldom ended peacefully. To this day I remain saddened for my Mother who I’m sure was distressed by the lack of peace in the home. This is one reason why I so desperately desire the grandchildren to have pleasant memories of Christmas at Pop Pop and Noni’s home. It is possible in 55 years they will be doing something like this chronicling their Christmas memories about their childhood while wondering what kind of Christmas memories their grandchildren will one day own. I hope those Christmas chronicles they might record will be bespeckled with joy and warmth.

A promise to crush the dragon’s head
A Kinsman Redeemer to deliver my soul
The Passover becoming our living bread
A serpent hoisted high on a pole
Christmas in Scripture has Christ as the goal

A goat led away to remove all our sin
Another goat slaughtered so as to atone
Blood on the mercy seat sprinkled within
Prophets deserted and suffering alone
Christmas in Scripture is how Christ is known

Smoking pots, and slain beasts lying in half
Sacrifices and Covenant and the promised seed
An ark in which is Christ and a child named laugh
Priests in the Holy of Holies, standing to plead
Christmas in Scripture is our doctrine and creed

We have been looking at the Old Testament Scriptures to limn out who it is that our Fathers were expecting when they were told of a seed to come (Genesis 3:15) who would deliver them from the fall and its consequences. We have noted that the description of that coming deliverer is the primary (though not sole) purpose of the Old Covenant Scriptures. The Scriptures were given in order to identify who this deliverer … this Messiah would be.

In the past two weeks, we have looked at those Scriptures and have sought to set forth a narrative that describes the one they were expecting. Thus far as through the Davidic Kingdom, we have seen that the coming deliverer would be a man of violence inasmuch as he is to be the serpent head-crusher. We have traced that theme through Moses over the serpentine Pharaoh, through the Hebrews treading the serpentine land of Canaan as they conquered, through David conquering the serpent armored Goliath. We could have seen this theme in Jael pegging Sisera and in the unnamed woman dropping a stone on the head of Israel’s persecutor “Abimelech.”

We have noted that this man of violence will come from a royal line from the tribe of Judah considering passages like Gen. 49:10 and Number 24:16-19, and then as even more narrowed down as from David’s Kingly line as we considered in II Samuel 7:8-17. Of course, this means the deliverer that was expected by our Fathers would be a King.

We have also learned along the way that this coming expected deliverer was to be a blessing to all the Nations. We noted that the Deliverer was not merely a Hebrew Deliverer but that He would be a champion for all the nations. We noted this theme not only from Genesis 12 but also from Psalm 2 and Psalm 110. We spoke here that this aspect points in the direction of an optimistic eschatology wherein the Nations to submit to the Deliverer.

We have also learned that the one they were expecting would be a Priest in the line of Melchizedek as we considered Genesis 14:20, and Psalm 110:4. We also noted the OT Sacrificial System in the Pentateuch that would serve as an anti-type of the kind of Priestly work the fulfillment deliverer would accomplish. The coming deliverer would speak to God for the people, which is the role of a Priest.

We also said they expected a Prophet. As a prophet, we noted that the coming deliverer would speak to the people for God, which is the role of the prophet. We considered passages like Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where Moses promised that a greater Prophet than He would come.

Combining these last three we emphasized that in looking for the Deliverer they would find someone who would combine the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King in one person. This was unheard of and not allowed in the Old Covenant and so this coming Deliverer would be sui generis.

We also noted that He would esteem God’s Law. We drew that aspect of the expected deliverer from the reality that each new King seated was responsible to write out God’s Law en toto in order that He would know God’s Law and esteem God’s Law. The deliverer was a law-keeper and it is not too much to say that they expected a deliverer who as the deliverer would be an embodiment of God’s Law.
He doesn’t bring a new law to replace God’s law but rather sustains God’s law as the Deliverer.

This is where we have arrived at so far when doing a flyby of the Old Covenant Scriptures. This flyby called by its proper name is “Biblical theology.” Using a Biblical theological approach as opposed to a Systematic theological approach we have surveyed the Scriptures. What we have done can’t really be done using a Systematic theological approach.

Briefly, this approach is the difference between understanding someone’s life by looking at it through time-lapse photography that reduces 85 years to 45 minutes vs. understanding someone’s life by having all the facts about their life and them putting those different facts in different piles according to how each fact proved that the person was kind, surly, generous, faithful, and diligent. With time-lapse photography, one can quickly see all the changes and how the beginning and the end are related one to another. You get it condensed all in one flyby. You have the opportunity to see how the whole story fits together from beginning to end. Both methodologies are absolutely necessary in order to understand who our blessed Deliverer and Redeemer is. Both methodologies can be abused and so ruinous. However, both methodologies in the hands of faithful men can be used to set forth the Christ in all His splendor and beauty.

Very well, then what do we say now as we go from the books of History texts that move us from the United Kingdom to the divided Kingdom? Where will we find the Messianic Hope… the hope of the coming deliverer in these books? What did they teach our Fathers about who to expect to come at the 1st advent?

The United Kingdom refers to the life and times of Israel before they became two different Kingdoms – Judah & Israel as a result of King Rehoboam splitting the Kingdom by his tax policy. Prior to that time, the Hebrews had been united under Saul, David, and Solomon. These Kings were riddled with sin, though they remained God’s anointed man. Their sin demonstrated that they were not the ultimate Deliverer promised in Genesis 3 and built on. With the coming of the split between the two Kingdoms, we learn that the Northern Kingdom (Israel) started by Jeroboam by way of idolatry never has a righteous King. The Southern Kingdom (Judah) has a mixed bag of Kings – some who were followed in the way of their Father David and some who were evil (I Kings 12). The Kings in Judah and Israel reveal to us the Deliverer is yet to come. The promise is yet unfulfilled.

When we look at the Prophets of this era we see Elijah, Elisha, and Jonah as prophets to the Northern Kingdom. In these Prophets, we learn that the coming Prophet will be fierce, faithful, and unrelenting in his role Prophet. We learn particularly from Elijah that the coming deliverer will have a forerunner to prepare the way of the Lord. So, the Deliverer will not arrive w/o an Elijah like personage serving as herald to his coming. We learn this directly from a later Prophet to the Southern Kingdom,

Malachi 4

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
6 And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”

At this point, we are getting more and more specific details. We know that John The Baptist was this coming Elijah prophesied by later textual hints;

Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. (Matthew 3:4)

Matthew does not record this by way of accident. This description ties John the Baptist as the Forerunner Elijah prophesied because you see the prophet Elijah wore similar clothing that set him apart from everyone else. In 2 Kings 1:8 Elijah is described the same way,

They answered him, “He wore a garment of haircloth, with a girdle of leather about his loins.” And he said, “It is Elijah the Tishbite.”

And our Lord says it explicitly in Matthew 11.

 14 And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.
If Elijah pictures the forerunner John the Baptist then it is natural to understand that Elishah, who came after Elijah gives us insight into the Deliverer because as Elisha manifested even greater power in the Spirit than his predecessor so the coming Deliverer will manifest greater power in the Spirit than John the Baptist. I believe this points to the reality of the miracles that the Messiah would make known. The Deliverer once He arrives reaches for the prophet Jonah as promissory in his ministry of the coming Messiah. Jonah in that Whale’s belly spoke of the fact that the coming Deliverer would be three days dead and buried only to see the resurrection.

Matthew 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Here now there is this almost contradiction that we spoke of last week. This coming Deliverer, who is to be a man of violence, who is a King triumphing over His enemies while delivering His people is also to know humiliation. Death, burial, and resurrection is combined with Triumph, exaltation and victory.

The coming Deliverer is a seeming contradiction. How can he be both at the same time? Well, in the life of the Deliverer we learn that indeed both are true. He comes as the seed of King David – Himself a King – and worshiped by Kings and yet even in His lowly and mean birth we see anticipated the coming humiliation.

As we turn to the prophets of the Southern Kingdom – Judah – we find brought out the ministry of the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah who each have something to add to the description of the expected coming deliverer.

These three have in common the proclamation that Judah would go into Exile becoming captives in Babylon. (Jer. 25:8-11; Micah 3:12, Is. 3:1-26, 5:13-17).

Jeremiah turns to the Kingly theme again speaking of the coming Deliverer who would be the seed of David who would reign as the “righteous Branch.” Jeremiah also tells us that this expected Deliverer will gather the scattered flock of Israel and restore righteousness and justice in the land.

“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord,
“That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

The idea of a “branch of righteousness,” in the context of Jeremiah’s prophecy teaches that the expected Deliverer will come at a time when Israel’s fortunes are at low ebb. The stump is dead but a Branch of righteousness springs forth bringing forth a Son of David when it seemed unlikely. This informed those with ears to hear that the Deliverer would come when least expected. And that is exactly what comes to pass.

Micah likewise speaks of Israel’s restoration, and the coming righteous rule of the Messiah (Micah 4). However, Micah gets really specific tell us that the Deliverer who will be the bread come down from Heaven will be born in the House of Bread – Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From [a]everlasting.”

But notice another door that is opened here concerning the coming Deliverer. Micah tells us of the coming Deliverer that Israel awaits that there is something more here than a mere man. His goings forth are from of old… indeed from everlasting. Here we have hinted that the coming Deliverer will not only be very man of man but also something more… something that must include an ancient standing. Divinity is hinted at. It will be hinted at again before we get out of the Prophets.



Whoever this Deliverer is going to be he is going to be an extraordinary individual.

We turn to Isaiah now and in Isaiah, we get an information overload as to who this Deliverer is going to be.

Isaiah in chapters 1-5 opens with God’s promised Judgment on Israel for its wickedness. Ch. 8:1-8; 10:5; 13:1-22 finds God promising to use the nations as His instruments of justice but a Messiah is promised who will deliver them. As such Isaiah is chock full of information on the promised Deliverer.

In Is. 7 King Ahaz of Judah is told by God to ask for a sign that Ahaz’s enemies will not yet prevail against him. Ahaz refuses to ask so God gives Ahaz a sign anyway. The prediction given was not just to Ahaz, but to the house of David (Isa. 7:2, 13). The threat in Isaiah 7 was not only to Ahaz. The house of David had been unfaithful to the Lord and it is to them that this prophetic promise of a sign is given.

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” (Isaiah 7:14-16).

This prophecy gets very specific about the expected coming deliverer. This passage is hotly disputed between Biblical Christians and Liberals. Liberals will insist that the word “Virgin” here should be translated “maiden,” while Biblical Christian hold for the word “virgin.” We will argue in just a bit that the word is elastic enough to have both meanings.

We learn here that the realized fulfillment of this prophecy tells us that the Deliverer will be born of a virgin and He shall call His name Emmanuel. Emmanuel literally means “God with us.”

Now the prophecy of Micah gets colored in and we see here that the one Micah spoke of as His going forth are from old … from everlasting is God Himself. Connecting these ideas we can say here that the Saints should have been expecting on that first Advent one who was born of a virgin who was both very man of very man and very God of very God.

Calvin chimes in here maintaining that the Issainic name “Emmanuel” cannot be applied to anyone who is not God. No one else in the Old Testament bears this name. For these reasons, the prophecy must be interpreted only of that One to whom these conditions apply, namely, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Virgin, and the Mighty God.

And so Matthew quotes

23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

This is not to say that the prophecy doesn’t have a short term fulfillment. Doubtless, it was one of those prophecies that has both a short term and a long term fulfillment. The sign has a double intent. The first was to King Ahaz to inform him that his two enemy kings who were warring against him would be overcome before the child would cease being a child. When we look at vs. 22 we learn that ‘curds and honey,’ are the food of prosperity. This hints that Ahaz’s enemies will not put the city into starvation mode. In the short term fulfillment the child’s birth need not have been supernatural since the word translated as virgin can also mean “maiden.” So, the near fulfillment emphasizes that a maiden will conceive but the emphasis is on the fact that the child will eat the food of prosperity meaning that the siege would not be successful. However, the far-away fulfillment emphasizes the virginity preceding the birth as emphasized in Matthew’s usage of the text.

Allow me to interject here that this virginity of Mary is a hill to die on. Years ago, when arriving I had someone assigned to me to be a mentor whose role was to grease the rails so that I could be admitted to the good ole boy ministers clubhouse. It wasn’t long before that relationship broke down on this very issue. This chap wanted to insist that the virginity of Mary was a myth. I was having none of it. The virginity of Mary is there to demonstrate that the pregnancy of Mary was God’s supernatural work giving her a son who was very God of very God. If Mary was pregnant of Joseph or any other mortal man that would be the end of Jesus Divinity and it being the end of Jesus divinity it would be the end of Jesus the Deliverer being able to die for the sins of His people since He would have had to die for His own sin nature. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not hang solely on the virginity of Mary but without the virginity of Mary, there is no Gospel. No salvation. No hope.

We will pick up here in Isaiah @ the Christmas Eve service. Notice that as the progress of Redemption unfolds we get more and more information about who this Messiah will be. We have added this week a great deal of information and all that information from the old covenant Scriptures point us to Jesus as the promised Deliverer. Jesus is our Deliverer to be the one who reverses the consequences of the fall … who is our Prophet, Priest, and King… who is very man of very man and very God of very God.

Jesus is why Christmas can be Merry.