virgin birth

So, it has not always been the case that Evidence demanded a verdict. And it has not always been the case that a pastor could or would claim to be able to “prove absolutely” and “scientifically” that God is real. And it has not always been the case that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ could or would be justified by reference to the authority of science. This is only a rather recent possibility, as in the past few hundred years since the rise of the Enlightenment faith in Reason and science as the arbiter of truth. Five hundred years ago, to justify the virgin birth of Jesus Christ by reference to science would have made no sense to anyone. Pastor comfort would have been speaking nonsense then, as I (though, surely not everyone) believe he is now.

The announcement that Jesus will ‘save his people from their sins’ is followed immediately by the reference to the prophecy in Isaiah about a virgin or young woman who will bear a son whose name will be Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).

This child will not actually do anything: he does not grow up to become a saviour or king. But his birth will be a sign to king Ahaz that within a few years Judah will be overrun by the Assyrians because he was unwilling to trust God (7:10-13): ‘The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah - the king of Assyria’ (7:17). The river of the Assyrian army will flow into the land of the child Immanuel (8:8), but it will not in the end sweep away Jerusalem and the house of David. The fact that ‘God is with us’ is an assurance that when Jerusalem faces military disaster, God will not allow his people to be completely overwhelmed (8:9-10).