The Christian church learned over a long period of time to confess the truths revealed in the Scriptures. God guided history in such a way that it became more and more clear to the church what to confess. We can notice how God gave insight in the faith and the strength to resist heresy. This led to many creeds being formulated during the first 500 years of the Christian era. Many of these creeds were originally creeds of local centres of Christianity, others were made by national or even international councils. It is fascinating to see how the confession concerning Jesus Christ’s birth developed. A glance at this development will make us grateful for the insight the church gained in the course of its history.

Not in the Creed⤒🔗

One noteworthy fact is that not all early creeds mention the virgin birth. There are several which do elaborate on the Son of God, without referring to the virgin birth. The most important of these is the creed adopted by the Council of Nicea in 325, by more than 350 bishops (ministers) from all over the Greek speaking world. The reason for this omission cannot be that this creed is too brief, as a matter of fact it speaks extensively about the Son:

(We believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man...¹

It is understandable that this creed deals extensively with the divinity of the Son, as this was disputed by Arius and his followers. All the more does it surprise that the virgin birth is not mentioned.

This is not the only early creed without reference to the virgin birth, however, there are others phrased in a similar way. ² Moreover, there are a number of creeds which do mention Mary but are silent about the work of the Holy Spirit in the birth of the Messiah. ³ That fact confronts us with the question whether these early creeds were wrong in omitting the virgin birth. If that is not the case, do we require too much when we include this doctrine in our confession?

When we compare the early creeds with Scripture we soon realize that not everything which is recorded in Scripture received a place in the creeds. Moreover, not just matters of minor importance are omitted, major works are left unmentioned. That begins already in the statement about God the Father. The only work mentioned in connection with the Father is the creation of the universe. No reference is made to the fact that God continues to maintain and govern the world. Crucial historical events such as the fall, God’s punishment and the promise of salvation are not included either. We can, therefore, not say that the creeds mention all the important events. Actually they say very little about the work of God the Father.

The early creeds say more about the coming and the work of God’s Son. This is consistent with the fact that this period of God’s work is more comprehensively recorded in Scripture. Four books in the Bible are devoted to the coming and work of the Son. But again, the creeds are very selective in what they include. Nothing is said about his miracles and his teaching. Without denying these important parts of Christ’s work, the creeds concentrate on his coming into the world, suffering, death and resurrection. They concentrate on crucial stages in his work.

Now we must answer the question whether the Council of Nicea is to blame for not speaking of the virgin birth. Let us look at what it does say:

Who because of us men and our salvation came down and was incarnate.

The expressions are derived from two well known passages in the gospel – John 3:13: “the one who came (down) from heaven” (see also 6:38) and John 1:14: “the word became flesh”. In confessing the coming of Jesus Christ, the Apostles’ Creed followed the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and the Nicene Creed followed John’s gospel. These two Confessing formulations are not mutually exclusive. Actually they nicely supplement one another.

What the Nicene Creed mentions is important in itself. There has always been much speculation about the reasons for the incarnation. One such speculation was that the Son by his incarnation united the two opposites, the eternal God and the created world, in Himself. As if God is far from a world which He Himself had created! This kind of speculation is excluded by the creed when it states that our salvation was the reason why the Son of God came into this world. The whole human race had fallen into sin and could not escape from it by its own power. Then God’s Son came down from heaven to set free the people bound in slavery to sin. This is the biblical perspective on the coming of the Son. It is so important that it is expressed in his name. The angel told Joseph that Mary would bear a son “and you shall call his name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins”, Matthew 1:21.

This particular emphasis on salvation is not expressed in the Apostles’ Creed, but we need not blame the Apostles’ Creed for this omission. In a similar way, we need not blame the bishops present at the Council of Nicea for not mentioning the virgin birth. They did not deny Christ’s miraculous way of coming into the world, but they were concerned with two important aspects: He became true man, and He came to save us.

Why Included in the Creed?←⤒🔗

Of course, we are thankful that the virgin birth was included later. As early as the Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381) the confession of the Son contains this sentence:

Who, for us men and our salvation came down from heaven and became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and became man.⁴

This formulation of the virgin birth is very close to the earlier form of the Apostles’ Creed:

who was born from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.⁵

Why was the virgin birth included in the confession of the Son of God?

The answer cannot be that the virgin birth was mentioned because it is a great miracle. To be sure, it is a mighty wonder, beyond our understanding, but there are other marvellous events of Christ’s life recorded in the gospel which are not included in the creed. Christ’s stilling the storm and calming the sea with a command clearly proves his divine power over nature. The raising of people from the dead, and in particular the raising of Lazarus are extraordinary and comforting facts. The disciples were utterly amazed at these displays of his divine power, but the creeds do not mention them. The church saw no need to mention these proofs of Christ’s divine power separately in its creeds.

A better answer is that the virgin birth fits well with the other events from Christ’s life: his birth, his suffering and death, his resurrection, ascension and installation as king at God’s right hand. The church recognized that the virgin birth needed to be included among these pivotal stages in Christ’s life.

We can still go one step further. The Nicene Creed refers particularly to our salvation. Among all the things the Son of God did for our salvation, the virgin birth is first and foremost. The human race was in dire need of someone to save it. It could not, however, produce a saviour since all are sinners. The creed, by referring to the virgin birth, now underlines that the Saviour could not be produced by sinful men. It was God who made salvation possible. The Son was willing to come in human flesh, and the Spirit of God formed his human body in Mary. In mentioning the virgin birth, the creed underlines that our salvation depends on a miracle done by the Spirit of God.

We are very thankful, that the church has left behind the original Nicene Creed, and now uses the expanded version, including the statement concerning the virgin birth. This needs to be maintained over against any teaching as if we can save ourselves. Those who deny the virgin birth move away from the very foundations of our Christian faith.

A New Formulation←⤒🔗

There is yet another stage in the development of the creeds that requires our attention. There is not only a difference between the ‘original’ Nicene Creed of 325, and the ‘revised’ Nicene Creed of 381, there is also a difference between the ‘original’ Apostles’ Creed and the ‘revised’ Apostles’ Creed. In the ‘original’ Apostles Creed, the Spirit and Mary are combined, when it says about the Son:

who was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.

In the later version of the Apostles’ Creed, however, the work of the Spirit is distinguished from that of Mary:

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.

What was the reason for this change?

Looking at the history of the Apostles’ Creed, we notice that this expanded form is first found in France, in the creed of Riez, dating from the end of the fifth Century, and in the creeds of Arles and Toulon, from the sixth.⁶ This seems to indicate that the change originates in France, and that provides an indication to look for the background of the change in Augustine, for he was at the time very influential in France. It can be noted that Augustine was not comfortable with the expression of the Creed on the issue of the virgin birth. In his commentary on it he discussed the difficulty that the expression ‘born from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary’ might suggest that Jesus was the son of the Holy Spirit.⁷  It could even sound as if Christ’s birth was a parallel of the many classical stories about half-gods, sons of a god as father and a woman as mother.

Augustine did not come up with a different formulation, but he did attempt to solve the problem. He pointed out that Christ is never called Son of the Spirit, but always Son of the Almighty Father. Moreover, those who are born of water and Spirit (John 3) are called sons of God the Father and the church as mother.⁸  Augustine’s solutions did little to resolve the problem, however they did alert his readers to a problem in the formulation of their creed. Any misunderstanding is prevented in the French formulation of the Apostles’ Creed. In the providence of God, this late French version later received dominance, and was eventually taken over by the church in Rome. And so we received the formulation that the Son of God was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.

God led the church to recognizing that the virgin birth is a fundamental issue in the Christian faith. Our salvation does not depend on the fact that Lazarus was raised from the dead, but it does depend on the fact that the Son of God was born from the virgin Mary through the work of the Holy Spirit. The church has even found a formulation that correctly expresses this great truth. We, today, may profit from centuries of thinking about this central truth of our religion. To us is given the task to maintain this miracle that God did for our salvation, in a world that needs this Saviour.