In both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicean-Constantinople Creed there is an affirmation of belief in Jesus Christ, the second person of the trinity God incarnate, “who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary” (Apostles Creed) or who “was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man” (Nicene).
However, of the virgin birth, it bears mentioning that one the two other major ecumenically acknowledged creeds of the era (Chalcedon) also mentions the virgin birth but does not credit the Holy Spirit for conception. Then there is the Athanasian Creed focuses on the triune nature of God and as such is not as interested in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
Yet, all the same the virgin birth has played a major confessional and theological role in Christian history. As confessed by the Apostles and Nicene Creed, the virgin birth is a historical reality putting the birth firmly in concrete history. Just as Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, so too was Jesus born of the Virgin Mary. While the virgin birth clearly stands as a supernatural occurrence, it is still a birth and as such, natural and in and in the realm of history.
But before moving to the theological import of such a confession I wish to look at it from the Biblical Theological perspective by listening to Ben Witherington III.
The Biblical Perspective – From New Testament History - A Narrative Account
First Witherington addresses the charge that the birth narratives from Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 are of a different sort than the other Gospel narratives. That is, they do not come from different sources. Witherington points to the fact that the birth narratives feature a mixture of the mundane and supernatural like the rest of the gospel narratives. Further, he notes that the passion narratives and birth narratives (particularly Matthew) are interlaced with scriptural citations “precisely because these were the portions of the Jesus story that would most need justification and explanation. Early Jews were not looking for a messiah miraculously born a virgin" (emphasis mine, 67).
Second, there are enormous similarities: the betrothed Mary and Joseph, virginal conception, David decent of Joseph, the birth in Bethlehem during Herod’s reign, angelic revelation of Jesus’ name, and Jesus’ upbringing in Nazareth.
Third, there is the issue of Mt. 1:23’s citation of Is. 7:14. The word almah used in Is. 7:14 refers to a young woman of a marriageable age. Although virginity is not technically implied, virginity is implicit. Historically speaking Jews seemed to have believed the prophecy of Is. 7:14 was fulfilled in Hezekiah – the son of Ahaz. For the Jew of the era, to hear “a virgin will conceive and give birth” might mean no more than a women who had previously not had sexual relations did and became pregnant.
Fourth is the charge that the story of Jesus’ birth is a variant on the myths told of the gods of the Greco-Roman world. In those stories the divine being descends to the earth in the guise of a male and mates with a human woman. What Matthew and Luke are suggesting, however, is that Mary’s conception is miraculous in that there was no form of sexual intercourse and no male figure divine or human. Further, the presence of the Holy Spirit is never portrayed as a human figure or assuming human form. It is also noteworthy that no Old Testament character had such a birth nor did any messianic expectation envision such a conception.
This brings us to a fifth point with is more logical than historical. Why would Christians – member of a minority evangelistic group create such a myth? Why open Jesus up to the charge of illegitimacy (see Jn. 8:41; Mk. 6:3)? Further, Christians as early as the second century took the virgin conception as a matter of fact and it is alluded to elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom. 1:3; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:7; Jn. 1:13; 6:41-42).
Based upon these five points Witherington believes that it is easier to accept that the Gospel writers were writing history rather than creating theology. In fact, the unexpectedness of the virginal conception accounts for the awkwardness of the writer’s explanation. The messiah being born of a virgin was a surprise even to them and thus had to scramble for justification.
