For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven

The Text

The clause pivots the second article. Everything before it has confessed who the Son is in himself — the only-begotten, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, of one Being with the Father, through whom all things were made. Everything after it will confess what the Son did in the flesh — incarnate of the Virgin, crucified, risen, ascended, coming again. The present clause is the hinge. It names the why and the whence of the incarnation: for us (the cause), and for our salvation (the purpose), he came down (the act), from heaven (the source). Each element is doctrinally weighted and pastorally indispensable.

The clause confesses the most stunning fact in the gospel: the eternal Son, of one Being with the Father, through whom all things were made, has come down. The cosmological Son of clause 9 is the incarnate Son of clauses 10–11. The doctrine of the previous clauses is not a piece of remote metaphysics; it is the dogmatic ground of the incarnation. Only the one who is truly God can descend without ceasing to be God. Only the one through whom all things were made can enter the made order without being overcome by it. The catholic doctrine of the incarnation rests on the catholic doctrine of the Son.

Translation Notes

Di’ hēmas / propter nos — for us. The preposition that names the cause of the incarnation. The descent is not a divine experiment, a celestial sight-seeing, or a metaphysical inevitability; it is an act undertaken because of us and for our sake. The doctrine of the incarnation has its foundation in divine love: the eternal Son came down because he loved the human race and would not abandon it to its fate. The grammar is the same in clause 4 (one Lord, Jesus Christ), but here the for is intensified into the personal: not for the Father’s glory, not for the completion of a cosmic plan, but for us.

Tous anthrōpous / nos homines — us human beings. The Greek τοὺς ἀνθρώπους (the human beings) and the Latin nos homines (us human beings) make the universal scope explicit. The earlier ICET (1975) and the current Roman Missal (2010) render this for us men, retaining the older English men (= human beings) but creating a real liturgical problem: the contemporary English men most naturally names male humans only, and the clause as confessed in most parishes has become, for a generation of hearers, an inadvertent exclusion of women from the scope of the incarnation. The ELLC 1988 revision dropped the word men, leaving for us and for our salvation. The compression preserves the universal scope while removing the inadvertent exclusion; the 1988 reading has become the dominant Protestant rendering. The Roman Missal 2010 has retained for us men, on the principle of close fidelity to the Latin nos homines, with the pastoral cost that the men requires constant catechesis. Both solutions reflect a real tension. The Greek and Latin make the universal scope unmistakable; the modern English equivalents must do the same work in current language.

Sōtēria / salus — salvation. The biblical word for comprehensive divine deliverance. The English salvation, unfortunately, has been narrowed in much contemporary use to being saved from hell, with the older biblical breadth (deliverance from sin, death, the powers, alienation, fragmentation, and the whole disorder of fallen creation, into the wholeness of communion with God) often lost. The clause is not narrow. Our salvation is the entire scope of what God has done for us in Christ — the forgiveness of sins, yes, but also the healing of the body, the reconciliation of the nations, the restoration of creation, the gift of the Spirit, the resurrection of the dead, the inauguration of the new creation. Pastoral teaching of this clause does well to restore the breadth.

Katelthonta / descendit — came down. The verb of incarnational descent. The Johannine prologue’s the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (1:14) is the same act as the creed’s came down from heaven. The verb is not a piece of cosmological geography; it is a confession of the eternal Son’s voluntary entry into the human condition. The doctrine of condescension (συγκατάβασις in the Greek fathers, condescensio in the Latin) is the patristic term for the divine accommodation by which God meets the human creature where the creature is.

Ek tōn ouranōn / de caelis — from heaven(s). The plural in Greek and Latin reflects Hebrew morphology (שָׁמַיִם is dual/plural by form); the English collapses to singular. The spatial language is theological, not cosmological. Heaven is not a place above the clouds; it is the proper dwelling of God, the realm of the divine presence and the divine reign. The descent from heaven is not a movement through a three-tiered universe but the eternal Son’s voluntary entry, from his proper dwelling with the Father, into the human condition.

Historical Context

The clause is one of the most stable in the creedal tradition. The Eastern original (325) and the Constantinopolitan revision (381) both contain it with only minor verbal variations, and the Latin reception has preserved it from the early Western forms onward.

The clause does specific dogmatic work against several patristic-era Christological errors. Against Docetism (the second-century view that the Son only appeared to be human, without truly entering the human condition), the clause affirms a real descent into a real human condition: he came down. Against Arianism, the clause affirms that the Son’s coming-down is the act of the eternal Son, not of a creaturely intermediary; the doctrine of the previous clauses presses the present clause toward its full weight. Against Apollinarianism (the late-fourth-century view that the divine Logos replaced the rational soul of Jesus, leaving the human nature truncated), the clause and its successor (incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man) affirm a full descent into a full humanity. Against Adoptionism (the view that the man Jesus was adopted into divine sonship at his baptism or resurrection), the clause affirms that the eternal Son is the subject of the descent — the one who came down is the one who already was, not the one who later became.

The Augsburg Confession (1530), Article III, draws directly on the Nicene clause for its account of the incarnation: the Word, that is, the Son of God, took to himself man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably joined together in unity of person. The Augsburg formulation makes the Nicene came down from heaven the dogmatic ground of the two natures in one person.

The creed’s for us and for our salvation has had particular weight in the Reformation traditions. The clause names what would later be called the pro nobis (for us) of the gospel: the incarnation is not a piece of dispassionate divine self-disclosure but an act undertaken for us. Luther’s catechetical exposition of the second article presses this point at length: the eternal Son became a real, true, flesh-and-blood human being, and he did this for me. The Reformation gospel of justification by faith presupposes the catholic doctrine of the incarnation: only because the Son has come down for us can the believer receive him for me.

Lines of Interpretation

Patristic

Tradition: Irenaeus, Against Heresies III; Athanasius, On the Incarnation; Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Oration III, Letter to Cledonius; Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ; Leo the Great, Tome; Augustine, On the Trinity IV, Confessions VII

The patristic settlement on this clause is the dogmatic core of the doctrine of the incarnation. The who and the why and the how of the descent are articulated with great care.

Irenaeus’s recapitulation doctrine (Against Heresies III.18) reads the incarnation as the Son’s summing up of human history in himself. The eternal Son descended into the human condition not merely to add a piece of work to the divine economy but to gather up the entire human race, from Adam onward, into himself — to undo what Adam did, to live what Adam failed to live, to remake the human race from within. The clause for us and for our salvation is the dogmatic confession of this recapitulation: the descent is for us, and it accomplishes our salvation by gathering us into the descending Son.

Athanasius’s On the Incarnation (§§1–32) gives the most sustained patristic articulation of the why. The eternal Word descended because the human race was perishing, and only the eternal Word could rescue it. The argument is dense but unforgettable: the human creature was made in the image of God, but the image had been defaced by sin and was being unmade by death; only the original Image (the Son, who is the image of the Father) could restore what was made in the image; therefore the eternal Image came down, to restore the image in us. The articulation is one of the great achievements of patristic theology.

Gregory of Nazianzus’s Letter to Cledonius gives the patristic regula on the what of the incarnation: what is not assumed is not healed; what is united to God is saved. The eternal Son did not descend halfway; he assumed the full human condition — body, soul, mind, will — in order to heal the full human condition. The clause for our salvation is therefore not a thin claim but a deep one: the Son descended into all that we are in order to remake all that we are.

Augustine’s Confessions VII.18–21 narrates his own discovery of the doctrine: he had found in the Platonist books that the Word was with God and was God, but he had not found that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Platonist was could be discovered by philosophical contemplation; the Christian became flesh is the confession that the gospel adds to all philosophy.

Strengths

• The patristic settlement is the foundation of all subsequent Christology
• Athanasius’s On the Incarnation remains pastorally indispensable
• Gregory’s what is not assumed is not healed is the catholic regula for incarnational completeness
• Irenaeus’s recapitulation theme integrates incarnation with redemption

Weaknesses

• The patristic articulations occasionally pressed the doctrine toward speculative cosmology
• The polemical context (Docetism, Apollinarianism) produced sharper articulations than the catholic substance required

Scholastic

Tradition: Anselm, Cur Deus Homo; Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments I.8; Peter Lombard, Sentences III; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III.1–6, 26–46; Bonaventure, Sentences III; Duns Scotus on the motive of the incarnation

The scholastic tradition received the clause as the dogmatic foundation of the doctrine of the incarnation and articulated it under several heads: the fittingness of the incarnation (Anselm), the motive of the incarnation (Scotus’s question whether the incarnation is contingent on sin or is the supreme expression of divine love independent of sin), the grace of union (Aquinas), and the manner of union (the hypostatic union as articulated by Chalcedon and refined in scholastic theology).

Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Human) is the great medieval treatise on the clause. Anselm’s question is precisely the question the clause raises: why did God become human, and why was this the only way of salvation? Anselm’s argument: the human race owes God a debt of obedience that, having been incurred, no creature can pay; only God can pay it, but only the one who owes it (human) can pay it; therefore the debt can only be paid by one who is both God and human; therefore the incarnation. The argument has been criticized for its juridical-Anselmian framework, but its catholic substance — that only the God-man can accomplish our salvation — has been retained.

Aquinas’s treatment in ST III.1–46 is the comprehensive scholastic articulation. Aquinas reads the clause as the dogmatic claim that the Son, not the Father or the Spirit, became incarnate — and that the becoming-incarnate is the work of all three persons (the Father sends, the Spirit overshadows) accomplishing the assumption of human nature into the person of the Son. The doctrine preserves both the trinitarian unity of the divine act and the proper Christological specification of the Son as the incarnate one.

Scotus’s disputation on the motive of the incarnation (would the Son have become incarnate apart from sin?) opens a question the catholic tradition has not definitively closed. Aquinas’s answer: the Son became incarnate because of sin and for our salvation, and we should not speculate about counterfactuals. Scotus’s answer: the Son’s incarnation is the supreme expression of divine love and would have occurred even apart from sin, with the saving work then having a different shape. The debate is unresolved, but it is a worthy debate, and the Wesleyan tradition has tended to lean Scotist (see Wesleyan Voice below).

Strengths

• Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo is one of the great theological works of the catholic tradition
• Aquinas’s ST III is the comprehensive scholastic articulation
• The doctrine of the hypostatic union is the catholic settlement
• The Scotist-Thomist debate has clarified the doctrine, even without resolving it

Weaknesses

• The Aristotelian-essence vocabulary requires translation
• Some scholastic articulations drifted toward juridical refinement of the saving work

Lutheran

Tradition: Luther, Small Catechism on the Second Article, Large Catechism on the Second Article; Augsburg Confession III; Formula of Concord VIII (on the person of Christ); Lutheran scholastic theology (Gerhard, Quenstedt, Hollaz)

The Lutheran tradition has held the clause in catholic form with a particular pastoral emphasis on the pro me (for me) reception of the incarnation. Luther’s Small Catechism on the Second Article is the great catechetical confession of the clause: I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned person. The for us and for our salvation of the creed becomes the for me of the catechism — and the doctrinal substance is identical.

The Formula of Concord VIII articulates the Lutheran reception of the patristic-Chalcedonian Christology, with particular attention to the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of attributes): in the one person of the incarnate Christ, the divine and human natures share their proper attributes, so that what is true of the human nature can be predicated of the divine person and vice versa. The Lutheran emphasis on the communicatio opens a particular eucharistic theology (the doctrine of ubiquity, that the glorified humanity of Christ shares in the divine attribute of omnipresence and is therefore present in the eucharistic elements wherever they are received).

The Lutheran integration of the clause with the doctrine of justification is permanent. Luther’s polemic against the theology of glory and his preference for the theology of the cross are grounded in this clause: the true God is known not in human ascent toward heaven but in the divine descent into the cross.

Strengths

• The catechetical use of the clause is pastorally unmatched
• Luther’s pro me gives the personal application its decisive form
• The theology of the cross is the permanent Lutheran contribution
• The Formula of Concord VIII articulates a robust patristic-Chalcedonian Christology

Weaknesses

• The doctrine of ubiquity has not been received by the Reformed tradition and remains a point of intra-Protestant disagreement
• The Lutheran polemic against the theology of glory has sometimes been pressed in directions that resist the doctrine of glorification

Reformed

Tradition: Calvin, Institutes II.12–14; Heidelberg Catechism QQ. 35–36; Belgic Confession Articles 18–19; Westminster Confession Ch. 8; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1–2; T. F. Torrance, Incarnation; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics III

The Reformed tradition has held the clause in catholic form. Calvin’s articulation in Institutes II.12 articulates the cur Deus homo with characteristic Reformed clarity: the eternal Son became incarnate because no one else could mediate between God and humanity, and the incarnate Son’s mediation is therefore the only way of salvation. The Reformed integration of Christology with covenant theology (the Son as the covenant head of his elect people) is a distinctive contribution.

The Heidelberg Catechism Q. 36 gives the catechetical form: What benefit do you receive from the holy conception and birth of Christ? That he is our mediator, and with his innocence and perfect holiness covers, in the sight of God, my sin, in which I was conceived. The personal application is direct: my sin.

Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics IV/1–2 gives the most sustained 20th-century Reformed treatment of the clause. Barth reads the descent as the dogmatic center of the entire doctrine of reconciliation: the Son’s descent is the Yes of God to humanity, and the descent is therefore not a piece of cosmological geography but the actual coming-to-pass of God’s eternal election of humanity in Christ.

T. F. Torrance’s Incarnation (2008) gives a substantial patristic-Reformed articulation of the doctrine with particular attention to the vicarious humanity of Christ: the Son’s descent is not merely an entry into the human condition but the vicarious living, vicarious obedience, vicarious response of the eternal Son in the place of all human beings.

Strengths

• The Reformed integration with covenant theology is a permanent contribution
• Barth’s reading of the descent as the dogmatic center of reconciliation has reshaped modern Protestant theology
• Torrance’s vicarious humanity is a powerful articulation of the catholic doctrine
• The Heidelberg Catechism QQ. 35–36 give the catechetical form its definitive Reformed shape

Weaknesses

• Some Reformed scholasticism pressed the doctrine into juridical refinement
• The decretal Reformed tradition has occasionally separated the for us of the incarnation from the universal scope of us human beings

Eastern Orthodox

Tradition: Athanasius; the Cappadocians; Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua, Disputation with Pyrrhus; John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith III; the iconographic tradition (especially the Theotokos icon); modern: Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church; Dumitru Stăniloae

The Eastern tradition has held the clause in catholic form with characteristic emphasis on the theōsis (deification) of the human race as the goal of the descent. Athanasius’s classic formulation: the Son of God became man that we might become gods (On the Incarnation §54). The Eastern soteriology reads the descent as the first half of an exchange: God descends into the human condition in order that the human condition may be raised into participation in God. The clause for our salvation is therefore filled out by the Eastern tradition as for our deification — the comprehensive raising of the human creature into the divine life through participation.

Maximus the Confessor’s articulation of the doctrine integrates the cosmological scope of clause 9 with the soteriological scope of clause 10: the eternal Logos through whom all things were made has descended into the human condition in order to gather all things up into himself. The descent is therefore both Christological (the salvation of human beings) and cosmological (the gathering up of the created order in the incarnate Logos).

The iconographic tradition expresses the doctrine visually. The Theotokos icon — Mary holding the Christ child — is the visual confession that the eternal Son has descended into the human condition through the agency of a human mother. The traditional Eastern Theotokos types (the Hodegetria, the Eleousa, the Glykophilousa) each express a different aspect of the catholic doctrine: the Hodegetria, the dignity of the incarnate Son; the Eleousa, the tenderness of the divine love; the Glykophilousa, the personal intimacy of the descent.

Strengths

• The doctrine of theōsis gives the clause its rich soteriological articulation
• Maximus’s integration of cosmology and soteriology is permanently valuable
• The iconographic tradition makes the doctrine visible in the liturgy
• The Eastern emphasis on the personal-relational character of salvation is permanent

Weaknesses

• The doctrine of theōsis requires careful articulation to avoid pantheist misreading
• Some modern Russian sophiology pressed the doctrine of the descent in directions the catholic tradition has not received

Wesleyan

(See Wesleyan Voice below.)

Modern Ecumenical

Tradition: Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1–2; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center; Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology II; Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God; Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology I; Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self; Kathryn Tanner, Christ the Key

The modern theological recovery of the doctrine of the incarnation has been particularly attentive to this clause. Barth’s Church Dogmatics IV/1–2 makes the descent the dogmatic center of his entire theology of reconciliation. Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center (1933 lectures) reads the descent as the dogmatic ground of the church’s preaching: the who of Christ (the eternal Son) and the where of Christ (in the manger, on the cross, in the eucharist) are not separable. Balthasar’s Mysterium Paschale gives a substantial Catholic articulation of the descent in its trinitarian-soteriological breadth.

Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology II articulates the descent in eschatological register: the descent of the Son into the human condition is the proleptic anticipation of the eschatological gathering of all humanity into God. Moltmann’s The Crucified God reads the descent as the entry of the eternal Son into the depths of human suffering, with the trinitarian-eternal consequences of that descent for the doctrine of God.

Kathryn Tanner’s Christ the Key (2010) gives a substantial modern articulation of the descent in dialogue with patristic theology: the eternal Son is the key to the human creature’s participation in the divine life, and the descent is the way that key is offered.

Strengths

• The modern recovery has restored the dogmatic centrality of the descent
• The ecumenical convergence on the substance of the doctrine is remarkable
• Tanner’s Christ the Key is a substantial modern patristic-systematic articulation
• The recovery of incarnational seriousness has reshaped modern preaching

Weaknesses

• Some modern reconstructions have pressed the descent in directions that risk patripassianism (the doctrine that the Father suffered, which the catholic tradition has rejected)
• Moltmann’s articulation, in particular, has been criticized for collapsing the trinitarian distinctions in its account of the descent

Wesleyan Voice

Wesley’s confession of the descent of the Son is unambiguous, catholic, and deeply pastoral. The Methodist Articles of Religion (1784), Article II — Of the Word, or Son of God — names the descent in characteristically incarnational terms: the Son … took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin. Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament on John 1:14 (the Word became flesh) read the verse with patristic depth and pastoral warmth: the Word, the eternal, only-begotten Son of God, was made flesh — became a real man — and dwelt among us — pitched his tabernacle in our human nature.

What is distinctively Wesleyan is the integration of the for us of the clause with the universal scope of the gospel. Wesley’s polemic against the decretal Calvinism of his day repeatedly pressed this point: the eternal Son descended for us human beings — not for a select portion of humanity, but for the human race. The clause’s us is universal, and the Son’s descent is therefore the dogmatic foundation of the universal scope of the divine love. Sermon 60, “The General Spread of the Gospel,” and Sermon 110, “Free Grace,” both press the doctrine: the Son descended for all, and the offer of salvation is therefore made to all.

The Wesleyan reading tends to lean toward the Scotist motive of the incarnation. Without resolving the speculative question of whether the Son would have become incarnate apart from sin, the Wesleyan emphasis on the prevenient and universal character of divine love presses toward the conviction that the incarnation is the supreme expression of a love that is independent of sin and that would have found expression even in a sinless world. The pastoral consequence is that the incarnation is not first a response to a problem but an expression of who God is.

Charles Wesley’s hymnody confesses the descent with particular passion. Let earth and heaven combine, / angels and men agree, / to praise in songs divine / the incarnate Deity, / our God contracted to a span, / incomprehensibly made man. The phrase our God contracted to a span is one of the most extraordinary lines in English hymnody: the contraction of the infinite God to the finite measure of a human being is the descent of the creed. The hymn continues: He laid his glory by, / he wrapped him in our clay; / unmarked by human eye, / the latent Godhead lay; / infant of days he here became, / and bore the mild Immanuel’s name.

Hark! the herald angels sing makes the descent the center of the Christmas confession: Christ, by highest heaven adored, / Christ, the everlasting Lord, / late in time behold him come, / offspring of a Virgin’s womb; / veiled in flesh the Godhead see, / hail the incarnate Deity, / pleased as man with men to dwell, / Jesus, our Immanuel.

And can it be that I should gain makes the for me of the descent the burning center of personal religion: He left his Father’s throne above, / so free, so infinite his grace; / emptied himself of all but love, / and bled for Adam’s helpless race.

The pastoral Wesleyan posture: confess the descent without modification; receive it as the supreme expression of universal divine love; refuse every reading that would narrow the scope of us to a sub-group of humanity; let the descent ground the universal offer of grace and the pastoral confidence that the gospel is for everyone; and let the for me of the Lutheran tradition and the for us of the catholic creed be received together, without opposition.

Hymnody

The hymnody on this clause is the hymnody of Advent and Christmas, and it constitutes one of the densest theological repertoires in the Christian tradition.

“O come, O come, Emmanuel” (Latin, 12th c.; trans. John Mason Neale, 1851) is the Advent hymn of the descent: O come, O come, Emmanuel, / and ransom captive Israel, / that mourns in lonely exile here / until the Son of God appear. The descent is named: the Son of God appears.

“O come, all ye faithful” (Adeste, fideles, 18th c.) confesses the descent at the manger: God of God, Light of Light, / lo, he abhors not the Virgin’s womb; / very God, begotten, not created. The line he abhors not the Virgin’s womb names the descent without flinching.

“Hark! the herald angels sing” (Charles Wesley, 1739) makes the descent the heart of the Christmas confession.

“Let all mortal flesh keep silence” (Liturgy of St James, 4th c.; trans. Gerard Moultrie, 1864) names the eucharistic-incarnational descent: King of kings, yet born of Mary, / as of old on earth he stood, / Lord of lords, in human vesture, / in the body and the blood.

“Of the Father’s love begotten” (Prudentius, 4th c.) confesses the eternal Son becoming the descended Son: this is he whom seers in old time / chanted of with one accord.

“Joy to the world” (Isaac Watts, 1719) confesses the descent in its cosmic scope: Joy to the world! the Lord is come; / let earth receive her King.

“O little town of Bethlehem” (Phillips Brooks, 1868) confesses the descent in its hiddenness: how silently, how silently / the wondrous gift is given.

“See, amid the winter’s snow” (Edward Caswall, 1858) confesses the descent in its tenderness: Lo, within a manger lies / he who built the starry skies.

“What child is this” (William C. Dix, 1865) presses the question of the descent: what child is this, who, laid to rest, / on Mary’s lap is sleeping?

“Once in royal David’s city” (Cecil Frances Alexander, 1848) confesses the descent in its catechetical form: he came down to earth from heaven / who is God and Lord of all.

“Love came down at Christmas” (Christina Rossetti, 1885) names the descent in its dogmatic simplicity: love came down at Christmas, / love all lovely, love divine; / love was born at Christmas, / star and angels gave the sign.

For the Christological year: the entire Advent–Christmas–Epiphany cycle is the hymnic confession of this clause. The pastor who wants to teach the doctrine of the descent has only to teach the parish to sing its own hymnody.

Pastoral and Liturgical Use

Three pastoral tasks attach to this clause.

The first is recovering the depth of “for us.” The little phrase carries the entire weight of the gospel. The eternal Son did not descend out of curiosity, not out of cosmic necessity, not as an item on a divine to-do list, but for us — out of personal, particular, named love for the human race. The pastor’s task is to teach the parish to hear the for us as the church has always heard it: the divine love is not a generality but the specific orientation of the eternal Son toward this particular creature, the human being. For us is shorthand for the entire gospel.

The second is restoring the breadth of “our salvation.” The salvation of the clause is not narrowly forensic. It is the comprehensive divine deliverance — the forgiveness of sins, yes, but also the healing of the body, the reconciliation of the nations, the restoration of creation, the gift of the Spirit, the resurrection of the dead, the inauguration of the new creation. The pastor’s task is to teach the parish to hear our salvation in its full biblical breadth. When the congregation confesses the creed at the Sunday eucharist, the our salvation should call to mind not only the believer’s personal forgiveness but the entire divine work in Christ, from manger to parousia.

The third is teaching the parish to hear “came down” as the gospel’s astonishment. The descent is not a piece of cosmological geography. It is the church’s confession that the eternal Son, the cosmological Son, the Son of one Being with the Father — has come down. The pastor’s task is to teach the parish to be astonished. The God who made the universe has come into the universe; the eternal Son has become a child; the one in whose hand the stars are held has been held in his mother’s hand. The astonishment is the gospel.

For the preacher: when this clause comes around in the Sunday creed, do not let it pass as routine. The whole gospel is in these eleven English words. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven — the church’s confession of the most stunning fact in the history of the world.

For the liturgist: the clause has been historically marked with a bow (a slight inclination at the waist) in the Western Catholic and Anglican liturgical traditions, in recognition of the gravity of the descent. The Roman tradition, on the great feasts of the incarnation (Christmas and Annunciation), prescribes a genuflection — a kneeling on one knee — at the immediately subsequent clause (was incarnate of the Virgin Mary). The corporeal gesture is the body’s confession of what the mind affirms. Protestant traditions have generally not retained the gesture, but the bow at the for us and for our salvation is a worthy pastoral consideration for parishes that have lost the bodily form of the confession.

Further Reading

• Genesis 3:15 — the protevangelium
• Isaiah 7:14 — the virgin shall conceive
• Isaiah 9:6–7 — to us a child is born
• Isaiah 53 — the suffering servant
• Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38; Luke 2:1–20 — the infancy narratives
• John 1:1–18 — the prologue
• John 3:13–17 — for God so loved the world
• John 6:33, 38, 41–42, 50–51, 58 — the bread that comes down from heaven
• Romans 5:6–8 — while we were still sinners, Christ died for us
• Romans 8:3 — God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh
• 2 Corinthians 5:14–21 — one has died for all
• Galatians 4:4–5 — when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son
• Philippians 2:5–11 — the kenosis hymn
• Hebrews 2:9–18 — in every respect tested as we are
• 1 John 4:9–10 — God sent his only Son into the world
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.18 (recapitulation)
• Athanasius, On the Incarnation
• Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Oration III, Letter to Cledonius
• Augustine, Confessions VII.18–21; On the Trinity IV; Tractates on John
• Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ
• Leo the Great, Tome
• John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith III
• Anselm, Cur Deus Homo
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III.1–6
• Bonaventure, Sentences III, dd. 1–11
• Luther, Small Catechism and Large Catechism on the Second Article
• Augsburg Confession III; Formula of Concord VIII
• Calvin, Institutes II.12–14
• Heidelberg Catechism QQ. 35–36
• Belgic Confession Articles 18–19
• Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 8
• Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church (1784), Article II
• John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament on John 1
• John Wesley, Standard Sermons, Sermons 60, 110
• Charles Wesley, “Let earth and heaven combine,” “And can it be,” “Hark! the herald angels sing”
• Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1–2
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center
• Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale
• T. F. Torrance, Incarnation (IVP, 2008)
• Kathryn Tanner, Christ the Key (Cambridge, 2010)
• John Behr, The Nicene Faith (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004)