Beacon dictionary of theology

For Further Reading: Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?; Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible; Wiley, CT, 1:147-66,177-82, 205-14; Taylor, Biblical Authority and Christian Faith.

J. Wesley Adams

CREDULITY. See superstition.

CREED, CREEDS. A creed is "a brief authoritative doctrinal formula" confessed within the Christian church. The term is from the Latin credo, "I believe." Other synonymous terms are "Symbol" (Council of Trent), "Confession" (Westminster Confession), "Articles of Religion" (The 39 Articles), and "Articles of Faith" (Manual, Church of the Nazarene). A creed is an affirmation with others in the fellowship of the church, for, like the Scriptures, a creed is not of "private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20), but rather affirms those truths which, from the perspective of its composers, ought to be held universally in the church and which are judged essential for redemption and sanctification. A creed may also condemn those errors deemed destructive to faith. Thus the Nicene Creed (a.d. 325) affirmed the deity of Christ and anathematized the Arians who taught that Christ, though preexistent, was created and was not from all eternity. Although some creeds are conciliatory in na


hire (e.g., "The Definition of Chalcedon," a.d. 451), others have been devisive in intent, seeking to exclude all who did not hold to a narrowly defined theology (e.g., "The Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople," a.d. 553). This pattern of defining and excluding continued through the Reformation. The tendency of modern creeds is merely to affirm those doctrines judged as essential without denouncing those Christians who do not affirm them.

The Apostles' Creed, the one most universally held, is also the oldest. Legend ascribed this to a special outpouring on the apostles 10 days after Pentecost. Contemporary scholarship traces its origin to Rome at the end of the second century. Its oldest extant version is the "Creed of Hippol-ytus" (c. a.d. 215). Its present form dates from a.d. 700.

Creeds have their origin in creedlike formulas in the Scriptures. An OT confession begins, "We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand" (cf. Deut. 6:21-25; 26:5-10, RSV). Paul's confession in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 is a creedal affirmation of his identification with the Church: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures" (RSV).

The early Christian affirmed his faith in God the Creator, in his resurrected Lord, and in the Holy Spirit by repeated affirmation of the creed. Affirmation by repetition was part of the Church's heritage from the OT: the Israelite was commanded to make a "response before the Lord your God" by reciting God's mighty deeds (Deut. 26:5). In the NT, the principle of repetition is expressed in Paul's account of the Lord's Supper: '"Do this in remembrance of me.'... For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-26, RSV). Similarly, through its creeds, the ongoing Church affirms its trust in God, identifies with its past, proclaims its present unity in its Lord, and seeks to serve and prepare the future Church.

The Church has used the Trinitarian form of the Apostles' Creed for pastoral preaching and for systematic exposition of the gospel. This practice is rooted in the Bible where two standard confessions serve as outlines for preaching. The old covenant affirmation of (1) God's call to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; (2) the deliverance from Egypt; (3) the gift of the Law; (4) the gift of the land; and (5) the gift of promise of a righteous King served as a sermonic outline even into NT times (Deut. 6:5-11; Neh. 9:7-37; Psalms 78; 105—6; Acts 7; 13:17-25). The new covenant affirmed Jesus' Davidic lineage; His life, death, and resurrection; and His exaltation as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God (Acts 13:17-25; Rom. 1:3-6). Using these as outlines, the prophets and apostles proclaimed judgment, deliverance, repentance, and sanctification. The Apostles' Creed was used as a lesson outline in the instruction of new Christians and was the framework for the teachings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, and Augustine, the theologians of the Early Church.

See apostles' creed, catechism.

For Further Reading: Leith, Creeds of the Churches;
Wiley, CT, 1:28-30,39-48; Barclay, The Apostles'Creed for
Every Man, 9-20; Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3;
Karl Barth, Credo. DAVID L. CUBIE

CRISIS. The term crisis as used herein refers to a critical turning point in one's religious life. Negatively, a crisis of conviction and confrontation with God may issue in a decisive rejection of God's claims. Positively, it is in a crisis of repentance and faith that the new birth occurs. Similarly, entire sanctification is a crisis experience. Such crises initiate new and advanced states of grace.

The crucial nature of sanctification is seen in the terms used in the presentation and consideration of it. The verb "sanctify" means to separate, cleanse, purify, consecrate. These words imply clean-cut, decisive actions, not imperceptible gradualism. Often "sanctify" appears in the punctiliar (and completed) aorist tense (e.g., John 17:17; 1 Thess. 5:23).

The following verbs in Acts all appear in the aorist tense, and they all have reference to the coming of the Holy Spirit. The words are "filled" (2:4), "fell" (10:44), "came" (19:6). It is acknowledged that in Acts 8:17, the verb "received" is in the imperfect tense; and in Eph. 5:18, the verb "filled" is in the present tense. However, both are in the plural. Daniel Steele writes, "We have looked in vain to find one of these verbs in the imperfect tense when individuals are spoken of" (Milestone Papers, 72). The same may be said of the present.

The word "baptize" (Acts 1:5) refers to an event. "Crucifixion" as a means of death may be sudden or slow, but it is always certain and indicates an event (Rom. 6:6). The terms "root out," "kill," and "destroy" add weight to the position. "When now we summarize all these words, we gain an almost irresistible impression of climax,

CRISIS THEOLOGY—CRITICISM, OT

143

epoch, or crisis: . . . All of these terms describe actions which most naturally take place at a definite time and place, and which do not admit of degrees" (Purkiser, ed., Exploring Our Christian Faith, 359-60).

See second work of grace, entire sanctification.

For Further Reading: Geiger, Further Insights into Holiness, 123-38; Purkiser, ed., Exploring Our Christian Faith, 350-64; Steele, Milestone Papers, 41-46.

O. D. LOVELL

CRISIS THEOLOGY. See neoorthodoxy.

CRITICISM, NT. New Testament criticism is forming judgments about historical, literary, textual, or philological questions on the basis of the available data. The science neither requires nor excludes faith in God and in the supernatural character of the Word of God. Those who insist that the Bible is solely the word of man tend to sit in judgment on the veracity and authenticity of the documents. Those who accept the Bible as the Word of God submit to its authority and use criticism to understand better how the Word came and what it means.

The historical-critical approach offends many conservatives because of the dominance of the Age of Reason influence in the development of the science over the past two centuries. Assuming that the supernatural and the miraculous are mythical and have no part in historical research, the rationalists found little historical evidence for a true Word of God. "Rationalism set man firmly on the throne and all else, revelation included, was expected to bow to him" (Guthrie, Biblical Criticism, Historical, Literary, and Textual, 86). Werner Kummel systematically illustrates the assumption that a comprehensive historical consideration of the NT could only come to those who are free from all dogmatic bias (The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, 51).

Some reject historical criticism as unnecessary and destructive. Others wisely insist on subjecting their judgments to all the data, including the supernatural. Richard S. Taylor makes a distinction between the so-called historical-critical, as popularly treated, and the historico-grammat-ical, which accepts the Scriptures as true and unique (Biblical Authority and Christian Faith, 70).

Source criticism attempts to discover the data available to the writers of the NT documents. Literary and historical studies create and illustrate a variety of hypotheses. Many theories are at conscious variance with the traditional understanding of Scripture and the testimony of church fathers.

Form criticism attempts to identify sources by studying the form of the fragments of Gospel data and reconstructing documents that may have been available to the compilers of the Gospels. Many are convinced of the so-called priority of Mark, Matthew's and Luke's use of "Q," and the creative genius of the Early Church in the production of the Gospels. Other scholars find these "assured results" inconclusive. It is objected that the gospel produced the Early Church —not vice versa. The late dates of the Gospels are inconclusive. Apostles and/or their associates could have been alive to write the documents. The Holy Spirit could have brought to their remembrance the data from their Lord. Granting the miraculous and the prophetic, the Gospels could be faithful reports of proper witnesses, as in the traditional scriptural view.

Redaction criticism attempts to answer the questions that baffled form criticism (Simon Kistemaker, The Gospels in Current Study, 50). The emphasis moved from fragments of form to the aims and purposes of the individual Evangelists. The possibility reappears of a man with a message and a method. Those who deny the supernatural must settle for brilliant human authors of the NT books. Christian believers may identify the writers as faithful witnesses speaking from Jesus Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Textual criticism compares the thousands of manuscripts of NT documents to identify and eliminate copyist errors in the Greek text. While the task is not completed, we do have God's Word in a form that is reliable and remarkably faithful to the documents as they must have come from God and His servants.

See biblical criticism, exegesis, textual criticism, criticism (ot).

For Further Reading: Harrison, Waltke, Guthrie, Fee,
Biblical Criticism: Historical, Literary, and Textual,
85-155; Kistemaker, The Gospels in Current Study,
21-129; Taylor, Biblical Authority and Christian Faith,
69-83; Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism; Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction, 121-236, 643-84; Kummel,
The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its
Problems, 15-120. WlLBER T. DAYTON

CRITICISM, OT. Biblical criticism in general is the scholarly study of the Bible and does not necessarily involve the negative connotation of "criticism."

"Lower" criticism is concerned with textual readings and seeks to recover the originals as ex

actly as possible by careful comparison of manuscript copies and versions.

"Higher" criticism is concerned with matters of authorship, integrity, and reliability of the biblical materials.

Old Testament lower criticism has been radically affected by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 ff at Wadi Qumran on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The scrolls date from around 200 B.C. and include about 100 OT manuscripts representing all OT books except Esther. The discovery provided biblical manuscripts over 1,000 years nearer the autographs than any previously known, and has had the overall effect of strengthening confidence in the essential accuracy of the so-called Massoretic or standard Hebrew text of the OT.

Old Testament higher criticism is divided roughly into two approaches:

1. 
   Scholarship based largely on naturalistic presuppositions. OT religion is conceived as subject to development on evolutionary principles, and OT documents are evaluated as secular documents would be. Such criticism in the modern period may be said to have begun with Baruch Spinoza (1632-77), known as "the father of higher criticism." H. B. Witter in 1711 and Jean Astruc in 1753 began the documentary analysis of the Pentateuch, based in part on the use of different divine names.
   

The documentary hypothesis developed in the 19th century in association with the work of Hupfeld, K. H. Graf, and Julius Wellhausen, and resulted in the analysis of the Pentateuch into four or more documents usually labelled J (Jah-wistic), E (Elohistic), D (Deuteronomic), and P (Priestly).

Early in the 20th century, Hermann Gunkel and a group of German scholars pioneered a type of "form criticism" which seeks to understand the OT in terms of the oral tradition underlying it, its relationships with the literature of other ancient religions, and a study of the literary forms employed.

2. 
   Another approach to OT higher criticism is the reverent, scholarly study of these materials which gives credence to the element of divine inspiration and the supernaturalistic aspect of biblical faith (2 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Pet. 1:21).
   

Conservative OT scholars have been open to positive values that have come from the work of those with whose basic positions they did not agree, but have insisted that criticism itself must submit to the examination of its presuppositions. The current search for a biblical theology has, on balance, done more to justify the conservative than the liberal attitude.

See CRITICISM (NT), BIBLICAL CRITICISM, TEXTUAL CRITICISM, DEAD SEA SCROLLS.

For Further Reading: DeVries, "Biblical Criticism," 1DB, 1:407-18; Kraeling, The Old Testament Since the Reformation; On, "Criticism of the Bible," ISBE, 2:748-53; Terrien, "History of the Interpretation of the Bible, Modem Period," Interpreter's Bible, 1:127-41.

W. T. Purkiser

CROSS. Very early the Cross became the predominant symbol of Christianity. It was the mark of Christianity's identity. It is difficult today to appreciate how miraculous was the transformation in people's thinking about the Cross. Once a symbol of shame and ignominy, the Cross became the impetus to adoration and worship. This diabolical and ugly instrument of torturous execution was glorified as the altar where a holy God and sinful man could meet.

What made this Cross so different? Concisely stated: Jesus was Victor and not victim! He went to the Cross voluntarily, deliberately—and consciously. Christ not only set His face like a flint to go to Jerusalem, but even more, to the Cross (Phil. 2:5-11). He knew that the end of His mission was a cross, and He freely spoke of it to His disciples. Yet, He was no martyr who simply died—even willingly—for a noble cause. He died there for a lost race. As this was increasingly realized through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the Cross was transformed into the cherished symbol of the Church.

When we attempt to explain the meaning of that vicarious Cross-death, we discover the inadequacy of our understanding. It is clear that in the Cross there is in some sense an atonement for man's sin. It must be more than what is popularly called "at-one-ment" with God. Technical theories of the Atonement have made their appearance in the Church from the time of the Apostolic Fathers to our 20th century. None of them totally satisfies the mind and heart. Metaphors, such as "ransom," "redeem," "sacrifice," "expiation," "propitiation," "satisfaction," and "substitution" have limitations often reflecting the immediate culture in which they were born. What speaks to people in one day often fails to bridge the culture gap of a later age.

One thing would seem of primary importance: the meaning of the Cross to the Early Church. That meaning must be ascertained before one can adequately relate the Cross and its atonement to our day. Without fear or apology, the first preachers of the Cross accepted and even proclaimed its scandal! "For the word of the Cross is

CROSS-BEARING—CROWN

145

to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18, nasb). It is increasingly popular to view the Cross today as simply the supreme expression of God's love (cf. John 3:16)—but it is more, far more!

Mahatma Gandhi described the dynamic of his nonviolence as "love force." History eloquently witnesses to that force. The power of love, in the Cross, destroys the barrier that man's sin has erected—isolating him from God. In the simplest terms, the Cross is seen—in the NT—as the only basis of man's acceptance with God (Newness of Life, 77). Then, in union with God, man discovers the supernatural dynamic for victorious living in three dimensions: internal, with oneself; horizontal, with others; vertical, with God.

See crucifixion, atonement, blood, death of christ.

For Further Reading: Barclay, The Mind of Jesus; How-
ard, Newness of Life, chap. 8; Morris, The Apostolic
Preaching of the Cross; Glory in the Cross; Moule, The
Sacrifice of Christ. Richard E. HOWARD

CROSS-BEARING. This term is significant in the NT and in theology because of the obvious relationship it has to the Cross upon which Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a horribly painful and slow death. It was not a capital punishment technique of the Jews, but the Romans made widespread use of this form of execution.

Jesus said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:27). This must be understood metaphorically. He could hardly have meant that one must bear the entire cross, especially when the upright stake was rather permanently set in the ground at crucifixion sites. The horizontal piece of the cross could be carried by the victim. However, this is not the thought in Luke 9:23, where disciples are challenged to "take up [their] cross daily." The intent is certainly expressed figuratively.

There are five references to cross-bearing in the Synoptic Gospels. The term ai'rd (Greek: to lift, carry, take up, or take away) is used in three instances (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). The word bastazo (Greek: carry, bear) is used in Luke 14:27, and lamband (Greek: take up, carry, take along) is used in Matt. 10:38. The sayings in Matt. 10:38 and Luke 14:27 came in a series of statements describing the conditions of disci-pleship. As Jesus the Master died on a cross, so His disciples must live sacrificial lives. His disciples take up their own crosses. The Cross is the ensign of Christian discipleship.

The majority of the Synoptic Gospel references to cross-bearing are placed after Peter's confession and the first suggestion of the passion. Cross-bearing is inescapably linked to suffering for the disciples. Bonhoeffer said it most succinctly, "When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die."

Cross-bearing proves to be the singular way to triumph over suffering. Through Christ's suffering the whole universe will be restored and enhanced. The pathway to blessing is the way of suffering for the one who suffers and for others who benefit from the life of the sufferer.

The true disciple of Christ does not seek to suffer, but suffering should be no surprise to one who follows Jesus. The Christian will not avoid suffering when it is encountered along the path of obedience to the will of God and identification with his Lord. The consecration of a true disciple includes suffering and death when faithful service demands it.

See cross, crucifixion, obedience, discipleship. in christ.

For Further Reading: Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 70-77; Morris, The Cross in the New Testament, 25-26; Schwiezer, The Good News According to Mark, 174-80; Weber, The Cross.

Kenneth E. Hendrick

CROWN. Crowns of kings and priests symbolized honor and authority. The Hebrew term for "crown" in Exod. 29:6; 2 Kings 11:12; and other passages, means "dedicated" or "consecrated," for the office had sacred character. Leadership over people was stewardship under God. Crowns were inscribed "Holy to the Lord," and crowning was accompanied by anointing, indicating God's Spirit as the Source of the wearer's right to exercise authority.

"Crown" is used metaphorically in the OT. Examples: Man is crowned with glory and honor by the Creator (Ps. 8:5); the harvest is God's crown upon the year (65:11); the hoary head is a crown of glory (Prov. 16:31); and a noble wife is her husband's crown (12:4).

Most NT references to crowns employ the Greek word Stephanos symbolically. Willing athletes were crowned with perishable wreaths, but Christians who persevere will receive an incorruptible, unfading crown (1 Cor. 9:24-25; 1 Pet. 5:4).

The crown rewards victory over sin, and fidelity in service. The "crown of righteousness" (2 Tim. 4:8) means a crown appropriate to a righteous person—to the eternal righteousness he will enjoy. The "crown of life" (Jas. 1:12; Rev.

2:10) is associated with endurance of trials even unto death. The Chief Shepherd rewards faithful undershepherds with the "crown of glory" (1 Pet. 5:2-5).

These crowns await Christ's coming. Similarly, Paul's converts are his crown, for their appearance in glory with Christ will be his reward (1 Thess. 2:19; Phil. 4:1).

The royal crown (diadema) appears in Revelation, worn by evil rulers (12:3; 13:1) and by Christ, who defeats and destroys them (19:12).

One tragic crown is mentioned, the "crown of thorns" forced upon Jesus' head (Matt. 27:29) to intensify His suffering. It became a symbol of quenchless, atoning love. His the crown of thorns, ours the crown of glory. Such is the grace of God!

See MAJESTY, REWARDS, ETERNAL LIFE.

For Further Reading: 1DB, 1:745-46; Kittel, 7:615-36.

W. E. McCUMBER

CRUCIFIXION. In both its verb and noun forms this term occurs over 50 times in the NT, thus indicating something of its importance in Christian history and theology.

Crucifixion, as a form of capital punishment, goes as far back as the Assyrian Empire, when victims were impaled upon stakes or posts and left to die. By the Persians and Seleucids the stake became a cross. It is believed the Romans borrowed it from the Carthaginians and made it their favorite method of torture for slaves and criminals. It was not used on Roman citizens because it was too cruel and shameful. Julius Caesar crucified the pirates who had captured him. Crassus crucified 6,000 rebellious slaves and left them to rot along the Appian Way south of Rome. Augustus claimed to have crucified 30,000 fugitive slaves. Two thousand followers of Judas of Galilee were captured and crucified by the Roman general Varus.

Recent excavations near Jerusalem by archaeologists of Israel have recovered the bones of one crucified early in the first Christian century, the only such victim thus far recovered. In this case the feet were fastened by one large spike driven through both ankles into a piece of wood.

The Tau cross was common and consisted of an upright with a beam on the top at right angles. Sometimes the upright portion extended above the crossbeam and was used to support a sign indicating the identity of the victim and his crime. The hands were fastened by cords or nails driven through the wrist (to prevent pulling loose); the feet were secured in a similar fashion. The victim was left to die of thirst and starvation —usually in 40 hours or more. Pilate marveled that Jesus died the same day of His crucifixion (Mark 15:44). The breaking of the legs was the means used to hasten death (John 19:31-33) because it prevented the victim's rising in order to breathe. If supported only by the arms, death by asphyxiation would come quickly. It was the most shameful and cruel way of dealing with offenders; shameful for Jews because it implied a curse (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). It was also considered disgraceful by the Romans and used only for the worst offenses. By the time of the Emperor Constantine (called a Christian by many), it was abolished because it was then considered disdainful to Christianity.

Theologically, the Crucifixion focused on Jesus' vicarious or substitutionary death for mankind, and the Cross became the revered and widely used symbol of the faith. Its use spread to the West, where gradually it emphasized the sufferings of Christ and popularized the crucifix as the object of devotion.

The Cross, in addition to the Eucharist, focused attention increasingly on Jesus' death and its ghastly and revolting mode. Increasingly the Cross lost its shameful connotation, and "the old rugged Cross," instead of being "the emblem of suffering and shame," occasioned many to sing "In the cross of Christ I glory." Recent church history has followed this development. As the NT insists, the most distinctive element in Christian theology is Jesus' death and resurrection. The Cross is involved in discipleship. Paul could write, "I am crucified with Christ" (Gal. 2:20). Yet he always balanced the death of Christ with the resurrection of Christ; the negative and positive were kept in equipoise.

See CROSS, BLOOD OF CHRIST, CHRIST, ATONEMENT.