For Further Reading: Bruce

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.

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,

143

"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.
   

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).
   

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

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

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, 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.