The Upper Register

Cremer: (5) Critical Considerations

In chapter 5, Cremer tackles the question of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Now, to back up, recall that Harnack denies the resurrection of Jesus. He does so from the point of view of a historian for whom the credibility of any event rests on having a historical analogue. But the resurrection stands out of analogy with all that we know and experience in human history (p. 76). Harnack thinks that the early Christians clothed their hope of a future eternal life with God (kernel) in the form of an end-time, apocalyptic mythology in which the earth, the sea, and Hades give up their dead (husk). Since their hope of experiencing this future bodily resurrection was grounded in Jesus, they made him a partaker in this fabricated dogma as well (p. 77). The record of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus is explained by Harnack as a psychological self-delusion in which the inner longings and imaginings of the disciples were externalized and turned into false memories of seemingly actual events (p. 78). 

In response, Cremer makes the following points:

(1) Paul's statements in 1 Cor 15:3-8 regarding the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection are our earliest record, pre-dating even the Gospels.

(2) Paul places the Damascus epiphany of Christ on a par with the appearances to the disciples, thus indicating the actuality of the latter in space-time history. They are not to be viewed as mere pictures produced in the soul (p. 79).

(3) Contrary to Harnack, the disciples did not imagine or wish that Jesus had risen. In fact, they had denied him and fled in unbelief. Then, in this state of unbelief, Jesus shockingly appeared to the women and to the disciples. Their immediate reaction to the reports that Jesus had risen was not one of joy but of terror and fear. Thus, their state of mind was the opposite of what Harnack supposes, i.e., their inner imaginings that Jesus had risen. The only explanation for their sudden change of mind was the reality of an external event that impinged on them from the outside. (p. 80)

(4)  Likewise with Paul on the road to Damascus. His state of mind pior to the epiphany of the risen Christ was one of total hostility to any belief that Jesus really was the living Messiah. There is no question of Paul externalizing a spiritual imagination. Furthermore, Paul has the clearest affirmation in the NT concerning the corporality of the resurrection of Jesus and that of those who belong to him (1 Cor 15). So any notion of Jesus being raised in a spiritual sense while his body still lay in the grave would have been a flat contradiction.

(5) Finally, the reality of the resurrection of Jesus is the foundation for the Christian belief that in Jesus we experience the forgiveness of sins. The disciples could not have regarded the death of Jesus as an atoning death that provided forgiveness of sins unless Jesus had been raised after his death. "There is therefore only forgiveness of sins because Jesus has risen" (p. 84). If he had died and remained dead, then his death would have been proof positive that all of his claims, his teaching, his miracles, and his offer of forgiveness to sinners were an empty sham. After the death of Jesus and prior to his resurrection, the disciples seemed to have concluded just that. But when Jesus came back from death, everything changed and they realized that indeed he was the Messiah, the bearer of the kingdom, the Savior in whom they had redemption and forgiveness.

So Cremer answers Harnack. He concludes this chapter by pointing out that, ultimately, these questions cannot be decided by minute historical-critical considerations, but by faith.

Historical criticism can the less decide, since the question is whether or not the history with which we are here concerned stands actually outside of all other history, and thus differs from all other history. The Christ whom the apostolic account describes has for His object to save, not humanity in general, least of all the wise, the noble, the mighty of the earth, but the sinners and the whole world of sinners. Has Jesus solved this problem? Has He solved it for me and in me? Could He and can He solve it? This question can not at all be historically decided, tho it concerns a fact which is either real or an illusion. But in order to decide this question it requires not a "scientific" disinterestedness, but it is to be put and treated, as Harnack also treats it, as a question of the most burning personal interest. One must enter into a personal relation to Jesus, and that not a relation in which, by certain claims which he makes or repudiates, one restricts from the very beginning the influence of Jesus on men; but where one examines the records to ascertain whether the effect which proceeds from that influence is a redeeming one or not, and whether or not this Jesus, as He  is here "described before our eyes," has redeemed us, and still redeems from the ban of sin, of guilt, of death, and the judgment. Harnack has omitted this task. (pp. 100-101, emphasis added)

Cremer: (4) The Johannine Account

Having summarized the Synoptic account (ch. 3), Cremer now turns to the issue of the Fourth Gospel (ch. 4). Harnack, in line with liberal theology in general, considers the Gospel of John to have little historical value, reflecting not the words of Jesus himself but the theology of the later church retrojected back into an account alleging historicity. The high Christology of the Fourth Gospel can thus be safely set aside as secondary on this view. While the Synoptic Gospels also contain much that is a creation of the later church, they at least can be subjected to the kernel-husk process to arrive at the kernel of the so-called historical Jesus. The Gospel of John, by contrast, is almost all chaff.

Liberals thus drive a wedge between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel. In the Synoptics, Jesus is Israel's messiah or king; in John, he is the eternal Word or Son of God who became man. In the Synoptics, Jesus calls people to have faith in God; in John, he is presented as calling people to faith in himself. In the Synoptics, Jesus preaches the coming of the kingdom of God as his central theme; in John, the kingdom is mentioned in only two passages and the central them is rather that of eternal life. If there are any traces of a high Christology in the Synoptic Gospels, these can be eliminated as the later church's retrojection and as not historical.

This is the basic argument to which Cremer must respond. The setting aside of John is a central plank in the critical reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Cremer answers these arguments by making several points:

First, the differences between the Synoptics and John are differences in emphasis, not in substance. In fact, the differences are no greater than the differences between Jesus himself and the preaching of the apostles as found in Acts and the epistles. Paul and the other apostles only incidentally mention "the kingdom of God," yet they do mention it, thus showing that they are well acquainted with it. 

We may thus understand how it is that we meet a difference between the Johannean account and that of the synoptists, which is similar to the difference that appears between the apostolic account and that of Christ Himself. Only incidentally do the apostles speak of the Kingdom of God, with the idea of which, however, they are well acquainted. Instead of it they proclaim the King of this Kingdom, Jesus the Messiah, the Anointed. They speak of all the good and great things which we owe to Him. For after the resurrection, through which God has certified His claims, His person and the Kinghood of His person stand in the foreground; with His person the whole matter is given:  Jesus the King or the Anointed saves, judges, gives eternal life; and thus the Kingdom of God exists wherever the Kinghood of Jesus is believed and experienced. (pp. 62-63)

The language may be different, but the content is the same. Jesus speaks of the kingdom, of entering the kingdom. John speaks of having eternal life through faith in Christ.

Second, with regard to Christology, the Synoptic emphasis on Jesus as messiah or king is congruent with John's emphasis on Jesus' divine sonship. In fact, the titles "Christ" and "Son of God" are mutually interpreting and related to one another. To say that Jesus is the "Christ" is to say that he is God's anointed King. But to be God's anointed King in the ultimate sense is to be God's Son, to have an intimate relationship with God as Father that is unique and which transcends anything the prior kings of Israel ever knew.

To John the designation Son of God in the synoptics is nothing else than the designation of the Messiah expressing the unique relation to Him of God, who had chosen Him to be His anointed, the King of His Kingdom. (p. 66) ... Only an understanding of the reality of the Messiah could unfold the whole meaning and purport of the designation, "The Son of God." (p. 67)

Ever since the destruction of the Jewish kingdom, the Jews had been waiting for a messiah, an anointed king, who would deliver them with an eternal deliverance, who would establish the kingdom of God forever in an eschatological and enduring sense. The salvation of Israel would even become the occasion for the salvation of the Gentiles and the physical creation itself. Thus, Israel's hope for a messiah was a hope for one who would not be merely a son of God, like Solomon (2 Sam 7:14), but the Son of God, one whose relation to God would "transcend every human measure" (p. 67). The Gospel of John thus delves more deeply into the ontological nature of this Messiah as the eternal Word who became flesh.

John's history is the shadowing forth of Him in whom from eternity everything unites what God has to tell to the world. On this account He is called the Word, and, as this Word, He is God. For everything which God is and will be for us He is, and everything is comprised and terminated in Him .... And as God in Him made Himself actually present with us, we beheld His glory -- glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (p. 69) ... [John] speaks of the eternal life which He gives, and which those who believe in Him may find and have -- the same gift which the synoptists name as the gift of salvation, for the sake of which the Kingdom of God is to be desired. (p. 70) ... We also understand that from the beginning he put everything under the aspect that regards Him as the eternal Son of God, incarnated for our sakes .... John discloses the deepest ground of history which his readers can comprehend. (p. 72)

Third, therefore, the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels are both right and do not preclude one another. They are mutually interpreting, complementary apostolic witnesses to Jesus Christ.

In neither of these accounts does Jesus appear as a founder of religion, as a man who, through the fulness and accuracy of His knowledge of God, His unshaken faithfulness and sincerity, and the plenitude of His  religio-ethical doctrine, had become the author of that religion that consists of true union with God, which alone is the true religion .... According to all the extant accounts -- according to all, that is, which we learn about Him from the mouth and from the service of His disciples and His first believers -- He is not the subject but the object of religion. He teaches us to know the Father, He shows us the way to the Father -- yes, He is the way, and also the truth, which one can trust forever, and He is the life. He who has Him and holds to Him is free from death, judgment, and perdition. He is the center of the Gospel. He brings in the Kingdom of God, and He brings that Kingdom to us. He not only proclaims the forgiveness of sin, He actually forgives sin. "As many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe in His name." (pp. 74-75)

This is how Cremer answers the liberal attempt to drive a wedge between the Synoptics and John. This is the key to the whole debate. The Holy Spirit gave us four Gospels for a reason. We must interpret the person and message of Jesus in light of all four, not using a truncated canon within the canon that would eliminate the Fourth Gospel and parts of the Synoptic Gospels, leaving us a merely human messiah who, because he is merely human, cannot give us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and who cannot reveal the Father.

Cremer: (3) The Synoptic Account

In chapter three, Cremer continues his summary of the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. The focal point of this chapter is on the meaning of Jesus' proclamation of "the kingdom of God." Recall that for Harnack this was the first of his three-point summary of the gospel as he understood it, "the kingdom of God and its coming." But his understanding of the kingdom of God was centered on the Fatherhood of God in a universalistic and non-soteriological sense. All humans are God's children. The kingdom of God is the religious experience of knowing God as Father, an experience realized first and foremost in Jesus' own relationship with God, a relationship that is not ontologically distinct from ours.

Cremer understands the teaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels very differently. For him, the kingdom of God is to be understood first as the fulfillment of the promises of Israel's redemption, and, as such, it focuses on the Fatherhood of God not in a universalistic sense but in relation to those whom he redeems.

Jesus called God Father because He did the deed of redemption for which Israel waited. He is the Father of Jesus because Jesus is His Son, whom He has chosen to execute His redemption; He is Israel's Father because Israel is the object of redemption promised, and He is the Father of all those to whom He sends the redemption. With the redemption He proves that He has not forgotten His people, but interests Himself in them, shows His power and establishes His Kingdom among them. God's Kingdom and God's name of Father belong together. God's kingdom takes its name not from the obedience of the citizens of a kingdom, but from God's deed of redemption. (p. 50)

Harnack is right to interpret the kingdom of God in light of the Fatherhood of God. But he is wrong to take the latter concept and divorce it from the soteric realities of redemption accomplished (the cross and resurrection) and applied (the forgiveness of sins).

Furthermore, Harnack misses the vast ontological difference between Jesus' relationship to His Father, and our relationship to God as Father through Christ:

One can but feel that there is a peculiar meaning in which Jesus says Father in addressing God or in speaking of God. He speaks of Him as Father, who has called Himself Israel's Father, and who has called Israel His son, His first-born, and whom Israel also addresses as Father in its devoutest prayers. Jesus says "the Father," "your Father," "My Father," but never "our Father," except where he tells the disciples how to pray. The actual fulfilment of the promises is connected with Jesus; where Jesus is and only where He is there is God's Kingdom; therefore He says Father as no one else can say it. (pp. 50-51)

What, then, is meaning of Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God? It is the proclamation of God's act of redemption, through God's judgment on human sin in the person of Christ on the cross, resulting in the forgiveness of sins:

The Kingdom of God, for which He came, is the same at the end of His career as in the beginning. It represents in His earlier as in His later teaching a world-condition brought about by the righteous judgment of God the Father, in which His own have peace and freedom from all distress through the forgiveness of their sins. Jesus proclaims this Kingdom, He brings in this Kingdom; where He is, there is this Kingdom. (p. 52)

Cremer points to several critical moments at the end of Jesus' earthly life to demonstrate that the kingdom of God has this redemptive focus on the forgiveness of sins. In his parable of the wicked husbandmen, he said to Israel, "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits" (Matt 21:43 ESV). Then, a few days later, at the last supper with his disciples, he said, "This is my body ... this is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins," followed immediately by another reference to the kingdom (Matt 25:26-29). Then, again, when the dying thief prayed, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom," Jesus replied, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:42-43). "Thus, dying, He endorses still the Gospel which He has preached" (p. 59). The gospel of the kingdom is thus the gospel of the forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ, a gospel of free grace for sinners.

It is God who through this Kingdom, in the omnipotence of His love, fulfils His promises, not for and on the righteous, not for those who are whole, but for and on sinners, for and on such sinners as she was of whom it is recorded that He knew not "who and what manner of woman this is which toucheth Him." For them Jesus was sent from God, for them He brings the grace of God, which they need; such as these will He comfort and revive. To Him should they come, in Him should they believe. He is not subject, but object of religion. (p. 60).

These were sinners' souls, in whom Jesus had an interest, as He shows when He interests Himself in the paralytic and the publican. It is not, as Wellhausen says, that "His predilection for sinners sometimes seems to go too far ...." Rather what Paul attests later is true: "Where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly." Jesus has proved this, and thus made Himself the center of attraction to sinners to assure the most miserable of the miserable that the Kingdom of God is at hand, and that He is the King of this Kingdom, chosen of God. (pp. 60-61) 

Oh what a wonderful Savior Jesus is! His predilection for sinners did not go "too far"! He came precisely to seek and to save the lost, the miserable, and the ungodly. That is why the "gospel of the kingdom" is glad and joyful news for sinners (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:18, 43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16; Acts 8:12; 28:23, 31). It is not a message stating that a dread king is coming to whom you must yield obedience before it is too late. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of the free pardon of all our sins through the person of the King of the Kingdom, that is, Jesus the Christ, whose Messiahship is defined in terms of the shameful cross (Mark 8:29 ["You are the Christ"] compared with vv 31ff [the passion predictions]) that he bore in our place and for our sins.

Cremer: (2) The Apostolic Message

In chapter one of his Reply to Harnack, Cremer had argued that the New Testament, including the four Gospels, are "documentary vouchers" of the apostolic preaching about Jesus (p. 11), and that this apostolic preaching is the actual gospel, not the so-called gospel that Harnack claims to have arrived at by a historical-critical process of separating the kernel from the husk. In chapter two, "The Apostolic Message," Cremer proceeds to summarize the apostolic gospel concerning Christ. What was the gospel message that the apostles preached? It is that "redemption, forgiveness of sins, and with it deliverance from judgment and perdition are offered to us in Him" (p. 19). This redemption and forgiveness is offered to us "in Him," that is, in Jesus the crucified and risen Christ. This is the meaning of his Messiahship:  

Jesus, who was betrayed, rejected, deserted, and given up even by His disciples, is praised by them as Christ. He is, indeed, the Christ through His sufferings, death, and resurrection. In this power to remit sin lies His importance as Christ. By this has He redeemed us. He has supplied us with the forgiveness of sin, so that we may now actually experience it. Not only according to but through that forgiveness is He the Christ, the King of the Kingdom of God, appointed and instituted by God as the redeemer and helper of all those who hope in Him. (pp. 20-21)

When our friends, parents, teachers or great men die, they continue to affect us by the memory that we cherish of them. If the person was a great and important figure who left a body of work, e.g., a poet or a philosopher, we are glad when their work is more widely appreciated. But still, their death is a hard blow, and it is only our memories of them that we cherish.

But with Jesus it is otherwise ... For a short time, indeed, till the third day, the disciples thought that everything was lost. They had precious recollections of Him, but recollections which ... only filled them with the deepest sorrow over their lost master -- not only lost, but one whom they themselves had given up. But then a day came which no one had expected, a day beginning with terror, but which turned all their fear into unspeakable joy, and convinced them that nothing was lost! Everything is gained! The greatest wonder possible, forgiveness of all sins, through God's eternal mercy, is acquired for us! Streams of life spring out from Golgotha through the world; He, the crucified, has saved us; He died, but His death, of which we are the cause, burdens us not, but rather sets us free; He died that we may have forgiveness of our sins! (pp. 22-23)

Cremer takes us through the psychological transformation of the disciples, showing us how they experienced the awesome blessing of forgiveness in their own transition from the horror of his betrayal and crucifixion, to the dawning of the first day of the week. To show this, Cremer first establishes the guilt of the disciples. They had taken offense when he spoke of his impending death. They had all fled when Judas came with the soldiers to arrest him. Peter had denied Jesus three times. Their guilt was greater than the guilt of the crowds who cried "Crucify him!" Their sin was greater than that of the priests and rulers of the people who had condemned him to die. Why? Because they had known Jesus as none of the others (p. 24); they had followed him, confessed him as Messiah, and enjoyed communion with him. Thus their guilt was the greatest, the culmination of the guilt of the entire world's rejection of him.

And yet, by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, they experienced the incredible reality of the forgiviness of sins. Easter morning was not the dawning of the day of judgment, but of grace (p. 26). When he appeared to them, Jesus did not come with wrath but with the salutation of peace (Luke 24:36; John 20:21, 26). And so the disciples concluded ...

We are pardoned, I am pardoned! ... Jesus ... is now something to us that no other man can be, something, indeed, which no brother could be to his brother. For He is our redeemer, our deliverer from judgment ... Tho, in fact, He is our brother, fully like us, member of our communion, yet is He our Lord, the only One in whom we can trust before the face of God. He suffered because of us, but not only because of us but at the same time with us, and not only with us but for us in our stead, when judgment was to come upon us. What our sin and guilt has imposed upon us to suffer He bore; it was imposed upon Him, and thereby He redeemed us from the curse. (pp. 29-30)

The origin of the apostolic message that Jesus "was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Rom 4:25) is the disciples' personal experience of the forgiveness of their own guilt by the death of Jesus, a death that is clearly (in light of God's vindication of him by the resurrection) a death in our place, a death that was for our sins, so that we might be pardoned and accepted by God. This was why he had been anointed by God as "the Christ" and empowered to perform miracles. It was so that he might seek and save that which was lost, that he might give his life as a ransom for many and bring them to God.

And, again, to tie this back to Harnack, it is clear that this is message is one that differs starkly from Harnack's "gospel." For Harnack, Jesus' self-sacrificial death is merely an indicator of the depth of his devotion to his message, a message that is not about him but about the universal Fatherhood of God. For the apostles, by contrast, the cross is the heart of the gospel. That "Christ died for our sins" is the essence of the Christian faith, making Jesus not merely an example to follow but the divine Savior of sinners, who loved us and gave himself for us, the center and object of our faith, love, and worship.

Cremer: (1) Which Christianity? cont'd 2

So far Cremer has mounted a two-prong counter-attack against Harnack.

In the first prong, he has argued that Christianity is not, as Harnack would have it, a religion which Jesus practised as an example for Christians to follow (Jesus as the "subject" of religion) but is, according to the New Testament, a religion in which Christians worship Jesus (Jesus as the "object" of religion). This is a simple matter of reading the New Testament. Everywhere one turns in the pages of the New Testament, even in the Gospels themselves, our most direct records of Jesus' life and ministry, Jesus is presented as the one to whom people turn in faith, love, repentance, commitment, and adoration. He is not the first Christian. Rather, Christians are those who trust in Jesus and look to him as their Savior from sin and the exalted Lord of all creation.

Now Harnack would have acknowledged that much of the New Testament presents Jesus in this exalted light. But pulling out the tools of historical criticism, he would have proceeded to deconstruct the New Testament witness by separating the husk of later theology from the kernel of the original religion of Jesus himself. Harnack claimed that the later theological accretions can be peeled away until one is left with the vital core of the religion of Jesus, which Harnack defined as "God and the soul, the soul and its God," i.e., the Fatherhood of God, the infinite value of the human soul, the higher righteousness, and the commandment of love. In this religion, Jesus is not the eternal Son of God who became man. He is not the divine Savior of sinners. Rather, he is a mere man who advanced farther than any other man in the knowledge of God as Father leaving us a model that inspires us to follow in his steps.

But -- and this brings us to the second prong of Cremer's counter-attack -- this so-called religion of Jesus is nowhere to be found in the pages of the New Testament. One may attempt to peel the outer layers of the onion -- the high Christology of John and of Paul being the most obvious outer layers ripe for Harnack's historical-critical knife -- but once one has done so, one must immediately continue to apply the knife. For the primitive community (the Jewish Christian church before the fall of Jerusalem) had just as high a Christology. Paul and James (or those whom he represented) may have had some tensions, but they were over questions related to the mission to the Gentiles, not Christology. And the Gospel records unanimously present Jesus as a supernatural being from heaven, who performs miracles, who comes to seek and save the lost, and who calls people to personal faith in himself. There is no non-Christological religious core that can be safely extracted from the Gospels leaving Harnack's religion in which Jesus is the mere "subject" (i.e., example) rather than the apostolic religion in which Jesus is the "object" (i.e., Son of God, Messiah, Savior of sinners, and Lord).

The point is, Harnack has no real case, even on historical-critical grounds. He may don the mantle of historical objectivity when he applies his knife of criticism to the New Testament onion, but in reality his separation of the so-called husk from the kernel is guided not by historical reasoning but by dogmatic presuppositions. Cremer thus concludes:

Every criticism of our sources, be it of this or that kind, is not only an historical but a dogmatical criticism -- Harnack criticizes these sources just as dogmatically as others who do not share his standpoint, only that he, protected by the authority of his great name, designated his dogmatical critique historical. (p. 10)

Ouch! So the Professor of Dogmatics at the University of Greifswald punctures the pretensions of the Professor of Church History at the University of Berlin.

Cremer: (1) Which Christianity? cont'd

The concluding part of Cremer's first chapter is a very helpful reflection on the unity of the New Testament witness to Jesus Christ. Liberals like Harnack want to claim that the high Christology and soteriology of Paul and John is only one strand of the New Testament, and a strand that is a corruption of the simple message of Jesus. The theory is that the type of Jewish Christianity represented by James and the Jerusalem Church embraced a low Christology in which Jesus is merely a man who, by his great piety and Law-keeping, was adopted as God's "son" at his baptism in such a manner that he remains a purely human messiah. This is a Christology within the bounds of strict Jewish monotheism.

Cremer answers this claim by pointing out that the only disagreement or debate between some members of the Jerusalem Church and Pauline Christianity was over a question of missionary practice, i.e., the question whether the Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes in order to be reckoned as members of the people of God.

Could it be conceivable that a Jewish Christian, like the author of James’s Epistle, should not have opposed, in the name of the Jews and in the name of Israelitish monotheism, such a deification of man if it had been the sign of the original Jewish Christianity not to regard Jesus as God and not to pray to him? No; the difference, which for a time really existed in the apostolic circle, until it was determined and overcome, did not at all concern the person of Christ, nor the importance of His work, His suffering, death, and resurrection for us. It concerned merely a question of missionary practice … whether the members of the Gentile world could have part in the Gospel without first becoming members of Israel’s communion …. But of a Jewish Christianity, which in the fundamental questions concerning the person and importance of Jesus Christ had differed from the apostolic preaching, we hear nothing during the actual apostolic time. This only belongs to a much later time. (pp. 17-18)

There was no debate within the pre-70 Jerusalem Church over the person of Christ. Why not? Because they agreed that Jesus was the Son of God now living and exalted to God’s throne. They agreed that Christians, according to their oldest appellation, are "those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 2:21; 9:14; 22:16; Rom 10:13; 1 Cor 1:2), i.e., a people who pray to the risen Jesus as the exalted "Lord" of heaven and earth. Had there been any disagreement over Christology between Paul and James, or between Peter and John, with regard to Christology, we would expect to see some traces of it in our sources, especially considering the Jewish zeal to avoid idolatry and protect the monotheistic creed of Israel.

When Cremer adds, "This only belongs to a much later time," he is referring to the heretical sect of the Ebionites whose existence is attested only in the second and third centuries. The Ebionites were Jewish Christians who espoused a low Christology and observed the Torah. They denied the preexistence and virgin birth of Christ, holding that he was the offspring of Mary and Joseph, born like any other man, but that by his perfect obedience to the Law merited adoption as God's anointed one. But there is no evidence for the Ebionites in the first century. The Jerusalem Church, the mother church of us all, which existed from the ascension of Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, was not characterized by Ebionite Christology.

And lest one think that Cremer is idiosyncratic, a more recent scholar, Richard Bauckham, agrees:

A high Christology was characteristic of the Jerusalem church. The low Christology later adopted by the Ebionites should not be projected back onto the Jerusalem church, as has often been done.

[Bauckham, "James and the Jerusalem Community," in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (eds. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 77.]

Cremer: (1) Which Christianity?

Chapter One of Cremer's Reply to Harnack is titled "Which Christianity?" Here, Cremer surveys the battle lines and shows what each side's view of Christianity is. On the one side is the Christianity of Harnack, on the other, the Christianity of the apostles as set forth in the New Testament. These two versions of Christianity stand diametrically opposed to one another and cannot be reconciled.

Is Christianity the religion which Jesus has practised, which He has attested, to whose practise and attendance He has invited men and shown them the way, a fire which by His preaching He has kindled in the hearts of His hearers? ... Or is the power which proceeds from Christ and to-day yet produces Christianity something else than the religion which He Himself practised? (p. 7)

Cremer answers that it is the latter. Christianity is not the religion that Jesus practised, as Harnack taught, but the object of our faith. 

Altho He is what we are, yet He stands in a different relation to the Father than we. He is our brother, who works for us, to whom we owe everything ... He is not, like ourselves, a subject of religion; on the contrary, He is the object of the religion, the object of Christianity. (p. 8) ... The religion in which the Christ of the New Testament is the object of faith is entirely different from the religion whose first, most prominent, and most effective subject is Jesus considered merely as a man. We have, then, to deal with different religions -- with the religion of the New Testament and with the religion that results from the foregoing kind of criticism. (p. 10)

This is Cremer's fundamental critique of Harnack. He will have many other things to say in this volume, but this is his basic polemic and everything else fits in in relation to it.

It is interesting to see that Machen, writing two decades later, made much the same argument in Christianity and Liberalism (1923):

The modern liberal tries to have faith in God like the faith which he supposes Jesus had in God; but he does not have faith in Jesus. According to modern liberalism, in other words, Jesus was the Founder of Christianity because He was the first Christian, and Christianity consists in maintenance of the religious life which Jesus instituted ... [But] the early Christians regarded Jesus not merely as an example for faith but primarily as the object of faith ... Christian faith is trust reposed in Him for the removal of sin; He could not repose trust ... in Himself; therefore He was certainly not a Christian. (pp. 85, 91)

If Jesus is the first and greatest subject of the Christian religion (that is, the first and greatest man to practise this religion), then he becomes merely an example to follow. He shows us how to have faith in God, and we then look not to him but to the Father he proclaimed. But if Jesus is first and foremost a divine Savior who came into the world to redeem sinners, then he is not the subject but the great object of the Christian religion, the object of our wonder, faith, adoration, and commitment. He is our Savior and our Lord.

Introducing Cremer's Reply to Harnack

I've completed my survey of Harnack's What is Christianity? The survey may have been a bit too long and scattered over too many posts, but it is important to be fair in presenting a man's position. I would also like to make clear that, even if I may have expressed agreement or appreciation for certain statements, at a fundamental level I do not agree with Harnack's vision of the essence of Christianity. It is not the Christ of the Bible that Harnack presents, but a "Christ" of his own making, a "Christ" who is purely human and ultimately one who cannot save sinners.

I have also just finished reading Hermann Cremer's Reply to Harnack and will be blogging through it shortly. I've got to tell you, Cremer has nailed it. Like Machen, he regards the liberal version of Christianity championed by Harnack to be another religion, not true Christianity. Cremer would therefore agree with Machen's disjunction: it is either Christianity or Liberalism.

Cremer writes in his Preface to the English edition:

In the controversy with Harnack the question is, whether the Christianity of the apostolic message is right, or whether it must be replaced by a Christianity of modern reflection and still more modern enthusiasm. The Christianity of the apostolic message applies to the lost sinner, to whom it offers salvation through the wondrous grace of God, who became our brother in Christ Jesus. Harnack's Christianity applies to the modern man who feels himself vexed, not by the moral but by the intellectual problem, because the moral problem, How is the sinner saved? does not exist for him.

In Chapter One, he adds:

With the exception, perhaps, of the conflicts of the early Christian centuries and of the Reformation, the present controversy is the severest that has ever been waged. We battle for the person and importance of Jesus Christ himself. Indeed, we fight a battle in which no truce is possible. Victory for either side necessarily means the destruction of the other. It is the battle of one religion with another religion. (p. 8)

The stakes are high. Indeed, our eternal destiny hangs on our answer to the question of our estimate of the person and work of Jesus. Either Jesus came merely to show us how to be good people by his example, or he came as the eternal Son of God to save us from our sins by his death for our sins and his resurrection for our justification.

The Cremer-Harnack Debate

I'm planning to blog through Hermann Cremer's lectures, A Reply to Harnack on the Essence of Christianity(German: 1901; English translation: 1903), published a year after Adolf von Harnack's more famous lectures, What is Christianity? (1900). I've given the titles in English translation; in the original German, they had the same title, Das Wesen des Christentums [The Essence of Christianity]. But before blogging through Cremer, it is only fair to blog through Harnack first, to give him a chance to make his own case before hearing his critic.

I have several motives for blogging this debate.

First, my dissertation has gotten me interested in the work of Hermann Cremer who first developed the theory that "righteousness" in Hebrew thought is a "relational concept." In the course of my research on Cremer, I came across his reply to Harnack and although I am critical of his relational interpretation of righteousness, I enjoyed his apologetic on behalf of orthodox Christianity. Cremer's work reminds one of Machen's Christianity and Liberalism (1923) a couple of decades later in response to the American version of the liberalism.

Second, while I am clearly in Cremer's corner in this match, I want to explain Harnack's views as sympathetically as possible and to enter into his thought world. Theological liberalism is obviously not something I want to endorse. But I do want us to take it seriously and not reject it out of hand as so obviously wrong that we need not bother to understand it or strive to see why it may be attractive to so many. Don't forget that even Machen, when he sat under Wilhelm Herrmann's lectures in Germany, was for a time captivated by his Christocentric piety. Of course, he ended up rejecting Herrmann's Christ as a shallow image of the true one. But his renewed commitment to historic orthodoxy was that much stronger and richer after first putting himself in Herrmann's shoes and seeing his brand of faith from the inside. Don't dismiss the liberals out of hand! They have some valid things to say and can be surprisingly attractive in their piety.

Third, it is important to be reminded that the line between liberalism and evangelicalism is not an uncrossable chasm. There are liberals who call themselves evangelical. And there are some who profess to be evangelicals who are really liberals. I've experienced this permeable lining between the two camps at Fuller Theological Seminary. Some of the professors there would best be classified as theological liberals, even though they are still evangelical in their piety. Another example of this hybrid of the liberal-evangelical (or the evangelical-liberal) is Brian McLaren and some of his partners in the emergent/emerging "conversation" (as they like to call it). I'm not arguing that McLaren is necessarily in agreement with everything Harnack stood for, but I do think one can see certain similarities in terms of their moralistic emphasis and their concern for the social implications of the gospel.

Although the Harnack-Cremer debate took place more than a hundred years ago, the issues are still relevant today.  So join me over the next few months as I blog through these two books by two great theological minds.

For Harnack, I'll be using the translation by Thomas Bailey Saunders published in the Fortress Texts in Modern Theology (1986).

For Cremer, I'll be using the version on Google Books, translation by Bernhard Pick, published by Funk and Wagnalls in 1903.

Hermann Cremer's Biblico-theological Lexicon, Pt 4

Elpis - hope, i.e., expectation of something future, and, indeed, expectation of good

Cremer says that in Classical Greek, "hope" has the idea of some future and wished-for good, together with a probability that it will be obtained. But because it is only a probability and not a certainty, there is also sometimes a sense of anxiety and even fear.

By contrast, in biblical (LXX + NT) usage, hope is

a dearly cherished and apparently well-grounded ... expectation and prospect of some desired good ... The tone and language in the LXX clearly shows that hope in this sense possesses a psychological definiteness,--the certainty and clearness of its goal, as well as the definiteness of object,--which all hope apart from Scripture was destitute of .... N.T. hope, in a word, includes the prospect of a state wherein all needs shall be supplied, all wants satisfied, all the hindrances of life and results of sin removed, raising upon the basis of trusted Scripture promise and the facts of redemption a future full of bliss, in contrast  with the unsatisfying present. 

The ultimate ground for such certain hope in the NT is the resurrection of Christ (1 Pet 1:3).

Cremer has this to say about Galatians 5:5 ("For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness"):

ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, where δικ. must be taken as the subjective genitive, and not as the genitive of the object; for this latter would not be in keeping with the Pauline doctrine, according to which righteousness, as the privilege and state of the believer, is already present, cf. 2 Tim iv.8; Gal. ii.17; Rom. v.1 sqq. Thus rendered, ver. 5 stands in striking contrast with ver. 4, we wait in faith--wherein we are justified--for the hope which righteousness has.

This is a good response to N. T. Wright who claims that present justification is by faith but future justification at the day of judgment will take place on the basis of the totality of the life lived (in Paul and the Mosaic Law [ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], p. 144).