THE BIBLICAL STUDIES OF M. GODET.
IT is of the utmost importance to notice that, in the rationalistic system which seeks to render an account of all by the circumstances of the writer, GOD AND THE OPERATION OF HIS SPIRIT ARE WHOLLY EXCLUDED. The facts may be important if they be correct; but the revelation of God upon earth in the Son of His love is left to such an appreciation as we may have of the uncertain rumors which were current in Galilee, or to the feebleness of the memories of fallible men. One need but read the Gospels to discern the divine traits that abound in them; but if we study them, we shall discover unity of purpose in each, and in all combined a fullness as to the Lord's person, presenting of Him a complete idea and a perfect unity, thus affording an irrefragable testimony to the unity of the source whence all has flowed. Thus, in the four narratives of His death, we possess in each Gospel that which corresponds with its own special character, whilst all come in presenting the Lord complete in the perfect unity of His person—all. As a divine person in John, we have no sufferings in Gethsemane, nor on the cross. As Son of man in Luke, we have more of the agonies in Gethsemane, none upon the cross, but the triumph of His faith in His Father. As victim in Matthew, we see Him forsaken of God upon the cross, and find neither compassion nor anything except misery and malice in man, but Him perfect in all. Mark too much resembles Matthew for me to enter into farther details now; but certainly he who is taught of God discerns in them all the divine description of the Son of God and Son of man, the Word made flesh—Emmanuel—Jesus, in His life and death described by One only—by Him who is the Spirit of God, that God might be perfectly glorified.
Do the Gospels teach us that all had to depend on the memory of Peter, of Mark, or on the information which Luke might have obtained in Galilee? “The Comforter [says the Lord], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and will bring to your remembrance all the things which I have said to you.” (John 14:2626But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26).) He was also to bear witness to Jesus concerning heavenly things. The disciples likewise were to bear witness to Jesus, as eye-witnesses doubtless; but the Holy Spirit which had been given them held in His hand the testimony, both earthly and heavenly. He was to lead them into all truth; and what Jesus had been upon the earth “God in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” —was not the least part of that truth.
It is monstrous to give me the legends of Papias, or the imaginations of Irenaeus, in the place of the promise of the gift of the Spirit, and of His testimony to the Lord's glory, to His life, and to His sufferings; it is still more monstrous, forasmuch as the Lord had expressly spoken of that gift for that purpose.
This is Paul's remarkable declaration concerning the new truths which the Holy Spirit come down from heaven has communicated to us; it cannot be more explicit— “God hath revealed to us by (his) Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the depths of God. We have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which [is] of God, that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God: which also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom [or discourses], but in those taught by the Spirit. But [the] natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God.... because they are spiritually discerned.” Revelation was by the Spirit; the communication took place by means of words taught by the Spirit; and finally, the intelligence of him who received these words was given by the Spirit. Revelation, inspiration in the communication of revealed things, in fine, intelligence or comprehension—all was “by the Spirit.”
In 1 Thess. 2:1313For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13) it is again said, “For this cause we also give thanks to God unceasingly, that, having received [the] word of [the] Spirit of God by us, ye received not man's word, but, even as it is truly, God's word, which also worketh in you who believe.” Doubtless this had been proclaimed by word of mouth, but that which the Thessalonians had received was “the word of God.” It was not merely to Paul it was such, but it was such as communicated through him [παρἡμῦν] to the Thessalonians.
This decides the nature of the communication. It was not a more or less faithful given statement of the word of God. The assertion, that what he wrote to them that it might remain with them, so as to permanently establish them in the truth—the assertion, that what was to subsist for the whole church in all ages was not the word of God—is a matter I leave to the appreciation of the piety and common sense of each reader.
M. Godet's system, as regards revelation, is false according to the apostle. That which he had communicated to them was so thoroughly “the word of God,” that it worked effectually in those who believed—it carried the power of God with it. It was, as Paul elsewhere states, a savor of death unto death where it was not a savor of life unto life. If his gospel were veiled, it was veiled in those that are lost, whose unbelieving minds Satan had blinded. The light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ shined not only into the heart of Paul, but before the hearts of men; that light was veiled only to those who perish; for the God who, by His word, had caused the light to shine out of darkness, had shone into the heart of the apostle, for the shining forth [apes (πρὸς φωτισμὸν] of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The nearness of the vessel was so far from hindering its being the word of God for others, that that word was committed to feeble vessels, in order that the excellency of the power which worked through their means in others might manifestly be of God, and not of men. In fact, everywhere, and on every point, the apostle affirms precisely the reverse of what M. Godet states.
There is, then, a redemption, but it is “by his blood” —there is a work accomplished once and for all—there is a revelation by the Spirit of God—there is a communication made in discourses [or words, λογοις] taught by the Holy Ghost, and this given testimony is received [through the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit] in him who hears. Divine things were revealed, communicated, and received by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The same apostle also says, “If any one think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him recognize the things that I write unto you, that it is the commandment of [the] Lord.” (1 Cor. 14:3939Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:39).) So far is he indeed from confounding revelation and inspiration with the thoughts which a high, degree of spirituality might even produce in him, that he carefully distinguishes the one from the other. (1 Cor. 7:6, 10, 406But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Corinthians 7:6)
10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: (1 Corinthians 7:10)
40But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 7:40).)
Before proceeding farther, it is important to notice the manner in which M. Godet uses scripture. I shall neither produce all the passages quoted by M. Godet, nor all the errors consequent upon them. This would be tedious. Just a few examples suffice to show that the reader must accept nothing without examination. Some are but of small importance, but the habit once contracted, one must be on one's guard. Thus, at page 6 of “Biblical Studies,” second series, he adds, “in it;” “that. we report. to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us in it;” thus entirely altering the meaning of the passage. At page 36: “Thou art Peter, and on this stone” is false; πέτρα is not a stone. At page 49, “after having informed myself exactly” is a false translation, of which 1 Tim. 4:66If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6), and 2 Tim. 3:1010But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, (2 Timothy 3:10), are proofs. At page 49 it is not a quotation, but a false statement of what Luke says. The latter never says that his history was derived from what the first witnesses had stated. That was not the source whence he derived his history; but be says that he communicated the facts of the gospel as they were most surely believed, and as they had been delivered by the first witnesses, having himself had a perfect knowledge of these things from the beginning, which is a very different thing from M. Godet's assertion. “It is evident that he possessed more than one of those works, and that he used them to compose his own” (p. 53). Now all this is mere supposition, without the slightest foundation. Origen (if my memory does not deceive me), at all events, one of the fathers, remarks that the expression, “Many have undertaken,” skewed them to be human essays, none of which was satisfactory, but that it was otherwise with Luke I quote the sense, and from memory. At all events; there is no trace whatever in Luke of what M. Cadet speaks. What Luke does say is, that others having undertaken to give a relation of those things, he desired to make known to Theophilus the truth of it all, having himself had a perfect acquaintance with it all from the beginning. He writes his relation because others did not present the same certainty. it is the reverse of what M. Godet says. Now all his system respecting the Gospels is here in question; this is my motive in thus bringing forward these carelessnesses, whilst reestablishing the facts and the passages. He seeks to replace inspiration by patristic legends, and by human means of conviction. He uses this mistake at page 54. What he says at page 52 is pure supposition, and a very serious matter to nullify divine history by such inventions. (See also p. 66.) At page 105 he makes Jesus confess [the sins of others], because others did so—a complete invention. John would not baptize Him, and only did so on the ground of the fulfillment of righteousness. “Thus it becometh us.” This is that which, according to M. Godet, enabled John to discern the holy virtue in Jesus. It is altogether an invention! Moreover, Jesus did not go down into the waters of Jordan with prayer. (p. 106.) This was after His baptism, after He had in baptism publicly taken His place amongst the faithful remnant of the Jews—a difference not lacking in importance as regards the relations of man—a matter of infinite value to us. At page 106 we have also “a shining sign,” “prefiguring the communication of the Spirit;” then three perceptible facts for the inward senses of John and of Jesus. All this is pure invention, contradicting the simple narrative of the Gospel, which is to us of infinite importance) I altogether reject the explanations which follow; but I must avoid entering upon controversy on the meanings of scripture, and simply declare that M. Godet does not relate scripture facts, but that he makes a romance respecting the Lord—a romance which is founded upon his own ideas. I might take up false thoughts and false doctrines at every page, but this is not here my object.
Further on I will speak of his views concerning the person of the Lord. All that is stated at page 123 is a complete invention. I shall return to that later, also to what he says at page 129 concerning His tears; I shall also notice page 131. At page 149, Ex. 3 is quoted to show that God can change, and be what He will, translating it thus— “I shall be what I shall be.” In his reply to M. Colani, he translates it, “I am,” making use of it then to prove He is the only real existence—Existence itself. All this is inconceivable levity in solemn things. At page 151, “being found in all things as a man,” is an entirely false quotation upon a capital point, in order to serve as a basis to the author's doctrine. At page 169 he says that “St. Paul speaks of a salvation which will result from the life of Christ realized in man.” M. Godet has full liberty to interpret the passage as he understands it, but none to state that St. Paul says so. He says nothing of the sort. For my part, in reading the passage, it is evident to me that this is not in the least degree its sense. All this suffices to expose the carelessness with which M. Godet quotes passages upon important questions, and how he presents to us as facts that of which there is not a trace in the Gospels—facts that are fiction. Now, all his reasonings generally depend on those false quotations and fictitious facts.
The first thing, then, that I take up as an essential point in M. Godet's system is that, to please rationalists, he formally denies the Bible to be a revelation, that, in the history of Jesus, he replaces inspiration by the legends of the fathers, which, as regards the historical circumstances, may be true, or may be false, but which present no divine certainty concerning the facts which should reveal God, and form the basis of Christianity and salvation. He robs the Gospels of all divine authority. In the place of a divinely revealed redemption, he gives me interesting reminiscences of John or of Peter, and that at the expense of the explicit promises of the Lord. It is true he admits a revelation, but he admits it according to a wise and rational system, thus explained:—Revelation has reached agents or channels in a divine manner; these were to communicate it to the objects God had in view when He gave it (be it the world, the church, individuals, &c., &c.). But that communication has never reached them at all. The objects God had in view have had of it but a given statement, which is no revelation at all; they who were the channels of it having corrected and contradicted each other!
Now, concerning the revelations which complete the history of Jesus, Paul declares to us that he has communicated them to us in words taught by the Holy Spirit.
In common with rationalists, M. Godet denies all that. They require man, but they do not require that God should reveal Himself—at least not to us. It is a revelation which does not go beyond the agents to whom it was committed, even if those agents understood it well. I pity these rationalists for having lost it!
The other subjects I desire to treat are the person and the work of the Lord Jesus. M. Godet is opposed to the doctrine commonly called grace. He will have free-will amongst men. I have no thought of engaging in these theological controversies, nor should I have touched on his “Biblical Studies,” had not Christianity disappeared beneath his pen. Inasmuch as the author bears the reputation of orthodoxy, this becomes an imminent peril to simple souls. M. Godet truly believes that Jesus is the Eternal Son; he recognizes His divinity, though in a vague and confused manner. According to his fashion, be recognizes His humanity, but it truly is according to his fashion; he also recognizes His work of expiation in his own manner. Had M. Godet been a candid rationalist, (that is an unbeliever,) I might have spared myself the task of examining his method of seeing things. All the world knows that rationalism is latent infidelity, and presents itself as being the only intelligent Christianity. However it may be, and notwithstanding the pretensions of the author to orthodoxy, Christianity has no existence in his book. It is replaced by a system which only exists in the thoughts of M. Godet—by a thorough romance, of which the here is Christ, but not the true Christ, the Christ of the word, “the Christ of God.” According to the word of God, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself;” also, “Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in him.” According to M. Godet's book, Jesus is a man who, though moved by a filial sentiment toward God from the age of twelve years, had forgotten that He was Son of God, but recovered that truth by revelation at the age of thirty. He was always capable of sinning, though He never did so. Then, as man, born miraculously, and as innocent as Adam had been, He raised Himself from innocence to holiness, and in His person elevated humanity. This work was completed at the period of the transfiguration. He might have resumed His divine estate, which He had renounced; but in conversing with Moses and Elias, He communicated to them His intention not to resume it then, but to descend, in order to suffer. This He did. God's right having been recognized by Him (the right to put all mankind to death), and that right having been made good in the death of Christ alone, other men, profiting by that which He had done, and by this means placed in a position of liberty, can, if they will, attain the same divine condition into which Jesus has entered.
I ask, Is this Christianity? Is it not an infinitely solemn and serious matter to falsify truth on the subject of salvation, just where the glory of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ are in question? But is such truly M. Godet's system? I have merely put together the prominent points of this system. In examining it, we shall see whether that which I have now presented as such be not verified by quotations from his book. Other things also appear in it. My object in the preceding summing up is simply to show that by this system he sets Christianity aside, and replaces it by inventions and human doctrines. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world,” disappears. We get simply a man who sanctifies Himself during His life, in order that others may do the same, and. attain the same divine condition. Moreover, after a repeated and most careful examination, I do not find from M. Godet's book that the penalty of sin is anything else than death—bodily death, or death in its physical sense. This is all that sinful man owes to God's righteousness, and Christ did not suffer beyond that in man's stead, and for man. I do not say that M: Godet believes in the restitution of all mankind, nor that he believes that the wicked shall perish utterly. That which is certain is, that, to him, the wages of sin is simply bodily death, and this was all that Christ suffered.