Jonathan Edwards’s Interpretation of the Major Prophets: The Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel

By Jeongmo Yoo

The Bible was at the heart of Jonathan Edwards’s life and thought. [1] Thus, it is not surprising that almost everything he wrote is full of the interpretation and exposition of Scripture. [2] Edwards’s exegetical activity is one of the most important sides of his life and work. However, modern Edwardsean scholarship has paid little attention to his biblical interpretation. [3] Stephen J. Stein wrote:

The sheer volume of his biblical writings, however, makes all simple characterizations suspect until more research has been done on this aspect of his thought. Despite the quantity of his writings on the Bible, there is an amazing paucity of serious scholarship dealing with it. The contemporary renaissance of interest in Edwards has hardly touched this dimension of his work. [4]

Certainly, much interest has been shown for theological and philosophical aspects of Edwards’s life and thought. [5] Consequently, Edwards’s contribution to the history of exegesis has been a forgotten aspect of history. [6]

In the present day, we encounter increasing discussions of the importance of Edwards’s exegetical activity. [7] Nevertheless, most scholars do not discuss in detail Edwards’s hermeneutical methodology in the interpretation of Scripture. [8] Even if they explain the method Edwards uses in the interpretation, modern scholars have often focused on more general principles of Edwards’s exegesis without providing the actual and thorough account of it, [9] as found in his works such as Notes on Scripture [10] and The Blank Bible. [11] Moreover, most of the modern scholarship on Edwards’s exegesis fails to examine Edwards’s exegesis in the context of traditional and contemporary biblical interpretation. [12] Consequently, these problematic approaches of modern scholarship result in an inaccurate, distorted, and insufficient understanding of Edwards’s methodology in his exegesis and exposition of Scripture.

Therefore, we encounter the following needs in order to obtain a more accurate understanding of Edwards’s exegetical methods: (1) a thorough analysis of Edwards’s exegesis through actual examples of his exposition of the Bible, and (2) an understanding of Edwards’s biblical interpretation in the broader context of the history of exegesis.

This study will deal with Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel as an illustration of the way in which he approached the Bible and particularly his interpretation of it. Edwards never wrote a formal commentary on the Bible. Nevertheless, his two private notebooks, Notes on Scripture and The Blank Bible, provide a series of his interpretation of the whole of Scripture and a clear understanding of his exegetical methodology. [13] The Major Prophets are one of the ideal places to examine his methodology in his interpretation of Scripture because both notebooks extensively contain his exposition of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. [14]

This study seeks to move beyond the problematic approaches of previous scholarship, performing an actual account of Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in his works and examining it in the context of the history of exegesis and, particularly, that of the seventeenth century. [15] The aim is to reveal Edwards’s exegetical methodology on the books of the Major Prophets. In doing so, one thing will be demonstrated in detail: Edwards’s exegetical principles for the interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel follow more closely the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century pre-critical model in continuity with the patristic and the medieval exegetical traditions than the characteristics of modern critical exegesis. [16] In other words, Edwards was a man of his time in his interpretation of a specific passage of Scripture. [17] In order to prove this statement, this study will show that, in his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards’s hermeneutical methodology is quite consistent with that of his pre-critical tradition. [18]

Jonathan Edwards and Pre-Critical Interpretation

Pre-critical Hermeneutical Presuppositions

In his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards generally employs exegetical techniques which operate within the bounds of his pre-critical hermeneutic presuppositions and principles. [19] First of all, the analogy of faith (analogia fidei) and the analogy of Scripture (analogia Scriptura) are basic hermeneutical presuppositions of Edwards’s interpretation. [20] His commitment to the Reformed understanding and employment of the analogy of faith is evident throughout his interpretation. While the use of the analogy of faith is not explicitly found in his interpretation of the Major Prophets, he manifests it in subtle ways. The analogy of faith did not dictate the interpretation of any particular text, but it did limit the options Edwards would consider as appropriate explanations of a passage. That is, the analogy of faith restricted the range of possible meanings which he would consider; other potential meanings of a passage were simply not mentioned since they were excluded a priori by the analogy of faith assumption.

Like other orthodox writers, Edwards also frequently ignores or briefly passes over alternative explanations of a text which do not correspond to the analogy of faith. Therefore, in his interpretation of the Major Prophets, even though his use of the analogy of faith is not explicit, Edwards does not allow his interpretation to go beyond or contrary to overall orthodox doctrines. This is testified by the fact that Edwards’s exegetical conclusions are almost identical with those of classical orthodox interpreters. [21] This theological orthodoxy of his own exegetical conclusions fully reflects Edwards’s commitment to the analogy of faith in his exegetical process.

The analogy of Scripture also obviously dominates Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel even though he does not explicitly address this hermeneutical assumption in his exposition. Examples of his dedication to the analogy of Scripture are overwhelmingly evident throughout his commentary; the correlation of texts and the proliferation of supporting testimonies are one of Edwards’s main exegetical strategies. More specifically, when discussing any difficult interpretation or doctrine, he arrays a series of Scripture passages, often addressing individual texts at length. Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah 53:2 is a good example of this kind of textual correlation. In order to demonstrate that the phrase “a tender plant” signifies the humble outward appearance of Jesus Christ, he lists a number of texts side by side, giving brief comments on some and showing their interrelation with one another. Finally, by using the evidences of other texts, Edwards demonstrates that the subject with which Isaiah is dealing in this verse refers to Christ. [22]

Further examples of Edwards’s appeal to other passages in Scripture to support his exegetical conclusions are too numerous to mention; it is hardly an exaggeration to say that he brings in corresponding texts to expound and explain the passage’s meaning in his exposition of each verse in his works. Thus, Kreider rightly states that, for Edwards, “Scripture is its own best interpreter.”23 In sum, by means of the analogy of Scripture, Edwards, like his Reformed predecessors, used Scripture itself to reveal the meaning of difficult texts, and thus was assured that his interpretations of the Major Prophets were in accordance with the overall thrust of the Bible. [24]

Literal Historical Interpretation of the Text

Edwards’s study of original language and his consistent pursuit of literal historical meaning of the text also clearly show that he is in continuity with pre-critical tradition. Even a cursory analysis of Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets reveals his indebtedness to the literal historical interpretation of pre-critical exegesis which had particularly developed in the previous two centuries. [25]

First of all, the control exercised over interpretation by the examination of the original language in a text is widely evident in Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. [26] For example, Edwards often retranslates the text according to his own understanding of the original Hebrew text in order to reveal a clearer meaning of the text. A couple of cases will demonstrate this. In his discussion of the meaning of Isaiah 51:4, Edwards claims that “[a] law shall go forth out of Zion” could be translated into “[a] law shall proceed from me because the Hebrew original words contains the meaning of both interpretations.” However, he prefers the latter because it provides a clearer meaning of the verse. [27]

His interpretation of Jeremiah 12:9 is another example. Edwards retranslates the phrase “a speckled bird” into “a bird that is tinged or colored” according to his analysis of the original Hebrew text. He also introduces an exegete’s translation of it as “a bird with talons.” However, he prefers his own translation and, on the basis of his study of the original Hebrew and careful examination of the context of the verse, claims that this phrase refers to “a bird of prey,” which shows the wickedness of the ungodly. [28]

Edwards also sometimes corrects the inaccurate English translation of the original Hebrew text. Another example of elaboration of the meaning of a passage through careful examination of the original language is found in Edwards’s exposition of Isaiah 27:12. Edwards insists that the phrase “shall beat off” should have been translated into “[t]he Lord shall strike off,” “smite away,” or “powerfully and suddenly remove both the channel of the river and the stream of Egypt.” However, he does not provide his analysis of the etymology of the words, or the grammar and syntax of the sentence. Without detailed support, Edwards simply concludes that his translation is more suitable for this sentence. As his interpretation of Isaiah 27:12 suggests, Edwards’s exposition of the Major Prophets shows that he leans on details of grammar and syntax in seeking the exact literal meaning of the text throughout his analysis of the original Hebrew text. Further examples of this kind of study of original languages are found nearly every time Edwards begins work on a new phrase or verse of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. However, Edwards simply presents his conclusions and rarely provides his detailed analysis of grammatical concerns or text criticism in his notebooks. This may be a result of the nature of these notebooks; they were not designed for publication as formal commentaries, but for his personal study as a foundation for further theological research. [29]

Another crucial feature of Edwards’s exegetical principles is to pursue the literal historical meaning of the text by considering the intention of the historical writers and the original historical context of the text. First of all, as a humanistic exegetical method, Edwards makes efforts to investigate and uncover the reasons and arguments which lay beneath what were otherwise simple and abbreviated passages or expressions. For example, in his exposition of Isaiah 40, he starts his interpretation by examining the reason why the scope and style of Isaiah 40-66 is different from Isaiah 1-39. According to Edwards, the prophecy of Isaiah 1-39 mainly deals with the destruction of the people of God by the Assyrians and their deliverance. In contrast, Isaiah 40-66 focuses on the Babylonian captivity of Judah and the restoration. Concerning the difference, Edwards insists that the scopes of Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66 are different because Isaiah might have received the revelation of Isaiah 40-66 when the prophecy of the former had already been fulfilled. He guesses that Isaiah might have received the new prophecy some time around the latter part of Hezekiah’s reign. [30]

He also states that Isaiah was in his old age at the latter part of Hezekiah’s reign. Thus, he argues, the style of Isaiah 40-66 might be different from Isaiah 1-39. Edwards insists that Isaiah was around eighty or ninety years old when he prophesied Isaiah 40-66. Finally, on the basis of these historical investigations, Edwards claims that, even though there are some differences between the two parts of Isaiah, the prophecy of Isaiah 40-66 should not be understood as a separate book from the first part of Isaiah. [31]

Throughout his interpretation of the books of the Major Prophets, Edwards also shows his deep interest in the original background of the text. By revealing the historical situation behind the text, he pursues the literal historical meaning of the text. For instance, in his interpretation of Jeremiah 17:3, Edwards tries to explain the meaning of “O my mountain in the field” by investigating the historical background behind this text. He states that the ancient Israelites kept their possessions either in the city or in the field. Then, Edwards teaches that “since the land of Canaan was a very mountainous country and the mountains are the most distinguished places, the possessions or inheritances of a person or one’s family in the field used to be called by the mountains they included.” “Such an one’s mountain,” or “such an one’s hill” generally refers to the inheritance or the possessions of a person or his/her family that lay upon and about a mountain. Therefore, Edwards claims that the meaning of the phrase, “O my mountain in the field,” signifies the possessions, lot, or inheritance of the ancient Israelites.

Edwards’s interpretation of Ezekiel 12:3-6 also reflects his interest in the literal historical background of the text. In order to interpret this passage, Edwards first reveals its historical context in detail. According to Edwards, this passage refers to Zedekiah’s flight out of the city in the middle of chaos because this specific historical event of Zedekiah’s time is quite identical with the details of the passage: Zedekiah was not able to escape the city because he was completely surrounded by the Babylonians (v. 3). Thus, he chose to dig through the wall and secretly carried his goods away (vv. 4-5). When the princes of Babylon and their army came inside the walls, Zedekiah fled first in the day time to the king’s garden and escaped through the dug wall in the evening (v. 6). Therefore, Edwards concludes that the passage is the prophecy which describes the future event at the time of Zedekiah. [32]

Indeed, throughout the commentary, further examples of Edwards’s study of the original context of the meaning are too numerous to mention. Edwards’s concern for the historical meaning of the text clearly reflects the substantial influence of humanistic approaches to the text.

Edwards’s Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in His  Interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel

In his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards pursues not only the historical meaning of the text, but also a spiritual meaning of the text. Edwards arrived at the spiritual meaning of a passage through two avenues. First, Edwards frequently relies on hermeneutics of promise and fulfillment as the method for discerning the spiritual meaning. Second, one can easily see that the majority of his spiritual interpretation utilizes typology as a method for arriving at the spiritual meaning of the text. [33]

First, even though Edwards consistently pursues literal historical meaning of the text, his interpretation of the Major Prophets frequently understands the literal grammatical meaning of a passage to have a direct bearing upon the promise and fulfillment issue. In other words, it is a rare case that Edwards has direct recourse to the Christological, ecclesiological, or eschatological interpretation of these texts. Instead, he quite often refers these texts to God’s time in the ancient Israel. However, when the text explicitly requires a Christological, ecclesiological, or eschatological understanding, Edwards relies on a pattern of promise and fulfillment. Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah 32:14 is a good example of this. Isaiah prophesies the destruction of ancient Israel. Interpreting the text, Edwards argues that the text speaks here of (1) the destruction of many of the cities of Judah by Sennacherib, (2) the destruction of all of the cities of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, and (3) the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Therefore, the promise of Old Testament finds its fulfillment in the history of ancient Israel in Old Testament times.

Nevertheless, Edwards does not lose his ultimate reference to the end time. Even though Isaiah 32:14 primarily references the destruction of Jerusalem, he also understands that the text refers to the end of time. Edwards sees the prophecy of the devastation of Jerusalem as the eternal destruction of “the wicked hypocritical city” or “false church,” and the establishment of “a New Jerusalem,” which follows the second coming of Christ. Therefore, for Edwards, the prophecy of Isaiah 32:14 is fulfilled ultimately at the time of Christ’s second coming.

In this way, the promise and fulfillment hermeneutic of Old Testament prophecy makes it possible for the meaning of the text to include the entire kingdom of God. The promise and fulfillment hermeneutic enables Edwards to deal with not only historical interpretation of the text, but also the contemporary and future application of the text at the same time. This structure is apparent in Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets. His interpretation of Isaiah 7:3 is another good example of this. Here, Edwards examines the meaning of the phrase “Shear-jashub thy son” in Hebrew, and claims that this phrase contains the prophecy that “the remnant shall return.” God will judge Israel and Judea because of their sins. Assyria and Babylon will be used as instruments of chastisement. However, God will ultimately restore His chosen people and deliver them from the hands of their enemies. Edwards insists that the prophecy was accomplished (1) more immediately, in Hezekiah’s time, after the Assyrians had destroyed the kingdom of Ephraim and Judah; (2) in Ahaz’s time, when Pekah and Rezin had brought back 200,000 captives of Judah to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 28:8-15); and (3) at the time of the return of the Israelites from Babylonian captivity. In its main outlines, the fulfillment of Micah’s prophecies occurs within the history of the Old Testament. [34]

However, Edwards also relates the historically interpreted meaning of the text to the New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. For Edwards, this prophecy was ultimately fulfilled (1) when Jesus Christ started to save the people from “the state of captivity to sin and Satan in unbelief,” and (2) when some of the Israelites were saved from “the last terrible destruction by the Romans.” [35] In his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Edwards often relates the historically interpreted text to the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament and, as a result of that fulfillment, to the ongoing life of the church.

Edwards’s bearing upon promise and fulfillment interpretation of texts such as Isaiah 32:14 and Isaiah 7:3 shows two pivotal points for his analysis of the text: first, careful attention to the original context to pursue the literal meaning of the text; and, second, the relation of the logic or dynamic in the text to the fulfillment in the New Testament. The promise points beyond the history of the Old Testament, such as the destruction of many of the cities of Judah by Sennacherib or the return of Judah from Babylonian captivity, to the restoration and consummation of the spiritual kingdom of God at the First and Second Coming of Christ. Here, Edwards has seen a kerygmatic analogy [36] between the promise concerning historical events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and ancient Israel’s return from Babylonian captivity, and the promise concerning the restoration of the church at the time of Christ’s Coming. The present passages, which prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the return of Jews from foreign exile, are similar to the situation indicating the restoration and consummation of the church at the time of Christ’s coming. That is, there is similarity of the times or analogy of historical situation between the time when God will punish Jerusalem for their iniquities and gather captured Judah to bring them back to Israel, and the time when God will judge the wicked and the false church and assemble the faithful who are scattered to restore the church at the Second Coming. This similarity of times enables Edwards to correlate a historical situation between ancient Israel and a historical situation of the church. Therefore, by means of kerygmatic analogy, Edwards draws out the meaning of the text for the ongoing life of the kingdom.

At this point in his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards’s careful consideration of the original context and the literal meaning of the text is different from that of the modern critical method. Like the modern critical interpretation of the text, Edwards understands the literal meaning of the text as given to ancient Israel by seeking the literal historical meaning of the text. However, Edwards does not lose the flexibility of reference available to the allegorical method. For him, the text must be allowed to speak to the church: Edwards’s literal sense of the text presents a meaning directed toward the ongoing believing community, the church. Therefore, by means of kerygmatic analogy, Edwards relates the reference of the text beyond ancient Israel to the time of Christ, the life of the present-day church, and finally to the last day when this prophecy will be completely fulfilled. This shows that even though Edwards is firmly committed to the literal sense of the text and to expounding the intention of the author, the final implication of the Major Prophets in his commentary is determined by the broader context of promise and fulfillment, and the ongoing history of God’s people.

Furthermore, even though Edwards maintains his exegetical principle to pursue one literal meaning of the text, his exegetical approach to this text by means of kerygmatic analogy shows that his exegetical interest has not deviated far from allegory and trope. His use of kerygmatic analogy manifests itself as a crucial exegetical principle in his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

Therefore, the examination of Edwards’s hermeneutic of promise and fulfillment in the Major Prophets enables us to know that his literal historical interpretation of the text is different from that of modern criticism: his literal interpretation of the text is ultimately determined by the broader context of the hermeneutic of promise and fulfillment. [37] Unlike modern historical interpretation, Edwards’s exegetical scope is not limited to God’s time in ancient Israel. Instead, it also includes contemporary and future events of the Christian church in the New Testament period. In other words, by means of kerygmatic analogy, Edwards does not lose the spiritual meaning of the text. Thus, Edwards’s literal historical method is interconnected with divergent exegetical tendencies such as the allegorical method, the scope of the text, and the application to the present-day church.

Consequently, this exegetical principle indicates that, in the interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Edwards follows more closely the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century pre-critical model, in continuity with the medieval exegetical tradition, than the characteristics of modern critical exegesis.

The Use of Typology in Edwards’s Interpretation of the Major Prophets

The use of typology was commonly employed by the Reformed exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Through typological interpretation, the Reformed biblical expositors were able to reveal not only the historical meaning of the text, but also a mystical meaning of the text, which would be fulfilled in the New Testament era. Typology was a highly significant exegetical method. [38]

In addition to these earlier writers, typology is regarded as one of the most characteristic hermeneutical methods of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards felt that the Bible is replete with symbolic religious images that “point to Christ, to Christian redemption or to the glory of the kingdom of God.” [39] These biblical types, which Edwards usually found in the books of the Old Testament, found their fulfillment in various antitypes represented in the New Testament. In order to understand his use of typology in the Major Prophets, one should know Edwards’s view of Old Testament typology. It is clearly found in his “Types of the Messiah”:

We find by the Old Testament that it has ever been God’s manner from the beginning of the world to exhibit and reveal future things by symbolical representations, which were no other than types of the future things revealed. Thus when future things were made known in visions, the things that were seen were not the future things themselves, but some other things that were made use of as shadows, symbols or types of the things…. We find it was God’s manner throughout the ages of the Old Testament to typify future things, not only as he signified them by symbolical and typical representations in those visions and prophecies in which they were revealed. But also as he made use of those things that had an actual existence, to typify them either by events that he brought to pass by his special providence to that end, or by things that he appointed and commanded be done for that end. [40]

According to Edwards, everything in the Old Testament “was typical of the Messiah and things appertaining to him.” [41] Thus, he argues that the typology of Christ in the Old Testament is evidence that Jesus is the Messiah. [42]

However, for Edwards, the life of Christ in the New Testament also contains typological significance. Beyond the Old Testament, he extends his idea of typology into the New Testament. “The things of the ceremonial law are not the only things whereby God designedly shadowed forth spiritual things, but with an eye to such a representation were all the transactions of the life of Christ ordered.” [43] Nevertheless, Edwards’s application of typology is not confined within the scope of Scripture. Rather, he views the whole world as full of “images” or “shadows” of divine things. [44] Indeed, for Edwards, everything in the creation reflects divine things as a type. [45] The degree to which he applies this hermeneutic made Edwards outstanding in typology, even though he was not the first to employ typological exegesis.

However, Edwards’s pursuit of a spiritual or figurative meaning of the text through the use of typology did not regress to the form of allegory. In his typology, Edwards intends to “show how there is a medium between those that cry down all types, and those that are for turning all into nothing but allegory and not having it to be true history.” [46] In other words, he objects not only to those who reject the use of typology completely, but also to those who pursue unbridled allegorical interpretation that denies the historical significance of the text. Cherry claims that Edwards’s approach was an alternative to “unimaginative literalism and a fanciful allegorizing, for the typological method aimed first to take a text for what it said and then, without abandoning its plain meaning, sought to discern its prefiguring of a later historical meaning.” [47]

In particular, the historical nature of the type is important in Edwards’s typological interpretation. Like other Reformed typological exegetes of the seventeenth century, Edwards sought to ground his spiritual conclusions in the historical types of the biblical revelation. [48] This emphasis of historicity was in no way diminished by the understanding that the type foreshadowed the antitype and that the antitype, in turn, gave further illumination to the type. Rather, the literal historical meaning of the text functions as “the necessary foundation” for Edwards’s typological interpretation. [49] In his typological exposition of the Bible, Edwards first pursues the literal historical meaning of the text and then, by applying this category to the interpretation of prophecy, goes beyond the literal sense to discover a typological or spiritual meaning of the text.

Thus, typology, while providing a legitimate method for emphasizing the unity of Scripture, is grounded in the historical meaning of the text and does not deny a historical referent for the type in the Old Testament. By maintaining an emphasis upon the historical background of a passage, Edwards attempts to avoid fanciful interpretation of the types he expounds upon. In this sense, Edwards’s use of typology is distinguished from the allegorical interpretation of medieval exegesis, and it is in continuity with that of pre-critical interpreters, particularly that of the seventeenth-century Reformed biblical exegetes. [50]

In his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Edwards vigorously uses typology as an exegetical method in order to seek a harmonious interpretation between the Old and New Testaments. He applies typological interpretation when events, persons, and practices of the Major Prophets foreshadowed the coming Christ and the ministry of Him and His church. Therefore, through typological interpretation, Edwards reveals not only the historical meaning of the text, but also a spiritual meaning of the text which would be fulfilled in the New Testament era.

His use of typology in the interpretation of the Major Prophets is too frequent to mention all instances. However, a few examples will clearly illustrate his use of typology in the interpretation of the images and symbols in the prophets’ visions. In his exposition of Isaiah 8:6, Edwards uses typology to interpret the phrase “the waters of Shiloah.” First, by pursuing the literal meaning of the text, he identifies it with the pool of Siloam in John 9:7. However, for Edwards, “the water of Shiloah” foreshadows Christ. He states, “’Tis manifest that the pool of Siloam is there respected as a type of Christ, the fountain of living waters, who by his blood and spirit washes away sin, and restores sight to the blind. And ’tis manifest that the pool of Siloam is the same with the waters of Siloam.” Then Edwards tries to interpret the meaning of the entire verse by revealing the historical background of it. He questions why the Israelites forsook “the waters of Siloam,” which represent the God of Judah; according to him, Israel refused the God of Israel because “the water of Siloam” went “slowly.” It means that the Israelites abandoned their God because the God of Israel did not prosper His people as the gods of other people such as those of Syria and Ephraim did. At the time of Isaiah, the people of Israel complained about their low circumstances, their small territory, and their weak political and military power. For Edwards, this refusal of God by the ancient Israelites also typifies the Jews’ refusal of Jesus Christ; they forsook Him for the same reason that the ancient Israelites abandoned the God of Israel. This clearly shows Edwards’s typological interpretation of the text. [51]

Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah 38:5-8 also reflects his characteristic typological approach to the text. First, he interprets this text literally and insists that the sun was actually brought back ten degrees. He then claims that God probably brought the sun to the meridian. However, Edwards also states that a coming back of the sun also typifies “the resurrection of Christ” because He is “the Sun of righteousness.” [52] Moreover, he argues that when God delivers the church at the time of eschaton from the hands of the enemies, the light of Christ will arise in the west, “fix in a meridian light,” and shall not go down. [53]

In addition to the cases of Isaiah, one can also find several examples of Edwards’s use of typology in the interpretation of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. For instance, Edwards uses typology to interpret Jeremiah 16:13. For him, this verse primarily describes the miserable state of the Jewish church under Babylonian captivity. However, Edwards claims that Babylon is a great type of the Church of Rome. Therefore, Jeremiah 16:13 ultimately and clearly represents “the state of the Christian church under the tyranny and oppression of the Church of Rome.” [54] To elucidate this typological idea, Edwards adds that the church of Israel in Egypt also foreshadows “the spiritual Babylon,” which refers to the Catholic Church. [55]

In short, for Edwards, typology is one of the main exegetical methods in his exposition of the Major Prophets. He frequently associates the events and persons of the Old Testament with the person and work of Christ in the New Testament. Especially, the literal historical meaning of the text functions as the necessary foundation for Edwards’s typological interpretation. Because of this feature, his typology is clearly distinguished from the allegorical interpretation of medieval exegesis, and is in continuity with the typology of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biblical exegetes.

The Use of Exegetical Tradition in the Interpretation of the Major Prophets

The reference of exegetical tradition in the exposition of the Bible is one of the typical exegetical methodologies in the history of the pre-critical exegesis. In particular, this method was significantly favored by the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biblical interpreters. However, they warned against relying too heavily upon it because it might lead them to focus more on tradition than on the Scripture itself. [56]

Nevertheless, in the exposition of the Bible, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biblical writers fully recognized the value of the exegetical insights of previous church leaders. They frequently appealed to the authority of their exegetical predecessors from the early church fathers to contemporary Reformed, Lutheran, and Catholic exegetes in order to support or illustrate their interpretation of the text.57 This feature is found in the exegetical works of the numerous sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biblical exegetes, such as John Calvin and John Owen. Interaction with earlier church authorities was “an integral aspect of the seventeenth-century expositor’s task.” [58]

As with his orthodox exegetical predecessors, Jonathan Edwards also frequently uses other writings in order to demonstrate the validity of his interpretation on the grounds of historical Christianity and to complement his exegetical conclusions. [59] His interpretation of the Major Prophets is also full of his citations of other previous or contemporary writings. Thus, it is an important side of his hermeneutical strategy, although this aspect of his hermeneutics has not been properly dealt with by modern scholars. [60]

Edwards’s exegesis does not occur in a historical vacuum. He constantly makes reference to other writings, ranging widely from the church fathers, both Greek and Latin, to his contemporary exegetical writers. In particular, Edwards frequently refers to the seventeenth century biblical interpreters to support his interpretation of the text. This reflects that, although unheralded today, he stands as one of the great scholars of seventeenth-century biblical interpretation in the first half of the eighteenth century. Among the galaxy of the seventeenth-century biblical expositors cited in his exposition of the Major Prophets, none were more luminous than Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and Humphrey Prideaux. [61]

Edwards’ exegesis of the Major Prophets is a good example of his use of exegetical tradition in order to present the proper understanding of the text. For example, in his discussion of the Messianic promise of Isaiah 7:14, he refers to the four seventeenth-century biblical exegetes: Thomas Ridgley, Richard Kidder, Matthew Poole, and Matthew Henry. He consults the expositions and arguments of these writers in order to reveal what the prophecy of verse 14 means. [62]

The examples of his reference to other writings are too numerous to discuss all instances. In particular, Edwards uses exegetical tradition and his contemporaries to pursue a literal historical meaning of the text. For instance, in his interpretation of Isaiah 21:1, Edwards uses Matthew Henry’s Exposition of All the Books of the Old and New Testament to explain why Babylon is called the desert or plain of the sea in this verse. Edwards quotes Henry’s argument that “Babylon was a flat country, and full of lakes like little seas, and was abundantly watered by the many streams of the river Euphrates.” [63] By referring to Henry, Edwards pursues the literal historical meaning of the text. [64]

Despite frequently referring to the seventeenth-century biblical interpreters to support his interpretation of the text, such as Henry, Poole, and Prideaux, Edwards does not refer to or mention other critical interpreters of his time. This exegetical feature evidently reflects that his interpretation was deeply influenced by the seventeenth-century pre-critical interpretation.

Jonathan Edwards and Modern Critical Interpretation

One of the most representative features of eighteenth-century biblical interpretation is the appearance of modern critical methods. [65] Under the influence of the early British Enlightenment, many traditional hermeneutical beliefs concerning the historicity, reliability, and religious integrity of the Bible were seriously challenged by the critical interpreters. This approach started to threaten a traditional Christian faith and interpretation of the Bible. Edwards himself became interested in this new exegetical trend and engaged actively in the discourse of the historical criticism of the Enlightenment. [66] Thus, some of his biblical interpretation reflects a strong critical influence on his hermeneutics. [67] In this sense, Robert E. Brown claims that his biblical interpretation includes elements of both traditional and critical approaches. [68] However, it does not mean that Edwards was in favor of the critical approach of the Bible. Brown writes:

Despite his consuming interest in such interpretive problems, Edwards himself was not a critic, in the sense of being skeptical about the Bible’s historical or religious integrity, or in the sense of employing a thorough going historical analysis in his resolution of interpretive problems. Rather, Edwards was interested in critical issues primarily because of the conceptual and apologetic difficulties they posed for the traditional understanding of the Bible as a form of divine revelation. [69]

Indeed, Edwards did not allow its critical methods to “impoverish” his interpretation of Scripture. [70] His interpretation of Isaiah 40 is a good example of this. In this exposition, his treatment of the authorship and integrity of Isaiah—that is, whether the book of Isaiah was written by one author—shows Edwards’s engagement with the preeminent critical issue of his day. On the basis of critical analysis, Edwards states that the style and scope of Isaiah 40-66 are different from Isaiah 1-39. However, he does not accept the critical position of the different authorship of Isaiah between 1-39 and 40-66. Instead, according to other traditional views, he concludes that Isaiah is the author of not only Isaiah 1-39 but also Isaiah 40-66. Moreover, except in this case, Edwards hardly employs modern critical methods in his exposition of the Major Prophets. Rather, as has already been examined, the interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel clearly shows that Edwards firmly retains pre-critical exegetical methodology, particularly that of the seventeenth-century biblical exegetes. So even though Edwards vigorously participated in the discussion of modern exegetical concerns and sometimes employed the critical methods in his interpretation of the Bible, Edwards’s expositions show that his exegetical assumptions, principles, and conclusions follow more closely with the pre-critical model, which is more in continuity with the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century exegetical traditions than the characteristics of modern critical exegesis. Brown’s identification of Edwards more as a pre-critical interpreter than as a critical interpreter is warranted in Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. [71]

Critique of Previous Scholarship on Jonathan  Edwards’s Hermeneutics

The examination of Edwards’s exegetical methods in his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel enables us to point out some problems with previous scholarship on Jonathan Edwards’s hermeneutical methodology. First of all, oversimplified classification of Edwards’s exegetical methods by previous scholarship cannot be warranted here. Some classify Edwards as a literalist. [72] Stein argues that Edwards pursued a “spiritual hermeneutic.” [73] The majority, however, seem to categorize him as a typologist. [74] In sum, previous scholars tend to place Edwards into broad categories such as literal, typological, or allegorical. However, these simple labels are inadequate as a description of the diversity of his hermeneutical approaches. For example, his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel clearly shows that Edwards pursues not only a literal historical interpretation but also a typological interpretation. In particular, as we have already seen, his spiritual interpretation of the text through the hermeneutic of promise and fulfillment and typology that is inseparably connected with literal historical meaning of the text. Moreover, Edwards relies on other pre-critical exegetical principles, such as the use of exegetical traditions, as well. Thus, rather than categorize him as literal, typological, or allegorical, one should approach his hermeneutics in a more comprehensive way.

Among some scholars who dealt with Edwards’s hermeneutics, it is particularly worthwhile to examine the work of G. R. Kreider, dealing with the exegetical characteristics of Edwards’s interpretation of Revelation, since it discusses the hermeneutics of Jonathan Edwards in great length, and no one has dealt with his arguments since its publication. [75] In his book, Kreider successfully overcomes the misunderstandings and methodological problems of previous scholarship in many points, but his arguments are also problematic at several points. [76] First, he ignores eschatological and ecclesiological aspects of his interpretation by overemphasizing the Christological character of Edwards’s biblical interpretation (he overemphasizes Edwards’s Christological interpretation as his exegetical key). He states:

When Edwards approaches any text of Scripture, his focus is on how this text relates to Christ. In his preaching, he defends his Christological interpretation by showing how so many other texts also relate to Christ. Christ becomes the lens or prism through which Edwards examines Scripture and the world around him. [77]

It is beyond question that Edwards’s interpretation of Scripture has a strong Christological focus. Nevertheless, in his exposition of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, he often interprets the text in the ecclesiological or eschatological perspectives as well. For example, Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah 37:30-31 clearly shows not only the Christological but also the eschatological and ecclesiological aspects of his exegesis. Edwards argues that verse 31 literally refers to the Jews’ return from Babylonian captivity. However, for Edwards, this is also a type of “the last resurrection” of Christians. Thus, he relates the historically interpreted text to the future eschatological and ecclesiological event at the time of “the last resurrection.” In other words, Edwards claims that the text ultimately speaks here of the final restoration and consummation of the church at the last time. [78]

For Edwards, the Bible was Christ’s story, but also a story which encompassed the whole redemptive history from the creation and fall, through redemption, and into the eschaton. Thus, the application of typology in biblical hermeneutics enabled him to understand the Scriptures primarily as Christological, yet also as ecclesiological and eschatological. It is therefore more appropriate to see Edwards’s exegetical methodology in the broader theological perspectives and focuses.

Secondly, on the basis of his emphasis of Christology in Edwards’s interpretation of the Bible, Kreider states that “it is this Christological focus which protects his typological method from becoming allegorical.” [79] However, it is not the Christological focus, but his pursuit of the literal historical sense of the text in the practice of typology that distinguishes Edwards’s typological interpretation from allegory. For Edwards, like other Reformed exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who want to protect their methodology from fancy allegory, the literal sense of the text is expanded to spiritual meaning beyond itself. That is, the spiritual meaning of the text is resided in and controlled by the grammatical meaning of the text. [80] In this sense, Edwards’s typology is different from unbridled allegorical interpretation. [81] Instead of functioning as a means to protect Edwards’s methodology from allegory, his Christological focus rather functions only as a means to relate the events or persons of the Old Testament to Christ and His work of redemption in the New Testament.

Besides Kreider, Stein’s arguments on Edwards’s exegetical methodology, in his article “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,” also require reevaluation. In this article, Stein claims:

[In his search for the spiritual sense of the Scripture] Edwards shared certain assumptions with the Reformation tradition, but in other ways he departed from prevailing patterns of Protestant exegesis. In contrast to the Reformation accent upon the sufficiency of the singular literal sense of the Bible, he underscored the multiplicity of levels of meaning in the text and the primacy of the spiritual. [82]

According to Stein, Edwards’s emphasis on the spiritual sense shows a significant discontinuity between Edwards and the Reformation tradition. Stein’s analysis, however, is problematic on the following points. First of all, his understanding of the literal sense of the Bible in Reformation and Post-Reformation era is quite inaccurate. By quoting Ames, who states that “there is only one meaning for every place in Scripture,” [83] Stein insists that “the Protestant Reformation rejected the idea that each passage of the Scripture was subject to a variety of interpretations.”84 Unlike Stein’s argument, however, the Reformed writers also underscored the multiplicity of levels of meaning in the text.85 In order to understand this, one first needs to figure out what the literal sense means by the Reformed writers. Their understanding of literal sense is very different from that of modern critical interpreters. Concerning the nature of the literal sense, William Whitaker writes:

Such things as allegory, anagoge, and tropology in scripture; but meanwhile we deny that there are many and various senses. We affirm that there is but one true, proper, and genuine sense of scripture, arising from the words rightly understood, which we call the literal: and we contend that allegories, tropologies, and anagoges are not various sense, but various collections from one sense, or various applications and accommodations of that one meaning. [86]

Turretin similarly argues that, even though the Bible “has only one true and genuine sense,” this one sense can either be “simple” or “composite.” According to him, the former refers to the historical sense of the text “which contains the declaration of one thing only, whether a precept, a doctrine, or a historical event” and the latter indicates a “mixed sense” such as is found in prophecy. [87] Thus, for Turretin, although there is one sense of the text which belongs to the single intention of the Spirit, there can exist several levels of meaning in the text. [88]

Whitaker and Turretin’s statements clearly show that literal sense refers to more than just the grammatical meaning or the meaning of the words themselves in the era of Reformation and Post-Reformation. For them, literal sense is one single sense which can have multiple references.89 Therefore, it is evident that Stein misunderstood the usage of the literal sense in Reformation and Post-Reformation periods. [90]

Certainly, the Reformed biblical interpreters rejected the medieval quadriga. They argued that unless the Scriptures can have only a single sense in any particular place, an ambiguity of meaning may occur and it may finally cause errors in interpretation. [91] For them, nevertheless, “the elements of the medieval quadriga” had not completely been discarded. [92] Instead, they were “repositioned by the Reformed orthodox exegetes within the literal sense.” [93] Unlike Stein’s argument, the Reformed did not deny the multiple meaning of the text. The importance of spiritual meaning of the text was only more heightened. [94]

Stein also states that “the literal meaning Edwards pursued was not singular in appearance. Rather it embraced a variety of aspects, manifesting itself in numerous ways.” [95] However, this is the exact hermeneutical approach that the Reformed exegetes followed. For instance, as already examined, diverse senses are identified in Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets, but they arise directly from the literal grammatical meaning of the text. However, this exegetical pattern is commonly found in many Reformed writers such as Calvin. [96] According to orthodox Protestant hermeneutic, “there is one genuine sense but there are various theological directions in which that sense points, particularly those directions indicated by the fulfillment of prophecy or by figures and types in the text.” [97] Thus, Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets shows that his approach to the spiritual meaning is not different from that of the Reformed exegetes.

Next, Stein claims that “[h]is hermeneutical category of the spiritual sense makes it impossible to say when typology ends and allegory begins.” [98] However, this is an overstatement. In his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards’s use of typology is clearly distinguished because his typology is established on the literal historical meaning of the text. Moreover, Edwards’s typology is distinguished from allegory through his consistent use of terms such as “typifies,” “represents,” “shadows,” “figures forth,” and “image.”

Consequently, Stein’s conclusion that “the Bible did not function for him as a theological norm or source in any usual Protestant fashion because the literal sense of the text did not restrict him” [99] cannot be warranted at all. Rather, in his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Edwards’s understanding of the relation between the literal meaning of the text and the spiritual one clearly shows that he firmly stands in continuity with Reformation hermeneutical tradition.

Finally, in addition to the problems of previous scholarship on Edwards’s hermeneutics, the present study challenges modern scholarship’s understanding of Edwards as a modern thinker. Since Perry Miller argued this thesis, [100] it was the dominant conception among modern Edwardsean scholars. Concerning this, Donald Weber states:

Miller claimed that Edwards was the most modern man of his age, one whose profound reading of Newton and Locke enabled him to anticipate twentieth-century theories of history, religious psychology, and the self. In fact, this “modernity” thesis has shaped the course of critical inquiry for a generation. [101]

However, Miller’s “modernity” thesis has been disproved by other scholars. Weber also says that “thanks to the contributions of Conrad Cherry, John F. Wilson and others, the question of Edwards’s modernity is no longer an issue. We now place Edwards firmly within the context of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century religious and philosophical debate.” [102] Along with Weber, Kenneth Minkema clearly points out the problems of previous scholarship and summarizes the majority view among Edwardsean scholars:

Jonathan Edwards is too often regarded as the isolated genius who arose from humble, rustic, narrow-minded surroundings and surmounted those obstacles by the force of his own intelligence and inquisitiveness. The mistaken image of Jonathan as a prodigy, first created by Sereno Dwight, has persisted despite discoveries that his early efforts were actually written much later than hitherto thought…. It is important to realize that Jonathan Edwards was very much a product of the cultural milieu into which he was born. There is no disputing that Jonathan took what he was given and forged it into a singular vision, but the tendency until recently has been to ignore just what he was given. The romantic and obscured image of Edwards has been amended by recent scholarship that investigates him in an intellectual and social context. [103]

Nevertheless, some scholars still claim that Edwards should be categorized as a modern man. [104] For example, in his discussion of the philosophical aspect of Edwards’s theology, Sang Hyun Lee strongly insists, “My contention in this present volume is that Edwards was actually more radically ‘modern’ than Miller himself might have realized.” [105] However, Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel clearly shows that he was a man of his time. As demonstrated in the present study, his hermeneutical presuppositions such as the analogy of faith and the analogy of Scripture, exegetical methods such as the pursuit of literal historical interpretation, the hermeneutics of promise and fulfillment, the use of typology, and the employment of the exegetical traditions are quite consistent with his tradition, particularly with those of the seventeenth century. One can hardly find the elements of modern critical interpretation in his exposition of the Major Prophets. Therefore, the modernity thesis cannot be warranted by Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

Conclusion

Examination of Jonathan Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets permits one significant conclusion concerning his hermeneutical methodology: in his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards generally employs exegetical techniques which operate within the bounds of his pre-critical hermeneutic presuppositions and principles. In other words, Edwards’s hermeneutical methodology is quite consistent with that of his pre-critical tradition. Therefore, this exegetical feature clearly shows that, at least in Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets, his hermeneutical methodology follows more closely the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century pre-critical model, more congruous with the patristic and the medieval exegetical traditions than the characteristics of modern critical exegesis.

Notes

1. Stephen J. Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards, ed. Stephen J. Stein (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 181-82. Sweeney therefore states that “Jonathan Edwards was a biblicist—one whose world revolved around the words of Scripture.” Douglas A. Sweeney, “Longing for More and More of it? The Strange Career of Jonathan Edwards’s Exegetical Exertions,” in Jonathan Edwards at 300: Essays on the Tercentenary of His Birth, ed. Harry S. Stout, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Caleb J. D. Maskell (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2005), 25. Glenn R. Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation of Revelation 4:1-8:1 (New York: University Press of America, 2004), 2-3. Concerning the importance of the Bible in the life and thought of Edwards, Vincent Tomas states, “How can anyone who has perused Edwards’ works fail to mention Scripture as one of the dominating intellectual influences in his life?” Vincent Tomas, “The Modernity of Jonathan Edwards,” New England Quarterly 25 (1952): 71.
2. Douglas A. Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758),” in Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 309.
3. Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 182. Sweeney, “Longing for More and More of it?,” 26. John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1 (Powhatan, Va.: Berea Publications; Orlando, Fla.: Ligonier Ministries, 1991), 140. He states that “Jonathan Edwards’ life—intellectual and moral—centered around the Bible. Although virtually every aspect of his life has been put under the academic microscope, this area has been barely noticed…. Dozens of dissertations deal with one detail or another aspect of the great American Puritan but none on that which concerned him the most.” Nevertheless, Gerstner ironically devoted only a small portion of his work to the issue of Edwards’s use of the Bible.
4. Stephen J. Stein, “Spirit and the Word: Jonathan Edwards and Scriptural Exegesis,” in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, ed. Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 123. He also states that “[i]t is an irony and something of an enigma that the Bible, one of the shaping forces in the theological development of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), has been largely ignored in the assessments of this colonial divine.” Stephen J. Stein, “Jonathan Edwards and the Rainbow: Biblical Exegesis and Poetic Imagination,” New England Quarterly 47 (1974): 441.
5. Sweeney, “Longing for More and More of it?,” 26. For excellent annotated bibliographies of works by and about Jonathan Edwards, see M. X. Lesser, Jonathan Edwards: An Annotated Bibliography in Three Parts, 1729-2000 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). This work is the expansion of his previous two works, Jonathan Edwards: An Annotated Bibliography, 1979-1993 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994) and Jonathan Edwards: A Reference Guide (Boston: G. K. Hall and Co., 1981). See also Nancy Manspeaker, Jonathan Edwards: Bibliographic Synopses (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1981); Roland A. Delattre, “Recent Scholarship on Jonathan Edwards,” Religious Studies Review 24 (1998): 369-75; Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation..., 2-6.
6. Sweeney states that “Edwards scholars have often treated this fact as an embarrassing family secret, one that would damage our reputations if widely known. And truth be told, this concern has not been completely misdirected, for many have little use at all for the Edwards of history” (Sweeney, “Longing for More and More of it?,” 26). He also writes that “Surely this neglect has something to do with the fact that the pioneers of the twentieth-century Edwards renaissance tended to denigrate his Biblicism in tragic, not to say historionic, terms…. Much as such scholarly gymnastics distorted our view of Puritanism, so the frequent denigrations of and excuses for Edwards’s biblicism have kept us from understanding his chief occupation” (30-31).
7. One finds a few studies dealing with Edwards’s view of the Bible and his exegetical methodology. See John A. Ayabe, “A Search for Meaning: Principles of Literal and Spiritual Exegesis in Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Notes on Scripture’” (MA thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001); Robert E Brown, Jonathan Edwards and the Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002); “The Bible,” in The Princeton Companion to Jonathan Edwards (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 87-102; Conrad Cherry, “Symbols of Spiritual Truth: Jonathan Edwards as Biblical Interpreter,” Interpretation 39 (1985): 263-71; John H. Gerstner, “Jonathan Edwards and the Bible,” Tenth 9.4 (1979): 2-71; Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation...; Samuel T. Logan, “The Hermeneutics of Jonathan Edwards,” Westminster Theological Journal 43 (1980): 79-96; Stephen J. Stein, “Quest for the Spiritual Sense: The Biblical Hermeneutics of Jonathan Edwards,” Harvard Theological Review 70 (1977): 99-113; “‘Like Apples of Gold in Pictures of Silver’: The Portrait of Wisdom in Jonathan Edwards’ Commentary on the Book of Proverbs,” Church History 54 (1985): 324-37; “The Spirit and the Word: Jonathan Edwards and Scriptural Exegesis,” in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 118-30; Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete”; D. A. Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)”; Sweeney, “‘Longing for More and More of It?’ The Strange Career of Jonathan Edwards’s Exegetical Exertions,” 25-37; Ralph G. Turnbull, “Jonathan Edwards: Bible Interpreter,” Interpretation 6 (1952): 422-35. For a recent overview of modern scholarship on Edwards’s view of the Bible and his hermeneutical method, see Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’s Interpretation..., 3-4.
8. The articles of R. Turnbull, J. Gerstner, and S. Logan particularly so.
9. This resulted in the simplistic classification of Edwards’s hermeneutics and rigidly categorized him as a literalist or typologist. For example, see Gerstner, “Rational Biblical Theology”; Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards”; and Stein, “Quest for Scriptural Sense.” However, Kreider’s Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation..., and Ayabe’s “A Search for Meaning” are exceptions to this case. Even though Stein deals with an actual example of Edwards’s interpretation of the book of Proverbs in his “The Portrait of Wisdom,” he does not deal with the method Edwards used in interpreting it.
10. Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 15 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). This is a four-book manuscript collection of miscellaneous exegetical writings which consists of more than five hundred numbered entries.
11. Jonathan Edwards, The Blank Bible, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 24 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). The original title of this work is “Miscellaneous Observations on the Holy Scripture.” It is composed of 5,500 notes and entries by Edwards relating to biblical texts. Stein says that this is “striking documentary evidence of Edwards’ life-long exegetical preoccupation” (19).
12. Kreider’s work is the only extant study dealing with Edwards’s actual exegetical practices and hermeneutics beyond generalization in the broader context of the history of exegesis.
13. Besides those two works, Edwards’s other works such as Notes on the Apocalypse, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 5 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), Typological Writings, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 11 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), and his numerous sermons clearly show his hermeneutical principles. Thus, Stein states that “collectively a massive body of Edwards’s exegetical writings remains. His biblical reflections—located in notebooks and commentaries, sermons and treatises—beg for closer examination than they have received to date. Much research remains to be done” (Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 193).
14. In addition to his private notebooks, Edwards’s interpretations of the Major Prophets are scattered around other works such as “The Miscellanies.” He did not, however, interpret all the particulars of these texts; his selective treatment of themes and the interpretation of the texts are representative of his handling of the Bible in those works.
15. To date, the influence of others on Edwards’s hermeneutical method has been largely ignored; this study will start to fill in that gap in Edwardsean scholarship.
16. No one has yet shown how traditional Edwards was in his use of a specific passage of Scripture except Kreider’s work of Jonathan Edwards’s interpretation of Revelation 4:1-8:1.
17. A number of Edwardsean scholars such as Perry Miller have insisted that Jonathan Edwards was a great modern thinker. However, the reading of Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel shows that their classification of him as a modern thinker cannot be warranted. This issue will be dealt with in more detail in the later section of this study.
18. It is beyond the scope of this study to compare Edwards’s personal interpretation with the commentaries of his predecessors and contemporaries. However, this comparative study would also be helpful to understand Edwards as a biblical interpreter. The present study will focus on comparing Edwards’s hermeneutical methodology with that of his traditions and contemporaries.
19. Edwards is selective in the passages he discusses. It is clear that his intention is not to write a formal commentary on the books of the Major Prophets. He rather seems to comment on the details of the text that interest him. Nevertheless, the study of Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets clearly reveals his exegetical presuppositions and techniques.
20. The analogy of faith and the analogy of Scripture were essential hermeneutical principles in the history of pre-critical exegesis and they functioned as a foundation of all biblical interpretation, especially among the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century orthodox biblical interpreters. Concerning this, see Henry Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God” (Ph.D. diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002), 63-80.
21. It is beyond the scope of this study to compare Edwards’s exegetical conclusion in his interpretation of the Major Prophets with that of the traditional orthodox interpretation. However, it is not difficult to conclude that his interpretation is quite consistent with that of his orthodox predecessors. For example, compare Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah 1-39 with that of the traditional orthodox exposition. See Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Isaiah 1-39, ed. Steven A. Mckinion (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
22. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 686-87.
23. Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation..., 99.
24. Obviously, the analogy of faith and the analogy of Scripture are not the hermeneutical strategy of the modern critical interpreters. Unlike pre-critical exegetes, they do not necessarily admit the organic unity of the Bible. Concerning this modern hermeneutical tendency, see John Barton, “Historical-critical approaches,” in Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, ed. John Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 9-20.
25. Seeking literal historical meaning of the Bible through the philological, grammatical, and historical studies of the text was the main trend for the biblical exegetes in the Reformation and the Post-Reformation era (Richard A. Muller, “Biblical Interpretation in the 16th & 17th Centuries,” In Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald McKim [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999], 123-51).
26. Concerning Edwards’s interest in the study of the original language in the Bible, Stein states that “Edwards studied the text of the Bible very closely, sometimes turning initially to the Hebrew and Greek for a firsthand examination of the ancient texts” (Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 184).
27. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 684.
28. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 706.
29. Stephen Stein, “Editor’s Interpretation,” in The Blank Bible, ed. Stephen Stein, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 24 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 19-23.
30. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 672.
31. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 672.
32. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 740.
33. These two kinds fall into the same category in that both deal with the spiritual meaning of the text. However, I have distinguished between those which display a clear typological association through the use of terms like “typifies,” “represents,” “shadows,” “figures forth,” and “images,” and those which reflect symbolic or metaphorical connections between the Old Testament, New Testament, and present-day church.
34. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 635.
35. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 635.
36. This term, “kerygmatic analogy,” was used by Hans Joachim Kraus. In his discussion of the Reformers’ exegesis of Scripture, Kraus asserts that their exegesis of the Bible was not just academic research or scholarly interpretation of Scriptures. Instead, he argues, “We can observe everywhere their direct participation in the life and suffering of the church, the seriousness and urgency with which they comfort and exhort, the way they debate and instruct.” According to him, this present application was possible because the Reformers have seen a kerygmatic analogy between the text and the situation of the ongoing church and between the Old Testament and the New Testament. He therefore states, “It is rather the case that the contemporary applications to the life of the church arose out of the kerygmatic analogies which made a direct impression on the exegete and were not artificially brought in as ‘interpretation’ or ‘speculations’” (Hans Joachim Kraus, “Calvin’s exegetical principles,” Interpretation 31 [1977], 12).
37. In addition, the pursuit of the literal historical meaning of the text was maintained even throughout the medieval period, and many early church fathers approached the text literally. Therefore, the literal historical interpretation of the text by pre-critical exegetes does not necessarily need to be linked to the modern critical interpretation. Concerning this, see Brevard S. Childs, “The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem,” in Beitragezur Alttestamentlichen Theologie, ed. Donner, Hanhart, and Smend (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1977), 80-93. For the literal interpretation of the Bible in the medieval period, see Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1964); James Samuel Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969).
38. Typological interpretation has been used by the church fathers as well. Concerning the use of typology in the early church, see David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics In the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 27, 33, 41-42, 63-64, 72, 81-83, 106, 110, 118, 127, 157. However, this exegetical device significantly developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 261-82.
39. Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards,” 311.
40. Edwards, Typological Writings, 193-94.
41. Edwards, “Types of the Messiah,” 321.
42. Edwards, “Types of the Messiah,” 321. For Edwards, the life of Christ in the New Testament also contains typological significance. Edwards wrote: “The things of the ceremonial law are not the only things whereby God designedly shadowed forth spiritual things, but with an eye to such a representation were all the transactions of the life of Christ ordered” (Jonathan Edwards, The Miscellanies (Entry Nos. a-z, aa-zz, 1-500), ed. Thomas A. Schafer, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 13 [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994], 284).
43. Edwards, Miscellanies (1–500), 284.
44. Edwards, Typological Writings, 152. He also states: “And very much of the wisdom of God in the creation appears in his so ordering things natural, that they livelily [sic] represent things divine and spiritual, [such as] sun, fountain, vine; as also, much of the wisdom of God in his providence, in that the state of mankind is so ordered, that there are innumerable things in human affairs that are lively pictures of the things of the gospel, such as shield, tower, and marriage, family.” The Miscellanies (1–500), 284.
45. On Edwards’s use of typology in the natural world, see Janice Knight, “Learning the Language of God: Jonathan Edwards and the Typology of Nature,” William and Mary Quarterly 48 (1991): 531-51. See also Diana Butler, “God’s Visible Glory: The Beauty of Nature in the Thought of John Edwards and Jonathan Edwards,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 13-26.
46. Edwards, Typological Writings, 151.
47. Conrad Cherry, “Symbols of Spiritual Truth,” Interpretation 39 (1985): 264.
48. Even though the Reformed exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries pursued a spiritual or figurative meaning of the text through the use of typology, the Reformed biblical expositors regarded a figurative or spiritual meaning as “an integral dimension of the literal text itself.” According to them, the literal sense of the text could be expanded to symbolic meaning beyond itself. However, Reformed exegetes held that the spiritual meaning of the text should “reside in and be controlled by” the grammatical meaning of the text. (Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 266). Cf. Donald Dickson, “The Complexities of Biblical Typology in the Seventeenth Century,” Renaissance and Reformation 11 (1987):258; Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (hereafter: PRRD) II, 491; “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment,” 73.
49. Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation..., 98.
50. Conrad Cherry correctly explains that Edwards’s use of typology was “an elaboration upon the exegetical method preferred by his British and American Puritan harbingers” (Cherry, “Symbols of Spiritual Truth,” 264).
51. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 638.
52. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 669.
53. Edwards also states that the Assyrians in the Old Testament often typify the enemies of the church (Edwards, The Blank Bible, 670).
54. This typological interpretation shows Edwards’s strong anti-Catholicism. In his last years, Edwards clearly subscribed to the Puritan conviction of the pope as antichrist. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the Major Prophets is the only place where Edwards obviously expresses his anti-Catholicism. His anti-Catholic interpretation is much more evident in his exposition of the book of Revelation. Concerning Edwards’s anti-Catholicism, see Marsden’s chapter on Edwards’s last years. “Anti-Catholicism was basic to popular expressions of cultural identity and was often associated with millennial speculations,” and Edwards was not so unusual in this respect. George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 528.
55. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 708.
56. They refuted the scholastic manner of the interaction with previous authorities as done by medieval Roman Catholic theologians. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 99-100.
57. For this, see Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 99-107.
58. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 107.
59. Concerning Edwards’s use of church tradition, Stein states that “often his own exegetical judgments were formed in conversation with opinions expressed in the works he was reading. Throughout his professional life he engaged this Christian tradition of commentarial discourse” (Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 185).
60. No scholars have substantially discussed Edwards’s use of exegetical traditions or contemporary writings.
61. The works of Poole, Henry, and Prideaux that Edwards engaged the most extensively were Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: wherein each chapter is summed up in its contents: the sacred text inserted at large, in distinct paragraphs; each paragraph reduced to its proper heads: the sense given, and largely illustrated; with practical remarks and observations. New edition revised and corrected, 6 vols. (London, 1708-10); Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible, 2 vols. (London, 1683-85) (Edwards’s father Timothy owned 11 copies of this work); Matthew Poole, Synopsis Criticorum aliorumque Sacrae Scripturae Interpretum, 5 vols. (London, 1669-76); and Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations, from the Declension of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah to the Time of Christ, 4 vols. (London, 1716-1718 ) (Edwards’s copies of the ninth edition of this work are listed in his “Account Book” at the Beinecke and may be seen at the Forbes Library, Northampton, Mass.). Sweeney states, “Names such as Matthew Poole, for example, or Arthur Bedford, or Hemphrey Prideaus, scarcely ring a bell today among Edwards scholars. But these were his interlocutors—much more than Locke, Berkeley and Newton. They may not have played as great a role in shaping his intellectual agenda. But they played a much greater role in helping him prosecute that agenda.” Sweeney, “Longing for More and More of it?,” 26.
62. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 636-37.
63. Matthew Henry, An Exposition of All the Books of the Old and New Testament, vol. 4 (London, 1708-10), 55.
64. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 669.
65. For the overview of biblical interpretation in the 18th century, see G. T. Sheppard, “Biblical Interpretation in the 18th & 19th Centuries,” in Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 257-80.
66. Brown, “The Bible,” 94. Stein also states that “[t]his is the context in which Edwards came to know the rising tradition of innovative critical scholarship that was gaining attention in Europe and raising new challenges to the authority and interpretation of the Bible” (Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 186). However, modern scholars have largely neglected to study the modern critical influence on Edwards’s hermeneutics.
67. For example, Brown states that “he adjusted biblical cosmology and eschatology to Newtonian astronomy and physics” (Brown, “The Bible,” 96). Concerning the influence of modern criticism on Edwards’s hermeneutics, see Stephen J. Stein, “Editor’s Introduction,” The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 15, “Notes on Scripture,” ed. Stephen J. Stein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 12-21; Brown, Edwards and the Bible, 89-99.
68. Brown, “The Bible,” 97.
69. Brown, “The Bible,” 97.
70. Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards,” 312.
71. He insists that “[e]ighteenth-century interpretation is best characterized as a spectrum of critical and historical view, from conservative to radical, on which Edwards clearly occupies the more conservative end. As such he is representative of the period and can be placed alongside early modern critics such as Johann Bengel and John Lightfoot” (Brown, “The Bible,” 97).
72. For example, John Gerstner asserts, “Edwards was a ‘literalist’…. According to Edwards the Old Testament was a typological dispensation. He is a literalist in his interpretation even here. This is the sense in which everyone is a literalist and no one is a literalist. That is, literalism has to refer to the very letters or words of a document” (John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1 [Powhatan, Va.: Berea Publications; Orlando, Fla.: Ligonier Ministries, 1991], 182-3). However, when the text allows it, Edwards himself employs the allegory to interpret the text. For example, in his exposition of Zechariah 13:5, he approaches the text allegorically. “The words are, ‘I am no prophet; I am an husbandman: for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.’ The words, I apprehend, are to be interpreted in a spiritual sense: ‘I am an husbandman’—the work of ministers is very often in the New Testament compared to the business of the husbandmen, that take care of God’s husbandary, to whom he lets out his vineyard, and sends ’em forth to labor in his field, where one plants and another waters, one sows and another reaps; so ministers are called laborers in God’s harvest” (Jonathan Edwards, The Great Awakening, ed. C. C. Goen, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 4. [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1972], 434).
73. Stein, “Quest for Spiritual Sense,” 107. Later in the same essay, Stein concludes, “Edwards simply assumed that every passage in the Bible held the possibility of multiple interpretations” (113). These “multiple interpretations” include typology and allegory. Stein notes that “for Edwards the gap between typology and allegory was small and the step over easy. His hermeneutical category of the spiritual sense makes it impossible to say when typology ends and allegory begins” (112). See also Stein, “Jonathan Edwards and the Rainbow,” 440-56. In this discussion of Edwards’s no. 348 in “Notes on Scripture,” Stein observes that Edwards was “imaginative” in his allegorical treatment of the text.
74. Cf. Sweeney, who emphasizes the use of typology in Edwards’s hermeneutics. He says that “Edwards’ most significant contribution to the history of exegesis lay in his typological interpretation of the Bible” (Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards,” 311). However, Ayabe challenges the view that Edwards’s exegetical priority was principally placed in the spiritual sense. He argues that the exegetical entries in the “Notes on Scripture” show that the literal-historical meaning of the biblical text is “a much more significant component” in the exegetical process of Edwards than what has been argued by previous scholarship. Ayabe even claims that “Notes on Scripture” is “dominated” by the literal-historical meaning and “served a key role in the way Edwards arrived at the spiritual interpretation of a passage” (Ayabe, “A Search for Meaning,” 17).
75. Even the latest publication concerning Edwards’s hermeneutics, Brown’s “The Bible,” in The Princeton Companion to Jonathan Edwards, or his “Edwards as Biblical Exegete” in The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards do not include this work in the bibliography. Kreider’s book was originally a Ph.D. dissertation published at Dallas Theological Seminary. This is the only monograph ever published which substantially deals with Edwards’s hermeneutics in detail. His work is significant because it is the first strong attempt to understand Edwards’s hermeneutic in the context of the history of exegesis.
76. There are also methodological problems in his discussion of Edwards’s exegetical methods. (1) In his analysis of Edwards’s interpretation of Revelation 4:1-8:1, Kreider focuses almost only on Edwards’s use of typology; he does not substantially deal with Edwards’s other exegetical methods employed in this interpretation such as the pursuit of the literal historical interpretation. Thus, he fails to fully understand Edwards’s hermeneutic in a comprehensive way. (2) Even though he tries to examine Edwards’s use of typology in the context of the history of exegesis, Kreider does not fully elucidate the features of typological interpretation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Consequently, he could not properly demonstrate the continuity between Edwards’s use of typology and that of the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
77. Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation..., 18.
78. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 668-9.
79. Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation..., 120.
80. Ayabe also points out the importance of the historical meaning of text in Edwards’s use of typology as an important principle for Edwards’s typological engagement. He states that “[t]he typological interpretation in ‘Notes on Scripture’ contains historical references that anchor both the type and the antitype in time and space. As a result we would expect Edwards to be more inclined to find types in passages that reflect historical accounts, than passages which do not” (Ayabe, “A Search for Meaning,” 100). However, Ayabe also fails to examine this feature of Edwards’s typology in the context of history of biblical interpretation. In other words, he does not reveal how this hermeneutical principle is related with that of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biblical interpreters. Moreover, Ayabe’s thesis contains a methodological flaw because he does not deal with Edwards’s other important exegetical work, The Blank Bible. He explains that it was unavailable when he worked on his thesis.
81. Therefore, in both of his approaches to the spiritual meaning of the Major Prophets (hermeneutics of promise and fulfillment and typology), Edwards’s spiritual interpretation falls within the guidance of scriptural principles derived from a literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual understanding of the text. The role of literal, grammatical, and historical exegesis becomes a significant factor in uncovering the spiritual meaning of the text in Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets.
82. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,”100-101.
83. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. & ed. John D. Eusden (Boston: Pilgrim, 1968), 188.
84. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,”106.
85. “Whereas the Reformers rejected the quadriga and many of the results of medieval exegesis, they did not reject hermeneutical devices like the movement from promise or shadow in the Old Testament to fulfillment or reality in the New Testament, nor did they set aside a typological understanding of the relation of the Old to the New covenant” (Muller, PRRD II, 469-70).
86. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. & ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849), V.ii. 404. Note Charles K. Cannon, “William Whitaker’s Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura: A Sixteenth-Century Theory of Allegory,” in Huntington Library Quarterly, 25 (1962): 129-38; Victor Harris, “Allegory to Analogy in the Interpretation of Scripture,” in Philological Quarterly, 45 (1966): 1-23.
87. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. II, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 1992), xix.2.
88. Turretin, Institutes, xix.2 & 6. According to Turretin, even the simple sense is twofold: either “proper and grammatical” or “figurative or tropical.” The former refers to the literal sense which consists in the words themselves and the latter indicates the literal sense which lies in what the words signify.
89. Muller, PRRD II, 473.
90. In particular, Stein’s analysis of the use of literal meaning of the text in the Reformation era is based on very problematic works: Frederic W. Farrar’s History of Interpretation (New York: Dutton, 1886), 307-54 and Hans W. Frei’s chapter on pre-critical interpretation in The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University, 1974), 17-50. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,” 106. It is beyond the boundary of this article to point out the problems of these two works. However, it is worthwhile at least to note that Stein relies on works which have been severely criticized by other scholars.
91. Muller, PRRD II, 473.
92. Muller, PRRD II, 475.
93. Muller, PRRD II, 475.
94. Muller states, “Medieval exegesis was no longer possible nor desirable given the state of hermeneutics and of Protestant doctrine—but the question of the spiritual and churchly reading of the text of Scripture remained, indeed, as heightened in importance in view of the increased distance between the text, now in Hebrew and Greek rather than churchly Latin, and the complex doctrinal formulae of the traditional theological system.” Muller, PRRD II, 469.
95. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,” 107.
96. For example, see Muller’s “The Hermeneutic of Promise of Fulfillment.”
97. Muller, PRRD II, 473.
98. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,”112.
99. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,”113.
100. For example, regarding the modernity in Edwards’s thinking, Miller states, “That the psychology he accepted was an oversimplified sensationalism. And that his science was unaware of evolution and relativity, should not obscure the fact that in both quarters he dealt with the primary intellectual achievements of modernism, with the assumptions upon which our psychology and physics still prosper: that man is conditioned and that the universe is uniform law. The importance of Edwards—I cannot insist too strongly—lies not in his answers, which are often pathetic testimonies to his lack of sophistication or to the meagerness of his resources, but in his inspired definitions.” Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949; reprint, New York: Meridian Books, 1959), 72.
101. Donald Weber, “The Figure of Jonathan Edwards,” American Quarterly 35 (1983): 557.
102. Weber, “The Figure of Jonathan Edwards,” 557
103. Kenneth Pieter Minkema, “The Edwardses: A Ministerial Family in Eighteenth-Century New England” (Ph.D. diss., University of Connecticut, 1988), 148.
104. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide further evidence that Edwards was a man of his time. In my opinion, his interpretation of a specific passage of Scripture is one of the ideal places to show how traditional Edwards was.
105. Sang Hyun Lee, The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 3. See also Robert W. Jensen, America’s Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Stephen M. Clark, “Jonathan Edwards: The History of the Work of Redemption,” Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 45-58. He argues that “Edwards anticipates the biblical theological approach” of Geerhardus Vos, and “the student wishing to understand the nature of Edwards’ methodology would do well to begin with Vos” (56).