Soundly Gathered Out Of The Text? Biblical Interpretation In “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God”

By Garth E. Pauley

[Garth E. Pauley is Professor of Rhetoric at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. He wishes to acknowledge the generous support of the Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship for this project.] 

As a minister steeped in the Reformed and Puritan homiletic traditions, Jonathan Edwards preached what he understood to be the true doctrines of the Christian faith, grounded in Scripture. His sermons expounded and applied biblical theology, and his New England Calvinist audience naturally assumed his doctrines would flow from sound biblical interpretation. Edwards believed in the natural clarity of the Scriptures, affirming a principle insisted upon by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. But like the Reformers, he also believed the Bible’s clarity did not make its interpretation unnecessary. The Puritan divinity that was Edwards’s inheritance provided for an exegetical method that, in theory, allowed the biblical texts to interpret themselves.[1] In reality, things were more complicated. The more learned Puritan theologians and ministers developed and employed a complex exegetical method that yielded interpretations related to the unity of the Scriptures, their historical contexts, and their original languages. Given that some Puritan exegetes believed “there is only one meaning for every place in Scripture,” as the English divine William Ames put it, getting one’s interpretation right was essential.[2] This was especially true in the area of biblical theology. Interpreting the Bible to ascertain sound doctrine was fraught with complications, though. A biblical text might express its own doctrine directly, Puritan scholars and ministers believed, but oftentimes the doctrine needed to be deduced, drawn, or “gathered” (to use the most common contemporary term) out of the text. Puritan declarations regarding the ministry of the word pronounced a standard for theological gathering by a New England Calvinist preacher like Edwards. The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith called for doctrine to be “deduced by good and necessary consequence.” And The Arte of Prophecying, an influential preaching handbook by the Cambridge minister and theologian William Perkins, emphasized that doctrine must be “soundly gathered out of the text . . . otherwise, wee shall draw any doctrine from any place.”[3]

Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is an ideal text for investigating the contours of biblical interpretation embodied in New England Calvinist preaching—and, especially, Edwards’s particular version of it. The sermon is a canonical text in American religious history. It is an acknowledged rhetorical masterpiece and a notorious example of revival preaching. It is considered an exemplar of biblical and doctrinal preaching by many evangelical Protestants. It is also, at first glance, mistaken in its biblical interpretation. The sermon begins by “laying open the text” (a Puritan term for summarizing the selected biblical passage and communicating its natural sense) and articulating the doctrine Edwards gathered out of that sense. But Edwards seems to misunderstand Deut 32:35 here, and the doctrine drawn from his chosen text is by no means a straightforward deduction. Indeed, one may legitimately question whether or not Edwards’s interpretation is accurate and whether or not his doctrine is soundly gathered out of the text. Such inquiry will enhance our understanding of a vital constituent of Edwards’s most famous sermon, one that has been largely overlooked in the voluminous scholarly literature about Edwards and New England Calvinist preaching.[4]

Most studies of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” focus on the section called the “application,” in which Edwards directs the truth of his doctrine to the perceived needs of his audience. Ripe for analysis, this section contains the vivid imagery for which the sermon is notorious and in which Edwards directly and dramatically confronts unregenerate sinners to “consider the fearful danger” they are in. Yet to understand how Edwards applies his doctrine to his listeners—how he communicates it to be relevant, significant, and real—one must first understand fully what Edwards’s doctrine is and how he develops it. Moreover, Edwards’s interpretation should be evaluated to understand whether it would have seemed reasonable to his listeners and whether it is in fact reasonable by broader standards for sound biblical interpretation. As the sermon remains widely read, studied, and admired (by some), analyzing Edwards’s handling of Scripture in it also provides an opportunity to better understand the broader history and practice of biblical theology, theological interpretation, and doctrinal preaching.

I. Edwards’s Text And The Challenge Of Interpretation

Before analyzing and evaluating Edwards’s biblical interpretation in detail, some observations about the biblical text for his sermon and its interpretive challenges are in order. The short passage on which Edwards preached, “their foot shall slide in due time” (Deut 32:35 KJV), is extracted from the middle of its verse and constitutes less than a quarter of the whole. The verse is part of the forty-three verses (1–43) from ch. 32 known as the Song of Moses. The song is poetic, dramatic, vivid, immediate, distinctive—and confounding. To most readers, it stands as prima facie evidence of a conclusion cautiously admitted by the Reformers and Puritans, that the meaning of some biblical texts is not immediately clear. The passage’s confusing features include unusual alterations between third-person speech about Yahweh and first-person speech by Yahweh. In fact, the song is perplexing in most of the ways that Edwards’s Reformed and Puritan forebearers believed made biblical interpretation difficult.

That a biblical passage like the Song of Moses seems “obscure and abstruse” or even “crypticall and darke”[5] is not itself a deficiency, according to Reformed and Puritan theologians and their progeny. The source of the obscurity would be identified as a defect in human understanding not Scripture itself. This defect would be attributed to a variety of shortcomings among a variety of exegetes: confusion related to the multiplicity of scriptural manuscripts, poor grasp of biblical languages, insufficient understanding of ancient oral and literary traditions, insufficient understanding of the historical contexts in which the biblical story took place and was transmitted, lack of attention to the various scriptural contexts in which the passage is located, and inaccurate Bible translation. Making sense of the Song of Moses presents each of these problems for an eighteenth-century biblical interpreter like Edwards and for scholars today.

These difficulties in understanding Deut 32:1–43 are interrelated and complex. Textual criticism of the three complete ancient witnesses to the text was difficult during Edwards’s time and remains difficult now. There are significant differences in renderings of the song among the earliest complete Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek manuscripts.[6] The text is characterized by complicated morphology, syntax, and semantics. In terms of literary form, the text possesses some features of other ancient Yahwistic poetry yet is highly original, and thus challenging to interpret.[7] Understanding the historical character of the text and its function determines one’s exegesis even at the level of individual words: for example, who is meant by references to “they” or “them” in vv. 23–30 is contingent, to an extent, upon one’s particular understanding of the text as history and rhetoric. Finally, translating the text can obscure it significantly, as some linguistic ambiguities that seem part and parcel of the text resist both literal and free translation strategies.

That the Song of Moses is perplexing does not diminish its biblical significance, of course. The song represents the final act of divine authority carried out through Moses. It formalizes Israel’s praise for Yahweh’s faithfulness, vindication, and sovereignty before the people claim the promised land. The song also testifies to the centrality of obeying the law in Yahweh’s covenant with Israel: the people’s future wellbeing is contingent upon a life of obedience to the law. At first glance, this theological meaning makes this significant text challenging to a Calvinist preacher like Edwards, as its literal sense seems to confront the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Edwards’s exegetical inheritance constituted a resource for meeting the textual, literary, historical, rhetorical, and theological challenges of his biblical text. For example, both the Reformers and Puritans emphasized understanding Hebrew in order to best glean the literal sense of an OT text. Edwards owned a Hebrew Bible, one that included an interlinear Latin translation based on a redaction of textual witnesses.[8] Some Puritan theologians also advocated studying a variety of textual witnesses—including rabbinical ones—to aid in the work of interpreting the OT. In addition, the Reformers and Puritans emphasized the importance of understanding historical contexts for accurate interpretation. They also counseled following the analogy of Scripture and the analogy of faith to help interpret a challenging biblical passage. In applying the analogy of Scripture, the exegete enacts a principle emphasized particularly by Luther and articulated in the Westminster Confession:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (WCF 1.9)

The analogy of Scripture is especially relevant to Edwards’s interpretation, as Deut 32:35 is incorporated into Heb 10:30. In enacting the analogy of faith, the interpreter hopes to come to a clearer understanding of an obscure passage through the work of the Holy Spirit and by interpreting it through the lens of faithful doctrine. Finally, the Reformers and Puritans also advised using faithful Bible commentaries to help clarify confusing passages of Scripture.

Understanding the traditions and resources available for Edwards to draw upon provides a useful frame for understanding his interpretation of a challenging biblical text. But Edwards was a highly original thinker. His hermeneutical inheritance shaped and constrained his interpretation in significant ways, yet Edwards rarely employed the methods of his time and tradition uncritically.[9] Rather, he adapted them creatively to his particular ends. So to understand fully how Edwards interprets the biblical text for “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” how he gathers doctrine out of it, we must look closely at a variety of his manuscripts. His sermon notebooks, personal theological notebooks (or “Miscellanies”), interleaved Bible commentary (or “Blank Bible”), and notebook on biblical passages, theology, and exegetical ideas (or “Notes on Scripture”) all provide insights into Edwards’s interpretive method, both in general and in regard to Deut 32:35. Yet given that “Sinners” is a unique enactment of his theological interpretation of the Bible for the purpose of effecting regeneration and revival, the sermon itself deserves our closest attention.

II. Laying Open The Text

By focusing primarily on its vivid imagery, literary form, and basic rhetorical appeals, scholars have overlooked one of the sermon’s most important elements—the opening section in which Edwards begins the work of construing and communicating the natural sense of the biblical text in order to gather doctrine out of it.

1. A Sense Of The Text

Puritan rhetoricians generally disdained the notion that a sermon should contain an exordium, and, indeed, Edwards’s interpretation gets under way immediately: “In this verse is threatened the vengeance of God on the wicked unbelieving Israelites, that were God’s visible people, and lived under means of grace.” This statement is significant for two reasons: first, because in it Edwards seems to misinterpret his chosen text to advance a predetermined rhetorical purpose and doctrine; and second, because it reveals the theological lens through which Edwards interprets the text in order to gather his particular doctrine out of it.

Understanding Edwards’s apparent misinterpretation of Scripture requires reading the entirety of Deut 32:35: “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste” (KJV). Virtually every modern-day Bible commentary interprets the verse to mean that at some given time Yahweh will destroy the adversaries of Israel that he uses to punish Israel for being unfaithful to the covenant. More importantly, two Puritan Bible commentaries that Edwards relied upon regularly interpret the passage likewise: Matthew Henry’s Exposition of All the Books of the Old and New Testaments and Matthew Poole’s Synopsis Criticorum, the latter of which observes that God punishes Israel first (as described in earlier verses) and then their adversaries (as indicated in v. 35).[10] In fact, Edwards himself wrote in his “Blank Bible” that the verse “speaks of vengeance on their [Israel’s] enemies.”[11] The entry cannot be dated, though, so whether he wrote it before or after his exegesis for “Sinners” is unknown. Even so, that Edwards preached against what was his own understanding of the text at some time and also was the dominant Puritan understanding of the text’s literal sense is puzzling.

While the pronominal references in Deut 32 often lack absolute specificity and switch unusually, close analysis of vv. 31–35 indicates that the subjects of Yahweh’s wrath identified in v. 35 are the adversaries of the Israelites. To be sure, Israel is implicated in Yahweh’s vengeance against its adversaries, as indicated by v. 36. Edwards, however, directs his audience back to v. 28 to identify the pronominal reference of “their” in v. 35, as the first sentence of his sermon suggests a wider biblical circumference for making sense of his chosen text. His claim that v. 28 identifies the Israelites as the people “void of counsel” and “understanding” is supported by some Bible commentaries, including Henry’s Exposition. But Edwards goes further, stating that the third-person plural pronouns throughout vv. 28–35 refer to Israel. The exegesis by which Edwards arrives at this conclusion, however, is not presented in his sermon. At first glance, this misinterpretation may not seem exceptionally problematic, as the broader text does in fact deal with God’s judgment against Israel. But as we shall see later, this misinterpretation is significant for the doctrine Edwards gathers out of the text.

What Edwards takes to be the literal sense of Deut 32:35 is mistaken and puzzling[12] but advances his rhetorical purpose in preaching terrors to bring sinners to Christ. By identifying the “wicked unbelieving Israelites” with the “wicked men” among his listeners, Edwards hopes they will really “consider the fearful danger” they are in. From this perspective, as Moses’ listeners should appreciate the justice of God’s vengeance and fear it, so too should Edwards’s.

That the meaning Edwards takes from his scriptural text seems biased by his rhetorical purpose is noteworthy, given the emphasis on careful exegesis in the Reformed and Puritan traditions. His failure to engage in thorough analysis of his text leads him to confuse the Israelites with their adversaries in v. 35—and even keeps him from concluding, as did some Reformed and Puritan commentators, that the ambiguity of the chapter makes precise identification of the subjects of Yahweh’s vengeance in a given verse virtually impossible.[13] Moreover, in characterizing the Israelites as “wicked” and “unbelieving,” Edwards uses adjectives not present in the KJV translation and in a sense inconsistent with the Hebrew text.[14] In addition, he does not indicate whether the phrase “wicked unbelieving Israelites” refers to the people as a whole or only to some of its members, a distinction with theological significance for Edwards’s doctrine. In any case, his misidentification of the subjects of Yahweh’s vengeance portends an implied comparison between the Israelites and the members of his audience, and his severe language foreshadows the dramatic rhetoric to come.

After identifying Israel as the subject of Yahweh’s vengeance, the first sentence of Edwards’s sermon continues by characterizing the nature of the relationship between God and his people. Edwards describes the Israelites as “God’s visible people” who “lived under means of grace.” The covenant between Yahweh and Israel is a prominent feature of the Song of Moses, yet Edwards’s characterization of it constitutes a theological interpretation of the text, grounded in his approach to covenant theology. Surprisingly, he does not support this reading with an explicit application of the analogies of Scripture or faith, as one might expect from a New England Calvinist sermon. The Faithful Shepheard, a popular sermon handbook by the Puritan divine Richard Bernard, counseled that “where the doctrine is not expressed in the text,” the preacher should demonstrate its truth through Scripture and reason.[15] Yet while Edwards’s theological interpretation is not a clear-cut, uncontested statement of the text’s doctrine, he does not explicate it.

What does the sermon gain by this theological interpretation? After all, it is a rather abstract way to begin a sermon. Perhaps from Edwards’s perspective it demonstrates the relevance of the biblical text to his audience. Good theological interpretation shows the audience how it participates in the drama of redemption,[16] and this quality was especially pressing given Edwards’s preaching text and the sermon’s occasion.

While Edwards’s audience members were primed for reflection on whether or not they were right with God, many may have wondered what Yahweh’s covenant with ancient Israel had to do with God’s saving purposes for them. By referring to Israel as God’s visible people, though, Edwards emphasizes the unity of ancient Israel and the NT church. Moreover, by referring to Israel as having lived under means of grace, he suggests that while God’s covenant of redemption was administered through the law during the time of Moses, it is God’s grace that makes redemption effectual among his chosen people. The severe punishment Yahweh threatens against Israel for their disobedience in Deut 32 may at first glance seem more consistent with a covenant of works. And the story of Yahweh’s dealings with Israel before they entered the promised land may seem historically particular. But Edwards lays open the text for his audience so as to call attention to a shared covenant of redemption and to create identification between two groups of visible saints: ancient Israel and churchgoing New England Calvinists. Of course, it is impossible to know to what extent this implied comparison resonated with his audience members. But even attentive, theologically literate audience members may have been confused by Edwards’s passing reference to covenant theology in an awakening sermon ultimately about personal regeneration, conversion, and salvation. Edwards’s theology of the biblical covenants as historical expressions of God’s plan for salvation could have clarified this issue[17]—but presenting it would have required detailed exegesis that might have bogged down the sermon at its start. Yet without it, Edwards’s theological interpretation is rather confusing.

In identifying Israel as the subjects of Yahweh’s vengeance and interpreting Scripture through the lens of covenant theology, Edwards begins the process of adapting an OT text to his awakening purpose. His misidentification of the subjects of Yahweh’s vengeance does not constitute a flagrant misinterpretation of Scripture. Though his sermon does not present a systematic interpretation on this score, Edwards does interpret v. 35 in relation to previous verses, present an interpretation supported by some Bible commentaries, and state a general truth communicated by the chapter as a whole: the prospect of Israel’s sin leads Yahweh to threaten them with destruction. Still, more nuanced exegesis might have altered Edwards’s conclusions about v. 35.[18] Regarding his theological interpretation of the biblical text, Edwards’s sermon could be understood as applying the analogy of faith—that is, clarifying the meaning of the text by showing its consistency with sound doctrine. But in the absence of clear exegesis, he risks committing an interpretive fallacy against which some Reformed and Puritan theologians warned: making a doctrinal assumption that should be proven by the interpretation itself. Overall, Edwards’s biblical interpretation at the beginning of “Sinners” does not constitute a flagrant misinterpretation, but his method reveals problems in his approach to biblical theology and doctrinal preaching. Indeed, given the absence of supporting exegesis, his initial laying open of the text sounds like eisegesis.

Given the apparent endpoint toward which Edwards’s biblical interpretation moves, why did he not choose a clearer passage from Scripture? His sermon seems designed to communicate that God sometimes restrains his punishment of unrepentant sinners and that God’s restraint does not constitute absolution, because ultimately they will be subjected to God’s vengeance. In fact, an examination of historical manuscripts reveals that Edwards developed the doctrine for his sermon before he chose a biblical text for interpretation—a disconcerting practice, perhaps, but one in which he engaged occasionally.[19] An entry in his sermon notebook written in early June 1741 contains the idea for delivering a sermon “from some text” on the doctrine that unrepentant sinners are under a sentence of condemnation to hell, even though God chooses not to destroy them presently.[20] Edwards’s decision to exegete Deut 32:35 as the means to arrive at this doctrine is peculiar. Other texts (e.g., Ps 73, Rom 2, and 2 Thess 2) seem to make the point Edwards has in mind more clearly. But individually, none of these presents a key rhetorical quality Edwards had in mind for his sermon. Edwards likely chose Deut 32:35 for his text—even at the risk of misconstruing the literal sense of the text and committing an exegetical fallacy—primarily because its language, especially the terms “slide” and “due time,” fit with his effort to dramatize the condition of the unregenerate sinners among his audience.

2. Inferences

Indeed, Edwards devotes most of his time laying open the text in a way that dramatizes the precarious situation of “these wicked Israelites” in regard to “punishment and destruction.” Whereas the sermon’s opening statement is packed with theological meaning yet devoid of sustained explication of the text, Edwards exegetes the text’s meaning regarding “slide” and “due time” at length. He also abstracts meaning from the biblical text to suggest that the principles of mechanics and time that governed the ancient Israelites also govern the precarious spiritual state of his audience members. Even so, Edwards’s interpretation does not constitute a systematic orientation to the sermon’s doctrine. Rather, he somewhat laboriously presents four inferences related to the physical and temporal trajectories of sinners. In fact, “Sinners” belies a claim by the scholar Wilson Kimnach that when laying open the text Edwards “explains carefully, but does not belabor small points.”[21]

None of the first three inferences are claims of particular historical or theological significance intrinsic to the biblical text. Edwards’s first two inferences are that the text shows the Israelites “were always exposed to destruction” and “were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction.” Each inference is elaborated and argued with a proof text, Ps 73:18: “Surely thou didst set them down in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction. How they are brought into desolation as in a moment.” Yet the sense of God’s agency in this proof text seems to go against Edwards’s third inference, that the Israelites were “liable to fall of themselves, without being thrown down by the hand of another.”[22] While none of these conclusions is communicated naturally by the biblical text itself, each functions as a foundation for the sermon’s doctrine and application.

How Edwards expounds these points (that the threat of destruction is ever-present, that destruction comes suddenly, and that destruction befalls the wicked from their own weight) is marked by two related interpretive troubles, however. The first is that he wrenches theological significance out of the words “slide” and “slip” without considering their biblical meaning. The Hebrew root word (ÓÂË) that the KJV translates as “slide” is better understood as “falter” or “stagger,” the latter meaning being indicated in Johannes Buxtorf’s Lexicon Chaldaicum—which Edwards owned and used for linguistic exegesis. Such basic analysis calls into question his suggestion that vengeance against the wicked will be executed at God’s calculated time, as they slide or slip along their natural trajectory toward destruction.[23] The second interpretive trouble is this: Edwards’s theological point about the impending destruction of the wicked emphasizes the physical manifestations of their condition, even though the biblical text expresses Yahweh’s vengeance more poetically and ambiguously. In other words, even though Edwards likely understood the biblical account of Yahweh’s punishments to be metaphorical, his sermon gleans theological significance from this poetic account by treating it almost literally, nearly as a physical reality. His application of the laws of mechanics, especially that of potential energy, to sinners’ precarious spiritual state can be understood as a kind of allegorical interpretation. Gleaning new meanings from words in the biblical text is not a misuse of Scripture, per se, and linguistic exegesis need not be restricted to a narrow historical understanding of the text in every case.[24] But Edwards’s exegesis of “slide” and “slip” misconstrues an important aspect of the biblical text relevant to his doctrine. Namely, it minimizes God’s agency in judging sinners. The biblical theology of Deut 32 relates to vindication and salvation through God’s active judgment, a fact that Edwards’s third inference obscures. Indeed, concerns that allegorical interpretation could lead to doctrinal errors unless carefully circumscribed made some Reformed theologians wary of its use.

The fourth, and final, inference Edwards makes in laying open the text is simple to explain but difficult to evaluate. He claims that the biblical text indicates the reason the wicked do not fall soon after their abject sinfulness “is only that God’s appointed time is not come.” He deploys the KJV’s language of “due time” to emphasize God’s providence and sovereignty, claiming that when God no longer holds sinners up “in these slippery places” they will “at that very instant . . . fall into destruction.” But the KJV contains a misinterpretation that calls into question Edwards’s conclusion here.[25] The notion of “due time” or appointed time is not fully consistent with the Hebrew in Deut 32:35. Rather, the vocabulary and grammar of the MT suggests Edwards’s text is probably understood best as: “at the time their foot falters.”[26] However, some biblical scholars believe the variant reading of v. 35 contained in the LXX and SP—“for the day of vengeance and recompense”—may be more original than the MT. This understanding of the text is more consistent with the eschatological vision of Edwards’s sermon, and it is possible that he derived his vision in part from those textual witnesses. Edwards seems to have shared the belief held by the critical scholars of his time that the received scriptural texts sometimes require emendation, and that the judicious use of texts other than the MT—including the LXX and SP—could yield insights for understanding God’s word.[27]

Given that Edwards educes a particular relationship about time and agency on the basis of the language of the text, he should have engaged in linguistic exegesis, as provided for by his Reformed and Puritan heritage—and of which he was capable.[28] Instead, as presented, Edwards’s interpretation misconstrues the ambiguous relationship between time, judgment, and Yahweh’s agency in the Song of Moses. That unregenerate sinners will fall into hell at a calculated time of God’s choosing, when he removes his restraining hand, may be true, but it is not a biblical truth indicated by the language of Deut 32:35.

Edwards’s laying open of the text shares assumptions with some of his Reformed and Puritan forebears, yet defies interpretive principles advocated by others. Generally speaking, Edwards’s choice to preach an awakening sermon on Deut 32 suggests an affinity with Cocceius’s emphasis on interpreting OT passages about God’s covenant with Israel in order to understand his plan for salvation through Christ. But by interpreting the text through the lens of covenant theology without supporting exegesis, Edwards defies an injunction emphasized by Calvin in particular against simple theological interpretation that fails to give sufficient attention to its historical particularities. One should expect a theological interpretation of the history of redemption to give sufficient attention to the specific acts that constitute the drama.[29] Edwards also fails to heed a warning from one of his favorite theologians, the Reformed scholastic Petrus van Mastricht, who observed that failing to study the original language of the text usually leads to flawed interpretation. Indeed, Edwards’s interpretation in this sermon seems to share the Puritan theologian John Owen’s concern with drawing out the significance of individual words from Scripture, but without the analysis of Hebrew that accompanied Owen’s OT interpretations. Some Puritan homileticians warned against gleaning too much meaning from specific words for just this reason: the popular handbook The Preacher, for example, suggested that by focusing on “single words and sentences” without careful, circumscribed linguistic exegesis, preachers risked “marring the doctrines of Christianity.” Finally, as Edwards’s interpretation bears the mark of his having chosen a doctrine first and then “some text” to support it, he disobeys advice stated in The Faithful Shepheard: “The doctrine is not to bee writhen from the text, as if the text were drawen to the lesson, and not the doctrine from it.”[30]

III. Expounding The Doctrine

In the second section of Edwards’s sermon, he states his doctrine explicitly, explains its various aspects, and reinforces its truth. Its intended function is to teach his audience the significance of the biblical truths indicated by the sermon’s opening section.

1. Statement

Edwards begins with a blunt statement of doctrine: “There is nothing that keeps wicked men, at any one moment, out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.” This statement represents a rather abrupt transition in the sermon, from theological reflection on God’s providence to a soteriological doctrine. Moreover, the abruptness of Edwards’s doctrine is representative of a certain tendency in some of his sermons: the doctrine is not an obvious recapitulation of the text—even as laid open in the sermon’s first section—but rather an unexpected theological statement about the text’s meaning and significance. Kimnach attributes the startling quality found in many of Edwards’s doctrines to their rhetoric, especially their “explicitness, concreteness, and thoroughgoing particularity.” But really, much of the mystifying nature of Edwards’s statement of doctrine in “Sinners” arises from its abstraction, from suddenly stating a general theological point in a sermon that had seemed to be engaged in biblical theology more closely connected to the text. Moreover, the inferential leap from Edwards’s laying open of the text to his doctrine is considerable. It may be warranted, but the warrant is left unstated. Considered as a theological interpretation of Deut 32:35, is Edwards’s doctrine reasonable, then? Kimnach claims Edwards’s unexpected doctrines still are “clear, simple, and logically apposite to the text.”[31] But is this true of his most famous sermon?

To answer this question, we must first investigate the unstated logic by which Edwards seems to arrive at his doctrine. Most basically, he assumes the unregenerate sinners in his audience constitute an intended audience for the Song of Moses. An earlier sermon on Deut 32:40–42 makes explicit the assumption left unstated in “Sinners”: Yahweh’s warning to the Israelites—communicated through Moses—is simultaneously a warning to “wicked men in general.”[32] But the future sin for which Yahweh threatens to punish Israel in Deut 32 (i.e., idolatry) is different from the wickedness with which Edwards is concerned (i.e., unregenerate spiritual state). For Edwards’s doctrine to constitute a strict logical interpretation of the biblical text, the two types of sinfulness should, in some sense, be similar in kind. Given his opening statement that the Israelites “lived under means of grace” and his later emphasis on “the promises of the covenant of grace” for Christians, the unstated logic of Edwards’s interpretation seems to be that both types of sinfulness typify disdain for God’s covenant.[33] If we presume a logical connection between the sinfulness of the Israelites and Edwards’s intended audience, we should expect, then, a similar logic of punishment. But whereas the Song of Moses threatens Israel with earthly punishments (i.e., fiery destruction of the land, famine, plague, pestilence, and annihilation at the hands of its adversaries), the doctrine of “Sinners” holds out eternal punishment by damnation to hell. Edwards’s underlying logic here is that of covenant theology:[34] the Mosaic covenant is understood to deal in earthly, temporal rewards and punishments (even as the Israelites lived under the grace of the Abrahamic covenant), whereas the new covenant in Christ is understood to deal with the everlasting. As the two covenants represent different historical expressions of God’s plan for salvation, the punishments for spurning them are different.

Examining the unstated logic that warrants the inferential leap from Edwards’s text to his doctrine makes it clear that his theological interpretation is typological. Covenant theology itself is largely typological, seeing the realities of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel as types of reality promised and confirmed in the new covenant. And so, for the purposes of Edwards’s doctrine, the Song of Moses is to be understood symbolically—the warnings and punishments against the “wicked unbelieving Israelites” to be considered for what they signify to the “wicked men” who were Edwards’s intended audience. The doctrine of “Sinners” is a blunt statement of that signification. Perhaps Edwards left the warrant for his doctrine unstated because he believed his audience had a sufficient understanding of covenant theology to make the inferential leap. Still, it is surprising that he did not bolster his doctrine by applying the analogy of Scripture here, as Heb 10 interprets Deut 32:35 in a way that shows that God’s covenants reveal his glory, grace, and judgment—knowledge that should turn sinners toward life in Christ. Perhaps Edwards did exegete his text using the analogy of Scripture but chose not to mention it explicitly. In any case, his interpretation of Deut 32:35, especially its notion of eschatological judgment, is consistent with its theological interpretation in Heb 10:30, at the expense of understanding its original context.[35]

To return to the question of validity, whether or not one sees Edwards’s doctrine as “logically apposite to the text” depends upon one’s view of typology as a method in general and Edwards’s use of it in his interpretation of Deut 32:25. Theological interpretation involves connecting the biblical narrative to biblical theology, and in the case of “Sinners,” typology serves as the bridge between the two. Typology enabled Edwards to preach an image-rich OT text as Christian Scripture with a message about salvation. But the danger of typology is that in focusing on what a biblical figure, image, action, or epoch signifies, an interpreter may give insufficient attention to its particularities—and therefore miss the significance of the text’s lesson as a historical account of God’s dealings with his people. At a minimum, typological interpretation should explain how a text functions in its own context of salvation history and biblical revelation.[36]

Edwards’s biblical interpretation indeed overlooks a few significant particularities of his chosen text. For instance, he never asks whether Yahweh’s threat is addressed to the Israelites as individuals, to Israel as a nation, or to both. The answer is significant, as it influences whether the Christian doctrine gathered from the text should be about individual believers or the church—or both.[37] In addition, Edwards does not consider the role of Israel’s adversaries as part of Yahweh’s plan to mete out justice.[38] Deuteronomy 32:27 indicates that Yahweh would stay his vengeance against the Israelites so their enemies could not boast about having defeated his chosen people—a detail that seems significant for gathering from the text a Christian doctrine about God’s restraint in punishing sinners. Also, Edwards does not consider the significance of Yahweh’s very decision to stay his vengeance against the Israelites. One of the distinctive features of Israel’s religion was that because of the covenant “the fear of arbitrariness and caprice in the Godhead” was excluded.[39] Yet the Song of Moses announces to the Israelites in advance that Yahweh will not act in complete accordance with his covenant, as he will spare them the punishment they deserve. By declaring vengeance and vindication on his own terms in Deut 32:35–36, Yahweh acts in complete freedom.[40] This fact seems significant for what the text tells us about God’s sovereignty and his desire to reconcile sinners to himself.

Edwards’s Reformed and Puritan exegetical heritage included advice for balancing typology with close, historically informed readings of OT texts. Zwingli, Calvin, and Owen, for instance, emphasized that while the historical realities of the OT are to be understood for their value in instructing Christians (especially in regard to salvation), theologians must interpret the Scriptures on their own terms, too. Otherwise, they risk gathering and applying unsound doctrine. Henry’s commentary on Deut 32, for example, demonstrates the doctrinal value of theological interpretation that balances typology with a close reading of the text and its times.

The abrupt shift from text to doctrine in “Sinners,” then, is due to Edwards’s rather sudden abstraction in his biblical theology, his use of typology as an unstated warrant, and the apparent gap between the particularities of the biblical text and the doctrine drawn out of it. To be fair, Edwards’s interpretation is presented in a sermon, not a Bible commentary. Perhaps the absence of exegesis that connects the text and doctrine more systematically is the result of following advice from August Hermann Francke’s manual The Most Useful Way of Preaching, which Edwards owned. Francke advised preachers to “hasten to the application” so as to awaken the unconverted, keeping the explication of biblical text and doctrine as brief as possible (i.e., only as long “as is sufficient” to communicate its “true Sense and Meaning”).[41] Yet most Puritan guides for preaching, such as John Wilkins’s Ecclesiastes, emphasized that sufficient explication involved ministers dividing the text and “clearing their inference”—that is, explaining the contours of their doctrinal interpretation.[42] Edwards’s theological interpretation may not be sufficient by this measure, but perhaps he felt it was sufficient for an awakening sermon. Moreover, it is possible that the worship services at which Edwards preached “Sinners” provided some of the theological framework for his doctrine. The reading of Scripture was a rather elaborate component of worship in the Calvinist churches of Edwards’s time: it sometimes involved reading a lengthy Bible passage from which the short text for preaching was selected—and the passage was not simply read (which was seen as “dumb reading”) but rather was accompanied by exposition.[43] So perhaps the churchgoers who heard Edwards preach, as opposed to those who read his sermon, encountered a more comprehensive explication of Deut 32 that oriented them toward his doctrine.

2. Considerations

After stating his doctrine, Edwards explains one phrase from it, “the mere pleasure of God,” and then presents ten “considerations” intended to illustrate the truth of the doctrine as a whole. Edwards’s explanation of what he means by God’s pleasure appears in the published version of the sermon but not in the manuscript from which he preached. It states that unregenerate sinners are kept out of hell only at God’s “sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation.” This explanation emphasizes God’s power and right to condemn the unconverted at any moment—and his apparent arbitrariness in choosing not to do so. In the remainder of the doctrine section, Edwards does not present a detailed, point-by-point systematic proof for the validity of his doctrine, even though it was a common practice for this section of a sermon. Indeed, when Edwards explains the meaning of the phrase “the mere pleasure of God,” he ends with a tautology that suggests proof is unnecessary: his doctrine is no more true “than if nothing else but God’s mere will had in the least degree . . . any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.” Instead of proving his doctrine at length, Edwards presents a series of considerations that expound its various dimensions and their significance.

Taken as a whole, Edwards’s ten considerations focus on what his doctrine says about God’s power and justice, the nature and fate of wicked men, and the plan of salvation enacted through God’s covenant with his people. They also reinforce the imagery from the classical mechanics (especially restraint and motion) that Edwards introduced when laying open the text and present dramatic images of God’s wrath and punishment (especially by fire). Although Edwards’s considerations involve collation—relating his chosen text to scriptural passages perceived to be in some sense parallel—explicit references to Scripture are rare. Even then, the references often function as simple confirmations of his observations or as simple analogies. Still, biblical language permeates this section of the sermon in its characterization of hell, damnation, and the instruments of God’s punishment. Most of the language is drawn from the prophets and the Psalms, most often without specific citations, rather than his chosen text. Overall, in presenting his considerations related to a doctrine gathered out of Deut 32:35, Edwards does not refer to the Song of Moses explicitly and draws from it implicitly only on rare occasion. Indeed, upon a cursory reading, his considerations seem rather distanced from his biblical text—theologically, narratively, and historically.

Some of Edwards’s considerations reinforce his doctrine through the use of simple proof texts and scriptural analogies. For instance, Edwards’s third consideration emphasizes that unregenerate sinners are “bound over already to hell,” a claim he supports by citing John 3:18, “He that believeth not is condemned already.” Engaging this proof text provides an opportunity for Edwards to reinforce a point made during his laying open of the text—that sinners fall of themselves—since the theology of John’s Gospel emphasizes sinners’ self-judgment in response to Christ. But Edwards does not pursue it. And in his sixth consideration, Edwards employs Scripture to compare the nature of “the souls of the wicked” to “the troubled sea” (Isa 57:20) and God’s restraint of their wickedness to his restraint of the waves (Job 38:11). Neither passage supports his central point here, though—a complicated, abstract one about the nature of salvation, conversion, and regeneration. Indeed, in both the third and sixth considerations, the relation between Edwards’s text and his doctrine, including the proof texts, is quite distant.

But elsewhere, Edwards interprets biblical images and ideas in creative ways to suggest deep connections between apparently unrelated biblical passages, and to relate them to both his preaching text and doctrine. He engages in allegorical interpretation and applies the analogy of Scripture. And his nexus of scriptural references point to God’s sovereignty and his unified plan for salvation as revealed in both testaments. In doing so, Edwards’s sermon demonstrates the creative possibilities of Puritan collation, which afforded a preacher the flexibility to do more than merely lay open the text or state a doctrine drawn from the confessions.[44]

For instance, Edwards’s first consideration emphasizes God’s sovereignty—initially through a characterization that seems rather trivial. But then he refers to the punishment of sinners “as great heaps of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flame.” These biblical images often are associated with God’s judgment of idolatry, especially in Hos 13 and Isa 47. Given that idolatry is the particular sin condemned in the Song of Moses, Edwards may be trying to communicate—albeit indirectly—that God’s absolute power is revealed in his judgment of that sin. If so, his interpretation of biblical imagery from the prophets functions to reinforce a critical aspect of the biblical theology of Deut 32.

Edwards’s second consideration is imaginative, too. It reinforces a biblical truth that would have had widespread acceptance among his Calvinist audience, that unregenerate sinners deserve God’s punishment. Edwards supports his claim by connecting Deut 32:32 with the parable of the barren fig tree from Luke 13:6–9: “Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, ‘Cut it down; why cumbreth it the ground.’” Though Edwards mixes metaphors, his biblical interpretation is erudite. He interprets the images of cultivation allegorically, for what they tell Christians about God’s covenantal plan for salvation: when God’s people do not yield good fruit—either by turning away from God (Deut 32) or by living as unrepentant sinners (Luke 13)—they will be cut down. As both the Song of Moses and the parable indicate that God’s judgment will not take place immediately, Edwards’s weaving together of the two passages from Scripture implicitly reinforces his sermon’s emphasis on the importance of time. Edwards’s interpretation is troubled by the fact that Deut 32:32 refers to the enemies of Israel rather than Israel. But this verse’s figurative language is ambiguous—and so Edwards’s use of biblical imagery as a vehicle for expression and understanding is not a misuse of Scripture but rather is creative and engaging.

Edwards’s inventive biblical interpretation is evident in his seventh, eighth, and ninth considerations, as well. He uses the Bible to confront the unregenerate sinners’ feelings that “there is no visible danger” in regard to their eternal state and that they “can preserve their own lives” and “escape hell.” He weaves together an explicit scriptural reference to Ecclesiastes, an implicit reference to the Tower of Babel story, and an explicit reference to 1 Thessalonians in order to emphasize that “natural men” will indeed fall victim to their own false wisdom and false sense of security. Edwards claims that “the wise man” will perish the same “as the fool” (Eccl 2), that the “children of men” who take confidence in their own strength and wisdom will be punished (Gen 11), and that unbelievers who take comfort in their “peace and security” will have destruction visited upon them suddenly (1 Thess 5). Edwards’s interpretation here implicitly functions as an application of the analogy of Scripture. It reinforces Deut 32:29, “O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end,” and emphasizes the sense of time Edwards takes to be a vital part of Deut 32:35.

A final characteristic of Edwards’s doctrinal considerations is that he presents images of God’s wrath and punishment that reinforce the poetry of the Song of Moses. But he also misconstrues a theological point from the imagery. For instance, his depiction of God’s anger as fire (“The wrath of God burns against them”) is similar to that of Ps 89:46, and is consistent with the poetry and meaning of Deut 32:22. Edwards’s eschatological vision involving “the pit of hell,” however, does not reflect the meaning of the Hebrew word (˘‡ÂÏ) on which his vision is based. The significance Edwards gathers from this word is more consistent with its use in Isaiah as part of the prophet’s eschatology. In contrast, Deut 32:22 merely uses it poetically to indicate the depths to which Yahweh’s anger burns. Edwards’s use of biblical language related to God’s eternal punishment is, however, consistent with the typological approach to interpretation on which his doctrine is largely based.

In sum, Edwards’s statement of doctrine involves a considerable inferential leap from his chosen text, is grounded in covenant theology, and is typological in its biblical interpretation. His explication of doctrine is not a systematic, step-by-step proof but rather a series of reflections on God’s sovereignty, justice, and judgment, and the insecure state of unregenerate sinners’ souls. Yet what is missing from the doctrine section of “Sinners” is perhaps as noteworthy as what it contains.

Notably, Edwards does not soundly gather his doctrine of God’s vengeance and deliverance out of his chosen biblical text. The concept of vengeance has positive connotations in the OT in regard to God’s judgment, as it connotes just and appropriate punishment for breaking the covenant.[45] While Edwards casts God’s punishment as just, he effaces any positive connotations of God’s judgment and instead instills fear. The description of Yahweh’s vengeance in Deut 32 also conveys fear—the fear of God’s greatness, especially as expressed through his vindication. Edwards, in contrast, conveys fear to the unregenerate sinner only regarding his or her eternal punishment. Largely, this is due to his misinterpretation of the subject of God’s vengeance in v. 35 (as Israel rather than their adversaries). If interpreted as an account of Yahweh’s vengeance against Israel and their simultaneous deliverance through his vengeance against their adversaries, it becomes clearer that Deut 32 is about Yahweh’s glory, honor, and power.[46]

This interpretation points to perhaps the most significant absence in Edwards’s doctrine: it lacks an explanation regarding God’s “sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will” in saving sinners. In Deut 32, Yahweh stays his punishment for the sake of his name and the accomplishment of his own purposes.[47] But in its dramatic account of God’s wrath, power, justice, and punishment, Edwards’s doctrine fails to state why God “keeps wicked men . . . out of hell.” As such, his sermon is characterized by a frightening, arbitrary sense of God’s vengeance and deliverance. A doctrine of a sovereign, angry, unobliged God whose motives in keeping sinners out of hell seem inexplicable is a fatalistic and demoralizing one.[48] In contrast, Bible commentaries often used by Edwards account for God’s motives in Deut 32: for example, Poole’s annotations state that God’s vindication of Israel—his simultaneous vengeance and deliverance—reveals his disciplining mercy. Likewise, many modern-day commentaries on the Song of Moses emphasize that Yahweh’s vindication of Israel reveals his compassion and love toward the people he works to transform from arrogant, unfaithful servants into faithful children, and demonstrates that his disciplining mercy and justice are his greatness.[49] Given that Edwards’s doctrine emphasizes eternal punishment, he cannot glean a message of God’s disciplining mercy from the text. As such, it might seem that Edwards chose the wrong text to support the doctrine he had prepared in advance. On the other hand, he could have interpreted his text using a simple analogy indicated by Henry’s commentary on Deut 32: as God spared Israel out of “his concern for their welfare” and his desire that they would be converted,[50] so too God spares unregenerate sinners that they might be regenerated and converted.

IV. Conclusion

In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Edwards uses Deut 32:35 as a vehicle to preach a doctrine he hoped would take hold of his audience members, rather than simply gain their assent. He struggles to integrate both his biblical text and his audience into the unfolding drama of salvation, revealed in Scripture and—Edwards believed—in his own time and place. He endeavors to gather sound doctrine out of the text, employing many of the interpretive resources of his Reformed and Puritan heritage to educe a significant point of biblical theology from a confounding passage of Scripture. His use of collation is especially creative, showing how a general doctrine of God’s judgment resonates throughout Scripture. At the same time, he neglects the historical and contextual analysis provided for by his interpretive heritage, and sometimes gleans unwarranted theological significance from the language of his text. Moreover, in moving from text to doctrine without sufficient exegesis, his sermon exhibits a problem that the theologian Ronald Allen claims blemishes some doctrinal preaching today: it gives the mistaken impression that his text deals in a central way with the theological topic that is the focus of the sermon.[51] Finally, in choosing a biblical text after formulating his statement of doctrine, Edwards developed a biblical theology that often is more fitting with his supporting texts than his preaching text. His sermon reveals why one modern-day handbook on doctrinal preaching counsels that “beginning with Scripture assures the preacher of remaining close to the original witness to God’s revelation.”[52]

That “Sinners” adapts the biblical text to a predetermined doctrine, misinterprets the subjects of Yahweh’s wrath in Deut 32:35, and fails to support its theological interpretation with solid exegesis might lead one to dismiss the sermon as hopelessly flawed. This would be a mistake. Despite its problems, Edwards’s biblical interpretation in this sermon has several qualities that recommend it. Notably, the sermon approaches the Bible so as to emphasize the big picture of God’s plan for redemption. It highlights the interconnectedness of the Scriptures. It struggles boldly with the interpretive challenges involved in preaching from the OT in order to convey the Christian truths it contains. It engages in biblical theology informed by the Reformed confessions without reducing the Bible to a set of abstract theological propositions. And some of the sermon’s interpretive shortcomings should be weighed against the demands of awakening preaching and considered in relation to its worship context, which may have included a commentarial reading of the Bible passage.

Even so, in interpreting his text so as to emphasize the big picture of redemption and in using collation to show the interconnectedness of the Scriptures, Edwards minimizes the distinctiveness of Deut 32 and the economy (or order) of the Bible. First, the fact that Edwards also preached a version of “Sinners” on Ps 7:11—a text that presents a significantly different theology of God’s judgment and vindication—points to his problem of effacing the distinctive theology of Deut 32 in order to advance his predetermined doctrine. Second, while it is true—as the New Interpreter’s Handbook of Preaching observes—that biblical preaching should “not be conceived so narrowly as to prevent the preacher from addressing doctrines in their wider biblical context,”[53] it also is true that interpreting a text in its canonical context is vital. In the case of “Sinners,” Edwards’s collation reduces the functions of the Song of Moses to prophecy and wisdom. While this is a valid and valuable way of interpreting the text, Edwards neglects how it also functions as torah. As communicated by Yahweh through Moses (and the Bible), the Song can be profitably understood as a means of instruction: it reveals our inability to keep the law perfectly, our total dependence upon God, and our need for God’s mercy and grace. This understanding is different from Edwards’s emphasis on eschatology and soteriology—though it could have bolstered his rhetorical purpose. Had Edwards engaged in theological interpretation grounded in both the canon and covenants, he could have communicated the assurance of salvation available in Christ, according to God’s promises, rather than leaving his audience with a frightening sense of God’s arbitrary vengeance and deliverance.

Fear is a central feature of the sermon, though, and much of it is derived from Edwards’s interpretation of the language and imagery of the biblical text. Throughout the sermon, his message usually is bound to his text by word and image rather than by the narrative, canonical function, or distinctive theology of his biblical text. For instance, interpreting Deut 32:35 as referring to judgment against Israel is necessitated by the sermon’s emphasis on “slide,” “slip,” “due time,” and judgment by fire. It is possible that Edwards may have seen his text as open to a variety of interpretations, or as resisting a clear-cut literal interpretation. But instead of mining the theological significance of its ambiguities, he settles on communicating the spiritual sense of the text as its natural sense. That is, much of his biblical theology is based on what he sees as implied by the language and imagery of mechanics, time, and judgment by fire in the text.[54] This method of interpretation is creative, but rubs against his Reformed and Puritan inheritance and has its shortcomings.

Before closing our inquiry, it is worth noting that to an extent, some of Edwards’s interpretive shortcomings may be the result of his sermon’s ambition. “Sinners” tests the limits of what can be achieved in a single instance of preaching,[55] as it is a vehicle for Edwards’s theologies related to the history of redemption; regeneration, conversion, and salvation; religious affections; and awakening preaching. While the sermon has its own integrity, its ideas and purposes occasionally compete with one another—which may be why it is one of the weaker exegetical efforts in Edwards’s corpus of sermons.

Yet many preachers and theologians hold up Edwards’s sermons, especially this one, as exemplars—models of biblical and theological preaching that are “saturated with Scripture” rather than “based on Scripture” and are “carefully constructed monuments to biblical exegesis.”[56] While some of the praise is warranted, we should be clear about what, exactly, is being held up. Edwards’s sermons are ambitious, engaging, biblical, and doctrinal. But, as “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” demonstrates, his doctrine is not always soundly gathered out of the text.

Notes

1. Lisa M. Gordis, Opening Scripture: Bible Reading and Interpretive Authority in Puritan New England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 5.
2. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (trans. John Dykstra Eusden; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 188-88.
3. William Perkins, The Arte of Prophecying, or, A Treatise Concerning the Sacred and Onely True Manner and Methode of Preaching (trans. Thomas Tuke; London: Felix Kyngston, 1607), 92, 96.
4. There is a body of scholarship on Edwards’s biblical interpretation, including Stephen J. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense: The Biblical Hermeneutics of Jonathan Edwards,” HTR 70 (1977): 99-113; Ted Rivera, “Jonathan Edwards’s ‘Hermeneutic’: A Case Study of the Sermon ‘Christian Knowledge,’” JETS 49 (2006): 273-86; Douglas A. Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards,” Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (ed. Donald K. McKim; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 397-400; David Barshinger, “‘The Only Rule of Our Faith and Practice’: Jonathan Edwards’s Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah as a Case Study of His Exegetical Boundaries,” JETS 52 (2009): 811-29; Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 167-80. Surprisingly, the existing scholarship has not thoroughly investigated the biblical interpretation in Edwards’s most famous sermon.
5. The phrase “obscure and abstruse” is from Martin Luther, “On the Bondage of the Will,” in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 110. The phrase “crypticall and darke” is from Perkins, Arte of Prophecying, 45.
6. For a discussion of some of the differences between the textual witnesses, see Carmel McCarthy, ed., Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Deuteronomy (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 150-51; and Sidnie White Crawford, Jan Joosten, and Eugene Ulrich, “Sample Editions of the Oxford Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1-9, 1 Kings 11:1-8, and Jeremiah 27:1-10, ” VT 58 (2008): 353-57.
7. The most in-depth linguistic exegesis of the text is in Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OtSt 37; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996). Regarding the form of the song, see Frank Moore Cross, Jr., and David Noel Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 4.
8. Edwards’s Biblia Hebraica, now held at the Firestone Library at Princeton University, includes a Hebrew text based primarily on the MT and Sante Pagninus’s Latin translation, as revised by Benito Arias Montano. The Latin translation is a redaction of a variety of ancient textual witnesses, including the MT, SP (Samaritan Pentateuch), LXX, and Targums. The making of the Pagninus-Montano Bible is discussed in G. Lloyd Jones, The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983), 40-44.
9. George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 474.
10. Matthew Henry, An Exposition of All the Books of the Old and New Testament (6 vols.; 3rd ed.; London: J. Clark and R. Hett, 1721), 1:500-502. Matthew Poole, Synopsis Criticorum (5 vols.; Frankfort: Balthasar Christoph Wust, 1694), 1:807-10. Some other Reformed and Puritan commentaries with which Edwards was familiar are ambiguous regarding the pronominal references. For instance, both the Dutch Annotations and Westminster Annotations are not specific about the recipient of wrath indicated in v. 35—but imply that it is the enemies of Israel. See Theodor Haak, ed., The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible (2 vols.; London: Henry Hills, 1657), 1:in loco; and John Downame, ed., The Westminster Annotations and Commentary on the Whole Bible (6 vols.; 3d ed.; London: Evan Tyler, 1657), 1:in loco.
11. Jonathan Edwards, The “Blank Bible” (ed. Stephen J. Stein; vol. 24, pt. 1 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards [hereafter WJE]; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 303, 309-10.
12. Targum Onqelos, which was of considerable interest to theologians of Edwards’s time, also interprets v. 35 as referring to Israel. Targum Onqelos suggests that Israel’s punishment would come at the hands of the Babylonians during the exile—a point that Edwards makes in his “Blank Bible” entry for Deut 32.
13. Ainsworth’s Annotations state that in v. 35 God declares his intention to punish Israel and to punish their adversaries (Henry Ainsworth, Annotations upon the Five Bookes of Moses, and the Booke of the Psalmes [London: John Haviland, 1621], in loco). In his Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses and in his sermon on this verse, Calvin asserts that while the literal sense of the text is that God threatens punishment against the sins of his people, the recipient of God’s vengeance could be understood to include the enemies of the Israelites, too (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses [trans. Charles William Bingham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950], 3:363; John Calvin, The Sermons of M. John Calvin Upon the Fifth Booke of Moses Called Deuteronomie [trans. Arthur Golding; London: Henry Middleton, 1583], 1157).
14. A variety of Hebrew words are rendered as “wicked” in the KJV to indicate human depravity or sinfulness. But the shades of meaning are significant. The Hebrew words used in Deuteronomy that are rendered as “wicked” in the KJV (רשע and רע) connote evil, and are not used in Deut 32. It seems probable that Edwards’s use of the term “wicked” is derived from Matthew Henry’s commentary, which characterizes the Israelites as such. און is often rendered as “wicked” and connotes idolatry—the specific sin indicted in the Song of Moses. But the word is not used in Deut 32. Edwards’s use of “unbelieving” is problematic, too. The Hebrew root word in Deut 32:20 that the KJV translation takes to characterize the Israelites as having “no faith” (אמון) connotes unfaithfulness rather than no belief.
15. Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London: Arnold Hatfield, 1609), 44.
16. J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 8.
17. See Carl W. Bogue, Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace (Cherry Hill, N.J.: Mack, 1975), 95-140.
18. For instance, his interpretation may have been influenced by a plain reading of v. 36, which begins, “For the Lord shall judge his people.” Considered in context, v. 36 seems to suggest that in the previous verse, Yahweh indeed threatens vengeance against Israel. But the KJV translation of דין as “judge” rather than “vindicate” or “bring justice to” is problematic. A better understanding of the biblical language alters the meaning of this verse and suggests a different interpretation of v. 35. Edwards was competent enough in interpreting the Hebrew Bible to correct the problem in translation, and his exegetical inheritance should have led him to do so.
19. Stephen J. Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards (ed. Stephen J. Stein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 188.
20. Jonathan Edwards, Sermon Notebook 45 [“Last sermon notebook used at Northampton”], Jonathan Edwards Collection, GEN MSS 151, Box 14, Folder 1154, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.
21. Wilson H. Kimnach, “General Introduction to the Sermons: Jonathan Edwards’ Art of Prophesying,” in Sermons and Discourses: 1720-1723 (ed. Wilson H. Kimnach; vol. 10 of WJE; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 37.
22. Moreover, even if Deut 32:35 referred to the Israelites, Yahweh threatens to use Israel’s adversaries to execute his judgment against his people earlier in the chapter—suggesting they will be destroyed “by the hand of another.” Another exegetical problem here relates to Edwards’s use of Ps 73 as a proof text: In the psalm, the wicked whom Elohim sets and casts down seem to be a people other than the Israelites.
23. Some commentators suggest that the expression regarding the slipping of the foot is simply a metaphor for reversal of fortune. See Joseph Reider, The Holy Scriptures: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1937), 315.
24. A more general discussion of this interpretive issue can be found in Douglas J. Moo, “The Problem of Sensus Plenior,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 188, 204-5.
25. Theologians and ministers of Edwards’s time understood the shortcomings of the KJV’s translation of Hebrew. See Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), and Luther A. Weigle, “English Versions Since 1711,” in The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (ed. S. L. Greenslade; vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 361-82.
26. This rendering is how the text is translated in the JPS Tanakh. The root word rendered by the KJV as such (עת) simply denotes “time” or “occasion.” And the particular relative clause construction in Deut 32:35 does not indicate that an occurrence will take place in due time or at an appointed time, but rather at a time. GKC discusses the governing grammatical principles at §155 l, using Deut 32:35 as an example. The Westminster Annotations comment on the “due time” translation problem in the KJV, observing that “due is added by way of explication” to show God will act at a time of his choosing “for the honour of his own justice, and for the good of the godly” (Downame, ed., Westminster Annotations, 1:in loco).
27. Robert E. Brown, Jonathan Edwards and the Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), 93, 101; David S. Katz, God’s Last Words: Reading the English Bible from the Reformation to Fundamentalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 92, 132.
28. To be fair, relative clauses in Hebrew can be perplexing. Still, although Edwards may not have “mastered the intricacies of Hebrew grammar and syntax,” he was regarded as “a good linguist—especially in Hebrew.” See Shalom Goldman, God’s Sacred Tongue: Hebrew and the American Imagination (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 77-78. Complete mastery of relative clauses is not necessary in this instance, as the KJV accurately translates other biblical texts with the same grammatical construction and sense of time (e.g., Lev 7:35; 2 Chr 29:27; Job 6:17; Ps 4:8; Ps 56:3).
29. This hermeneutic principle is discussed in Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 27.
30. John Edwards, The Preacher: A Discourse (London: J. Robinson, J. Lawrence and J. Wyat, 1706), 40; Bernard, Faithful Shepheard, 44.
31. Kimnach, “General Introduction,” 208-9.
32. Jonathan Edwards, Sermon on Deut 32:40-42, Jonathan Edwards Collection, GEN MSS 151, Box 1, Folder 62, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.
33. One might expect the sermon to employ Rom 3:9-18 as a proof text, especially to emphasize that the sins of the Jew and the Gentile both represent a turning away from God and an absence of the fear of God. But it does not.
34. Overviews of Edwards’s commitments to covenant theology can be found in Conrad Cherry, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards: A Reappraisal (rev. ed.; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 107-23; and McClymond and McDermott, Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 321-38. Edwards’s particular form of covenant theology was federal theology, which held that even OT saints were saved through the covenant of grace.
35. For a discussion of the theological interpretation of Deut 32:35 in Heb 10:30, see George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 979-81.
36. Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 113-14.
37. Some theologians claim the Song of Moses reveals that while Yahweh’s covenant was with Israel as a nation, fidelity to the covenant had to be demonstrated at a personal level. See Daniel I. Block, “Book of Deuteronomy,” Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 172. The Palestinian Targum also presents a theological interpretation that emphasizes personal fidelity, stating that the punishments threatened by Yahweh in Deut 32 will be visited upon the wicked among the Israelites on the day of judgment. But Edwards’s soteriology also emphasized the role of the church “under means of grace” in preparing the way for justification, sanctification, and glorification. See Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption (ed. John F. Wilson; vol. 9 of WJE; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
38. Many authors suggest Deut 32 speaks to God’s plan for Israel and the nations in salvation history. See, e.g., Scott Hahn, Kinship By Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’sSaving Promises (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 82.
39. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J. A. Baker; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1951), 38, 42.
40. Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 283.
41. August Hermann Francke, The Most Useful Way of Preaching: A Letter to a Friend (trans. David Jennings; London: W. Button, 1799), 28. That the “doctrine” section is shorter in Edwards’s preaching manuscript than in the published version of the sermon could be seen as support for this supposition.
42. John Wilkins, Ecclesiastes: Or, a Discourse Concerning the Gift of Preaching (London: Edward Gellibrand, 1679), 8.
43. Hugh Oliphant Old, Moderatism, Pietism, and Awakening (vol. 5 of The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 172-73.
44. Gordis, Opening Scripture, 3.
45. Wayne T. Pitard, “Vengeance,” ABD 6:786-87; H. G. L. Peels, The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM–Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament (OtSt 31; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 138-46.
46. In this sense of the text, נקם connotes vindication—both punishment and salvation. See Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 (WBC 6b; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 821.
47. Henry, Exposition, 1:501; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 309; Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 231-33.
48. Edwards himself struggled with the notion of God’s arbitrary will but ultimately came to take comfort in it, because he believed God’s sovereignty was an expression of his glory and love. See Caleb J. D. Maskell, “A Theological Primer,” in Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”: A Casebook (ed. Wilson H. Kimnach, Caleb J. D. Maskell, and Kenneth P. Minkema; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 23. Edwards does not hold out this comfort to his audience in “Sinners,” however.
49. Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible (2 vols.; 4th ed.; Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1700-1701), 1:in loco; Hahn, Kinship By Covenant, 67; Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy (NIBCOT; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 303; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 387.
50. Henry, Exposition, 1:501.
51. Ronald J. Allen, Preaching Is Believing: The Sermon as Theological Reflection (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 49.
52. William J. Carl III, Preaching Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 35.
53. Stephen Farris, “Choosing and Delimiting the Text,” in New Interpreter’s Handbook of Preaching (ed. Paul Scott Wilson; Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 2.
54. For a discussion of this feature of Edwards’s biblical interpretation more generally, see Stephen J. Stein, “The 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), 118-30.
55. Wilson H. Kimnach, “Note to the Reader,” in Sermons and Discourses, 1739-1742 (ed. Harry S. Stout and Nathan O. Hatch; vol. 22 of WJE; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), xi.
56. John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 88; Conrad Cherry, “Symbols of Spiritual Truth: Jonathan Edwards as Biblical Interpreter,” Int 39 (1985): 264.