Is Edwards an “Unconstrained Exegete”? A Case Study of His Exegetical–Theological Method in Part 2, Section 11 of Freedom of the Will

Abstract

Little work has been done to investigate Jonathan Edwards’ use of the Christian Scripture in his Freedom of the Will. This study looks to address this gap in the literature, arguing that Edwards’ exegesis of the Christian Scriptures plays an indispensable role in his overall argument in his Freedom of the Will, and provides a new avenue for understanding this critical text in his corpus and the nature of Edwards’ exegesis generally.

1. Introduction

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) was a man mighty in the Scriptures. A brief perusal of his public or private writings attests that he loved the Christian Bible. Edwards once commented, while speaking of the Bible’s beauty, that it is “a precious treasure God has committed into our hands … an excellent book … far exceeding all human writings”.1 As a young pastor in New York, Edwards commented that “I had the greatest delight in the holy Scriptures, of any book whatsoever. Oftentimes in reading it, every word seemed to touch my heart … and almost every sentence seemed to be full of wonders” (Edwards 1998). The young Edwards resolved “to study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive myself to grow in the knowledge of the same”.2 It is for good reason, then, that Douglas Sweeney—the preeminent scholar on Edwards and the Bible—states that Edwards’ engagement with Scripture “occupied the lion’s share of his time”, and was the “scholarly work he took most seriously”.3

“Biblicist”, however, is not a moniker scholars readily ascribe to Edwards. Since, in the words of David Kling, “modern scholars have had little taste for Edwards’ supernatural Biblicism and penchant for ‘scripture proofs’”. But, as Kling observes, scholars cannot continue to ignore Edwards’ obsession with Scripture, since one rightly understands him to the extent that they acknowledge he was a Congregational minister informed “to the core” by Scripture.4 However, a “new wind” has begun to blow across the field of Edwards’ studies (Noll 2018). This wind brings in its wings many appreciative of the historical Edwards: a “preeminent biblical theologian … unapologetically devoted” to understanding the Bible (Cherry 1985). Recent work on Edwards has helped uncover this portrait of the pastor of Northampton and Stockbridge who immersed himself in the Holy Scriptures.5

Even with the great work completed as of late, Sweeney comments that “much [still] remains to be done” on Edwards and his Bible. For, in his eyes, researchers have just begun to “scratch the surface of his exegetical corpus”. Their work is but “the tip of an iceberg”, and much “remains to be done” on Edwards’ exegesis. One key area of investigation that Sweeney mentions is “Edwards’ major treatises, their “relation to the Bible”, and the way in which “Scripture informed his theological conclusions”.6 Interestingly, Freedom of the Will, Edwards’ most famous treatise—which has garnered the greatest scholarly attention—has had very little written on its use of Scripture.7 There are but a few works that mention Edwards’ use of the Bible in his Freedom of the Will (hereafter abbreviated “FOW”). Only one focuses on Edwards’ exegesis in a significant way, while another neglects to mention Edwards’ exegesis in FOW when given the opportunity.8 It appears then that scholars have not paid exclusive and extended attention to Edwards’ exegesis in FOW.

In this same vein, an additional oversight is Paul Ramsey’s otherwise insightful introduction to FOW in the Yale series. Ramsey devotes one paragraph to Edwards’ use of the Bible in the treatise. This is ironic, since, in this paragraph, Ramsey notes that Edwards’ argument in FOW rests upon two pillars—one of which is “the proof from biblical revelation”. The mortar of this stalwart pillar consists of Edwards’ two longest chapters that defend God’s certain foreknowledge of human volitions and Jesus Christ’s necessary yet holy deeds. Regarding the first of those two chapters, Ramsey correctly states that it “provides the capstone to the argument of the first two parts, which up to this point consist wholly of philosophical clarification and reasoning”. With such a clear statement of the topic’s importance, it is regrettable that Ramsey appears to dismiss Edwards’ use of the Bible—even implying a disinterestedness. One sees this in his comment that the “casual reader”, who might otherwise grow weary of Edwards’ scriptural “flaying” of Chubb, “will have his reward” if he perseveres through it. For “Edwards returns again and again to philosophical analysis”.9

One should not “persevere” through Edwards’ use of Scripture in FOW but thoughtfully mull it over. Since if Edwards believed it significant enough to hold a central place within FOW, then researchers ought to consider his exegesis important enough to find a place in their studies on that volume. More significantly, Edwards’ theological exegesis in FOW demands investigation because, in Ramsey’s own words, it is a “foundational pillar” upon which Edwards’ entire argument rests. Foundational pillars ought not to be neglected, lest the entire edifice collapse. This essay will, therefore, examine Edwards’ theological exegesis in the work which “alone is sufficient to establish [him] as the greatest, [American] philosopher–theologian”.10

This essay will focus on Edwards’ use of Scripture in Section 11 of Part 2 in FOW: “The Evidence of God’s Certain Foreknowledge of the Volitions of Moral Agents”. Given the focus and argument of the current essay, this study will not provide an overview of Edwards’ argument in FOW, nor situate how the theological conclusions of this section fit into his overarching philosophical argument.11 The goals here are more modest. This paper intends to examine Edwards’ use of Scripture to construct his theological argument in Section 11 of Part 2. It will ask if the passages Edwards furnishes as “proof” for his doctrinal statements substantiate the theological interpretations he gives them.12 This essay will then conclude by summarizing these findings and bring these conclusions into an important conversation regarding Edwards’ exegesis: whether or not the Bible normatively controlled and informed his theology.

2. Edwards Use of Scripture in Section 11 of Part 2 in Freedom of the Will

In Sections 11 and 12, Edwards’ goal is to show that within the Christian worldview, given God’s “exhaustive divine foreknowledge”, individuals’ volitions are “not contingent”.13 This statement recalls Edwards’ important definitions from Section 3 of Part 1, where he provides his understanding of the terms “necessity”, “impossibility”, and “contingence”. Speaking of necessity, Edwards states “to say that a thing is necessary, is the same thing as to say, that it is impossible [it] should not be”. He recognizes the vagueness and insufficiency of such a definition. So, he clarifies and defines “metaphysical necessity” as an instance “when the subject and predicate of the proposition, which affirms the existence of anything, either substance, quality, act or circumstance, have a full and certain connection”.14 He then contrasts metaphysical necessity with “contingence”, which he states is “something that has absolutely no previous ground or reason, with which its existence has any fixed and certain connection”. In other words, a thing can be otherwise then it is.15 Sections 11 and 12 of Part 2, therefore, play an important role in Edwards’ overall argument that philosophical necessity is not inconsistent with moral culpability. In Section 11, he shows from his theological exposition of Scripture that God has a “certain foreknowledge” of all the “voluntary acts” of every moral agent. In Section 12, he shows the philosophical consequences of such foreknowledge: these “voluntary acts” that God foreknows are therefore not contingent.16

In Section 11, Edwards’ goal is “to prove that God has an absolute and certain foreknowledge of the free actions of moral agents”.17 To prove this premise, Edwards marshals an overwhelming amount of Scripture to make his case, 185 individual citations to be exact.18 With these citations, Edwards indiscriminately draws on thirty-six books from across the biblical canon. The books he references most are Jeremiah (23), Matthew (22), Isaiah (19), Luke (17), and John (13). Edwards assumes the Bible’s authority to draw conclusions about the relationship of God’s foreknowledge to moral agency. He “own[s] the truth of the Bible” and writes for those who do as well.19

Edwards’ biblicism helps the reader appreciate his argumentation in Section 11. He employs five reductio ad absurdum arguments to convince those who “own the truth of the Bible” that God “has an absolute and certain foreknowledge of the free actions of moral agents”.20 In each argument, Edwards begins with an implicative statement of what would be true if God did not foreknow moral agents’ actions. He then argues from a theological exposition of the Bible that this statement is inconsistent with Scripture. This reduces to absurdity the position of any who own “the truth of the Bible” yet assert that God does not foreknow free moral actions. In what follows, this essay will pay specific attention to Edwards’ use of Scripture in the five argumentative pillars which support his conclusion that God foreknows human choices. This will uncover to what extent Scripture states and/or implies his conclusions. The evidence will suggest that the conversation ought to move toward an affirmative answer regarding Scripture’s constraining and informing influence on Edwards’ theology.

3. Argument I

Edwards’ first reductio regards the Bible’s description of God’s prediction of events. This argument takes up nearly the entirety of the section: thirteen of the seventeen pages. He states two “axioms” that are the “essence” of what will be reduced to absurdity in Argument I: (1) “If God don’t foreknow, he can’t foretell such events; that is, he can’t peremptorily and certainly foretell them … [since] positively to foretell, is to profess to foreknow, or to declare positive foreknowledge”; (2) “If God don’t certainly foreknow the future volitions of moral agents, then neither can he certainly foreknow those events which are consequent and dependent on those volitions”. In Edwards’ mind, therefore, knowing one necessitates knowing the other.21 Edwards’ argument is to show biblically that both axioms are absurd because God accurately predicts numerous events, extensively varied in nature. Consequently, given that God accurately predicts future events, Edwards’ doctrinal point is that God must foreknow moral volitions. Edwards draws six “observations” from the Bible to make this case.

3.1. Observation 1

Edwards’ first observation is that “men’s moral conduct and qualities, their virtues and vices, their wickedness and good practice, things rewardable and punishable, have often been foretold by God”. To make his case, Edwards cites seventeen different scriptures: Exodus (4); Daniel (4); 1 Kings, Second Kings, and Isaiah (2); and Second Chronicles, Ezra, and Matthew (1). He first mentions that God expressively predicted “Pharaoh’s moral conduct” in Exodus 3:19; 7:4; and 9:30, as well as 9:9. Edwards quotes the first three so that the reader might immediately perceive his point: “God professes not only to guess at, but to know Pharaoh’s future disobedience”. 22 Upon inspection, these verses do yield his theological interpretation.

His last citation is curious though. For he tells the reader to “see also ch. 9:9”, as an additional example of God’s foreknowledge of Pharaoh’s reprehensible moral behavior. This text, though, says nothing of God’s prediction or knowledge of Pharaoh’s disobedience. It instead speaks of boils which will arise in the land consequent to Moses throwing furnace soot into the air. It seems that Edwards made a mistake with this reference. Since the closest prediction of Pharaoh’s moral behavior comes just a few verses later in 9:12.23 Assuming that this was the verse Edwards meant to cite, it would also confirm that the Lord foreknew Pharaoh’s immoral actions.24

His next several references are to the book of Kings. He begins by citing First Kings 13:1–6, 32, and its prediction of King Josiah’s future actions. Edwards’ statement about the thirteenth chapter is taken from the text, as it does describe Josiah’s zealous destruction of Bethel’s altar and the calcified fire he kindles upon it.25 His next citation is First Kings 21:20–22. Here, however, Edwards again incorrectly cites the chapter and verse for his scriptural proof: Micaiah’s prediction of Ahab’s immoral behavior is found in the twenty-second chapter of First Kings, not the twenty-first. It is noteworthy though that First Kings 21:20–22 also yields Edwards’ theological gloss.26 Edwards’ last citation from the book of Kings is 2 Kings 8:12–13, which is Elisha’s prediction of the future destruction Hazael will bring as Syria’s king. Edwards focuses on Elisha’s confident statement: “I know the evil that thou wilt do”. Edwards is justified, therefore, to say that “the moral conduct of Hazael was foretold, in that cruelty he should be guilty of … the prophet speaks of the event as what he knew, and not what he conjectured”.27

Edwards’ next set of citations relate God’s foreknowledge of King Cyrus’ actions. He states that “the moral conduct of Cyrus is foretold, long before he had a being, in his mercy to God’s people, and regard to the true God, in turning the captivity of the Jews, and promoting the building of the Temple”. Edwards then cites the following four texts as “proof”: Isaiah 44:28 and 45:13 and tells the reader to compare them to Second Chronicles 36:22–23 and Ezra 1:1–4.28 Isaiah 44:28 does refer to Cyrus as he who will ensure that the temple will be rebuilt. And Isaiah 45:13 refers to the one who God has raised up to end his people’s captivity (assuming a veiled reference to Cyrus from 45:1). When the reader goes to Chronicles and Ezra to “compare” these verses, one finds the fulfillment of Isaiah prophecies in Cyrus’ decree to rebuild the temple. Thus, all these verses do confirm Edwards’ theological interpretation: God foretold the specific volitions of a moral agent. Andrew Abernathy is right to suggest then that Isaiah’s fortieth through fifty-fifth chapters play an important role in Edwards’ employment of the Old Testament to construct “theological meaning”.29

Edwards’ next four citations are of events foretold in the eighth and eleventh chapters of Daniel. Commenting on their significance for his argument, Edwards writes “how many instances of the moral conduct of the kings of the north and south, [and] particular instances of the wicked behavior of the kings of Syria and Egypt, are foretold in the eleventh chapter of Daniel?” (see note 28 above). Whether or not one agrees with Edwards’ identification of these enigmatic kings, one is struck by his astute observation that there are “many instances” of foretold behavior. Nearly every verse relates one or more yet-future moral actions. Edwards also references the “horrid wickedness of Antiochus Epiphanes”, which he believes is related in chapter eleven and 8:9–14, 23. Again, whether or not one agrees that this kingly figure is Antiochus Epiphanes, Edwards is still warranted to list all the individual actions he does that expressly foretell what this figure would do, for they are actions that Edwards draws directly from Daniel’s eighth and eleventh chapters. Edwards’ last two citations (11:32–34; 11:35) refer to the prediction of the “moral conduct of the Jews” in response to Antiochus Epiphanes’ persecution. Edwards rightly identifies several of their future responses: some will be corrupted “by his flatteries”, others will strongly oppose him, and some “good men” will fall but later repent (see note 28 above). In all of these instances Edwards cites from Daniel, he has correctly described what the text relates about God’s foreknowledge of moral agents’ actions.

Edwards’ last two citations are of events surrounding Christ’s Passion. He states first that “Christ foretold Peter’s sin, in denying his Lord, with its circumstances, in a peremptory manner”. Interestingly though, he does not provide a reference for Christ’s prediction of Peter’s denial. Perhaps Edwards assumed because it is such a well-known story that he need not provide one. Nevertheless, all four Gospels record Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial (Mt. 26:34; Mk. 14:30; Lk. 22:34; and Jn. 13:38) and inform Edwards’ interpretation. His next reference is to Jesus’ prediction of Judas’ betrayal, which Edwards notes was also made by Christ in a “like positive manner”. He cites “Matt. 26:21–25 and parallel places in the other Evangelists” as proof (see note 28 above). Edwards correctly points out that Jesus peremptorily describes Judas’ reprehensible behavior, though Edwards reads too much into Jesus’ statement of woe—“it had been good for that man if he had not been born”—to warrant that it predicts Judas’ “dreadful and eternal punishment in hell”. The former does not with sufficient clarity suggest the latter.

In this first observation, Edwards showed from the Scriptures that “men’s moral conduct and qualities, their virtues and vices, their wickedness and good practice, things rewardable and punishable, have often been foretold by God”. Proceeding in canonical order, Edwards succeeds in showing that per the scriptural witness, God foretold moral agents’ volitions, which are described as worthy of praise or blame.30 Other than Edwards’ slightly exaggerated gloss of Judas’ birth, he clearly draws his theological interpretation in this “first observation” from the Bible. The Scriptures even furnishes him with the language with which he writes. Regarding his incorrect citations from Exodus and First Kings, while regrettable, they do not detract from his argument, since each appear to be a simple oversight.

3.2. Observation 2

Edwards then observes that “many events have been foretold by God, which were consequent and dependent on the moral conduct of particular persons, and were accomplished, either by their virtuous or vicious actions”. To make his case, Edwards cites twelve biblical texts in support of this observation: five from First Kings, two from First Samuel, and one from Genesis, Judges, Second Samuel, and Second Chronicles.31 Edwards’ first citation is of God’s promise to Abram regarding the land of Canaan in Genesis 15. In the midst of this covenant ratification ceremony, Edwards correctly points out that in verses thirteen and fourteen God informs Abram that his “seed” will be strangers in a land not theirs and will be afflicted for four-hundred years. At this point, God will judge that nation, and his seed will then go free with “great substance”. Edwards notes that for this promise to be fulfilled, God must have foreknown the virtuous and vicious actions that played an integral role in bringing about this end.32 Edwards’ second reference is to Jotham’s prophetic parable (Judges 9:15–20). Edwards recognizes that this parable’s conclusion states that “fire” would go forth from both Abimelech and the Shechemites to their mutual destruction, which was fulfilled both in Abimelech’s later annihilation of Shechem and his own death. Edwards keenly sees that for God “to render the wickedness of Abimelech” onto his head, as well as on “all the evil men of Shechem”, in fulfillment of Jotham’s curse, God must have foreknown all of the vicious acts that would take place to fulfill it.33

Edwards’ next three citations come from the books of Samuel to substantiate his observation. He points out first that God’s word of judgment on the house of Eli for their sins (1 Sam. 2:27–36, 3:12–14) implies that the Lord foreknew the severity that would befall their family. Edwards points out that this severe judgment was eventually fulfilled by “the wickedness of Doeg” and the “extreme cruelty of Saul”. Edwards then references Nathan’s prophetic word to David (2 Sam 12:11–12), where the former unequivocally states that evil would befall David from within his own house as a son would lay with his wives “in the sight of the sun”. In Edwards’ mind, such a pronouncement evidences that God foreknew Absalom’s “horrible wickedness”.34

Edwards’ last group of references surround God’s foreknowledge in First Kings. He first cites God’s promise to Solomon that his kingdom would be rent from him during his son’s reign and given to another (First Kings 11:11–13). He discerns that this was later fulfilled in Jeroboam’s rebellion against Rehoboam. However, Edwards’ citation of “II Chron. 13:5, 6; compare ver. 18” leaves the reader wondering what exactly he is wanting one to compare, as those three verses do not describe Jeroboam’s rebellion as “his wickedness” but only mention that he “hath rebelled against his lord” in the fifth and sixth verses. And the eighteenth verse states that Judah prevailed over Israel because of their faith in God. This “comparative” text does not appear to relate what Edwards thinks that it does. Notwithstanding this questionable citation, Edwards rightly sees that this story shows that God foreknew and predicted events which depended on immoral volitions.

His next several citations refer to the subsequent royal overthrows in the Northern Kingdom. This was first fulfilled by “the conspiracy, treason, and cruel murders of Baasha, (1 Kgs. 15:27, etc.)”, who was then overthrown by “the treason and parricide of Zimri (1 Kgs. 16:9–13, 20)”. Edwards correctly notes that the prophecy by Ahijah against Jeroboam’s family (14:10–14), as well as Jehu’s prediction against Baasha’s house (16:1–4), were promises of complete judgment upon their respective houses. These had to include intimate knowledge of Baasha’s and Zimri’s extermination of the royal houses. For Edwards, therefore, God foreknew the wicked actions that fulfilled those events (see note 34 above).

Edwards sought to show in this observation that God foretold numerous events that depended upon moral/immoral actions to occur. Proceeding in canonical order, Edwards succeeds in showing that per the biblical witness, God foretold events that included specifically moral actions. This implies then, per Edwards’ argument, that God foreknew these actions. Other than Edwards’ obscure reference to Second Chronicles 13:18 as a confirmation of Jeroboam’s wicked rebellion, Edwards’ theological interpretation in this “second observation” certainly comes from the text and gives rise to his interpretation.

3.3. Observation 3

Edwards’ evidence for this observation is extensive. Observation 3 covers just over three pages, making it the second longest in his first argument. This observation also employs the most scriptural “proofs”. The 119 scriptural references account for well over half of the references in Section 11. Edwards wields these scriptures to answer the question: “how often has God foretold the future moral conduct of nations and peoples, of numbers, bodies, and successions of men; with God’s judicial proceedings, and many other events consequent and dependent on their virtues and vices; which could not be foreknown, if the volitions of men, wherein they acted as moral agents, had not been foreseen?” (see note 34 above). To prove his point, Edwards provides over twenty instances in which God foretold moral conduct. In his mind, this evidences that God foreknew the moral actions of the individuals upon which these larger events were dependent.

For the sake of clarity, this section will group these scriptures into the following ten general categories, in which Edwards situates them: (1) The future cruelty of the Egyptians, (2) the continuance of the Amorite iniquity, (3) the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, (4) the Jews’ final obstinacy of remaining in the land, (5) the destruction of Babylon, (6) the Jews’ return from Babylonian captivity, (7) the Messiah’s cruel reception, (8) Christ’s predictions of how others would treat him, (9) the Gentiles’ faith and the events surrounding their inclusion into God’s people, and (10) the Apostle Paul’s persecutions, and those he foretold would afflict the church.

Edwards briefly states the (1) and (2) groups. He cites Genesis 15:13–14 as proof that God foretold “the future cruelty of the Egyptians in oppressing Israel, and God’s judging and punishing them for it” centuries before it came to pass. He correctly draws this statement from this text that speaks of “a land” in which Abram’s seed will be afflicted for four centuries, the nation served by this seed which God will eventually punish, and the consequent freeing of the “seed” from it. Then, within that same chapter of Genesis, Edwards points out that God made a statement of what will transpire among the Canaanite peoples among whom Abram currently resides, and how it will relate to the timing of the seed’s departure from Egypt. Edwards is keen to the text’s point in 15:16 (as well as Acts 7:6–7—which he also cites) that Abram’s seed will not come back to the land for four hundred years “until [the Amorite iniquity] ‘should be full.’” God foreknew both the continuance and increase of the Amorite sin, which served as the basis of their destruction, as well as the moral events in Egypt that would precipitate the exodus (see note 34 above).

Edwards’ (3) example relates God’s foreknowledge of Judah’s destruction. First, Edwards rightly notes that the prophetic pronouncements of “the prophecies of this great event were absolute” under two, separate kings’ reigns (Second Kings 20:17–19; 22:15–20). He adds that there are Isaiah’s many written prophesies which “abundantly insisted” on this event, in addition to the “innumerable things in the predictions of the prophets” that relate the event itself, as well as the consequential events that the prophets describe transpiring after it. Edwards comments that these prophesies were “connected with, and dependent on two things in men’s moral conduct”. The first, which he states without scriptural references, was the “efficient cause” of the injurious and violent actions of the Babylonians.35 The second was “the final obstinacy of the Jews”. Edwards cites a plethora of texts to support his contention that their final obstinacy and grievous sin were the basis of their destruction (Isa. 6:9–11; Jer 1:18–19; 4:1; 5:1; 7:1–7, 27–29; 11:1–6; 17:24–27; 25:1–7; 26:1–8, 13; 38:17–18; Ezek. 3:7; 24:13–14). Edwards’ “proof texts”, albeit for one (Jeremiah 1:18–19—which he appears to cite incorrectly),36 all speak to some extent about Israel’s grievous sins against the Lord, either implying or stating that God’s judgment would come for their iniquity. Edwards has made a good case, therefore, that “this destruction and captivity could not be foreknown, unless such a moral conduct of the Chaldeans and Jews had been foreknown”.37

Edwards’ (4) example of God’s foreknowledge pertains to those “obstinate Jews” who remained in the land after Babylon’s deportation. He cites two scriptures to prove that God foreknew and foretold these actions (Jer. 44:26–27 and Isa. 48:3–8). Edwards’ use of these verses to make his point is not immediately clear. He cites Jeremiah 44:26–27 as the proof of God’s prediction of the Jews’ idolatry, which he “confirmed with an oath” through Jeremiah. However, these two verses do not predict anything but are God’s words of judgment upon the remnant’s disobedience previously described. Further, the prophetic sign that Edwards mentions, given as a confirmation for the impending judgment, Isaiah states in verses 29 and 30, not 26 and 27. If he would have cited all of Jeremiah 44, then this would not be an issue, since one could interpret the entire chapter as the fulfillment of what Edwards believes Isaiah predicted in chapter 48.

His reference of Isaiah 48 does not seem to predict the remnant’s final unbelief in Egypt, as Edwards claims it does. One would have to grant him that the statement of 48:1—that those who “have come forth out of the waters of Judah”—obliquely refers to the remnant’s survival of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, meaning that they are the ones who Isaiah describes as not truthfully “making mention of the God of Israel”. One could interpret this then as alluding to what Jeremiah refers to in 27:26. An interpreter would also need to grant Edwards that the general statement in 48:5 of the people’s giving credit to an idol rather than to God refers to those specific statements of the individuals in Egypt who credited their former success to the Queen of Heaven rather than the Lord (Jer. 44:17–19). These concessions are speculative, though, and Edwards does not provide an argument to strengthen this interpretation. Consequently, though, his doctrinal statement is biblically sound; it does not appear, however, to arise from the two texts he cites.38

Edwards’ (5) example relates God’s foreknowledge of “the destruction of Babylon, with [its] many circumstances”. He states that God foretold three kinds of immoral conduct which would serve as the basis of Babylon’s destruction. First, citing three scriptural references as proof (Isa. 13, 14, 47; Hab. 2:5–20; and Jer. 50, 51),39 Edwards states that God foretold that he would judge Babylon for Nebuchadnezzar’s “exceeding haughtiness” and wickedness. These biblical texts do confirm Edwards’ statement that Babylon was judged for these reasons. Second, Edwards rightly recognizes that God foretold in Jeremiah 25:14 that Babylon’s destruction would come as a “recompense according to the works of their own hands” seventy years after Judah’s destruction. Third, Edwards sees rightly that God foretold the Babylonian debauchery amidst an idolatrous feast, after which they would “sleep a perpetual sleep” (Jer. 51:39, 57) (see note 35 above). In his citations, therefore, Edwards extracts his point from the Bible that God foretold Babylon’s specific immoralities that would lead to their destruction.

Edwards’ (6) example of God’s foreknowledge relates to how he foretold “the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity … with [its] many circumstances”. He cites several scriptures as “proof”: Jeremiah 31:35–30; 32:6–15, 41–44; 33:24–26 (relating to the promised return), and Jeremiah 25:11–12; 29:10–11; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Ezekiel 4:5–6; Daniel 9:2 (relating to the fixed time of their return).40 Edwards correctly cites the first group of verses as teaching that God will bring the people back, they will rebuild the city, and the people will buy and sell again in the land. In the second group, he also positively identifies that God promised a seventy-year period of captivity before the Jews returned to the land. He notes that God’s foreknowledge of this great event is predicated as being “consequent on their repentance”, which “itself is very expressly foretold”. He astutely cites nine scriptures to demonstrate that their repentance was “very expressly foretold” (Jeremiah 29:12–14; 31:8–9, 18–31; 33:8; 50:4–5; Ezekiel 6:8–10; 7:16; 14:22–23; 20:43–44). These texts speak of the Jews, upon their return, seeking God, making supplications, weeping in repentance, loathing themselves, mourning over their iniquity, and God forgiving their sins. In this example, therefore, Edwards gleans his doctrine from the Bible, since if God made declarative statements about the “contrite” return, then he must have foreknown the remorseful volitions that would later transpire when he made those declarations.41

In his (7) example, Edwards draws from many texts to show the diverse biblical testimony to how God foretold the Messiah’s cruel reception in both Testaments. Edwards references thirty-one scriptures, which he groups into five statements about the Messiah’s harsh reception. First, he states that God foretold the Messiah’s great suffering through “the malice and cruelty of men … [which] was their sin, and what they acted as moral agents”. Edwards asks the reader to compare Psalm 22 with four “fulfillment passages” that apply these verses to Christ. These citations show Edwards’ acute keenness to the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament in Christ’s Passion. This is also manifest in his citation of Psalm 69 and request to the reader to compare it to “John 15:25; 7:5, etc.; and 2:17; Rom. 15:3; Matt. 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23; John 19:29”.42 Second, Edwards mentions God’s prediction of the “union of heathen and Jewish rulers against Christ”. He correctly draws from Psalm 2:1–2 and Acts 4:25–28, which testify that these rulers only did to Christ “whatsoever [God’s] hand and [God’s] counsel determined before to be done”. Third, Edwards highlights that God foretold the Jewish rejection of their Messiah (citing Isa. 49:5–7; 53:1–3; Ps. 22:6–7; and 69: 4, 8, 19, and 20).43

Edwards states, fourth, that God foretold he would reject the Jewish nation in Christ’s day for their obstinacy. To prove his point, Edwards tells the reader to compare “Isa. 49:4–7 and 8:14, 15, 16 with Rom. 10:19” and “Is. 65 at the beginning with Rom. 10:20, 21”. In these comparisons, the reader finds Edwards perceptively pointing out that Christ would be a savior to Gentiles but a “stumbling block” to Jews. Edwards states, fifth, that God foretold Christ’s rejection by the Jewish rulers. He cites from Psalm 118:22 and its statement of the “rejected stone” as proof, rightly telling his readers to compare it “with Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:4, 7”. In these verses, one finds that both Jesus and the apostles quote from this Psalm as judgement on the Jewish leadership for rejecting “the stone”. Edwards’ quote from First Peter is also appropriate for this “proof” when read in context of its statement that believers are the “new priesthood” that received the rejected stone, implying that the Jewish priests rejected this same stone. Taking these five statements together, Edwards has indeed made a strong case that God foreknew the Jews’ cruel treatment and rejection of their Messiah.44

In his (8) example, Edwards refers to how Christ foretold the differing behavior of different groups. Edwards points out, first, that Christ foretold the Jewish leaders and Gentiles’ sinful mistreatment of him during his Passion (Matt. 16:21; 20:17–19; Luke 9:22; John 8:28), and how Jews would maliciously consent to his death (Luke 13:33–35; 20:13–18). Edwards notes, second, that Christ told his disciples that they would forsake him during Judas’ betrayal (Matt. 26:31; John 16:32). Edwards then points out, third, that Christ testified that the Jewish generation of the day would reject him in sinful obstinacy (Matt. 12:45, 21:33–42; 22:1–7; Luke 13:25–35, 17:25, 19:14, 27, 19:41–44; 20:13–18; and 23:34–39) (see note 44 above). In all of the scriptures Edwards cited, he shows that they do teach what he claims they do: Christ foreknew specific, moral volitions, and foretold the immoral treatment of the majority of his contemporaries. Furthermore, examples (7) and (8) strengthen Stephen Holmes’ comment that Edwards’ theological argument often turns “on the person of Jesus Christ”.45

Edwards shows (9) how God foretold Gentile faith and the events surrounding their inclusion into his people. Edwards mentions ten different events that God foretold and cites a plethora of scriptures to substantiate his point. He first mentions that God foretold that the Gentiles would receive the Messiah and would be included in his people, commenting that this is stated “in places too many to be particularly mentioned”. He points out, secondly, that the Old Testament foretold that the Jews would be envious on this account, rightly citing Moses’ statement in Deuteronomy 32:21 (which is quoted by the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:19). The next eight Edwards mentions are events that Christ prophesied would happen: the Gentiles’ reception of Christianity (Matt. 8:10–12; 21:41–43; 22:8–10; Luke 13:28; 14:16–24; 20:16; John 10:16); the Jews’ subsequent envy (Matt. 20:12–16; Luke 15:26–32); the Jews’ persecution of the church (Matt. 21:33–42; 22:6; 23:34–39; Luke 11:49–51); the Jewish rejection of Paul’s message (Acts 22:18); the great persecution of his followers (Matthew 10:16–18, 21–22, 34–36; 24:9; Mark 13:9; Luke 10:3, 12:11, 12:49–53; 21:12, 16–17; John 15:18–21; 16:1–4, 20–22, 33); martyrdom (Matt. 20:23; John 13:36; 21:18–19, 22); the Samaritans’ ready reception of the gospel (John 4:35–38);46 and the growth of false teaching and apostasy (Matt. 24:4–5, 10–12).47 In all of these references, albeit for one mistake (citing Luke 13:28 when he should have cited v29), Edwards carefully draws his theology from the Bible. Not only that, he often weaves the text’s language into the fabric of his argument. This strongly suggest Edwards’ conclusion: God foreknew innumerable moral choices that surrounded the reception of the Gentiles into the Church, which is why he could foretell what would come to pass due to these choices.

Edwards’s final point (10) regards Paul’s persecution that Christ foretold and the persecutions Paul warned others would suffer. As proof, Edwards cites Christ’s statement to Ananias that Paul would suffer “great things” for “my name’s sake”, and its immediate fulfillment a few days later (Acts 9:16–23). He then quotes Paul’s statement to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29–30) that “I know” ravenous wolves will enter into the church, and “not spare the flock”. Paul’s confidence of the wolves’ entry into the church is what Edwards focuses on to end the argument of his third observation. Commenting on Paul’s assertion in these verses, Edwards says “The Apostle says, he knew, this; but he did not know it, if God did not know the future actions of moral agents” (see note 47 above).

When one considers Edwards many references in these ten examples, notwithstanding the questionable example he gave of the Jews in Egypt from Isaiah 48 and Jeremiah 44, as well as two incorrect citations from Jeremiah 1 and Luke 13, one is strongly inclined to agree with his doctrinal point: God foreknows moral agents’ specific volitions in the Bible. This is why he can accurately foretell the future conduct of entire nations, which is but the embodiment, writ large, of individual volitions. In this observation, therefore, Edwards draws his doctrine from the book he believes to “provide the surest guide to things divine”.48

3.4. Observation 4

In this observation, Edwards does not explicitly cite scriptures to substantiate that the Bible undergirds his thought. Rather, he assumes that his readers have a certain familiarity with the text and are aware of those scriptures that inform his assertion that God foreknows the events of the last days and the “great Antichristian apostasy”. He states that to enumerate all of them “would be very long to mention particularly”. He observes that “unless God foreknows the future acts of moral agents, [then] all the prophecies we have in Scripture concerning the great Antichristian apostasy … the Man of Sin, and his instruments and adherents; the extent and long continuance of his dominion, his [sinful] influence on the minds of others … and other foul vices; his great and cruel persecutions; the behavior of the saints under these great temptations” would have been stated without knowledge of the things foretold. Such a statement is “to the utmost degree absurd” given the very particular and explicit ways the Bible describes the events of this great apostasy. These, he points out, are manifestly of a “moral nature” and “relate to men’s virtues and vices” or are “consequences [of the] events depending on them”. Edwards argues, given the absurdity of such a proposition in light of the biblical witness, God must intimately foreknow men’s moral actions. However, though the list of proof texts would have been “very long”, one wishes that Edwards would have cited a few so that the reader might see the biblical foundation upon which his argument rests.49

3.5. Observation 5

Edwards richly saturates his fifth observation with the biblical text in a way unique to Section 11. Edwards argues that if God does not foreknow moral volitions, then it would lead to the absurd conclusion that “all those great things which are foretold in both Old Testament and New concerning the erection, establishment, and universal extent of the kingdom of the Messiah, were predicted and promised while God was in ignorance whether any of these things would come to pass or no, and did but guess at them”. Edwards shows the absurdity of this conclusion in three parts: a main body, as well as a first and second corollary. The first and second corollaries use Scripture in a way similar to what has been seen thus far. The first cites from the “first gospel promise that was ever made to mankind” in Genesis 3:15 to show that for God to have made such a promise he must have foreknown all of the moral events connected to the Messiah’s eventual victory over Satan. The second corollary cites Micah 7:19–20, quotes from Psalm 72:11 and 72:17, and quotes, without referencing, Genesis 12:2–3. Edwards binds these texts together to argue that God necessarily foreknew all of the moral volitions tied to the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abram, otherwise it would absurdly follow that God made this promise “on uncertainties”.50 For Edwards, therefore, “the promises regarding salvation from sin by the Messiah are sure”.51

The main body of Edwards’ fifth observation exemplifies the way in which Edwards’ writings effuse with uncited scriptural quotations, allusions, and echoes. Edwards writes three paragraphs to argue that it is absurd to claim that God made many promises of the Messiah’s kingdom without explicit foreknowledge of moral volitions. Like a master weaver, Edwards weaves scriptural language throughout these paragraphs to make this point powerfully.

In the first paragraph, Edwards describes the nature of the Messiah’s kingdom by entwining a beautiful tapestry of at least fifteen different scriptural quotations to argue that God foreknew the moral fabric that would bind his kingdom together.52 In the second paragraph, he states that “the very great part of the prophecies of the Old Testament is taken up in predictions” relating to the Messiah’s kingdom. In this paragraph, Edwards craftily intersperses the language of Isaiah 45:22 to highlight that the prophet magisterially states the nature of the Messiah’s universal reign with such “mighty solemnity” that it would thus be absurd to claim that God did not foresee “the volitions of moral agents”. In the third paragraph, he continues this reductio by quoting, without citation, the similar statements of “Christ and his apostles”. Here, Edwards spins yet another intertextual loom with language from the beginning, middle, and end of the New Testament to make this point.53 Taking all of this into consideration, even though this observation does not strictly conform to the other sections’ “proofing” method, one is strongly compelled to agree with Edwards’s statement that the Bible portrays God as one who foreknows the moral actions that surround the establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom.

3.6. Observation 6

This is the longest part of Section 11, covering just over four pages in the Yale edition. It has a main body, totaling three-and-a-half pages, and four corollaries over the last half page. Interestingly, direct scriptural quotations/citations do not play a large role in Edwards’ largest section as they do in the other observations examined thus far.54 In the main body of the observation, he references nine events in canonical order that support a sub-point of the observation’s argument.55 Then, in the four corollaries, he accurately cites eight different verses to support and inform his main argument’s implications.56 These points lead Edwards to observe: “If it be that God has not a prescience of the future actions of moral agents, [then] the prophecies of Scripture in general are without foreknowledge. For Scripture prophecies, almost all of them … are either predictions of the actings and behaviors of moral agents, or of events depending on them … So that all events that are foretold, are either moral events, or other events which are connected with, and accommodated to moral events”.57

Edwards shows the absurdity of this position by pointing out the implication inherent in God’s accurate prediction of but one moral event. Such an event in this world, Edwards reminds the reader, “depend[s] innumerable ways on the acts of men’s wills; yea on an innumerable multitude of millions of millions of volitions of mankind”. Such that even one event is both the occasion of, and leads to, a number of volitions that “multiply as the branches of a river … to an infinite number”. All of these choices are intimately interwoven one into the other. After teasing out a few examples to exemplify his point, Edwards concludes that these inklings ought to persuade every reasonable person that,

The whole state of the world of mankind, in all ages, and the very being of every person who has ever lived in it, in every age, since the times of the ancient prophets, has depended on more volitions than there are sands on the seashore. Therefore, unless God does most exactly and perfectly foresee the future acts of men’s wills, all the predictions which he ever uttered…have all been without knowledge. So that, according to this notion of God’s not foreseeing the volitions and free actions of men, God could foresee nothing pertaining to the state of the world of mankind in future ages; not so much as the being of one person that should live in it; and could foreknow no event.58

This conclusion serves as a fitting end to the biblical and theological evidence Edwards has amassed in support of Argument One throughout these six observations. From his careful, theological examination of the Bible, Edwards has contended that God truly foreknows the volitions of moral agents. In short, his reductio ad absurdum argues that if God has predicted future events, which are “consequent and dependent” on the “future volitions of moral agents”, then it is absurd to claim that God does not foreknow the actions of these moral agents, since “the existence of the one depends on the existence of the other … the one can’t be more certain than the other”.59 Therefore, according to Edwards’ argument, if one can show that the God of the Bible predicts future events, then He necessarily foreknows the volitions of moral agents. Edwards has shown that God predicts future events. Consequently, per his premises, God foreknows the volitions of moral agents.

With these six observations, Edwards has strengthened his contention that it is absurd to affirm that God does not foreknow the volitions of moral agents. In making his case, Edwards amassed an extensive network of scriptural texts, from across the canon, to establish the biblical basis of his observations. Notwithstanding five incorrect citations, and two questionable interpretations, the evidence in Argument One overwhelmingly suggests that Edwards drew his doctrine from the biblical text and borrowed its language to shape his doctrinal conclusions.

4. Argument II

Edwards’ next four arguments are far shorter, accounting for only five of the seventeen pages of the section, and just twenty-six of the section’s 185 biblical citations. This is sensible given that Argument I establishes his main point, and the others make derivative points which strengthen the former’s conclusion. Edwards’ Second Argument is about one page and quotes seven biblical texts. Just as in the First Argument, Edwards uses a reductio ad absurdum to show the absurdity of stating that God does not foreknow volitions of moral agents. Edwards’ premise is that “If God don’t foreknow the volitions of moral agents, then he did not foreknow the fall of man, nor of angels, and so could not foreknow the great things which are consequent on these events”.60 Edwards believes this to be absurd because the Bible portrays God as not only foreknowing events from eternity consequent to the fall but as also having “acted” in eternity in view of the fall. If he can show, therefore, that God has acted in such a manner, then this strongly suggests that God foreknew the moral events surrounding the fall. Edwards then quotes seven texts which speak of God foreknowing and electing his saints in an “eternal plan” conceived before the foundation of the world—testifying to this reality.61 It would be absurd, consequently, to assert that God did not foreknow the fall yet affirm that God “acted” for his saints in ways that were consequent to, yet dependent upon it. Thus, God foreknew the fall.

5. Argument III

This is Edwards’ shortest argument in Section 11. This paragraph cites four scriptures and quotes four others. Though brief, this argument addresses a significant theological issue: God’s “repentance” and its relationship to his foreknowledge. Edwards tries to reduce to absurdity the premise that God does not foreknow the actions of moral agents. He argues that if God does not foreknow these volitions “it will follow, that God must in many cases truly repent of what he has done, so as properly to wish he had done otherwise: by reason that the event of things, in those affairs which are most important, viz. the affairs of his moral kingdom, being uncertain and contingent, often happens quite otherwise than he was aware beforehand”. This would entail that, “in the most literal sense”, God indeed repented over his decisions to make the earth (Gen. 6:6) and appoint Saul as king (1 Sam. 15:11).

This is troublesome for Edwards because this would be expressly contrary to the statements that God “is not a man that he should repent” (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:15, 29).62 Furthermore, if God “literally repents”, then this entails the very problematic notion that “God is liable to repent and be grieved at his heart, in a literal sense, continually; and is always exposed to an infinite number of real disappointments … and to manifold, constant, great perplexity and vexation”. Such notions are absurd to Edwards because this “frantic” God is inconsistent with the Bible’s depiction of one “over all [and] blessed forevermore”, perfectly tranquil, and felicitous in his governance of the world.63 Granted, therefore, that the supposition that God does not foreknow moral volitions leads to an inconsistent biblical witness regarding God’s state as Sovereign Lord—a conclusion Edwards cannot stomach—this he takes to strongly suggest that God foreknows moral choices.

6. Argument IV

Edwards takes his Fourth Argument to be a direct implication of the Third. The argument consists of two parts, corresponds to its two paragraphs, and continues to use the reductio ad absurdum. His ten scriptural quotations fall in the second paragraph, showing the “absurdity” of the conclusions of the first, should God not foreknow individual choices. The absurd premise is that if God does not foreknow moral choices, then he “must be exposed to constantly changing his mind and intentions, as to his future conduct; altering his measures, relinquishing his old designs, and forming new schemes and projections”. That is to say, God would continually alter his intentions since his “great purposes” in the world would always be undone given his “want of foresight”, implying that God is a being “who, instead of being absolutely immutable, must necessarily be the subject of infinitely the most numerous acts of repentance, and changes of intention, of any being whatsoever”, since he has charge over a near infinite amount of contingent events which are continuously vexing him. People, therefore, through their moral actions, can thus “disappoint God”. In addition, they can “break his measures, make him to constantly to change his mind, and bring him to confusion”.64

To Edwards, in light of both reason and the Bible, this conclusion is unacceptable. He draws three general statements from the Scriptures to show the absurdity of this conclusion. He states that the Bible (1) portrays God as perfectly viewing the entirety of his works which are never frustrated. Four of the five scriptures he quotes for the reader, though slightly amended for clarity of thought, speak of this theological truth (Prov. 19:21; Ps. 33:10–11; Isa. 14:27; Eccles. 3:14). His other scriptural quotation, though, glosses the text more than is warranted. He renders Job 42:2 as “and that [God] cannot be frustrated ‘in one design or thought’”, while the King James Version reads “I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee”. So, while the text does not teach something contrary to Edwards’ doctrine, it seems that he makes this verse say more than it says itself. Edwards shows (2) that the wise stability of God’s counsels, which are connected to his foreknowledge, show the absurdity of the aforementioned premise. He correctly and accurately quotes Isaiah 46:10 to make this point. His (3) statement is a rhetorical question, which asks, with a quotation from James 1:17, how the picture given above is consistent with the biblical portrayal of God as immutable and without “shadow of turning?” Edwards’ argument is that it does not. He helpfully quotes Malachi 3:6, Exodus 3:14, and Job 23:13–14 to substantiate his claim.65 Yet again, therefore, notwithstanding one “stretched” interpretation, Edwards makes his theological case from the Bible, showing that it is absurd to argue that God does not foreknow moral choices. For, otherwise, he would not be that being in whom there is no “shadow of turning”.

7. Argument V

Edwards’ Fifth Argument fittingly concludes this section, dealing with God’s “great end of creation” and its relationship to his foreknowledge.66 In this argument, Edwards cites two scriptures directly (Gen. 6:6 and Rev. 21:6) and alludes to two others (1 Jn. 3:8 and Rom. 11:36). Edwards employs his last reductio ad absurdum to argue that should God not have exhaustive divine foreknowledge, it leads to the absurd conclusion that “God, after he made the world, was liable to be wholly frustrated of his end in the creation of it; and so has been in like manner liable to be frustrated of his end in all the great works he hath wrought”. Edwards makes this connection because he believes that all things exist to serve as the stage upon which moral actors can act for good or ill. Meaning, therefore, that “if these things can’t be foreseen by God, because they are contingent and subject to no kind of necessity, then the affairs of the moral world are liable to go wrong, to any discernable degree; yea, liable to be utterly ruined … [since] when he made the universe, he did not know but that he might be so disappointed in it”.67

Edwards then provides five “absurd” examples of what this would entail for God’s “grand scheme” of redemption should he not foreknow the actions of moral agents. (1) God literally repented in Genesis 6 for creating the world because of the wickedness of prediluvian men and women, since he would not have had the faintest idea as to how wicked they would become since that outcome was not a part of his “grand design”.68 (2) The “grand scheme and contrivance for our redemption” and all of God’s great works in it, are but “fruits of his disappointment” and his trying to “patch up” his originally good and beautiful system. This means that the “grand scheme of redemption” was not part of his original plan.69 (3) He would be liable “to be totally disappointed a second time” regarding the success of his Son’s work to “restore the state of things” since it depends upon men’s free will. (4) The extent and duration of the “general great apostasy” of nearly all Christians throughout the Dark Ages would have been entirely unknown to God and a mystery as to whether it would turn out for good. And (5) God would have not the faintest idea as to whether the gospel will ultimately be successful in “turning the heathen nations from their apostasy”.

Edwards concludes by pointing out that these kinds of statements are inconsistent with what is “often [taught] in Scripture” regarding the God who created all things for his pleasure and who “infallibly obtains his ends”. For, alluding to Romans 11:36 and quoting Revelation 21:6, Edwards notes that God ultimately works all things that are from him to be “to him” for he is “the first and the last”. Biblically speaking, therefore, God is never frustrated or compelled to act otherwise then he desires regarding his “grand ends” for creation. This means that all which has transpired since creation has occurred because God desired for it to transpire in this way to achieve his “grand ends”.70 Edwards has argued quite well, though he did not cite as many explicit scriptures as he does in other places, that it is absurd to assert that God does not foreknow the volitions of humans. Otherwise, it would lead to the conclusion that He is liable to continual frustration in his “grand schemes”. This cannot be since the Bible portrays God as never being frustrated in his grand affairs. Therefore, given Edwards’ argument, God must necessarily foreknow human choices.

8. Conclusions

This paper has sought to address the need for an examination of Edwards’ use of Scripture in his major treatises. The focus at present has been on Edwards’ hermeneutic in Section 11 of Part 2 in his Freedom of the Will: “The Evidence of God’s Certain Foreknowledge of the Volitions of Moral Agents”. This essay has examined how Edwards uses Scripture to construct his theological argument in Section 11 to answer two questions. First, do the passages Edwards provides as “proof” for his doctrinal statements lend themselves to his interpretation? The evidence presented here suggests that Edwards has derived his theology from the Scriptures to legitimize his doctrinal point that “God has a certain foreknowledge of the voluntary acts of moral agents” (see note 17 above).

To prove his point, Edwards made five reductio ad absurdum arguments citing or quoting 185 scriptural references. He does this to reduce to absurdity the position that God does not foreknow the volitions of moral agents. He reduced this point to absurdity by arguing from a theological interpretation of the Bible that it is absurd to state that God did not foretell events and thus did not foreknow them or the moral volitions connected to them (Argument I); that God did not foreknow the fall of men or angels (Argument II); that God truly repents of his actions (Argument III); that God is always changing his plans and schemes (Argument IV); or that God can be frustrated in his ultimate ends (Argument V). Notwithstanding six errors of citation, his questionable interpretation of the texts regarding “the final obstinacy of the Jews in Egypt” (pt. 4, observation 3, Arg. I), or his heavy-handed “glosses” of Matthew 26:21–25 and Job 42:2, the overwhelming amount of biblical evidence suggests that Edwards drew his theology from the Bible, which informed and constrained his language therein.71 It is fair to say then that on the whole, in this section of FOW, Edwards is a faithful and fair interpreter of the Bible’s implied theology.72 Thus, the evidence confirms Storms’ conclusion that Edwards “compiles an impressive body of exegetical evidence” to contend for his “principal argument that foreknowledge is proved from the fact of prophetic prediction” (Storms 2003, pp. 117–18).

The second question this essay intended to answer relates to how these findings contribute to the larger conversation regarding the extent to which the Bible normatively controls and informs Edwards’ theological exegesis? It is now appropriate to suggest a tentative answer. Edwards clearly does not pursue the kind of exegesis adopted by “critical” exegetes in the era of the “eclipsed” biblical narrative (Frei 1980). It is unfair, however, to label his exegesis as “imaginative” or “unconstrained”, as Stephen Steins does, even if Edwards does not “bind” himself with those exegetical restraints deemed the appropriate and respectful cords by which all exegetes ought to be bound this side of Hans Frei’s “eclipsed” biblical narrative (Stein 1977, 1974, 2006). This label is unfair because, in agreement with what other authors have documented elsewhere, Edwards’ interpretation in this section has hermeneutical restraints (Barshinger 2009, 2014; Neele 2018; Rivera 2006; Abernathy 2013, pp. 825–26; Sweeney 2015a; Gerstner 1984). As these authors have rightly seen, Edwards employs both the “rule of faith” and a “whole Bible”, redemptive historical hermeneutic to keep his interpretations from heterodoxy or heresy. In Section 11 of Part 2, the “rule of faith”, and a keen eye to the whole Bible’s theological message, confine Edwards’ interpretation within theologically acceptable boundaries. More evident here, however, is Edwards’ careful derivation of theological implications from texts across the canon, theologically synthesizing only to the extent that he finds the language of the text to warrant it, so that, like a skilled pianist, he combines minor chords of scriptural allusions with major chords of theological argumentation to create a sweet melody that sings the tune of biblically informed and constrained theological exegesis. The evidence of Section 11 of Part 2 in FOW strongly suggests that Edwards’ hermeneutic has principled and exegetical constraints.

Much more work remains for scholars to complete on Edwards’ exegesis. The brevity and narrowness of this study suggest that Edwards’ theological exegesis is a meadow “white for the harvest” and is but part of the larger field of his exegetical corpus that awaits eager laborers to put their hands to the plow. Authors need to give more thought to the general contours of Edwards’ biblical interpretation: his repeated topics of interests, interpretive patterns, and the extent to which he derives his stated theology from the biblical texts to which he alludes, cites, or quotes. The exegesis within Edwards’ major, published works and the part it plays therein especially demands further study since it has received so little attention to date. Therefore, though the call has gone forth, the reader ought not to think that it can stop here. The call must continue to “ring out” until authors bring forth all of those treasures, both old and new, from the exegetical storehouse of America’s greatest theologian.