Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:49:51.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will and his defence of the impeccability of Jesus Christ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2007

Philip J Fisk
Philip J Fisk*
Affiliation:
ReachGlobal, 901 East 78th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55420, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is in Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will (1754) that he reconciles impeccability and freedom of the will in the human soul of Jesus Christ, even when Jesus is in a state of trial. But how does he shape a synthesis between these two attributes without duplicity, and at the same time avoid theological and christological barbs, whether Arminian or Hobbist, Nestorian or Apollinist? For Edwards, the Son of God did not surrender impeccability when he undertook to fulfil – in human nature, and in a state of trial – intra-trinitarian promises, promises made not only by the Father to the Son, but by the Son to the Father. Edwards views the habits of the heart of Jesus Christ progressing in holiness from the moment of his incarnation. He understands the excellencies that the Son of God brought to the human nature in the incarnation in no way to have added to nor to have diminished the impeccable holy disposition of his person. A key to interpreting the holy habits of Jesus’ heart is, according to Edwards, to view the source of the impeccability of the soul of Jesus as lying in its essence, not in a cause outside his person; it lies in the very disposition of his heart.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , August 2007 , pp. 309 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Edwards distinguishes between several meanings of moral necessity: (1) a great obligation, (2) an apparent connection of things with only a high degree of probability and (3) absolute necessity that is a foundation for infallible certainty. Edwards takes up the latter in his full definition that has both philosophical necessity and moral necessity in view. Paul Ramsey (ed.), Freedom of the Will, vol. 1 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), p. 156, hereafter cited as FW. Throughout this article, I have chosen to use only the Yale University Press text-critical editions when citing Edwards.

2 Edwards refers to ‘moral causes, such as habits and dispositions of the heart, and moral motives and inducements’. FW, pp. 156, 157.

3 FW, pp. 281, 337. After I had completed my article, I was elated to discover that Stephen R. Holmes has evoked the importance of these two theses for defining the compatibility of freedom and necessity. I have attempted to apply Edwards's argument to the impeccability of Jesus Christ, even when in a state of trial. Holmes, Stephen R., God of Grace and God of Glory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 154–5.Google Scholar

4 Lee, Sang Hyun (ed.), Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith, vol. 21 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 147Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Writings on the Trinity.

5 Edwards has Dr Whitby in his sights when he proceeds with his defence. For this reason, I have focused on Whitby as Edwards's chief interlocutor in FW, pp. 81–9 and 281.

6 The disposition of Christ's human will is holy and governs the ‘acts of the will of the human soul of Christ’. FW, p. 281.

7 Edwards cites Whitby's Discourse on the Five Points (2nd edn, 1735) for his definition of ‘freedom of the will’. It is ‘freedom not only from coaction, but [from] necessity’. FW, pp. 277, 295. All citations of Whitby's Discourse are taken from quotes that Edwards makes as found in FW or from notes that Edwards makes on this topic as found in Writings on the Trinity. The later edn, Daniel Whitby, Six Discourses Concerning Election and Reprobation; The Extent of Christ's Redemption; The Grace of God; The Liberty of the Will; The Defectibility of the Saints; Answers to Three Objections, 1st American edn (Worcester, MA, 1801) is not cited in the body of the text, but is used for comparative purposes in the footnotes. The discrepancy between Six Discourses (1801) and Five Discourses (2nd edn, 1735; first published in 1710) is due to the fact that later edns add answers to three objections. Support for the dates for the edn of Whitby's Discourses that Edwards uses is found in FW, p. 82.

8 Writings on the Trinity, p. 210.

9 FW, p. 203, n. 1.

10 Whitby, Six Discourses, p. 85.

11 Writings on the Trinity, p. 206.

12 Edwards cites Whitby's agreement with Herbert Thorndike who writes, ‘We say not that indifference is requisite to all freedom, but to the freedom of man alone in this state of travail and proficience’. Writings on the Trinity, p. 206. See Edwards's citation in his FW, p. 203, fn.1.

13 FW, p. 290.

14 Whitby, Daniel (ed.), A Commentary on the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament, vol. 4 of A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament (London: Published by Thomas Tegg, 1842), pp. 50, 51Google Scholar.

15 However, Whitby does not specify or was unable to specify the source of invincibility within the union of the two natures of Christ. Most likely, he attributes invincibility to the divine nature and victory over sin to the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

16 Ibid., p. 324.

17 JE expresses these sentiments in a sermon on John 10:18, ‘[Christ] greatly rejoiced . . . how this would be an occasion of showing forth his perfections to the views of men and angels’, in Lesser, M. X. (ed.), Sermons and Discourses 1734–1738, vol. 19 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), p. 504Google Scholar. Sermon title: ‘The Free and Voluntary Suffering and Death of Christ’.

18 Goold, William H. (ed.), An Exposition of The Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 18 of The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh, 1855; repr. Rio, WI: The AGES Digital Library, 2000), p. 263Google Scholar.

19 Ibid.

20 Wilson says that JE ‘expended great energies on the strictly biblical questions, working over John Owen on Hebrews’ in his preparation of ‘A History of the Work of Redemption’, Wilson, John F. (ed.), A History of the Work of Redemption, vol. 9 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 554Google Scholar. JE cites Owen in Stein, Stephen J. (ed.), Notes on Scripture, vol. 15 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 534Google Scholar. This work is hereafter cited as Notes on Scripture.

21 He contends, ‘To ascribe another kind of nature unto him, under pretense of a more divine glory, is to deny his being, and to substitute a fancy of our own in his room. So, then, the human nature of Christ, however exalted and glorified, is human nature still, subsisting in dependence on God and subjection unto him’, in Goold (ed.), Works of John Owen, vol. 21, p. 659.

22 See his letter to Rev Joseph Bellamy, 15 Jan. 1746/7, in Claghorn, George S. (ed.), Letters and Personal Writings, vol. 16 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 217, 266Google Scholar. In a letter to Bellamy on 9 Jan. 1748/9, JE wrote, ‘If I live till the Spring, I shall probably have occasion for Mastricht and Turretin, being engaged in studies and the Arminian controversies’.

23 He notes ‘Simon Episcopius (1583–1643), Dutch theologian, who studied under Arminius and Gomarus at Leyden’. FW, p. 289.

24 Turretin argues the impossibility of the Redeemer's failure. ‘We answer that far be it from us either to think or say any such thing concerning the immaculate Son of God whom we know to have been holy (akakon), undefiled (amianton), separate from sinners; who not only had no intercourse with sin, but could not have both because he was the Son of God and because he was our Redeemer (who if he could have sinned, could not also have saved us)’. Francis, Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George, Musgrave, ed. Giger, JamesDennison, T. Jr., (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992), vo1. 1, p. 666Google Scholar.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Edwards writes, ‘Take Mastricht for divinity in general doctrine Practice and Controversie; or as an universal system of divinity; . . . is much better than Turretine or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion’. Ramsey, Paul (ed.), Ethical Writings, vol. 8 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 743Google Scholar.

28 Peter, van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia (Theoretical and Practical Theology) (Amsterdam, 1715), p. 506Google Scholar. And in Dutch, Beschouwende en praktikale godgeleerdheit (Contemplative and Practical Divinity) (Rotterdam, 1749), p. 646.

29 Pelikan emphasises this benchmark: ‘Orthodox Christology required the condemnation of the Apollinarist heresy that the divine Logos had taken the place of the soul in the human nature of Jesus: he was fully human and fully historical, possessing a fully human soul as well as whatever else was necessary for genuine humanity, including a distinct human will and a distinct human action, though without the possibility of sin.’ Jaroslav, Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 5, Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 94Google Scholar. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, (London: SCM Press, 1968; 2002 edn.), p. 412Google Scholar. Gerald, O'Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 271Google Scholar.

30 ‘In reference, therefore, to such a characteristic as sin, the divine nature may not desert the human nature and leave it to itself. In reference to all other characteristics, it may . . . . Suffering is humiliation, but not degradation or wickedness. The Logos could consent to suffering in a human nature, but not to sin in a human nature’, in Shedd, William G. T., Dogmatic Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), vol. 2, p. 334Google Scholar. It would beg the question of this article to assume that the attribute of impeccability is withheld from the human nature of Christ. See Holmes, God of Grace, p. 138. In addition, see Kapic, Kelly M., ‘The Son's Assumption of a Human Nature: A Call to Clarity’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 3 (2001), pp. 154–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Oliver, Crisp, ‘Did Christ have a Fallen Human Nature?’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 6 (2004), pp. 270–88Google Scholar.

31 M. X. Lesser (ed.), Sermons and Discourses 1734–1738, p. 496.

32 Ibid., pp. 497, 498.

33 Ibid., p. 498 (emphasis added). In his Preface to the Period, Lesser writes, ‘the historical Jesus, though free of sin, suffered and died and therefore was not “absolutely” unchanged. Immutable in his office as Mediator and Saviour. Christ delights in it, and did so even on the cross, for he aims at the same two ends, the glorification of God and the happiness of the saints’, p. 21.

34 FW, pp. 289, 290 and 292. Edwards cites John 10:18 on both pp. 289 and 292. The infallible and unalterable determination of Jesus’ will is found on p. 290.

35 FW, p. 286. ‘God's absolute promise of any things makes the things promised necessary, and their failing to take place absolutely impossible’, p. 283.

36 M. X. Lesser (ed.), Sermons and Discourses 1734–1738, p. 565.

37 Ibid., p. 590.

38 Ibid., p. 578.

39 Ibid., p. 589.

40 FW, p. 281.

41 Ibid.

42 FW, p. 283.

43 FW, p. 284.

44 FW, p. 286.

45 Ibid.

46 FW, p. 287.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

49 FW, p. 337.

50 Writings on the Trinity, p. 7.

51 Schafer, Thomas A. (ed.), The ‘Miscellanies’, vol. 13 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), p. 529Google Scholar.

52 Amy Plantinga Pauw (ed.), The ‘Miscellanies’, vol. 20 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 333. ‘In his last sufferings, when he offered up himself, Jesus sanctified himself; it increased his holiness by the Spirit of God . . . In this one way was he made perfect by sufferings: Heb. 2:10 and 5:9, and Luke 13:32.’ Edwards here indicates that Jesus’ aversion to sin and inclination to holiness increased through his last sufferings. The bringing forth of holy fruit strengthened and increased the holy root.

53 Chamberlain, Ava (ed.), ‘The Miscellanies’, vol. 18 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), p. 411Google Scholar. ‘Miscellanies’, no. 767. ‘Incarnation of Christ, and his perfect holiness’.

54 Edwards notes a progression in holiness in Jesus, but not a change in the direction of the inclination of his human will. In this sense was his will mutable, in a progressive sense, but never peccable.

55 Sweeney, Douglas A. (ed.), ‘The Miscellanies’, vol. 23 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 90Google Scholar. For Edwards, though the Son – the divine Logos – covenanted with the Father before creation, as a distinct person, the Son engaged to perform the will of the Father in a body and soul.

56 M. X. Lesser (ed.), Sermons and Discourses 1734–1738, p. 504.