Great Christian Biographies with John Piper: Jonathan Edwards 2 (featuring Iain Murray)

Now, in that connection, I must throw in a few words about Edwards as a preacher. You know, the tradition is, or at least in some circles,

I should say, the tradition has been that Edwards preached holding a candle in one hand and reading like this from his manuscript in the other.

It's my conviction that that picture is pure legend and that it has arisen because some people, foolishly, thought it would emphasize the supernatural.

Can you imagine a man reading a manuscript, holding a candle, and hundreds of people being moved?

Well, you might not be able to imagine that, and I have to tell you, you don't need to try because that is not what happened.

There are a few eyewitnesses to Edwards' preaching, and they tell us very clearly that that's not what they saw.

One member of the congregation said it was Mr. Edwards' habit to look straight forward when he preached.

Someone else speaking similarly said he looked at the bell rope. He certainly wasn't squinting at a bit of paper.

And what we know of others who write about his preaching, and his own words, say the same thing.

Edwards says that preaching is for the impressing of divine things on the hearts and affections of men, and it is by the lively application of the word to men in preaching that God builds his church.

Samuel Hopkins, who heard him often, said his words often discovered a great deal of inward fervor without much noise or external emotion, and fell with great weight on the minds of his hearers.

He made little motion with head or hands, but spoke so as to discover the motion of his heart.

And Edwards says, he who would set the hearts of other men on fire with the love of Christ must himself burn with love.

So the idea that Edwards somehow stood in the pulpit with paper pressed up to his eye, and people had to listen patiently to him reading, is not,

I say, an accurate picture at all. How does his preaching differ from what is so common today?

Briefly, let me just say, firstly, he had a better understanding of human nature.

He believed that evangelism has to start where God starts, and God starts with conviction of sin.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Better understanding of human nature.

And following that, Edwards' preaching, I think, differs so much from what is common today by the emphasis in it on the wonder of the love of God.

You see, it's only as we know our real sinfulness that we can begin to appreciate the marvel of the love of God, and the marvel of the love of God runs through Edwards' preaching.

And the third, last characteristic of his preaching I would mention is the evidence that went with it of the anointing and the authority of the

Holy Spirit. And this is where I think it's sad the way some people write about Edwards.

They want to know what were his techniques? What were his methods as a revivalist?

They think there's some kind of secret in the man that explains how he was so effective.

And the answer is that Edwards, as the Apostle Paul, preached in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, depending on the demonstration and the power of the

Holy Spirit. One old writer, Thomas Murphy, writing in the 19th century, he puts his finger exactly on the right point.

He says, explaining the great awakening, it wasn't in terms of the personalities of the preachers, but as a wonderful baptism of the

Holy Spirit. The church, he says, was orthodox before. She is now imbued with a life and energy that was irresistible.

And speaking of Edwards and his colleagues, they were men who believed in refreshings from on high.

They felt some of them in their own souls and they were ready for still more.

Well, I can't take more time on Edwards as a preacher, but that is a great theme. And don't be careful to examine everything that's said on that subject.

Well, as you know, times of blessing are often followed by difficulties. And after the great awakening,

Edwards faced two major difficulties. The first was this.

In the wider life of New England, there were cold -hearted clergy who were never sympathetic with the awakening.

But in the course of time, they began to express their criticisms. And their criticisms were along this line.

They said, the trouble with this situation is that people are being manipulated by preaching that aims not at their reason, but simply at their emotions.

There's a hysteria abroad. People's imaginations are overheated, they said.

And a lot of excitement and hysteria has just stirred up congregations.

Now, unhappily, there were certain things that gave some credibility to that criticism.

There were those who believed they were friends of the revival, and indeed they were active in it, who behaved so foolishly and unwisely that they brought discredit on everything that was happening.

They gave fuel to the critics. Who were these people? Well, they believed, these people believed, that the way to judge the

Holy Spirit's work is by the sensational. If somebody should collapse on the floor, or someone should shout, something extraordinary should happen.

The more sensational, the more evidence of the Spirit's power. You know, when that idea comes in, it can spread very quickly.

We're all like sheep in spiritual things. And that idea began to take hold.

So excitement of an unspiritual nature did appear, and wildfire, and fanaticism.

And here was Jonathan Edwards, now caught between two fronts. On the one hand, these cold critics, clergy and some others, and on the other, fanatics, people with zeal, yes, and sometimes good people, but zeal without knowledge.

And Edwards, in his writings, as was mentioned last night, was seeking to deal with both sides.

In addition to that, there's something that happens in every true revival that we need to be aware of.

In addition to the saving work of the Spirit of God, by which many are truly converted, there is always what the

Puritans called a common work. That is to say, people get a taste of eternal things.

They become serious. Their lives change. But they've never fundamentally become

Christians. And after a while, this common work of the

Spirit doesn't remain with them. They go back to the world, or back to formal religion.

That happens in every revival. Edwards wrote these words, sadly, when he came to realize that even in Northampton, the converts were not as many as he had first hoped.

It is, he says, it is with professors of religion, especially such as become so in time of the outpouring of the

Spirit of God. It is as it is with the blossoms in spring. There are vast numbers of them upon the trees, which all look fair and promising.

But yet many of them never come to anything. So the first difficulty was the opposition to the revival and the need to defend the truth of the work of God.

The second difficulty was much more local. And in the end, I suppose it was more painful.

I mentioned some of the wider family that were no help to Edwards.

In the 1740s, there were problems that arose in the church as arise in every church, but these problems were definitely fermented by some, sometimes, as I say, cousins and members of family.

And these came to a head on this issue. Solomon Stoddart believed that people should be permitted to come to the

Lord's table and to be communicants without professing saving faith in Christ.

Jonathan Edwards had come to the conclusion that that was a dangerous liberty, that those who come to the

Lord's table should be converted people, and they should at least profess to possess saving faith in Christ.

You know, and Edwards knew, it's not our business infallibly to tell who's a real Christian, that wasn't the issue. But the issue was, should people be allowed to come who make no profession of saving faith in Christ?

Edwards disagreed with his grandfather. I told you his grandfather had been minister there for over 60 years.

He was a legend. And all the grandfather's children and cousins and grandchildren were all around.

The idea that Jonathan Edwards would contradict his grandfather's practice was unthinkable.

So a great furore arose in the congregation. And now, one of his cousins was a member of the congregation,

Joseph Hawley, and he took a leading part in opposition. It all came to a head, as some of you will be hearing this afternoon, in the summer of 1750, when

Edwards was voted out of his congregation that he'd served for 23 years.

Majority of the male members, 230 of them, voted for his dismissal.

23, 23 voted against his dismissal. The women, let it be said to their honor, were not voting members.

But in all truth, it's doubtful if it would have made any real difference. So at 46 years of age,

Edwards suddenly came to an end of his work.

He said, writing to a friend, I am now, as it were, thrown upon the whole wide ocean of the world, and know not what will become of me and my numerous chargeable family.

No financial arrangements for him were made. For a year, there was nothing fixed or definite.

He had some engagements. Then, after a year had passed, he took up the work in the tiny village of Stockbridge on the edge of the wilderness, just over 40 miles from Northampton, the only church that had expressed interest in him, and it had only 12 families in the membership.

One thing that drew Edwards to Stockbridge is the fact that Indian people were resident nearby and that an

Indian school had been started there. And so Edwards, in 1751, settles with his family in Stockbridge.

Must hasten over these years, too much to go into any detail.

He went there expecting a haven of peace. Not quite sure why he did expect a haven of peace, because members of the

Williams family were also in Stockbridge. I suppose they had been genial enough when he was called there, but very quickly, the old prejudice and opposition came up, and for three years, there was another sad struggle.

This time, the congregation sided with Edwards, and so did the Indian people who loved him.

And in 1754, after three years, the Williams gave up in Stockbridge and removed.

Wasn't the end of difficulties. He had financial problems. The next year, 1755, the outbreak of war with France.

The whole frontier became a danger point, attacks from the Indians. The French, of course, used the

Indians to fight the New England settlers. We have a description by one of Edwards' daughters,

Esther, who meanwhile had married Aaron Burr, the president of the

College of New Jersey at Princeton. She had married him about 1752. She came to visit her parents in 1756.

She describes what it was like on the frontier, a sense of danger, concern.

She describes how her father calmed her and helped her. It's a beautiful passage in her diary.

But then, the next year, and this is why I mention Esther, the next year, Esther's husband,

Aaron Burr, died, 1757. And to Edwards' astonishment and pain, the trustees of the

College of New Jersey called him to be president at Princeton.

Edwards wasn't enthusiastic. He wrote to them and said, we have scarcely got over the trouble and damage sustained by our removal from Northampton.

Council friends were called to decide the issue. They decided he should go to Princeton. It's the only time we read of in Edwards' life that he actually shed tears.

But in January, 1758, middle of winter, College of New Jersey anxiously waiting for him, he left

Stockbridge, leaving most of the family and Sarah behind.

His last sermon in Stockbridge, here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

And one of his daughters says that as he went out of the house and stood on the road, he turned around and he said,

I commit you to God. Next month, when he was in Princeton, February, there was smallpox in the town, and he took an inoculation against it.

The inoculation went wrong. And the result was that Edwards died on March the 22nd, 1758, just before he died at the age of 54.

He said to one of his daughters who was with him, it seems to be the will of God that I must shortly leave you.

Therefore, give my kindest love to my dear wife. And as to my children, you are now like to be left fatherless, which

I hope will be an inducement to you to seek a father that will never fail you.

16 days later, his daughter Esther died. Sarah hastened down from Stockbridge to look after the two orphan children that Esther had.

And she died the same year, October, 1758, to be buried beside her husband at Princeton.

Now, a little about the man, just a little. What kind of man was he?

Well, we have three sources of information. First, from the friends who knew him, a word or two.

George Whitfield said, a solid, excellent Christian. I think

I have not seen his like in New England. Another man who visited the home in Northampton said, a sweeter couple

I have not yet seen. Most agreeable family I was ever acquainted with.

He was tall, like his sisters, took exercise, horse riding, wood chopping in winter.

He was, by temperament, retiring, reserved. He enjoyed cheerful conversation, but he was perhaps a little slow to engage in such conversation with strangers.

When he died, one of his friends wrote, always steady, calm, serene.

As he lived cheerfully, resigned to the will of heaven. So he died.

And then there are Edwards writings which give us a view of him too.

Not that he spoke about himself. I don't think there's a sermon of Edwards in which he ever referred to himself, but he had a diary kept early in life, and you know his resolutions.

For Jonathan Edwards, friendship with God was the great purpose of redemption.

More communion with God. More holiness of life. If we were to ask, what particular grace did he most aspire after?

I think there might be a case for arguing that it was the grace of joy. Certainly he held that communion with God is the highest kind of pleasure that can possibly be enjoyed by the creature.

In his early sermons at New York, you see a young man overflowing with spiritual happiness.

When he was 19 in New York, he says in a sermon that it's a tendency of godliness to maintain always a clear sunshine of joy and comfort in it.

And that was his experience at that time. But I have to tell you that while he always regarded joy as the most important part of the

Christian life, he came to see that it's not to be taken as an accurate measure of growth in grace, because God has other things to teach us.

And 37 years after he wrote about a clear sunshine of joy always, he wrote this to his daughter

Esther. God will never fail those who trust in him. But don't be surprised or think some strange thing has happened to you.

If after this, she had had some spiritual blessing, if after this clouds of darkness should return, perpetual sunshine is not usual in this world, even to God's true saints.

So if joy wasn't the preeminent grace for Edwards, what was the preeminent grace?

And I think there is no doubt about it, it was the grace of love. All creature holiness, he says, consists essentially, essentially in love to God and to other creatures.

Love was the growing theme and passion of his life. One of the books that should be there is called

Charity and its Fruits, Love and its Fruits, Exposition of 1 Corinthians 13.

It takes you right to the heart of Jonathan Edwards. Sure proof of regeneration is that saints love

God for himself. But Edwards, speaking personally, spoke of a little spark of divine love, a little spark.

His great ambition was for more. So here are two sources of information on Edwards. What his friends said about him, things that we can glean in his own writings, and then a third source that I'll have to mention very briefly, and I don't mind doing it briefly because you won't find it very edifying, but there were those who said he was a tyrant, he was stiff, he was obnoxious, he was implacable.

I'm quoting words that were written by people at the time. Morose, some people called him, and so on.

And there were those that said about his teaching, he would not admit any person into heaven, but those that agree fully with his sentiments.

He belonged to a school, belonged to a school that lived in gloomy caves of superstition.

Well, I can't take time to deal with those, but you know the explanation for those remarks

I don't think is in the 18th century, it's actually in the Bible. There is,

Edwards says, a great enmity in the heart of man against vital religion. And while Edwards wasn't without faults, certainly, the hostility to him then and since in some quarters,

I don't question, is bound up with the real issue that we're always fighting, and that is supernaturalism against naturalism.

The world does not like the idea that we are sinners dependent on divine grace.

And the truth is that Edwards, far from being a mere traditionalist, and this is what people omit to understand, actually, he was on the side of the critics of his theology when he was a young man.

He tells us, from my childhood up, my mind was wont to be full of objections against the doctrine of God's sovereignty in choosing whom he would to eternal life.

It used to appear a horrible doctrine to me. Then he says, in a way he couldn't understand at the time, there came a wonderful alteration in my mind with respect to the doctrine of God's sovereignty.

He now says he had a delightful conviction of its truth, and it came by an extraordinary influence of God's spirit.

I must just add that you shouldn't interpret my remarks to mean that Edwards thought that all his critics and opponents were not

Christians at all. He didn't think like that. He was genuinely full of charity himself, and I think part of the most moving section of his life is the way that he deals so tenderly, not simply with the congregation at Northampton, but with relatives and others who were decidedly unfriendly to him.

Now, legacies, the legacies, three legacies. The first,

Edwards has left us an invaluable witness to the nature of true

Christian experience, and this, I think, is a key to understanding his life.

Why did God permit this good man to experience such disappointments, such difficulties, such setbacks?

And I believe that God permitted those circumstances to lead his servant to write for the benefit of the church in later ages.

In other words, the problems that he faced were all connected with the nature of real religion.

How do you distinguish it from false? And Edwards' experience brought him into that situation where this became a focus of his attention.

The book, Treaties Concerning Religious Affections, is the book that deals with that so fully.

Can I try and tell you what he means by affections quickly? Edwards says that we are made up of two parts, basically, our mind and our will.

Our mind perceives things and understands things, and our will is that part that inclines us or disinclines us.

By our will, we love or we hate. By our will, we desire or we resist.

And he says that when the will is in vigorous exercise, that's what he refers to as affections, zeal, love, and so on, are affections.

And the great point of his book, The Religious Affections, is to say that you don't tell a

Christian simply by what they know. That's speculative knowledge, essential though that is.

But how do their wills incline? What are their affections? In other words, he deals with what is a real conversion?

And this is the sort of thing he says. How do we tell a real conversion? Well, it's not whether or not the person has had conviction of sin or not.

People can have conviction of sin and never be regenerated. It's not whether conversion is fast, speeding.

Stony ground hearers receive the word immediately. It's not whether when people profess to be converted, they have physical phenomena, they tremble or weep.

No, Felix trembled. It's none of these things. The real evidence of conversion is the presence of regeneration, and regeneration is a change of nature, a new life.

There are many, he says, who think themselves born again that have never experienced any change of nature at all.

They haven't had one new principle added. They think themselves made renewed in the whole man, and they have never had one finger renewed, if I may use that expression.

They that are truly converted are new men, new creatures, new not only within but without.

They are sanctified throughout. All things are passed away. They have new hearts and new eyes, new ears, new tongues, new hands, new feet.

They walk in newness of life, and they continue to do so to the end of life, and the essence of regeneration is the restoration of the life of God in the soul, and that means a regenerate person is a

God -centered person. A regenerate person is a person who worships

God, who lives for God, who admires God, who loves

God. That's what regeneration does, and so his argument is the affections show the reality of regeneration, and there is one thing that goes with that.

If a man or woman has become God -centered, it's sure that increasingly they're going to be humble people.

A humble spirit, he says, leads Christians to look upon themselves as but little children in grace, and their attainments to be but the attainments of babes in Christ, and are astonished and ashamed of their low degrees of love and thankfulness and their little knowledge of God.