I'm meeting with some friends to read Jonathan Edwards' typological writings, vol. 11 of the Yale Edition of his works. I decided I'd post my notes on our last meeting and some additional thoughts from the reading here in case anyone finds them interesting. This was originally an email to the group.
Ray, Andy, Daniel, and I discussed pp. 50-93 of Edwards' vol. 11. I asked why Edwards saw shadows of spiritual truth in the created world, and whether he saw this perspective as necessary. We all noted that the inspired biblical authors saw things this way, and that the Scriptures are not exhaustive, but rather a springboard to understand everything as designed by God to communicate truth to our minds. Ray noted that Edwards was mindful of God in the theater of nature, and Andy mentioned how he found Edwards a good balance to his reaction against over-spiritualization (a reaction we've probably all had to the excess of "God moments" zealous naivete often sees).
I asked which examples of Edwards were particularly compelling. Several favorites were the jealous love of a husband as particularly reflective of the love of Christ for the church (no. 32), the customs of triumphant Roman armies as a picture of Christ's triumphant entry into heaven (no. 81), and the height of the heavens above the earth that shows the surpassing worth of heavenly pleasures compared to earthly ones. Daniel, Andy, and Ray commented that Edwards extended the the Reformed understanding of the sacraments to all of creation...small "s" sacraments, that is. I sat and learned.
Andy admitted he was challenged to greater wakefulness by Edwards' example; as professional religious people, we're often like Eli with Hannah, Zechariah (father of John the Baptist) with the angel in the temple, and the woman in prayer with Peter at the gate in Acts. Did someone mention Mary and Martha with Jesus, too? I.e., we're so caught up in our habitual service that we become myopic and miss the presence and works of God that are right in front of us. Ray said the three of them should write sermons on those texts and "take this on the road". I'd go to that revival.
I'll apply that by confessing that as we discussed these things, I was distracted by three things I was trying to do, all Martha-like: finish the reading (it was only 2 pages, but still...), write out some good questions for discussion, and take notes on what was being said. If Edwards had been with us, he'd have said that my distraction was a type of the very thing we were discussing: I was distracted from the grace of exchanging ideas by my anxiety to make sure I had all my ideas organized for the exchange. I'm not sure what he'd say about the fact that I was delayed to the meeting because I lost my wallet at my sister's house in Charleston; I'd actually put it in my travel kit so I wouldn't lose it...we should come up with a name for this phenomenon. How about "perfectionistic irony"? I for one am persuaded that God often speaks in this manner providentially, that he accompanies insight into his written word with corresponding illustrations, often in our immediate circumstances. I mentioned the presence of a deer in the grocery store a few weeks back when I'd been pondering "I adjure you by the gazelles or does of the field..." in Song of Songs.
Okay, this is no longer brief. Daniel asked if Edwards presupposed or predicted Van Tilian presuppositionalism. Ray mentioned that for communists, looking at the material world often broke them of their atheism.
Definitely some good trajectories of thought to explore further. Here are some others that I had in mind that the river of our collective thoughts avoided:
1. Is Edwards correct in thinking this way? Why/not? Edwards may be the father of American Evangelicalism, but he's not our pope, so let's think critically about his ideas. Maybe we can do this by picking the example that made us laugh the loudest as we read.
2. Edwards mentions in no. 95 that the cursing of the serpent in crawling in the dust represents the curse on the devil, and thus "proves that outward things are ordered as they be, to that end that they might be images of spiritual things" (88). This raises some questions of enormous importance in my mind...If the serpent and devil in Gen 3 are an example of type and antitype conjoining, is there a pattern or rule to when type and antitype conjoin in Scripture? (Edwards also mentions the sunrise/set with the death and resurrection of Christ, pp. 64-65, no. 50, nt. 2. maybe others too). Also, is everything in Eden typical and sacramental? It seems at least the trees, the serpent, Adam's sin, and Adam and Eve's nakedness are. That is, they're both literal and representing deeper spiritual things. Or perhaps in Eden there was a kind of hyper-typical nature to all of these things, so that what we perceive as "types" of spiritual things actually were (pre-fall) the very things they would later typify. Curious in this light and in view of Edwards' thoughts on rivers (p. 77, no. 77, which numbers seem to typify the perfection of the analogy of God's providence) is the fact that the river out of Eden splits into four rivers typical of God's presence as the fountain of life before the fall (as opposed to rivers joining and flowing into the sea/streams of providence joining to flow into God after the fall)? Just a thought, but if that is true, are the trees and river and etc. in the new heavens and earth also restored to their (hyper?) typical/sacramental nature? Does this get at the "groaning" of creation subject to futility in Romans 8? I.e., is the futility, in part, that it no longer bears this sacramental nature?
Also interesting in this connection are the mention of Jesus' side as proof to Thomas and his breathing on them in Jn 20, in light of God's creation of man by breathing into his nostrils, and woman from the side of man. Edwards p. 70-71, nos. 62-63 got me thinking this way.
3. p. 57, no. 26, Edwards says of Jesus' use of a tree known by its fruit as "not merely mentioned as illustrations of his meaning, but as illustrations and evidences of the truth of what he says" (emphasis mine). Are there other examples of this in Scripture? No. 7 seems to be similar re: 1 Cor 15:36
4. page 74, no. 70, By types in creation "we may as it were hear God speaking to us." Should we then follow Edwards' lead as a kind of spiritual discipline? In light of no. 77, the river as God's providence, what is typified by a tree planted by streams of water (Ps. 1)? Does day and night meditation on the word lead to a greater connection to the streams of providence in our lives, so that we do truly see correlation between peculiar turns of providence and objective truth we see in the word, and thus hear God speaking to us, as Edwards says?
5. page 80, no. 78: the course of sap/life in trees is reverse of the flow of water in rivers, which represents the providence of God in the church in giving life through the trunk of Christ. Edwards doesn't mention my thought from point 4 above, but could it be that the church is a macro-example of what we are to be individually? I.e., specially favored by providence (cf. Eph 1, called according to his purpose who works all things...) to hear God speaking in Christ and Scripture, and for the word we hear to correspond with the collective force of God's word to us in everything we've experienced. That thought needs better words.
6. page 85, no. 85: sunrise as both resurrection and the Gospel dispensation. What then of multiple senses applied to one object? So too seas/lakes are God's wrath (nos. 27, 64), and in relation to rivers, God himself (no. 77). What up with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment