Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption (John 17:4–5) | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption (John 17:4–5) | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Usually when someone uncovers a lost historical manuscript,
• 0:03
  there is this expectation of pristine clarity.
• 0:07
  Right. Oh yeah, like an archaeologist
• 0:09
  brushing the last layer of dust off a Rosetta.
• 0:11
  Yeah, precisely. The artifact points to the
• 0:13
  truth, and the historian just says, well, there it is, the
• 0:16
  definitive answer. We like our history to be
• 0:18
  categorized and neatly resolved. We want the artifacts of the
• 0:22
  past to give us visible, indisputable facts.
• 0:25
  But, you know, then you step into the world of 18th century
• 0:28
  theology and 19th century intellectual gossip, and, well,
• 0:31
  that clean archaeological brush just snaps in half.
• 0:34
  It really does. You end up looking at a
• 0:35
  historical and textual landscape that is incredibly murky.
• 0:40
  Right, you're dealing with rumors, suppressed texts, and
• 0:43
  massive misunderstanding. So welcome to reformed thinking.
• 0:45
  Glad to be here. For this deep dive, we are
• 0:48
  bringing you, the listener, into a highly debated historical
• 0:51
  mystery. We are examining a rare
• 0:54
  manuscript written by Jonathan Edwards titled Observations
• 0:57
  Concerning the Scripture Economy of the Trinity and Covenant of
• 1:00
  Redemption, along with its supporting appendices.
• 1:03
  It is quite the title and quite the document.
• 1:06
  It really is. We are going to look at the
• 1:08
  specific text that sparked decades of rumors, clear up the
• 1:12
  historical misunderstanding, and unpack Edwards's meticulous
• 1:16
  explanation of how the Persons of the Trinity interact to
• 1:19
  accomplish human salvation. Yeah, the sheer way of the
• 1:23
  controversy surrounding this single document is fascinating.
• 1:27
  I mean, for decades, rumors circulated throughout academic
• 1:30
  and theological circles. Right.
• 1:32
  Rumors about Edwards, America's most famous theologian.
• 1:35
  Yeah, the rumor. Was that he had secretly
• 1:37
  abandoned his orthodox beliefs late in his life.
• 1:40
  To grasp why this matters to you and me today, we have to look at
• 1:44
  the intellectual climate of the mid 19th century.
• 1:46
  OK, set the stage for us. What was going on in New
• 1:48
  England? Well, New England was undergoing
• 1:50
  a massive theological fracture. The Unitarian controversy had
• 1:54
  split the historic Congregational churches.
• 1:56
  So you had a rising liberal wing that wanted to cast off the
• 2:00
  strict Calvinism of the past. Spot on.
• 2:03
  And for those figures, the Holy Grail would be finding out that
• 2:06
  Jonathan Edwards, the Titan of American Reformed theology, the
• 2:09
  Architect of the Great Awakening, had actually defected
• 2:11
  to their side in secret. Wow.
• 2:14
  Yeah, if Edwards had abandoned historic trinitarianism, it
• 2:17
  would validate their entire movement.
• 2:19
  Precisely so. When rumors began to swirl about
• 2:22
  an unpublished manuscript guarded by his theological heirs
• 2:26
  at Andover Seminary, the speculation was immediate and
• 2:30
  intense. I mean, the rumor mill was
• 2:32
  churning at full capacity. Highly prominent figures went on
• 2:35
  the record with explosive claims.
• 2:37
  Yeah, you have someone like Doctor Horace Bushnell, right?
• 2:40
  Right, a major theological figure of the era who is already
• 2:43
  pushing the boundaries of orthodoxy.
• 2:46
  In 1851, Bushnell publicly stated that he had heard of an
• 2:49
  unpublished manuscript by President Edwards.
• 2:52
  And Bushnell was writing his own material on the Trinity at the
• 2:55
  time, so he formally requested access to the Edwards document.
• 2:58
  But the custodians of the manuscript at Andover denied his
• 3:01
  request. Which just fueled the fire.
• 3:03
  It totally did. Bushnell then claimed they
• 3:06
  denied him access based on the nature of the contents, heavily
• 3:10
  implying that the heirs were guarding A theological
• 3:12
  bombshell. A bombshell that would ruin
• 3:14
  Edward's reputation. And then Oliver Wendell Hum
• 3:18
  Senior escalated that narrative in an 1880 article for the
• 3:21
  International Review. Oh, Holmes did not hold back.
• 3:24
  He wrote that he was informed on unquestionable authority that
• 3:27
  this manuscript showed Edwards's views had undergone a massive
• 3:32
  shift. Yeah, Holmes laid out specific
• 3:34
  accusations He claimed the manuscript proved Edwards leaned
• 3:38
  toward Arianism, which is the denial of the full deity of
• 3:42
  Christ. Right.
• 3:43
  Or towards civilianism, which Holmes described as an old
• 3:46
  fashioned Unitarianism. Holmes actually accused the
• 3:49
  custodians at Andover of acting like wise serpents to withhold
• 3:52
  the text from the public. He framed it as a tragedy,
• 3:54
  right? Like the public could not see
• 3:56
  how this brilliant man had supposedly emancipated himself
• 3:59
  from his earlier orthodox convictions.
• 4:01
  And because of that, the narrative was completely set in
• 4:04
  the public consciousness. People thought there was a
• 4:06
  massive theological cover up happening.
• 4:08
  The Hartford Courant even published an article demanding
• 4:11
  the release of the manuscript. They claim that suppressing it
• 4:14
  was an injustice to Edwards and a violation of common morality.
• 4:17
  People were totally convinced that this document was a smoking
• 4:20
  gun. But then, in 1880, a scholar
• 4:23
  named Egbert C Smith finally published the manuscript.
• 4:27
  The goal was to put the rumors to rest once and for all.
• 4:31
  And what happened when people actually read it?
• 4:33
  The bombshell was completely diffused.
• 4:35
  I mean, the conspiracy theory just evaporated because the text
• 4:38
  itself is rigorously, undeniably orthodox.
• 4:42
  It adheres completely to historic Trinitarianism.
• 4:44
  Yeah, Smith published it with a detailed introduction,
• 4:47
  systematically dismantling the gossip.
• 4:50
  The entire panic was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of
• 4:53
  the theological vocabulary Edwards was using.
• 4:56
  Right. The confusion stemmed primarily
• 4:58
  from Edwards use of terms like subordination regarding the Son
• 5:01
  of God. Critics and gossips heard the
• 5:03
  word subordination and immediately assumed Edwards
• 5:06
  meant the Son was lesser in his divine nature than the Father.
• 5:09
  And that would indeed be Arianism.
• 5:12
  But those critics completely missed Edwards's critical
• 5:15
  distinction between the nature of God and the economy of God.
• 5:19
  Well, before we get to that distinction, Smith's
• 5:21
  introduction addresses the physical manuscript itself.
• 5:24
  It was a copy, not an autograph, but a very early and trustworthy
• 5:29
  1. And the supposed smoking gun
• 5:31
  that proved to cover up was actually a handwritten note by
• 5:34
  Edward's son, Dr. Jonathan Edwards Junior.
• 5:37
  Right, the note read what follows to page 588, not to be
• 5:40
  printed, but preserved. The conspiracy theorists saw the
• 5:44
  words not to be printed and assumed it was a frantic command
• 5:48
  to hide heresy from the. Public.
• 5:49
  But if we place that note in the context of how publishing worked
• 5:52
  at the time, the instruction is entirely mundane, isn't it?
• 5:55
  Oh. Absolutely.
• 5:57
  The manuscript was part of a larger collection of
• 5:59
  miscellaneous observations. The Sun was transcribing and
• 6:02
  organizing these scattered papers to publish a volume of
• 6:05
  practical tracts for churchgoers.
• 6:07
  And this specific essay on the Trinity is highly abstract,
• 6:11
  intensely structural, and deals with complex internal mechanics
• 6:14
  of divine covenants. Yeah, it was simply not a
• 6:17
  practical tract. The Sun made a routine editorial
• 6:21
  decision that this specific essay did not fit the theme of
• 6:24
  the book he was preparing for the press.
• 6:26
  Notice that he explicitly wrote but preserved.
• 6:29
  He valued the work and wanted it kept safe for the archives.
• 6:32
  He didn't want it burned. Right.
• 6:34
  A basic editorial note regarding genre became the foundation for
• 6:38
  a century of conspiracy theories.
• 6:40
  It is like finding a lost, unreleased studio track from a
• 6:44
  legendary rock band. The music critics hear a leaked
• 6:47
  snippet and immediately claim it proves the band lost their
• 6:50
  touch. Yeah.
• 6:51
  They say the band abandoned their signature sound and the
• 6:54
  record label locked it in a vault out of embarrassment.
• 6:56
  Precisely. And then, decades later, the
• 6:58
  full track is officially released.
• 7:01
  The fans listen to it and realize it is actually the
• 7:03
  band's most technically brilliant, intricate
• 7:06
  composition. It just lacked the commercial
• 7:08
  studio Polish and, well, it did not fit the vibe of their
• 7:12
  greatest hits album. The producer left it off the
• 7:14
  track list for genre reasons, not quality reasons.
• 7:17
  The critics who claimed it was a departure were completely
• 7:19
  misunderstanding the intricacy of the music.
• 7:22
  That analogy holds up really well, but the truthful piece to
• 7:25
  remember is that Edwards's composition here requires
• 7:29
  specialized vocabulary to decipher.
• 7:31
  Because Edwards was working out the precise mechanics of how the
• 7:34
  Trinity functions in the act of salvation.
• 7:36
  Right. To understand why those 19th
• 7:39
  century critics were so confused by his use of the word
• 7:42
  subordination, we have to examine precisely what Edwards
• 7:45
  meant by the economy of the Trinity.
• 7:47
  So let us get into those mechanics.
• 7:49
  Edwards posits a very clear subordination in how the Trinity
• 7:52
  acts, which he calls the economy.
• 7:55
  He says the Father acts as the head, the Sun acts under the
• 7:58
  Father, and the Spirit acts under both.
• 8:00
  But then he explicitly writes that the Sun is not inferior to
• 8:03
  the Father in glory. He calls the sun, the brightness
• 8:05
  of his glory, the perfect image of his person.
• 8:09
  He says that in the sun the whole deity and glory of the
• 8:12
  Father is duplicated or repeated.
• 8:14
  So if the Sun is taking orders, how does that not inherently
• 8:17
  make him a lesser being? Well, Edwards is setting up
• 8:20
  precise theological guardrails here.
• 8:22
  He makes a strict differentiation between
• 8:24
  ontology, which is the study of being, or nature, and economy.
• 8:28
  And economy is the study of administration or action.
• 8:31
  Yes, ontologically the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
• 8:35
  identical in their divine essence.
• 8:37
  They possess the exact same divine nature. 1 is not more God
• 8:41
  than another. Economically, however, in the
• 8:44
  way they relate to one another and the way they act toward the
• 8:47
  created universe, there is an ordered structure.
• 8:50
  And Edwards insists that this subordination is not a natural
• 8:53
  subjection. But wait, if the Son is
• 8:55
  submitting to the Father's directives, does that not
• 8:58
  inherently mirror the relationship between a creature
• 9:01
  and a Creator? How is it not a natural
• 9:03
  subjection? Because a natural subjection
• 9:06
  defines the relationship between a finite creature and an
• 9:09
  infinite creator, you and I are in natural subjection to God.
• 9:12
  Right, because we depend on God's will for our very
• 9:14
  existence. If God stopped willing us to
• 9:17
  exist, we would cease to be. Edwards argues that this cannot
• 9:21
  be the case with the Person's of the Trinity.
• 9:23
  The Son does not depend on the Father's will for his existence.
• 9:26
  The Son's existence is a necessary, eternal proceeding
• 9:29
  from the Father. It is not a voluntary decision
• 9:32
  the Father makes. Correct.
• 9:34
  It is a necessary reality of who God is.
• 9:37
  Therefore there is no subjection of 1 to the will of another
• 9:41
  regarding their being. They are equally uncreated and
• 9:44
  eternal. OK, so if the son is fully equal
• 9:47
  in nature and does not depend on the father for his existence,
• 9:50
  how do we have a hierarchy of action without a hierarchy of
• 9:53
  value? Well, Edwards uses the phrase
• 9:55
  fitness and decency to describe this order.
• 9:58
  He says that because the Father is the fountain of subsistence,
• 10:01
  it is fitting that he is the fountain of action.
• 10:04
  The concept of fitness and decency is really the hinge of
• 10:06
  Edwards's argument, isn't it? It is, he suggests, that the
• 10:10
  order of their acting should be agreeable to the order of their
• 10:12
  subsisting. In the historic Christian
• 10:15
  understanding, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally
• 10:18
  begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from
• 10:21
  the Father and the Son. So because the Father is a
• 10:24
  conceptual starting point, the fountain of the deity, Edwards
• 10:27
  argues there is a natural aesthetic and logical fitness
• 10:31
  that the Father should also be the fountain of all the actions
• 10:34
  of the deity. It is a harmonious alignment of
• 10:36
  their eternal relations with their outward actions.
• 10:40
  Think of a thriving business partnership between twin
• 10:42
  founders. Oh, that is a good way to
• 10:44
  picture it. They started the company
• 10:46
  together, they have equal 5050 equity and they are completely
• 10:49
  equal in their ownership and worth to the company.
• 10:52
  Neither twin is superior in value.
• 10:55
  Yet for the business to operate Florida State, they both agree
• 10:59
  that one of them will act as the chief executive officer and the
• 11:02
  other will act as the chief operating officer.
• 11:05
  Yeah, the COO submits to the operational directives of the
• 11:08
  CEO. The subordination is strictly
• 11:11
  operational to achieve their mutual goals.
• 11:13
  And it does not diminish the COO's equity or worth in the
• 11:17
  slightest. The business analogy captures
• 11:20
  the economic subordination really well.
• 11:22
  But here is where Edwards introduces a critical
• 11:25
  distinction that moves beyond human examples.
• 11:27
  Right. Yeah, because twins can dissolve
• 11:29
  the company. Or they might flip a coin to see
• 11:31
  who gets to be CEO. But for the Trinity, the
• 11:34
  agreement is based on that eternal fitness and decency.
• 11:37
  They naturally delight in what is suitable and beautiful, so
• 11:40
  they align their actions with their eternal relations.
• 11:43
  The Father originates the action, the son executes it, and
• 11:46
  the spirit applies it. The economic order is
• 11:48
  established by mutual free agreement, but it is not an
• 11:51
  arbitrary agreement. It is the only fitting way for
• 11:54
  the Triune God to operate. This operational order, this
• 11:58
  fitness and decency of the divine society is eternal.
• 12:01
  It exists prior to the creation of the world.
• 12:04
  But that creates a massive logical tension.
• 12:07
  How does this eternal, pristine structure respond when humanity
• 12:10
  is created and then falls into sin?
• 12:13
  Right. What happens to the operations
• 12:14
  of the CEO and COO when the universe faces a catastrophic
• 12:19
  moral crisis? The whole system should
• 12:21
  breakdown. And this brings us to Edwards
• 12:24
  concept of a distinct secondary agreement.
• 12:27
  His structural analysis becomes incredibly detailed right at
• 12:29
  this point. He separates the eternal economy
• 12:32
  of the Trinity from what he calls the covenant of
• 12:34
  redemption. The listener needs to understand
• 12:36
  that these are two different frameworks.
• 12:38
  The economy of the Trinity is the baseline operational order
• 12:41
  we just discussed. While the Covenant of redemption
• 12:44
  is a specific, historically focused agreement made between
• 12:48
  the Father and the Son to save a particular number of fallen
• 12:51
  human beings. Yes, Edwards writes that the
• 12:54
  Father begins the great transaction of the eternal
• 12:57
  covenant of redemption. The Father is the first mover.
• 13:00
  He determines that a redemption will be allowed.
• 13:02
  He pitches upon a person for a Redeemer.
• 13:05
  He proposes the matter to the Son, offers him authority for
• 13:08
  the office, and prescribes exactly what he should do, what
• 13:12
  the reward will be, and what success he will have.
• 13:14
  In doing this, the Father is acting in his established
• 13:17
  economical capacity as the head of the Trinity.
• 13:20
  It is His Law, His Majesty, and His authority as the supreme
• 13:24
  Ruler that is contemned and offended by human sin.
• 13:28
  The Father is the specific person whose justice must be
• 13:31
  satisfied. It is entirely the Father's
• 13:33
  determination whether He will forgive sinners on any terms.
• 13:36
  He acts as the Supreme Lord, sustaining the dignity and
• 13:39
  rights of the Godhead against human rebellion.
• 13:42
  You know this resolves a major misconception regarding the
• 13:45
  atonement. People often ask, well, who
• 13:47
  decided on the cross? Was Jesus stepping in to stop an
• 13:50
  angry, reluctant Father? And Edward shows it was a
• 13:52
  unified agreement, but it was actively initiated by the
• 13:55
  father. The Father proposes the terms
• 13:57
  because his specific rights as the supreme ruler were the ones
• 14:01
  offended. Here is where the text
• 14:03
  introduces A striking shift for the Son in this new covenant.
• 14:07
  In the eternal economy, the Son's submission is natural and
• 14:11
  implies no lowering of status. But in the covenant of
• 14:14
  Redemption, the Son agrees to an entirely new kind of subjection,
• 14:18
  the. Precise word Edwards uses is
• 14:20
  humiliation. The son agrees to put himself
• 14:22
  into a subjection far below his economical station.
• 14:25
  I mean, he agrees to become a proper servant to the Father.
• 14:29
  He agrees to be placed under the law in the exact manner that
• 14:32
  creatures are subject to the perceptive will of God.
• 14:34
  This is a monumental shift. The son engages to become a
• 14:37
  creature. And by the son taking on this
• 14:39
  engagement, the father acquires a new right of headship over the
• 14:43
  son. Yeah, the father requires the
• 14:45
  right to command him, prescribe to him, and rule over him as his
• 14:49
  proper lawgiver and judge. The gravity of substitutionary
• 14:53
  atonement comes into full view here.
• 14:55
  The Son is not just obeying as the second person of the Trinity
• 14:58
  in a pristine, heavenly boardroom.
• 15:00
  No, he is actively choosing the physical and spiritual posture
• 15:04
  of a finite creature. He is agreeing to stand before
• 15:07
  the Father not just as a Co equal partner, but as a guilty
• 15:10
  representative of fallen humanity bearing infinite.
• 15:14
  The condescension is absolute. Edwards explicitly states that
• 15:18
  the Son's origination and acting from the Father in the eternal
• 15:20
  economy implies no descent below His divine glory.
• 15:24
  But this new obedience, this obedience of the covenant of
• 15:26
  redemption, is an obedience of humiliation.
• 15:29
  It is only this specific obedience, the obedience
• 15:31
  performed as made under the law and in the form of a servant,
• 15:34
  that actually merits salvation for sinners.
• 15:37
  So the obedience of the Son prior to the Incarnation, or His
• 15:40
  obedience now in His exalted state in heaven, is not the
• 15:43
  obedience that merit salvation for us.
• 15:44
  Correct. It is exclusively the obedience
• 15:47
  involving humiliation that secures the purchase.
• 15:49
  OK, so if the Father and the Son are drawing up this contract,
• 15:53
  setting all these legal parameters and rewards, where's
• 15:57
  the Holy Spirit in this transaction?
• 15:59
  What Edwards addresses the Spirit's posture head on.
• 16:02
  He argues that the covenant of redemption is strictly between
• 16:05
  the Father and the Son. He states that there is no
• 16:08
  intimation in Scripture of any covenant with the Holy Ghost in
• 16:11
  this specific regard. The Holy Spirit is infinitely
• 16:14
  concerned with the work of redemption.
• 16:16
  The Spirit fully consents to it. The affair was concerted among
• 16:19
  all three persons. But the Holy Spirit is not a
• 16:22
  party covenanting. I was honestly taken aback when
• 16:25
  I read that. Why would the Spirit be excluded
• 16:28
  from the covenanting process if all three persons are unified in
• 16:31
  their desire to save? Edwards relies on rigorous logic
• 16:34
  to answer this. He explains that a new covenant
• 16:37
  was only needed because of the humiliation involved.
• 16:40
  Because the sun Stoops below his divine station to become a
• 16:43
  servant. Exactly.
• 16:44
  The Holy Spirit, however, never undergoes humiliation.
• 16:47
  The Spirit is subject to the Sun and is given by the Father to
• 16:51
  the Sun to dispense, but this subjection implies no basement.
• 16:55
  The Holy Spirit does not become a creature.
• 16:57
  The Holy Spirit does not take on the form of a servant under the
• 16:59
  law. And the Holy Spirit does not
• 17:02
  bear the wrath of God. So because a spirit does not
• 17:05
  submit to this new, lower sort of subjection, well, there is no
• 17:10
  need for the Spirit to be a contracting party in a covenant
• 17:14
  that requires humiliation. Edwards points out something
• 17:16
  else regarding the Spirit's role in this legal framework.
• 17:20
  The Spirit is the inheritance. Yeah, the Spirit is the vital
• 17:24
  good that is purchased by the Son to be given to the Church.
• 17:27
  When Christ ascends and receives the reward for his humiliation,
• 17:31
  the inheritance he receives to distribute to his mystical body
• 17:34
  is the Holy Spirit. And this naturally raises an
• 17:37
  issue regarding merit. If the Son merits a reward for
• 17:40
  his obedience, does the Spirit merit a reward?
• 17:42
  Edwards clarifies this Florida State.
• 17:44
  I think because the Spirit's obedience does not involve
• 17:47
  humiliation or descent into a servant's status, it does not
• 17:50
  function as a meritorious work for sinners.
• 17:53
  Therefore, Scripture mentions no specific reward for the Spirit.
• 17:58
  The Spirit acts according to the established economy of the
• 18:00
  Trinity without any abasement, applying the redemption that the
• 18:04
  Son purchased through his humiliation.
• 18:06
  The legal definitions map out perfectly.
• 18:08
  The Spirit is completely involved, fully consenting, but
• 18:11
  logically cannot be a contracting party to a covenant
• 18:14
  of humiliation without actually being humiliated.
• 18:17
  Right, so we have this eternal legal agreement securing
• 18:20
  salvation between the Father and the Son.
• 18:22
  But how does this divine pre temporal agreement actually
• 18:27
  reach human beings in historical time?
• 18:30
  How do you and I get included in this transaction?
• 18:33
  Edwards solves this by distinguishing between two
• 18:35
  distinct covenants, the covenant of redemption versus the
• 18:38
  covenant of grace. Distinguishing these two
• 18:40
  covenants is one of the most critical theological
• 18:42
  contributions in the manuscript. It really is.
• 18:45
  Edwards notes that theology often gets terribly confused by
• 18:48
  blending the covenant of redemption with the covenant of
• 18:51
  grace. He argues that we must keep them
• 18:53
  entirely separate to protect the integrity of the gospel.
• 18:56
  Yeah, the covenant of redemption is the agreement between the
• 18:58
  Father and the Son. The condition of this covenant
• 19:01
  is Christ's perfect obedience and suffering.
• 19:04
  The covenant of grace, on the other hand, is the agreement
• 19:06
  between Christ and the believer. And the condition of this second
• 19:09
  covenant is the believer closing with or receiving Christ through
• 19:14
  faith. If you mash these covenants
• 19:15
  together, you fall into the era of Neonomianism.
• 19:19
  Which was a major debate in Edwards era.
• 19:21
  Neonomianism is basically the idea that the Gospel is a new
• 19:25
  law. It treats faith as a new kind of
• 19:27
  work that a person performs to earn salvation.
• 19:31
  If you blend the two covenants, you start thinking that God the
• 19:34
  Father made a covenant with you and you're required to condition
• 19:37
  is to muster up enough faith and repentance to satisfy the
• 19:39
  Father's demands. You replace the impossible
• 19:42
  standard of perfect obedience with a slightly lower standard
• 19:45
  of sincere faith, but you are still trying to earn it.
• 19:49
  And Edwards forcefully rejects this.
• 19:51
  Christ has already performed the hard condition of the first
• 19:54
  covenant. He did the grueling work.
• 19:56
  The second covenant is simply a free offer.
• 19:58
  Edwards writes that faith cannot be called the condition of
• 20:01
  receiving as if it were a work to be performed prior to the
• 20:05
  gift, because faith is the receiving itself.
• 20:08
  Christ holds out the gift and believers receive it.
• 20:12
  There is no agreement upon something that must be done
• 20:15
  before they might receive. Edwards warns that making faith
• 20:18
  a strict condition of life in the same way Crest's obedience
• 20:21
  was a condition fills the mind with innumerable difficulties.
• 20:25
  It makes us apartment to depend on our own righteousness,
• 20:28
  treating our active believing as the currency that buys our
• 20:31
  salvation. Imagine the covenant of
• 20:33
  redemption is like a king and a Prince signing a legally binding
• 20:36
  treaty to secure a massive contested estate.
• 20:39
  OK, I like this analogy. The king sets incredibly
• 20:42
  difficult terms. The Prince has to go to war,
• 20:45
  suffer immensely, and win a definitive victory.
• 20:48
  The Prince agrees, goes to war, suffers, wins, and legally
• 20:52
  secures the entire estate. That is the covenant of
• 20:55
  redemption. Right.
• 20:56
  And the covenant of grace is like the Prince taking the deed
• 20:58
  to that secured estate, going to a peasant in a village and
• 21:01
  offering a marriage proposal. The peasant does not have to go
• 21:04
  to war. The peasant does not have to buy
• 21:07
  the estate. The peasant just has to say I do
• 21:09
  to the Prince, and all the wealth and status of the estate
• 21:13
  becomes theirs by virtue of the marriage union.
• 21:15
  The marriage covenant is actually Edward's primary
• 21:18
  metaphor in the text. He says the covenant the Father
• 21:20
  makes with the Son and his bride is different from the marriage
• 21:23
  covenant between the Son and the Bride.
• 21:25
  The Father is concerned in the marriage only as a parent,
• 21:28
  consenting and ratifying, but the actual marriage covenant is
• 21:32
  between Christ and the soul. The condition is simply yielding
• 21:36
  to Christ's invitations, accepting His offers, and
• 21:39
  closing with Him as a spiritual husband.
• 21:41
  Faith is just the empty hand. Saying I do it is not a new
• 21:45
  labor, it is the reception of the labor already completed by
• 21:48
  the Prince. But this concept of a marriage
• 21:50
  union between a divine Prince and a human peasant requires a
• 21:54
  mediator who can relate perfectly to both parties.
• 21:57
  You need someone who bridges the infinite gap between the eternal
• 22:00
  God and finite humanity. This shifts the focus of the
• 22:04
  manuscript into Edwards observations on the Incarnation
• 22:07
  and the mind of the God man. Christ is the perfect middle
• 22:09
  person. He brings God down to man, and
• 22:12
  he lifts man up to God. Edwards outlines how the human
• 22:15
  soul of Jesus is united to the eternal Logos through the Holy
• 22:18
  Spirit. He says the spirit of Christ
• 22:20
  dwelling in man causes a union, but the spirit of Logos dwelling
• 22:24
  in the man Christ Jesus causes the creature to become one
• 22:28
  person. With Logos, they share the same
• 22:31
  consciousness. Edwards looks closely into the
• 22:33
  psychology and consciousness of Christ.
• 22:35
  Here he asks how the human Jesus remembered the pre Incarnate
• 22:39
  agreements with the Father. Because if the covenant of
• 22:41
  redemption happened before time, how did the physical human brain
• 22:46
  of Jesus know about it? A finite human mind cannot hold
• 22:49
  infinite knowledge. Edwards addresses that
• 22:51
  limitation directly. He argues that the human soul of
• 22:54
  Christ possessed a reminiscence of the eternal Logos.
• 22:57
  The ideas of the eternal mind cannot be communicated to a
• 23:00
  finite mind in their infinite uncompressed form, but they were
• 23:04
  communicated to the human Jesus in a way that fit his finite
• 23:07
  capacity. So that he was conscious of them
• 23:10
  as if they had been a transaction he experienced as a
• 23:12
  creature. The human soul of Christ had a
• 23:15
  perfect finite mapping of the infinite divine decrees.
• 23:20
  It preserves both the true humanity and the true divinity
• 23:23
  of Christ without confusing the 2.
• 23:25
  But Edwards takes his even further when he discusses the
• 23:28
  glorified human mind of Christ in heaven Right now, he.
• 23:31
  Suggests that the faculties of the man Christ Jesus and his
• 23:34
  exalted state are expanded to an almost incomprehensible degree.
• 23:38
  Edwards posits that Christ can, with a full view and clear
• 23:42
  apprehension of mind at the exact same moment, think on all
• 23:45
  the Saints in the world. And be in the exercise of an
• 23:48
  actual and passionate love to all of them individually.
• 23:51
  The physics of that are staggering.
• 23:52
  Edwards is claiming that the human soul of Christ right now
• 23:55
  maintains an individualized, passionate, attentive
• 23:58
  relationship with millions of believers simultaneously.
• 24:01
  I try to picture it like a massive quantum computer, you
• 24:04
  know, processing billions of operations at once.
• 24:07
  Oh, that is a fascinating way to frame it.
• 24:09
  Yeah, because a regular computer handles tasks sequentially.
• 24:13
  It has to finish one thing before starting the next.
• 24:16
  But a quantum computer handles them simultaneously.
• 24:18
  Right. It focuses its entire processing
• 24:20
  capability on billions of distinct data points at the very
• 24:24
  same moment. But even a quantum computer
• 24:26
  lacks emotion, and Edwards is describing a human mind that is
• 24:31
  not just computing data simultaneously, but exercising
• 24:34
  intense, passionate emotional love.
• 24:37
  Yes, he says, Christ loves you, the individual listener with a
• 24:41
  proper desire for communion as much as if his human soul were
• 24:45
  physically standing right in front of you.
• 24:47
  The pastoral application of this high theology is immense.
• 24:50
  Edwards states that the man Jesus does not just love the
• 24:52
  church in general as some abstract collective.
• 24:55
  He loves the church because of the loveliness he sees in
• 24:58
  particular persons. Every single believer has the
• 25:01
  comfort of this consideration. The capacity of the man Jesus is
• 25:05
  so large by reason of the personal union with the divine
• 25:08
  nature, that he can maintain intimate, familiar communion
• 25:11
  with every believer simultaneously.
• 25:14
  This brings the infinite God near to us, so that his visible
• 25:17
  majesty does not terrify us, but becomes familiar.
• 25:21
  This infinite capacity for love and this ability to act as the
• 25:24
  perfect middle person is what qualifies Christ to act as the
• 25:28
  great cosmic peacemaker. And here Edwards takes the text
• 25:31
  in a direction that caught me entirely off guard.
• 25:34
  He says Christ mends rifts that go far beyond just human
• 25:38
  salvation. He broadens the scope of
• 25:39
  mediation to include angelic reconciliation.
• 25:42
  The appendices of the manuscript open up this cosmic angle.
• 25:46
  Edwards argues that Christ's mediation gathers all things
• 25:49
  together. He does not just reconcile
• 25:51
  humans to God. He reconciles humans to angels
• 25:54
  and humans to each other. Wait, why would I need to be
• 25:57
  reconciled to an Angel? I did not sin against the
• 25:59
  angelic hosts, they did not fall, and my rebellion was
• 26:02
  against God, not against Gabriel or Michael.
• 26:04
  Edwards explains the mechanics of it by looking at the
• 26:07
  objective nature of justice. Angels love God's justice
• 26:10
  perfectly. Therefore, they naturally and
• 26:13
  rightly harbor a holy hatred toward human rebellion and sin.
• 26:16
  Because they see things as they truly are, they see the infinite
• 26:20
  hatefulness of human rebellion against their Creator.
• 26:23
  Without the Atonement, angels would be our absolute
• 26:26
  adversaries. They would demand our
• 26:28
  destruction based purely on their love for God's justice.
• 26:31
  That reframes everything. If you perfectly hate sin, you
• 26:35
  are inclined to act against it. You desire that it should be
• 26:39
  punished. Edwards says that if God imputed
• 26:41
  our sins directly to us, the angels would necessarily hate us
• 26:45
  and desire our suffering. But Christ's substitutionary
• 26:48
  death fully satisfies the demands of that justice He
• 26:52
  suffered A punishment fully proportional to the hatefulness
• 26:55
  of the crime. By doing so, Christ removes the
• 26:58
  angels righteous cause to hate us.
• 27:00
  He turns them from our adversaries into our ministering
• 27:03
  spirits. Christ takes away the guilt by
• 27:05
  his blood suffering for the very thing that would have rendered
• 27:07
  as hateful to the angels. He confirms the angels hearts
• 27:10
  against pride, allowing them to joyfully minister to creatures
• 27:13
  who are inferior in nature but now honorable in their eyes
• 27:17
  because of their union with Christ.
• 27:19
  We can extrapolate this exact logic to human relationships.
• 27:23
  Edwards writes that Christ, by his sufferings, makes
• 27:26
  propitiation for men's sins not only with God but with their
• 27:29
  fellow creatures. Think about what this means for
• 27:31
  interpersonal conflict within the Church.
• 27:34
  If Christ has fully paid for a person's sins and has fully
• 27:37
  satisfied the demands of infinite justice for their
• 27:40
  offenses, we have absolutely no theological ground to hold on to
• 27:44
  hatred or vengeance toward a fellow believer.
• 27:47
  If the perfectly holy angels look at the cross and say
• 27:50
  justice is satisfied, I lay down my holy hatred, then how can IA
• 27:55
  flawed human being look at a fellow believer and say I still
• 27:59
  demand payment? The atonement forces horizontal
• 28:01
  peace as much as it forces vertical.
• 28:03
  Peace. It eradicates the legal
• 28:04
  foundation for grudges, Edwards says.
• 28:07
  A right consideration of Christ's sufferings for the sins
• 28:09
  of others is enough to satisfy all just indignation against
• 28:12
  them. Christ recommends believers to
• 28:14
  the favor of one another because His righteousness renders all
• 28:17
  who are in Him amiable in our eyes.
• 28:19
  It is a brilliant sociological application of substitutionary
• 28:23
  atonement. It is not just about trying to
• 28:25
  get along. It is about recognizing a legal
• 28:29
  reality that Christ has already accomplished.
• 28:31
  We have this total cosmic reconciliation.
• 28:35
  Humans reconcile to God, humans reconcile to angels, and humans
• 28:39
  reconcile to each other. This naturally pushes Edwards to
• 28:42
  ask a massive eschatological question about the end of
• 28:45
  history. What happens to Christ's Kingdom
• 28:47
  when the work of reconciliation is fully finished?
• 28:50
  Edwards answers this by differentiating between Christ's
• 28:52
  representative Kingdom and his mediatorial Kingdom.
• 28:56
  Drawing heavily from the Apostle Paul in First Corinthians
• 28:59
  chapter 15, Edwards notes that at the end of the world, Christ
• 29:02
  will deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father, so that God may
• 29:05
  be All in all. But Edwards clarifies that this
• 29:07
  does not mean Christ ceases to be a king or ceases to be the
• 29:10
  mediator. He distinguishes the delegated
• 29:13
  Vyster and authority from the vital conjugal head show.
• 29:16
  The representative Kingdom is the delegated authority Christ
• 29:19
  received to conquer enemies, subdue the universe, and safely
• 29:21
  gather the Church. It is a temporary tool.
• 29:24
  Like a King's son ruling as a viceroy to quell a rebellion in
• 29:27
  a distant province. Once the rebellion is crushed,
• 29:30
  the enemies are destroyed, and the final enemy death is
• 29:34
  defeated, that specific delegated authority returns to
• 29:38
  the Father. The representative Kingdom is
• 29:39
  handed back. Things return to their original
• 29:42
  economical order where the Father acts as a supreme Lord of
• 29:46
  all. The mediatorial Kingdom operates
• 29:48
  under a completely different set of rules, Edwards says.
• 29:51
  Christ's mediatorial Kingdom will never be delivered up to
• 29:54
  the Father. He remains the vital conjugal
• 29:57
  head of the Church for eternity. His dominion over the Church
• 30:00
  naturally flows from this headship.
• 30:02
  The Father will never take over the role of mediator.
• 30:05
  Christ remains the middle person forever.
• 30:07
  Edwards uses incredibly vivid language to describe what this
• 30:10
  eternal, eternal mediation looks like.
• 30:12
  In the final state, he says Jesus will always be the eye
• 30:16
  through which we receive the rays of divine glory and love.
• 30:19
  He will be the ear to hear the sweet expressions of His love
• 30:22
  and the mouth through which we taste the sweetness of the
• 30:24
  enjoyment of God. Christ remains the root of the
• 30:27
  tree planted in God, receiving SAP and nourishment for every
• 30:31
  single branch. The eye, the ear, the mouth.
• 30:33
  It grounds abstract theology and sensory experience.
• 30:37
  That brings us to one of the most beautiful appendices in the
• 30:39
  manuscript, a section on On the Excellency of Christ.
• 30:43
  Edwards believed that physical beauty in this world is not
• 30:45
  random. When you see a glowing sunset, a
• 30:48
  Crystal River, a gentle breeze, or a well proportioned human
• 30:52
  face, you're not just looking at pleasant arrangements of matter.
• 30:55
  Edwards says these physical things are literal adumbrations
• 30:59
  or shadows of the spiritual perfections of the Son of God.
• 31:02
  Edwards's aesthetic theology is captivating.
• 31:05
  He argues that the Son of God created the world to communicate
• 31:07
  himself in an image of his own Excellency.
• 31:10
  While he communicates himself properly only to spirits, he
• 31:13
  communicates a shadow or glimpse of His Excellencies to physical
• 31:17
  bodies. He writes that the easy and
• 31:19
  natural flow of vines and trees are shadows of Christ's beauty
• 31:22
  and loveliness. The crystal rivers and murmuring
• 31:25
  streams are the footsteps of his favor and grace.
• 31:28
  The light of the sun and the golden edges of an evening cloud
• 31:31
  are adumbrations of His glory and goodness.
• 31:35
  He even says the majestic Thunder and ragged rocks show
• 31:38
  his awful majesty. The physical world is literally
• 31:42
  vibrating with the character of the second person of the
• 31:44
  Trinity. It means the theology we have
• 31:47
  been discussing, the eternal economy, the legal majesty of
• 31:50
  the covenant of redemption, the precise mechanics of the
• 31:53
  Incarnation. None of this is just abstract
• 31:56
  heavenly legal work. It is reflected in the physical
• 31:59
  world around you every single day.
• 32:01
  The architecture of salvation is mirrored in the architecture of
• 32:04
  creation. It creates A seamless continuity
• 32:07
  between the operations of the Trinity before time began, the
• 32:10
  historical execution of redemption on the cross, and the
• 32:13
  daily sensory experiences of the believer in the natural world.
• 32:17
  The physical environment becomes a gallery displaying the
• 32:19
  character of the mediator. Let us recap the massive
• 32:22
  progression we covered today. We started by clearing up the
• 32:25
  false rumors from the 19th century.
• 32:27
  Right. There was no secret heresy.
• 32:29
  There was no suppression of Arianism or civilianism by the
• 32:32
  custodians at Andover. The manuscript was just highly
• 32:35
  technical and miscategorized by gossip.
• 32:37
  We move from there to the eternal operations of the
• 32:40
  Trinity, defining the economic subordination of action while
• 32:44
  fiercely maintaining the absolute equality of nature.
• 32:48
  We unpacked the legal majesty of the covenant of redemption
• 32:51
  between the Father and the Son, and how the Holy Spirit
• 32:54
  functions as the applied inheritance rather than a
• 32:56
  humiliated contracting party. We distinguish that eternal
• 33:00
  agreement from the free offer of the covenant of grace, ensuring
• 33:04
  that faith remains an empty hand, receiving a gift rather
• 33:07
  than a new condition to earn favor.
• 33:09
  We examine the expanding capacity of the glorified human
• 33:12
  mind of Christ to love each believer individually, his role
• 33:17
  as the cosmic peacemaker, reconciling humans and angels,
• 33:20
  and finally the eternal physical reign of the God man as the
• 33:24
  vital head of the Church. It is an overwhelming amount of
• 33:26
  insight from a manuscript that was almost lost to historical
• 33:29
  gossip. I want to leave you with a
• 33:30
  specific application drawn from Edwards's thoughts on beauty.
• 33:34
  Think back to our opening discussion.
• 33:36
  We talked about the desire for historical artifacts to be
• 33:39
  clean, giving us simple binary answers.
• 33:42
  We found that the reality of the manuscript was far more
• 33:44
  intricate, requiring careful analysis to see the brilliance
• 33:48
  within it. The same principle applies to
• 33:50
  how we view the physical world. It is easy to look at nature
• 33:53
  with a superficial glance and just see basic biological or
• 33:56
  meteorological functions, but looking closer reveals a much
• 34:00
  deeper design. Exactly.
• 34:01
  The next time you see a jagged mountain peak, a vibrant field
• 34:05
  of flowers, or a powerful thunderstorm rolling in, do not
• 34:09
  just appreciate it as natural phenomena.
• 34:11
  View it as Jonathan Edwards did. As a physical echo, a deliberate
• 34:15
  shadow cast into our finite world by the eternal uncreated
• 34:18
  beauty of the Son of God, the same Son who humbled himself to
• 34:22
  become a servant and who now perfectly sustains the universe.
• 34:25
  Let that framework shape how you look at the physical world this
• 34:28
  week.