April 25, 2012

In this collection of writings 1 Jonathan Edwards describes the revival he experienced while a pastor in Northampton during the early 1740’s.  As pastor of the church which witnessed this outpouring of God’s Spirit, Edwards’ occupied a unique position from which to observe and comment on this move of God. He attempts to provide both an analysis of the revival for those who have a genuine interest in how God moves among men, and a defense against others who have attacked this outpouring as illegitimate.

Edwards sets forth in A Narrative of Surprising Conversions to describe two specific examples that illustrate the magnitude and varied expression this move had on individuals, while ascribing meaning to the event as a whole.  Then in The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God he takes the text of I John 4 and discusses nine “negative signs” (89) that mark a work as not from God, and five “evidences” (109) that mark a work as from God. Finally, in an Account of the Revival of Religion in Northampton 1740-1742, Edwards provides a very good synopsis of the revival that ultimately impacted the new American nation.

The effects of this work of the Spirit caused the people of Northampton to “come by flocks to Jesus Christ” (13), and caused “the town . . . to be full of the presence of God” (14). The reach of this awakening extended from “a young woman, who had been one of the greatest company keepers in town” (12) to “old men and little children” (19). In six months more than 300 were converted (19) in Northampton. Edwards writes that during this revival “there was as much done in a day or two, as at ordinary times . . . is done in a year” (21).

In this dispensation God had “gone out of, and much beyond, his usual and ordinary way” (19). Hence Edwards describes five ways that this work of God was extraordinary. It was extraordinary in its universality (19). All “sorts, sober and vicious, high and low, rich and poor, wise and unwise” (19), were reached by this dispensation. It was remarkable in the numbers of people which were saved in it (19). Edwards found this work of God unusual in its “awakening and regenerating influences” (20) on both young and old. The quickness of this work (21) was also not ordinary according to Edwards. Finally, he found that the extent of this dispensation to include other towns around his, reaching even to other colonies, was extraordinary.

Basing his argument in Distinguishing Marks on I John 4, Edwards attempts to show “the true and certain . . . evidences” (87) that a work is of the Spirit of God. In this scripture the Apostle’s teaching gives the church “an infallible and sufficient rule” (87), which can be used to judge the various manifestations of God’s work so as to prevent error in any day. He argues that “the Holy Spirit is sovereign” (89) and has not limited himself to the ways he has operated in the past. Furthermore, the expressions without or impressions within that are observed or perceived during an outpouring of God’s Spirit neither confirm nor deny the integrity of the work.

According to Edwards, genuine operations of God’s Spirit will bear the marks presented in I John 4. True operations of the Spirit of God raise the esteem of Jesus’ virgin birth and crucifixion (109), operate against the interests of Satan (111), cause a greater appreciation for the Holy Scriptures (113), lead people to be convinced of the truth of the claims of the gospel (115), and elicit in people love for God and man (115) which extends even “to those who had been least friendly to them” (47).

In An Account Edwards’ provides a good summary of the work he observed in Northampton, as well as the covenant they made to God during this time (154-158). The revival first appeared among those who already professed Christ as Lord and then to the young who viewed themselves as lost (149).

Edwards has a bias against emotionalism in favor of intellectualism in religious expression. Here, however, his Puritan influences make this account all the more reliable in his balanced representation of the unusualness of God’s means during this season of grace. For example, he acknowledges instances of people lying in trance-like states (153) for periods of up to twenty-four hours. He also acknowledges, however, that Satan took advantage and that caution was necessary in preventing many from “running wild” (154). He recognized that many “intuitively beheld and immediately felt . . . powerful evidence of divinity in them”(42) while others “never had such a special sense of the certainty of divine things” (43) yet had “very clear exercises of grace” (43). Edwards argues that Gamaliel’s advice should be heeded (134) if these manifestations are from God, the examples of changed lives pursuing holiness will declare it.

Edwards makes several points which are particularly helpful for those who are seeking biblical balance between emotional experience on the one hand, and studious reasoned discovery of God’s will on the other. He points out that one could not discount through the work of the Spirit which he had observed, all instances of emotional outbursts. The stir, caused as the Spirit moved, led people to weep, cry out, break “forth into laughter”(37), experience impressions upon their minds (94) or imaginations (95), or have their bodily strength fade (127), could be used easily to either show that God was at work or it could be used to prove that God was not at work. He admits that while indiscretions and errors in judgement, may occur among some who were thought to have been “wrought upon” (104) by God’s Spirit, yet even “a thousand imprudences will not prove a work to be not of the Spirit of God” (101).

In these points Edwards provides a much needed emphasis for balance to those who would err on the side of not giving the Sovereign Spirit of God freedom to work His will. His writings also remind those, who today, would favor dramatic displays not to discount the miracle of regeneration. Edwards writes that “conversion is a great and glorious work of God’s power, at once changing the heart, and infusing life into the dead soul” (40), and that under the preaching of the gospel “the power of divine grace . . . had admirable success in the conversion and edification of souls” (77). Edwards also understands that conversion is experienced by individuals differently. Some experience a marvelous light in which the glory of God burst upon them suddenly (41), while others experience a little light whereby the light of God’s grace gradually (41) increases as the dawning of a new day. This miraculous work of grace upon individual hearts is variously described as “inexpressible” (46), in that their words fail in describing it. It is “a ravishing sense of God’s love” (46) accompanied by an understanding of “his excellency” (46); persons who have been converted often “express a longing desire to live to God’s glory” (47).

Edwards’ strength is in his recognition that the outpouring of God’s Spirit which he had observed and experienced had more to do with God than the individuals who had shared in the experience. He points out that “in the main” there was “a great and marvelous work of conversion and sanctification among the people” (72). In spite of their unworthiness he writes “it pleased God to work!” (73). He is able to find balance where others have failed. Even though it is clear that he recognizes the sovereignty of God in this revival, he is also able to admit that human means are involved as well. He says that “it is surely no argument that an effect is not from God that means are used in producing it” (98). One of the chief human means which he recognizes is that of people being an example to others. The example of persons striving with God and being converted is “one thing . . . which God has made . . . a means of promoting his work amongst us” (39-41). Another human means Edwards recognized was used by God in this revival were ministers, particularly in their passionate insistence that there is a hell (106), and that as law breakers one and all should be terrified of the prospect of God’s lack of “obligation to show mercy to any natural man” (30).

Edwards’ postmillennialism, as most religious thinkers of this age, affected his interpretation of the revival and must be pointed out as a weakness.

McLoughlin grossly misrepresents Edwards’ view of God when he states that “what surprised him was not the intensity of the emotional outburst but the mercy of a stern and angry God”. 2 McLoughlin would have done well to have learned from Edwards conviction that “the degree of grace is by no means to be judged . . . by the degree of joy, . . . or zeal, and that . . . it is not the degree of religious affections but the nature of them that is chiefly to be looked at” (159).

Jonathan Edwards’ writings preserve for us the sense of awe and dependence toward God which anyone engaged in God’s work should possess. His restraint in judging another’s personal experience is wonderfully balanced with his absolute determination to allow scripture to provide guidance to both human reason and experience. Through his writings he challenges us to experience the “being” of God personally through the “Scriptures, reason and experience” (84).

 End Notes

 1. Edwards, Jonathan. Jonathan Edwards on Revival. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1999. 160 pp.

2. McLoughlin, William G. Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform. Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1980. 228 pp. $12.00.  His purposes in writing (21) are to defend himself against those who might think he is bragging about the number of converts, to declare fully the amazing work of God so that credit could rightly be given to God himself, and to show what is the “true certain and distinguishing evidences of a work of the Spirit of God” (87)