Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 62:3 (Sep 2019)
Article: Divine Love As The Organizing Principle Of Jonathan Edwards’s Doctrine Of Atonement
Author: Brandon James Crawford

---

JETS 62:3 (September 2019) p. 563

Divine Love As The Organizing Principle Of Jonathan Edwards’s Doctrine Of Atonement

Brandon James Crawford*

* Brandon James Crawford is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church, 500 Cosmopolitan, Marshall, MI 49068, and a Ph.D. student at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, 2965 Leonard St. NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49525. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: This essay offers a fresh look at Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of atonement. Following the doctrine in its logical order (i.e. from eternity past, through redemptive history, and then into eternity future) with a representative sampling of Edwards’s writings in each section, this essay aims to prove that the great body of documents touching on the doctrine of atonement in the Edwards corpus, for all of their variety, do reveal a consistent organizing principle—namely, divine love. Particular attention is given to Edwards’s views on the mechanics of the atonement and the distinctive role that love plays in his thinking on that subject. For Edwards, love was not only a divine motive for the atonement, but part of the actual mechanism which made it effectual for the elect.

Key words: Jonathan Edwards, Reformed, atonement, satisfaction, sacrifice, penal substitution, penal example, divine love

Jonathan Edwards never wrote a systematic treatise on the atonement. As a result, his doctrine must be discerned through careful interaction with the entire body of his extant writings. While many have made the attempt,1 it does pose a

JETS 62:3 (September 2019) p. 564

number of challenges. To begin with, one must decide how to organize the material. Shall the doctrine be presented in logical order (i.e. creation to consummation), or shall Edwards’s manuscripts be placed in chronological order, with the doctrine being considered as it unfolds in the corpus? After this, one must make judgment calls about how Edwards’s various remarks on the atonement should be weighted (e.g. should his public treatises carry more weight than his private musings?). Additionally, one must decide how to handle the apparent contradictions in some of Edwards’s writings. Like most of us, Edwards did adjust his thinking over the course of his life. Should the final word be given to his later writings, or should any contradictions stand?

In this essay I will not attempt another comprehensive study of Edwards’s doctrine of atonement. Instead, I will make a general sweep of the doctrine (following its logical order) for the purpose of showing that the great body of documents making up the Edwards corpus, for all of their great variety, do reveal...

visitor : : uid: ()