Jonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 18 Creation

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Jonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 18 Creation



TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 18 Creation

Other Subjects in this Topic:

Chapter XVIII

Creation



Having just described election it may be well to remember as we now turn to creation that “those elect creatures which must be looked upon as the end of all the rest of the creation, considered with respect to the whole of their eternal duration, and as such made God’s end, must be viewed as being, as it were, one with God.” *1*

Jonathan Edwards was surely interested in the creation, but he was far more concerned with what happened behind the creation scene. What went on at the creation he will describe as we shall see; but what went on before the creation he describes in much more detail than the creation itself.

In his “Blank Bible” note on Gen_1:26 “Let us make man. . . .” he comments:



[H]ere is a consultation of the Persons of the Trinity about the Creation of man for every Person had his particular and distinct concern in it as well as in the Redemption of men. The Father employed the Son and the Holy Ghost in this work. The Son endued men with understanding and Reason. The Holy Ghost endued him with a holy will and inclination with original righteousness. *2*



Thus the economic Trinity is involved in creation no less than in redemption. Indeed creation is for the purpose of redemption, so that they could not be interested in redemption without being equally concerned with creation.

On Eph_3:9 in the “Blank Bible” the emphasis is on the role of the Second Person:



from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God] From the beginning of the world God hath designed and had in view and aimed at in his providence ever since the beginning of the world, though this his aim was not made known till now.

who created all things by Jesus Christ] . . . here mentioned from respect to the reason why God created all things by Jesus viz. because the creation of all things was with an aim and subordination to that great work of Christ as Mediator viz. the work of redemption. It was not only God’s designs in all his works of providence from the beginning of the world as the foregoing words [show] but also the creation of the world itself and therefore God created all things by Jesus Christ. Christ was to be the great means of God’s work of redemption which he was to work out to which all other things and even the creation of the world itself were subordinate which the closing verse confirms. It was meet therefore that other works [be] subordinated thereto. . . . Therefore both the beginning of the world and the end of the world are by Christ for both are subordinated to the great purposes of the work redemption. He is therefore the Creator and the Judge of the world. . . . the alpha and the omega.



Bernard Ramm has written, “Barth’s treatment of creation is the most massive in the history of the Christian Church. He devotes four volumes to creation. . . . Barth does not regard Gen_1:1-31; Gen_2:1-25; Gen_3:1-24 as myth, but as saga or legend, and, he interprets creation Christologically.” *3* That may be, but Barth does not relate his studies to philosophy and science, as Edwards, centuries earlier, did. Neo-orthodox theology generally tries to be Biblical without being rational. Orthodox theology, illustrated by Edwards, tends to inter-relate the natural/rational with the Biblical. Jonathan Edwards gives us a much narrower, but far deeper, discussion of creation.

For Jonathan Edwards creation must be continuous. *4* There can be no question that the doctrine of continuous creation is unusual in reformed theology. Richard Sibbes spoke of a continuous kind of creation, by which God preserves all things in their being and working. *5* Sibbes may have held to the idea but it can hardly be called even a minority report in the general tradition. *6* Yet, Edwards taught it fervently and made it a fundamental concept. What is more, he tried to show that continuous creation was implicit in the doctrine of God’s preservation of His creation. It also had a distinct bearing on other doctrines besides creation. I will consider this view, which was anticipated in volume one, together with its rationale and objections.

First: God, for Edwards, is the only being. Being infinite, God cannot have any other being in His presence and nothing is precisely that: no-thing and no competitor to God’s sole existence:



That being that don’t in himself comprehend all being is limited, because there is something that his being don’t extend to or that it don’t comprehend . . . and wherein this being don’t reach and include that which is beyond therein it is limited.



Later in this same sermon he continues:



[T]he being and excellence of the creatures is not something added to that of the creator but all the being and excellence that is in . Communications being additions of being of the reflections of the sun’s light don’t add to the sum total of light. *7*



Again, in M 697 he insists that God must comprehend in himself all being and concludes with this remark about mathematical infinites:



’Tis true, mathematicians conceive of greater than infinite, in some respects, and of several infinites being added one to another; but ’tis because they are in some respect finite, as a thing conceived infinitely long may not be infinitely thick, and so its thickness may be added to. Or if it be conceived infinitely long one way, yet it may be conceived having bounds or an end another. But God is in no respect limited, and therefore can in no respect be added to. *8*



Second: God “creates” other beings. Edwards examines the meaning of creation first in the usual understanding and also in his own idealistic way of thinking. Both of these approaches indicate to him the continuous creation doctrine. The traditional creation doctrine shows it implicitly and the Edwardsian doctrine explicitly. That is, “created being” of itself immediately falls into non-being and God must constantly recreate it to “preserve” it. Preservation and continuous creation are the same thing or different ways of saying the same thing.

Speaking of the traditional doctrine of creation according to which God creates the world and then preserves its being Edwards writes:



[U]pholding the world in being, and creating it, are not properly distinct works; since it is manifest, that upholding the world in being is the same with a continued creation; and consequently, that creating the world is but the beginning of upholding it, if I may so say - beginning to give it a supportive and dependent existence - and preservation is only continuing to give it such a supported existence. *9*



In his Original Sin, Edwards spells this out more fully and clearly:



That God does, by his immediate power, uphold every created substance in being, will be manifest, if we consider, that their present existence is a dependent existence, and therefore is an effect, and must have some cause: and the cause must be one of these two: either the antecedent existence of the same substance, or else the power of the Creator. But it can’t be the antecedent existence of the same substance. For instance, the existence of the body of the moon at this present moment, can’t be the effect of its existence at the last foregoing moment. For not only was what existed the last moment, no active cause, but wholly a passive thing; but this is also to be considered, that no cause can produce effects in a time and place on which itself is not. ’Tis plain, nothing can exert itself, or operate, when and where it is not existing. But the moon’s past existence was neither where nor when its present existence is. In point of time, what is past entirely ceases, when present existence begins; otherwise it would not be past. The past moment is ceased and gone, when the present moment takes place; and does no more coexist with it, than does any other moment that had ceased twenty years ago. Nor could the past existence of the particles of this moving body produce effects in any other place, than where it then was. But its existence at the present moment, in every point of it, is in a different place, from where its existence was at the last preceding moment. From these things, I suppose, it will certainly follow, that the present existence, either of this, or any other created substance, cannot be an effect of its past existence. The existences (so to speak) of an effect, or thing dependent, in different parts of space or duration, though ever so near one to another, don’t at all coexist one with the other; and therefore are as truly different effects, as if those parts of space and duration were ever so far asunder: and the prior existence can no more be the proper cause of a new existence, in the next moment, or next part of space, than if it had been in an age before, or at a thousand miles distance, without any existence to fill up the intermediate time or space. Therefore the existence of created substances, in each successive moment, must be the effect of the immediate agency, will, and power of God. . . .

It will follow from what has been observed, that God’s upholding created substance, or causing its existence in each successive moment, is altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of nothing, at each moment. . . . So that this effect differs not at all from the first creation, but only circumstantially; as in first creation there had been no such act and effect of God’s power before; whereas, his giving existence afterwards, follows preceding acts and effects of the same kind, in an established order. *10*



Later after showing the relation of all this to created identity and original sin he gives an illustration:



The images of things in a glass, as we keep our eye upon them, seem to remain precisely the same, with a continuing perfect identity. But it is known to be otherwise. Philosophers well know, that these images are constantly renewed, by the impression and reflection of new rays of light; so that the image impressed by the former rays is constantly vanishing, and a new image impressed by new rays every moment. . . . *11*



Thus Edwards shows, assuming the traditional metaphysics of creation, that continuous creation is implied. He does not always explain this when he speaks of preservation. For example, in an early sermon he says, “We of right belong to God by preservation. . . . we cannot be one moment longer without his preservation. He preserves us from annihilation. We should immediately drop into nothing if he did not uphold us.” *12* Edwards does not always find it necessary to spell out continuous creation because the usual way of speaking about preservation of created being amounts to the same thing as Edwards tried to show in the citation preceding.

In other words, the doctrine of continuous creation did not depend on Edwards own metaphysics. It has been observed that much of Kant’s criticism of traditional theistic thinking is vitiated by his assuming Kant’s own type of metaphysical theory. The validity of his rejection depends on the validity of his own system. The validity of Edwards’ critique of the traditional doctrine, on the other hand, does not depend on assuming the Edwardsian metaphysics.

However, it cannot be denied that Edwards’ continuous creation can be even more easily understood in terms of his own metaphysics. He shows, for example, in an early list of “Things to be Considered an[d] Written fully about,” how his definition of body as God’s exerting His power of resistance leads to continuous creation:



Since, as has been shewn, *13* body is nothing but an infinite resistance in some part of space caused by the immediate exercise of the divine power, it follows that as great and as wonderful a power is every moment exerted to the upholding of the world, as at first was to the creation of it; the first creation being only the first exertion of this power to cause such resistance, the preservation only the continuation or the repetition of this power every moment to cause this resistance. So that the universe is created out of nothing every moment; and if it were not for our imaginations, which hinder us, we might see that wonderful work performed continually, which was seen by the morning stars when they sang together. *14*



We need not enter here into a full discussion of Edwards’ idealism, since the continuous creation doctrine does not depend on it. Yet it is interesting to note that M 662 brings the idealistic philosophy in to explain why God would reveal his glory in creation:



It may be enquired, why God would have the exercises of His perfections and expressions of His glory known and published abroad.

Answer: It was meet that His attributes and perfections should be expressed; it was the will of God that they should be expressed and should shine forth. But if the expressions of His attributes are not known, they are not expressions; the very being of the expression depends on the perception of created understandings. And so much the more as the expression is known, so much the more it *Isa_15:1-9*



The means by which God is to express his glory through the creation is, as we have already seen, the work of redemption. M 702 has shown how many things in the manner of creation are typical of the work of redemption.

Objections are sometimes urged against continuous creation by Reformed theologians. Edwards himself says that imagination hinders us from easily seeing the truth of continuous creation. But P. Y. De Jong has theological objections. Continuous creation, he states, leaves no room for the operation of natural law and is therefore against the traditional view of providence. *16* It is true that Edwards objected to second causes if they were taken to be created entities that had power in themselves. That is what the deists believed but the theists who believed in “second causes” did not believe them to be independent of God’s continual preservation. Once that is observed, we hear Edwards again saying that the Christian doctrine of preservation implies continuous creation. Thus Edwards believed that what was meant by second causes was God’s exerting His power in and through the things He made, and natural law was the term which described the regularity with which God did this. So, instead of Edwards leaving no room by his continuous creation doctrine for natural law and divine providence, he made room for it in a Newtonian universe and explained what Calvinists’ mysterious providence really is.

De Jong continues by criticizing Edwards’ application of his continuous creation doctrine to original sin. He hears Edwards denying the federal headship of Adam because Edwards conceives of the relationship of Adam to mankind as a divinely constituted identity. The usual form of the federal doctrine teaches that God appointed Adam to be the representative of mankind. Thus, Adam became our head in such a way that what he, our representative did, we do in him (that is, as represented by him). Edwards thinks the relation is even closer. God appointed not merely a representative identity but constituted an identity. What Adam did as our representative we did as realistically identified with him.

De Jong goes on to say that Edwards’ insistence on continuous creation “removed the whole problem into the realm of metaphysics and did not a little toward weakening and finally destroying belief in original sin.” *17* He comes to this severe conclusion because apparently later New Englanders did in fact use the voluntary nature of all sin to advance Pelagianism. They opposed all imputation. But, does continuous creation weaken original sin and imputation? Edwards, not denying federal or representative theology, fortifies it by explaining it as was his wont.

According to the federal view, God identifies mankind with Adam representatively. The traditional defense for this is that it was fair and proper for God so to do. We may prefer to have had individual trials, but can we say that God cannot justly appoint a representative to stand trial for us, especially considering the nature of the human family? Edwards agrees with and indeed states all these arguments but he goes a step further. He justifies the divine procedure by showing that the only basis for identity of anyone at any time or any place is the divine appointment. There is no other identification of a person with himself. We are constantly being recreated. God is constantly constituting our identity. Why be surprised if God appointed an identity of the human race with a particular individual? God alone is the Creator and identifier of men.

So it is clear for Edwards that creation and providence are one thing because one is the beginning of supported existence and the other the mere continuance of the same. “[U]pholding the world in being is the same with a continued creation; and consequently, that creating the world is but the beginning of upholding it. . . .” *18* Right there is the distinctness and not the identity. Beginning something is bringing it into being for it was not before. Upholding something is preserving what has been begun. They are not the same or merely one and two in a series of the same. Edwards seems aware of this when he writes: “beginning to give it a supported and dependent existence - and preservation is only continuing to give it such a supported existence.” Continuing a supported existence is not the same “manifestly” as bringing “supported” being into existence. Preservation does continue creation, but creation does not continue preservation as Edwards tries in vain to make it read. In fact, when he is thinking of something else he naturally lapses into traditional thinking and expression:



God’s providence taken summarily or in general is an operation and work of his superiour to the work of creation for providence may in some respect be called the end of the work of creation as the use and improvement any artificer makes of an engine or the work he intends with it is superiour to his making the engine. . . .” *19*



As noted above, creation was especially the work of the Second Person. He is central in carrying out the Father’s wishes and sending the Spirit to effect the salvation he has wrought in this universe. The things that were done in creation shadow forth the things done in redemption. Miracles are another argument to this effect, for “the laws and course of nature have often been interrupted to (subserve to the designs) of the great work of redemption and never for any other purposes.” They have never yielded to anything else. Psa_136:1-26 is especially cited as indicative of this purpose of creation. Finally, Rom_8:19-22 gives evidence that the creation which was made for redemption groans until that ultimate end is achieved for the sons of God. *20*

In the final miscellany dealing with this theme Edwards returns again to the proposition that creation and providence are essentially the same:



We are wont to make a distinction between the work of creation & the work of providence but indeed the creation of the world or the manner of creation is one thing & one main thing that appertains to God’s providence or the provision that God makes in the disposal of things for the bringing to pass the events and designs he had in view to be accomplished & attained in and by the world. The creation of the world in strictness cannot be distinguished from his government & disposal of all things. God’s making the creatures such as he did & in constituting the world as he did & in constituting the world as he did at first & disposing of them as he did in their first creation is a part and a very great & main part of what he did as the great & sovereign & allwise disposer of all things in order to attain the purposes & designs & indeed the general course of all things in the natural world from the creation of the world to the end of it was in effect mainly disposed ordered & governed & provided for in the manner in which things were made constituted & ordered at their first creation. . . . *21*



While including the executive order of the Father, and the mighty agency and goal of the Son, creation was effected by the actual power of the third person of the Godhead:



It was made especially the Holy Spirit’s work to bring the world to its beauty and perfection out of the chaos; for the beauty of the world is a communication of God’s beauty. The Holy Spirit is the harmony and excellency and beauty of the deity, as we have shown. Therefore, ’twas His work to communicate beauty and harmony to the world, and so we read that it was He that moved upon the face of the waters. *22*



We come now to the creation itself, about which Edwards says less than about the reason behind it. For Edwards to say little is to say much. We need not retrace the earlier steps in which I outlined Edwards’ argument for theism from the nature of the created world. Less comprehensively, but not essentially differently, Edwards develops the same point in a sermon on Amo_9:6, “That God has built the universe.” *23* It is interesting, however, to see Edwards approach the question of creation by considering the nature of chance.

Edwards argues that the world could not have created itself because it would have had to have existed and not to have existed at the same time. A Job sermon “shows the unreasonableness of atheism” and ridicules those who say “by chance” this and “by chance” that as he persuades his people of the propriety of praying for rain and for all natural things on which they depend. *24* This sermon includes a lengthy discussion of rain, density, proportions, etc. reminiscent of Edwards’ early scientific writings and reminds us that he had neither lost his skill nor forgotten his first love.

Edwards nowhere mentions evolution but, as we have seen, his thought undercuts it. However, the world was by no means created a finished product. In his comment on the tohu and bohu of Gen_1:2 he shows how empty the creature is in itself even though fresh from the creative hands of God. *25*

One is not certain what Edwards thinks of quotations that he copies in his notebooks and this is true of the one from John Hubbard in the “Barry Street Sermons.” It would seem that this recitation of the day by day narrative of creation was more simplistic than Edwards himself would have articulated. *26*

The theory that there was a universe antedating Moses history of the creation of the world is opposed by Edwards. Darwin is refuted more than a century before Origin of the Species. Edwards attempts to show that the heavens did not precede the Mosaic creation by these two arguments: First, other references in the Old Testament cannot reasonably be construed as referring to anything but an original creation and not “fogs & mists that were over the face of the earth, so that they might have been seen here on the face of the earth, if there had been any inhabitants here to see them.” No texts are cited. Second, “nor does it well agree with his account of the creation of the light on the first day for if the Mosaic creation was only of this earth then we must suppose the sun was created before & so the light would have existed before.”

Another consideration against any creation before the Mosaic concerns the angels. According to such a theory the angels would have had to have been created before the world but this is shown to be unreasonable for several reasons. Neh_9:6 refers to the creation described in Exo_19:11 (“For in six days the Lord made heaven & earth, the sea & all that in them is.”) Since the creation that Nehemiah mentions includes angels, and is the same as Moses’ angels, it would seem to be included in the latter also. Again, “Christ’s eternity is largely set forth by his existing before the creation of this lower world & all the parts of it, Pro_8:22-31, which would not be proper & significant, if many created beings had existed long before things as well as he.” Most importantly God was said to dwell alone before this creation and that precludes the possibility of pre-Mosaic existence. Furthermore, Isa_43:13-14 is cited as evidence of the idea that the angels were created the first day with the lights. In support Edwards refers to Pfaff, Theol. Dogm & mor. *27*

Edwards’ refutation of the notion that the Mosaic creation referred only to the solar system is interesting and reasonable:



I think there is no manner of reason to suppose any other than that as the whole visible universe the many suns or fix’d stars that belong to it are all one frame so that they were created together not first one & then two or first ten and then ten more so gradually increasing the number till they come gradually to be so many millions. As if we find a stately building erected it would be unreasonable to suppose any other than that it was built together & not first one stick of timber hewed & then after a long time another.



When Edwards’ notes that this creation of the whole universe and all that dwells in it took place about six thousand years ago, he is clearly in the “biblical cage” of which Peter Gay speaks. We find no reference to the genealogies on which such computations are usually based, though Edwards would seem to agree fundamentally with them as corroboration of his own more sophisticated thinking. He does appeal to the seventh day Sabbath. *28*

Perhaps the best way I can conclude this brief chapter on God’s creation according to Edwards is to point out again that God’s rejoicing in the creation is a rejoicing in Himself. He receives nothing from the creature; the creature has all his blessedness rejoicing in God his continuous Creator.

But if all that is so, does this not derogate from God’s goodness and man’s gratitude? Not so, answers Edwards:



Obj. 4. To suppose that God makes himself his ultimate end in the creation of the world derogates from the freeness of his goodness, in his beneficence to his creatures; and from their obligations to gratitude for the good communicated. For if God, in communicating his fullness, makes himself, and not the creatures, his end; then what good he does, he does for himself, and not for them; for his own sake, and not for theirs.

Ans. God and the creature, in this affair of the emanation of the divine fullness, are not properly set in opposition; or made the opposite parts of a disjunction. Nor ought God’s glory and the creatures good to be spoken of as if they were properly and entirely distinct, as they are in the objection. This supposeth that God’s having respect to his glory and the communication of good to his creatures, are things altogether different: that God’s communicating of his fullness for himself, and his doing it for them, are things standing in a proper disjunction and opposition. Whereas if we were capable of having more full and perfect views of God and divine things, which are so much above us, ’tis probable it would appear very clear to us, that the matter is quite otherwise: and that these things, instead of appearing entirely distinct, are implied one in the other. That God in seeking his glory, therein seeks the good of his creatures because the emanation of his glory (which he seeks and delights in, as he delights in himself and his own eternal glory) implies the communicated excellency and happiness of his creature. And that in communicating his fullness for them, he does it for himself: because their good, which he seeks, is so much in union and communion with himself. God is their good. Their excellency and happiness is nothing but the emanation and expression of God’s glory: God in seeking their glory and happiness, seeks himself: and in seeking himself, i.e. himself diffused and expressed (which he delights in, as he delights in his own beauty and fullness), he seeks their glory and happiness. *29*