COMPARING EDWARDS’ AND WHITEFIELD’S PREACHING AND EXEGESIS

by

Joey Cochran

A PAPER

Submitted to Dr. John Woodbridge in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the course CH 8100 Classic Texts in the History of Christianity

at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Illinois December 2015

1

Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, a pair of pivotal persons of the

First Great Awakening, a pair of great preachers, maybe even among the greatest of

preachers to grace the earth—these two thought fondly of one another, but not without their

disagreements. Edwards is recorded to have wept the entire Sunday morning service

Whitefield preached at Northampton.1 And regarding Edwards’ sermon “The Distinguishing

Marks,” Whitefield said, “If any work has all marks of a divine signature, this undoubtedly

has.”2

The two are a consummate match, complementing one another in giftedness:

Edwards with his brilliance,3 Whitefield with his zeal.4 But they are different men, readers,

interpreters, theologians, and preachers. As much as they are alike, particularly in their

agreement on the Doctrines of Grace and the work of redemption, they each have nuances

distinct from the other. Yet, to see these nuances, one must engage the sources, comparing

one exegete to the other.

1 “[Good] Mr. Edwards wept during the whole time of exercises.” Whitefield,

Journals, October 17-19, 1740, 475-77. As cited from George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 207.

2 George Whitefield, Some Remarks on a Late Pamphlet (Glasgow, 1742), 20. As cited from Thomas S. Kidd, George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father (New Haven: Yale, 2014), 172.

3 Ibid, 38, 261. 4 Edwards to George Whitefield, February 12, 1740, Works, 16:80-81:“…full

of a spirit of zeal for the promotion of real vital piety.” As cited from Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 204.

2

Introductory Matter on Edwards’ Titus 3:5 and Whitefield’s 1 Cor. 6:11 Sermon

This essay compares two sermons, one preached by Edwards and the other

preached by Whitefield. Rather than study how the two individuals preached the same text,

this study examines how the two preached the same doctrine, justification.

Please note that both texts are commonly referred to as Pauline.5 Both

Whitefield and Edwards might have preached on the subject of justification from any number

of texts in the canon.6 However, selecting two texts from among the Pauline corpus—texts

using similar language—better speaks into issues of today regarding the doctrine of

justification.

Locating Edwards’ Titus 3:5 Sermon in its Historical Context

Jonathan Edwards likely preached, “None Are Saved by Their Own

Righteousness” in late February or March of 1729—some seven years into his public

preaching ministry and two years after having become the assistant pastor to his grandfather,

5 I say, “Commonly referred to as Pauline” because there is much discussion

on the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Some argue that these epistles are second century pseudonymous attributions to Paul. Validating the date and authorship of Titus falls outside the purview of this study but see: D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992, 2005), chapter 17; David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987); William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Vol. 46 Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), cxviii-cxxix.

6 For instance, see George Whitefield, The Sermons of George Whitefield, vol 1, ed. Lee Gatiss (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012): “The Lord Our Righteousness,” [Jeremiah 23:6]; Ibid: “The Righteousness of Christ and Everlasting Righteousness,” [Daniel 9:24].

3

Solomon Stoddard.7 In fact, this sermon is among the first of Edwards’ sermons to preach as

the senior pastor at Northampton.8 This sermon does not contain the normal preaching

divisions found in Edwards’ sermons. Kenneth Minkema supposes that this may indeed have

been a lecture first, which was then repreached on a later occasion.9

Locating Whitefield’s 1 Corinthians 6:11 Sermon in its Historical Context

“Of Justification by Christ” was preached at the parish church of St. Antholin

in London and published in The Christian’s Companion in 1738.10 It seems likely that this is

one of the nine sermons published, which had been preached not long before Whitefield left

for his first trip to Georgia—dating the sermon to 1737. According to Thomas Kidd, this is

the time when Whitefield grew in immense popularity.11 People came by droves to hear him.

Despite being but a mention in The Oxford History of Britain, among a laundry list of

eighteenth century preaching contemporaries to John Wesley, Whitefield would become,

what many have said to be the greatest celebrity during the eighteenth century, outside of

7 The dating of this sermon is adopted from Kenneth Minkema’s introduction

to “None Are Saved by Their Own Righteousness” (Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses: 1723-1729, ed. Kenneth P. Minkema [WJE Online Vol. 14]).

8 On this chronology, see: Kenneth P. Minkema, “A Chronology of Edwards’ Life and Writings,” Edwards.Yale.edu, http://edwards.yale.edu/research/chronology.

9 Edward, Sermons and Discourses vol. 14, ed. Minkema, 332. Minkema distinguishes two kinds of Edwards preaching: the sermon and the lecture, both to Edwards were a legitimate form of preaching; the sermon emphasized application; the lecture emphasized the doctrinal movement in the preaching event.

10 Footnote one to the sermon. Whitefield, Sermons, loc. 11951, Kindle.

4

King George III.12 Upon describing these sermons, Arnold Dallimore says: “They combined

solid Biblical substance with plain personal application. They show that he attempted first to

reach the mind of the hearer, then to awaken his emotion, and finally to move his will.”13

Remarks Regarding Context

So in locating the context of these sermons from these great leaders of early

evangelicalism, we learn two things. First, these were early sermons by each of them in terms

of when they occurred in these men’s preaching ministries. Second, both were growing in

influence. Edwards was now the leader of the important congregation of Northampton,

inheriting hegemony from his late grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. Whitefield was growing

in influence as a fledgling, itinerant preacher.

On the other hand, Edwards’ sermon on Titus 3:5 was preached in his local

ecclesial context; it was a particular message for a particular people, of which he had

particular knowledge. Whitefield’s sermon was preached as a guest, itinerant sermon. It was

not in a field this day but within the context of a particular congregation.

11 Kidd, George Whitefield, 45. 12 Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford History of Britain (New York: Oxford

University Press, 2010), 438. Concerning an actual portrayal of his fame see Stout: “ 13 Arnold A. Dallimore, George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the

Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), Kindle loc 378.

5

Preaching Style and Methodology of Edwards and Whitefield

Edwards’ and Whitefield’s preaching styles and effects were pronouncedly

distinct. One might say that they are representative complementarities of the times and

changes.

Edwards, being senior in age to Whitefield by seven years, represents a

rational and articulate school of preaching—the kind of preaching that first reaches the

intellect. It is not that Edwards did not reach the “affections;” quite the opposite. One does

not set to kindle a revival, leading 300 individuals to faith, without reaching affections.14

Edwards harnessed a simple method to his preaching, one that follows a

Puritan mindset. For Edwards, the sermon had three stages: text, doctrine, and application.15

Each stage of the sermon took a progressively larger amount of time for its part of the whole.

Edwards did not wander from this structure. The doctrinal section is where Edwards located

his intellectual exploration, and the stage of application is where he contextualized the

sermon for his audience, reaching towards their affections, stirring the audience away from

14 Harry S. Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in

Colonial New England (New York: Oxford, 1986, 2012), 194: “Jonathan Edwards, preached a series of conversion sermons that brought over three hundred new converts into full church membership in one year.”

15 “The resulting Edwardsean sermon consists of three clearly defined divisions: the Scripture text and a brief commentary or interpretation; the statement of a doctrine (the thesis or thematic motif for the entire sermon), followed by numbered argumentative heads collectively called “reasons”; and the “application” of the doctrine, through various numbered “uses,” to the immediate personal and social context of the auditory. The Text-Doctrine-Application structure is the defining form of the sermon for Jonathan Edwards.” Jonathan Edwards, The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: a Reader, ed. Wilson H. Kimnach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney (New Haven: Yale

6

sin, into repentance, unto God. The editors of The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader

speak in this regard to Edwards’ sermons: “Together the formal elements of the Edwardsean

sermon link reading the Bible with intellectual rumination and a practical, affectional

response in the context of daily life.”16 Edwards clearly wedded intellectual stimulation with

the affections, yet, not to the degree or success of Whitefield.

Whitefield, though doctrinally sound and intelligent himself, more effectively

moved people by his presentation.17 Whereas Edwards’ brilliance is seen in his writing,

Whitefield’s effect is found in his delivery. People knew the presence of God from Edwards’

clear articulation of the doctrine of God18; people felt the presence of God from Whitefield’s

commanding and passionate articulation of the Word of God. One nuance is incomparable to

the other (in both senses of incomparable); each is an improvement on the other.

Nonetheless, because of the social climate of the day, Whitefield had greater and more global

effect. Harry Stout explains:

Any explanation of Whitefield’s success as an itinerant preacher must begin with a comment on his sheer oratorical ability, discovered in childhood and nurtured through his career. By all accounts Whitefield’s elocution was

University Press, 1999), Kindle location 133.

16 Ibid, 151. 17 “Whitefield’s sermons, when read today, seem doctrinally conventional, but

not brilliant, certainly not as brilliant as the sermons of his contemporary Jonathan Edwards.” Kidd, George Whitefield, 38.

18 Crisp says, “Edwards did not possess the physical gifts of someone like George Whitefield…But Edwards was a master of rhetoric. This was the source of the power of Edwards’ preaching” (Oliver D. Crisp, Edwards among the Theologians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015], 147).

7

remarkable. The great power, timbre, and sonority of his voice excited attention wherever he spoke. Not only was his voice easily heard over great distances (Benjamin Franklin estimated it could reach thirty thousand hearers) but his words flowed without hesitation or uncertainty. Listeners were carried along a fixating stream of discourse filled with dramatic illustrations and heart-rending confrontations with the terrors of damnation and the joys of conversion. Whitefield straddled the line separating drama and melodrama to near perfection.19

This powerful delivery stimulated such energy that great crowds came to hear

Whitefield. The fields were covered with faces leaning in to hear his exhortation concerning

the “new birth.” And Whitefield’s was a call not confined by a meetinghouse, nor stifled by

class distinction. It was a call to all because all were under the curse of the fall.

This call, according to Stout, was not wrapped so much in doctrinal depth but

a dramatic backdrop. Whitefield would pick compelling phrases to drive his sermon forward

to the call for conversion. Stout says, “The ‘opening’ of technical doctrines occupied little of

his attention.”20

Edwards took copious notes into the pulpit—notes carefully written to

preserve ink and paper, edited so rhetoric matched the panache and cadence of oral

communication. On the other hand, Whitefield contributed the ingenuity of preaching

extemporaneously, “This method had never been practiced by Congregational ministers or

taught at the colleges, and of all his innovations it attracted the greatest comment.”21

19 Stout, The New England Soul, 196. 20 Ibid, 197. 21 Ibid, 198.

8

This is to say that Edwards and Whitefield had two complimentary and unique

approaches to delivery, style, and content of messages. But does that mean that their exegesis

in turn was distinctive? This is why we turn now to look at these two sermons as a case

study, in order to investigate the nuances in how these two preeminent preachers read,

interpreted, and unpackaged the Holy Writ.

Edwards’ Exegesis of Titus 3:5

Delving into the riches of Edwards’ sermons, we see these sermons are

bespeckled with a litany of exegetical and doctrinal prizes, if one but takes time to immerse

into these homilies. Doug Sweeney comments on studying Edwards’ exegesis: “Three

hundred years after his birth, half a century into what some have called the Edwards

renaissance, few have bothered to study Edwards’ massive exegetical corpus.”22 Scholars

would rather look to Edwards the philosopher than Edwards the Biblicist. Yet, it was the

Bible that was Edwards’ daily staple. Donald S. Whitney comments:

Care should be taken not to overlook the essential fact that prayerful study and prolonged meditation on the text of the Bible was the supreme means by which Edwards sought to know and experience God and to pursue conformity to the person and work of Jesus Christ.23

The text was the focus on which Edwards built his sermon, and the Rule of

Faith was the avenue in which he expounded on the doctrinal emphasis of the text.

22 Douglas A. Sweeney, Edwards the Exegete, first uncorrected proof (New

York: Oxford, 2015), 7. 23 Donald S. Whitney, Finding God in Solitude (New York: Peter Lang,

2014), 81.

9

Edwards, like many in his day, took to preaching a solitary verse. Take notice

that both of these sermons are built around a single verse, and this is the bulk by which

exegesis was engaged and sermons were preached in this time period.

This is likely a result of following the sermon development method of

invention. Invention submits to the primary objective of edifying the church. In invention, the

preacher selects a text that gives an argument fitting to the occasion of the church’s need, or

the preacher selects an argument for the congregation’s need and then pairs a text to it.24 No

doubt both Edwards and Whitefield exercised this principle when selecting these texts on the

doctrine of justification.

In order to drill down deep into Scripture, preachers relied heavily on the Rule

of Faith, the doctrine that text interprets text; there is an internal coherence to the Scripture,

worthy of exploring in systematic or thematic fashion, and much content in every one of

Edwards’ sermons consisted of doctrinal exposition.25

Edwards Approach to Titus 3:5

24 See Petrus Van Mastricht, The Best Method of Preaching, translated and

introduced by Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013), 29. The Best Method of Preaching is originally an appendix of: Petrus Van Mastritch, Theoretico-practica Theologia, qua, per Singula Capita Theologica, Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica et Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur: Accendunt Historia Ecclesiastica, Plena Quidem; Sed Compendiosa (Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1699).

25 In fact, Oliver Crip in his recent, Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians, says: “Edwards’s sermons were exercises in what, echoing the subject of his treatise on Religious Affections, might be called “affective doctrine” (Crisp, Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians, 146).

10

Kenneth Minkema provides an excellent introduction to this sermon, which he

edited for volume 14 of the Works of Jonathan Edwards. He outlines the sermon, mentioning

that the structure of the sermon “is uncommonly varied.”26 The structure is as follows: a

definition, a motive, a caution, and signs.

Edwards begins by framing Titus 3:5 in its context. He looks back to 3:2-4

reminding his congregation of their conduct, for they were once in as ill a shape as any other

great sinner. The function of Titus 3:5 is to show “how we are saved.”27 Edwards takes the

verse according to its syntactical construction as two propositions—a negative and then a

positive. The negative proposition, the how of being saved, is not by works; this is the focus

of Edwards’ sermon. The positive proposition—“But according to his mercy” (Titus 3:5) is

given little attention in this sermon. Edwards, as the text emphasizes, stresses that the great

work of salvation is inwardly accomplished, not in the way that Schleiermacher (half a

century later) would argue is an inward way, reaching into the emotions to find religion

intuitively,28 but in a spiritual washing and regeneration, where the Holy Spirit births new

life in the inner person, not as a response of external actions or moral conformity, but as a

26 Edwards, Sermons and Discourses vol. 14, ed. Minkema, 332. 27 Ibid, 333. 28 Schleiermacher says: “every intuition is by its very nature, connected with a

feeling…your senses mediate the connection…in various ways and produce a change in your inner consciousness…the strength of these feelings determines the degree of religiousness.” Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despiser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

11

result of an inner transformation wrought by God’s mercy upon the miserable soul of the

person.

This brief stint, a matter of paragraphs of specified exegesis, is typical of the

time. This does not mean that exegesis no longer takes place in the sermon. Rather, Edwards’

entire sermon is a hermeneutical act spiraling through exegesis, theology, and

contextualization.29

Theological Interpretation of Titus 3:5

I entitle this section, “Theological Interpretation of Titus 3:5” because I

believe that this acutely describes the exegetical principles behind what takes place in the

second movement, the doctrinal argument, of both this sermon and Whitefield’s sermon on 1

Corinthians 6:11. Kevin Vanhoozer in The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the

Bible says that theological interpretation is “characterized by a governing interest in God, the

word and works of God, and by a governing intention to engage in what we might call

‘theological criticism.’”30 A number of paragraphs later he argues, “To read the biblical texts

29 See Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive

Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, revised and expanded (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), loc. 244, Kindle. “The major premise of this book is that biblical interpretation entails a ‘spiral’ from text to context, from its original meaning to its contextualization or significance for the church today.”

30 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Introduction,” in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 22.

12

theologically is to read the texts as they wish to be read, and as they should be read in order

to do them justice.”31

I do not wish to anachronistically import a vital twenty-first century

hermeneutical development and its principles into the work of those from a former era.

Nonetheless, I see compatibility, quite possibly a stronger, more developed expression of this

principle, theological interpretation of Scripture, from pastor-theologians of Edwards and

Whitefield’s era.32 My argument here is that we should look to men like Edwards and

Whitefield to retrieve robust interpretive principles that for the most part became diverted by

what has now become a more appealing hermeneutic, namely historical criticism. The

murkiness of interpretative methods resultant from post-modernity, deconstructionism, and

reader-response criticism diverted attention away from a lofty view of God.

Early evangelicals were not defiled by such principles, nor were they in an

ever-present, apologetic posture against these interpretive methods.33 Thus, much more time

and attention was given to thorough theological interpretation and argumentation. These two

31 Ibid. 32 On this term, pastor-theologian, see Todd Wilson and Gerald Hiestand, The

Pastor Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015). 33 McClymond and McDermott refer to Stephen Stein on Edwards’ precritical

mindset. “Despite the steady growth of modern historical criticism of the Bible in the late 1600s and early 1700s, Edwards was ‘relatively untouched by these changes,’ according to Stephen Stein. For the most part, says Stein, he still reflected a ‘precritical mindset’” (Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards [New York: Oxford University Press, 2012], 170).

13

sermons, as a case study, possess a mighty potential to demonstrate this theory of valued

doctrinal retrieval.

Jonathan Edwards’ manner of expounding Scripture pivoted on the critical

second movement of his sermons: the Doctrine. Edwards, celebrated as a first rate

theologian, saw that theological exposition was the key to developing any argument on the

text. This involved employing biblical theology, systematic theology, and rational logic.

Though McClymond and McDermott rightly argue that Edwards often exercised a spiritual

exegesis of Scripture, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this was his modus operandi for

biblical interpretation.34 Rather, McClymond and McDermott might recall their own words

that are telling about what took primary place in Edwards’ life and in turn exegesis.35 Or

perhaps it is best to simply point to the astute argument of Oliver Crisp in the recent,

Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians:

Although he followed the Puritan model of elucidating text, doctrine, and application, Edwards’s understanding of the role of the sermon in conversion, his religious psychology, and his insistence upon laying bare the idea (in the Lockean sense of that term) before the minds of his hearers, meant that getting clear the doctrinal content of his sermons was of particular importance to him.36

34 McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 175-

180. 35 Ibid, 23. “[His] most enduring legacy will be the theological vision that in

profundity and influence has led many to regard him as the greatest religious thinker in the history of the Americas” (emphasis mine).

36 Crisp, Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians, 145 (emphasis added).

14

As we will see from Titus 3:5, Edwards elucidates a thoroughly theological exegesis of the

text.

In Edwards’ second section of this sermon, he expounds on his doctrinal

argument, which is that “there are none saved upon the account of their own moral or

religious excellency or goodness, or any qualification of the person, any good disposition of

the heart, or any good actions, either sincere or not sincere.”37

Looking to the very beginning of Titus 3:5, Edwards theologically interprets

what it means to be saved. Principally this is in three ways: conversion, justification, and

redemption. Conversion is when a sinner realizes his miserable state, his need for a savior,

and his eyes are opened towards Christ.38 Edwards here logically lays out the argument and

concludes with employing the Rule of Faith, common in this section, by corroborating his

argument with the proof text Romans 9:16, evidencing that conversion is a work, wholly of

God’s, performed by his mercy. Justification is when a person’s “sins are blotted out”, “God

remembers it no more” (what sin they are guilty of), and “they are released from

punishment.”39 This head on the definition of being saved cites Galatains 2:21, warming the

listeners up to Edwards’ discussion on righteousness. Redemption is when justification is

bestowed on the converted; they are rightly called the redeemed.40

37 Edwards, Sermons and Discourses vol. 14, ed. Minkema, 334. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid, 335. 40 Edwards’ manuscript does not expound on this but it cites 1 Corinthians

1:30, alluding to the redeemed’s unity with Christ who is our “righteousness, and

15

Edwards goes on to explicate the second main head of Titus 3:5, the very

heart of his sermon and argument, “Why we can’t be saved by our own righteousness.”41

One might ask at this point, why does Edwards focus on instructing his congregation against

self-righteousness rather than exploring what it means to lean upon the mercy of God?

Granted, in the application section he will treat this matter, concerning the mercy of God, but

much more cursory then how he argues for his congregation to beware of its self-

righteousness. One might reason that Edwards, faithful to his Puritan influences, was

exercising a jeremiad—“the mournful complaint of the preacher against the evils of a fallen

society.”42 Doug Sweeney sheds light on this:

Edwards did maintain an interest in proclaiming the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in a classically Protestant way. Throughout his exegetical notebooks, he reminded himself that Scripture says “the freeness of God’s grace” does not exist “at all for our righteousness.” … The righteousness that saves comes entirely from the Lord, he says.43

Edwards feared a view of justification that is by all means Roman Catholic.

This was a plague that threatened to enter into Protestant churches as well. He wanted his

congregation to be weary of anything that might smack of, what he believed, was an anti-

Christian perspective of salvation. Protecting his congregants from such views was of vital

importance.

sanctification, and redemption” (Ibid, 335).

41 Ibid. 42 Crisp, Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians, 145. 43 Sweeney, Edwards the Exegete, 206.

16

Here three theological arguments are set forth: a self-righteous salvation is not

consistent with the honor of God’s majesty and authority, the honor of God’s holiness and

justice, nor the Eternal Rule of Righteousness, and lastly it’s against the design of God

glorifying his free grace by Jesus Christ. The first two arguments are contended through

sound systematic theology;44 the first argument explores God’s nature as ruler; the second

argument explores God’s attributes.

What is the Eternal Rule of Righteousness?45 Edwards explains that this law:

“fixes death as the wages of sin and perfect obedience as the only price of eternal life.”46

Edwards certainly did not conceive this doctrine of the Eternal Rule of Righteousness. We

know from an interchange between Cartwright and Baxter in the 1640-50’s, regarding

Baxter’s A Treatise on Justifying Righteousness, that the Eternal Rule of Righteousness is

discussed.47 This doctrine is critical in Edward’s exegesis of Titus 3:5. It presents that only

perfect obedience brings eternal life. No one is perfectly obedient: “Without being born

44 Sweeney specifically references Edwards’ sermon on Titus 3:5 in his

chapter on Edwards’ doctrine of justification, commenting: “Speaking on Titus 3:5, Edwards systematized these teachings in familiar Protestant language, distinguishing the righteousness that justifies from that by which a sinner is sanctified” (Ibid).

45 Ibid, 337. 46 Ibid. 47 See Chr. Cartwright, Exceptions Againft a Writing of Mr. R. Baxters, In

Anfwer to fome Animadversions upon his Aphorisms (London: Nevil Simmons and Jonath, pr. 1675), 14, 109. Richard Baxter, An Account of my Confideration of the Friendly, Modeft, Learned, Animadverfions of Mr. Chr. Cartwright of York, on my Aphorifms, May 26, 1652, 217, accessed from Google Books: https://play.google.com/books/read?id=3BA=AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA24.

17

again, he can’t perform one act of sincere righteousness.”48 Any self-righteousness is but

filthy rags; sinners require a savior who is their righteousness. The fourth argument portray

how self-righteous people attempt to usurp God’s plan to glorify himself by glorifying

themselves through their self-righteousness.

It’s not until the fourth argument that Edwards employs the Rule of Faith

again (Romans 4:16 and 1 Corinthians 1:29).49 Both texts point, not specifically to this last

argument, but rather they surmise the entire four arguments and dispel the view that our

righteousness gains us anything, especially salvation.

It’s at this point that Edwards anticipates an objection against the notion that

people are not saved by their own righteousness. This objection is that Scripture in contrast

teaches that saints are rewarded in heaven for their good works.50 Edwards, anticipating this

objection, demonstrates an excellent interpretive skill.

In William Perkins’s The Art of Prophesying, Perkins expresses that “every

article and doctrine which is related to faith and life and necessary for salvation is clearly

stated in the Scriptures.”51 Perkins argues that “apparent contradictions in Scripture are

resolved by realizing that the passages deal with different things.”52 Outstanding exegetes

48 Edwards, Sermons and Discourses vol. 14, ed. Minkema, 337. 49 Ibid, 338. 50 Ibid. 51 William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying and the Calling of the Ministry

(Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996, 2011), loc. 497, Kindle. 52 Ibid, loc. 629, Kindle.

18

anticipate apparent contradictions, like Edwards has, and then succeed in resolving the

existing tensions.

Edwards first looks at Matthew 10:42 and 2 Corinthians 9:6, verses that

indicate reward for works. He then explains how many argue that good works leads to

reward, which leads to greater happiness in heaven. Yet, with salvation, righteousness is

imputed, which should level out the reward of heaven and happiness; everyone should have

equal happiness because of imputation. Edwards rightly responds: “Christ by his

righteousness purchased that every believer should have perfect happiness.”53 Christ did not

purchase at the cross partial happiness to be fulfilled by works but complete and total

happiness extended by his own righteousness.

From this brief examination of Edwards’ sermon on Titus 3:5, we may make a

number of astute observations about Edwards’ exegetical methods. However, we will save

those remarks as we work our way through Whitefield’s sermon on 1 Corinthians 6:11—

comparing these two magisterial preachers with one another.

Whitefield’s Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6:11

George Whitefield’s sermon is extremely distinctive from Edwards. Whereas

Edwards approached his sermon on justification by discussing how none are righteous on

their own, Whitefield’s sermon focuses on what justification is and how we need

justification. Both exegetes, when looking at these two distinct texts, determined that the

53 Edwards, Sermons and Discourses vol. 14, ed. Minkema, 338.

19

unifying theme, the core of the exposition, should be justification. This should be no surprise

to us; justification was one of the most hotly discussed doctrines, especially for Calvinistic

preachers like Edwards and Whitefield, who wished to defend against the oncoming growth

of Arminianism.54

Whitefield’s Approach to 1 Corinthians 6:11

Whitefield explains that his motivation for this sermon is built on a concern

that there are those preachers in the Church of England who are preaching “themselves and

not Christ as Lord.”55 By this he means that these preachers “entertain their people with

lectures of mere morality.”56 Whitefield’s primary motivation and selection (invention) of

this sermon is to do “his utmost to cut off all manner of occasion.”57 By this, he means to

comfort Christians with the true source of justification—Christ.

Whitefield’s plain exegesis seems to be more clearly delineated than Edwards.

For instance, he begins with discussing the first term of 1 Corinthians 6:11, “but,” desiring to

contextualize the verse. He argues that this term indicates that the surrounding text is critical

for understanding the text in question. Unlike Edwards, who doesn’t qualify why he doesn’t

54 See McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 391

ff. for an intriguing discussion on the conversations taking place around justification—particularly about how Calvinists feared the spread of Arminianism—during the interregnum that these two sermons were preached.

55 Whitefield, The Sermons of George Whitefield, loc. 11783, Kindle. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid, loc. 11785, Kindle.

20

equally treat the first part of Titus 3:5 (self-righteousness) and the second part (mercy),

Whitefield remarks that he discusses justification rather than sanctification because: “The

former part of this text, our being sanctified, I have in some measure treated already.”58

Whitefield explains that his sermon will make three arguments: a definition of

justified, the need to be justified in general and with people in particular, and that there is no

justification apart from Christ. In the process, Whitefield, just like Edwards, relies heavily

upon the Rule of Faith.59

Whitefield’s Theological Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:11

First, Whitefield defines being justified. He says that being justified “is as

though he [God] had said you have your sins forgiven and are looked upon by God as though

you never had offended him at all.”60 There are three characteristics of justification that

Whitefield offers: justification is “a blotting out of all transgressions;” it’s a law-term; it’s

being acquitted in God’s sight.61

Since the central proposition of both these sermons relies heavily upon a

definition of justification, it’s constructive at this point to compare Edwards and Whitefield’s

definitions of this doctrine. What we encounter when we compare the two is that not only do

58 Ibid, loc. 11803, Kindle. 59 Whitefield clearly employs The Rule of Faith at least 20 times in explicit

verse citations or quotes not cited; Edwards does so 23 times in his sermon on Titus 3:5. 60 Ibid, loc. 11809, Kindle. 61 Ibid.

21

they use identical language at points (blotting out), but both of them exegete the term with

similar characteristics. Whitefield alone explicitly mentions that justification is a law term.

Both discuss “blotting out,” both talk about God forgetting, Whitefield refers to justification

as if “no wrong ever occurred.” Finally, both talk about an acquittal or in Edwards’ words “a

release from punishment.” It’s clear here that they both followed a distinctly reformed and

Protestant view of justification. This comes as no surprise.

Furthermore, they both leverage doctrinal arguments in order to bring to bear

sinner’s miserable state. Edwards focuses on a negative, lamenting the self-righteousness of

the people and admonishing them to turn from this self-righteousness. He masterfully

employs Puritan casuistry as he helps congregants diagnose and apply a salve to their

condition.

Whitefield discloses to his listeners their great need, justification; he does so

by exegeting his listener’s miserable condition.62 The manner in which he engages their

miserable state is by going through the doorway of original sin.63 This draws listeners to

recognize their “sin nature” and the “sin in their lives.” There is no doubt that Edwards in his

discussion on self-righteousness (the Titus 3:5 sermon) talks about original sin, conceptually,

62 The second movement of Whitefield’s sermon pricks the listener’s hearts

concerning the “sin of our natures and the sin of our lives” (Ibid, loc. 11823, Kindle). 63 Ibid, loc. 11840, Kindle. Whitefield candidly asserts: “For I am verily

persuaded that it is nothing but a want of being well grounded in the doctrine of original sin and of the helpless, nay, I may say, damnable condition, each of us comes in to the world in, that makes so many infidels oppose and so many who call themselves Christians, so very lukewarm in their love and affections to Jesus Christ.”

22

but he never in straightforward fashion talks about this fundamental doctrine; at least not to

the extent that Whitefield does here in the 1 Corinthians 6:11 sermon.

Each preacher, in his own manner, evokes a robust view of depravity to

prepare people for a call to Christ. This is not a glib, “Hey, you’re a sinner moment.” As

Whitefield indicates: “Let us then stand a while and see in what a deplorable condition each

of us comes into the world and still continues, till we are translated into a state of grace.”64

Concluding Remarks

By the end of these two sermons, having distinct texts, yet preaching the same

doctrine of justification, we see two preachers with a kindred sense of preaching method and

exegesis. Both preachers are selective of what they wish to draw from the text, namely the

doctrine of justification as the undergirding unifying theme of the sermon; both apply the

Rule of Faith; both exercise a stout expression of theological interpretation of Scripture, with

similar definitions and explanations of justification and also penetrating explorations on

depravity. Though Edwards and Whitefield’s preaching presentations have different

emphases, to some degree, they employ parallel methods as exegetes. These peerless

companions—with their doctrinal interpretive methods—would, by the power of the Holy

Spirit, kindle the Great Awakening: Edwards lighting the match that Whitefield set to flame.

64 Ibid, loc. 11873, Kindle.

23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crisp, Oliver D. Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

Edwards, Jonathan. Sermons and Discourses: 1723-1729. WJE Online Vol. 14, ed. Kenneth P. Minkema.

Edwards, Jonathan. The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: a Reader, ed. Wilson H. Kimnach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.

Kidd, Thomas S. George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father. New Haven: Yale, 2014.

Marsden, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.

Mastricht, Petrus Van. The Best Method of Preaching, translated and introduced by Todd M. Rester. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013.

McClymond, Michael J. and Gerald R. McDermott. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Morgan, Kenneth O. The Oxford History of the World, updated edition. New York: Oxford, 2010.

Perkins, William. The Art of Prophesying and the Calling of the Ministry. Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996, 2011.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despiser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Stout, Harry S. The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England. New York: Oxford, 1986, 2012.

Sweeney, Douglas A. Edwards the Exegete, first uncorrected proof. New York: Oxford, 2015.

Vanhoozer, Kevin. “Introduction.” In the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).

24

Whitefield, George. The Sermons of George Whitefield, vol. 1, ed. Lee Gatiss. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

Whitney, Donald S. Finding God in Solitude. New York: Peter Lang, 2014.

Wilson, Todd and Gerald Hiestand. The Pastor Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.