It seems that the followers of N.T. Wright continue to suggest that he does not deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Beside the fact that he has made a career out of criticizing the Reformers on their doctrine of justification (specifically in regard to the sufficiency of the imputed righteousness of Christ), it is fair to say that Wright explicitly denies the imputed righteousness of Christ throughout many of his books and lectures. One very clear instance of this is found in his August 2003 Rutherford House lecture “New Perspectives on Paul.” In the course of that lectures Wright asserted:

What God’s righteousness never becomes, in the Jewish background which Paul is so richly summing up, is an attribute which is passed on to,
reckoned to, or imputed to, his people. Nor does Paul treat it in this way. What we find, rather, is that Paul is constantly (especially in Romans, where all but one of the occurrences of the phrase are found) dealing with the themes which from Isaiah to 4 Ezra cluster together with the question of God’s righteousness: how is God to be faithful to Israel, to Abraham, to the world? How will the covenant be fulfilled, and who will be discovered to be God’s covenant people when this happens? …1

Far from misunderstanding Wright, we see from this example that Wright affirms that the Bible does not teach, whether in the Old Testament or the New (at least in Paul) the idea of God imputing or reckoning righteousness to His people.

1. N.T. Wright “New Perspectives on Paul” from the 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: 25–28 August 2003. You can find this lecture here .

One of the chief promises God made to Abraham was that his descendants would be as numerous as the sand of the sea. The point is not that we try to calculate how much sand there is and then draw a numerical parallel. Obviously there is too much sand on the shore to number. Throughout the period of revelation, from the time of Abraham to Christ, we find hints that the LORD is fulfilling this promise. One such place is 1 Kings 4:20 where we read, “Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing.” God had been faithful to His promises. He had multiplied Abraham’s descendants and given them a king after His own heart (i.e. David) and then a prince of peace (i.e. Solomon). Judah and Israel were prospering by the hand of the LORD. These words come right after the account of Solomon’s rise to the throne and right after God gave Solomon whatever he asked for–wisdom and understanding. The verse is crucial in this context. It is no small detail that Judah and Israel are said to have been “as the sand by the Sea in multitude.” There is a relationship between what is said in 1 Kings 4:20 and 1 Kings 4:29. Back in chapter 3 we learn that Solomon’s request for wisdom is based on the fact that he was called to rule and to govern God’s people. Solomon said, “Your servant is in the midst of Your people whom You have chosen, a great people, too numerous to be numbered or counted. Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Yours (1 Kings 3:8-9)?” God did just what Solomon asked and gave him the wisdom and understanding he needed to shepherd His people. In 1 Kings 4:29 we are told, “God gave Solomon wisdom and exceedingly great understanding, and largeness of heart like the sand on the seashore.” God gave Solomon wisdom commensurate for the task. The people were as numerous as the sand on the sea so God gave Solomon a heart so full of wisdom it could not be measured. There is of course a typological relationship, between Solomon and Christ, at work here.

When we come to the New Testament we see that God’s people need the greater than Solomon, who is Himself the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1). We need one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” We need Him to rule us with His saving grace and wisdom. He is the one who fulfills the promise to Abraham and who rules the true descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3:9; 29) with His wisdom. In Him a people from every tongue, tribe, nation and language are redeemed (Rev. 5:9). We need the seed of Abraham and the greater Solomon to redeem us and rule us with His wisdom. But we also need the wisdom that Christ provides. This is why James writes: “If anyone lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and without reproach. But let him ask in faith with no doubting…” We are to come to the greater than Solomon so that we also may receive wisdom and understanding. Our God will give us largeness of heart like the sand on the seashore if we ask for it as Solomon did. Ministers especially need to ask for wisdom since they have been called to watch over, and care for, the people of God. Oh that the Lord would grow his flock and give his shepherds wise and understanding hearts.

Here is the audio from the 2009 Next Conference :

The Preeminence of Christ (Joshua Harris)

Christ’s Incarnation (D.A. Carson)

Christ’s Life (Kevin DeYoung)

Christ’s Death (C.J. Mahaney)

Christ’s Resurrection (Sinclair Ferguson)

Christ’s Return (Sinclair Ferguson)

HT: Justin Taylor

The following messages were given by Sinclair Ferguson at the 2004 BASICS Conference:

His Sufficient Word – 2 Tim. 3

His Eternal Election - Ephesians 1

His Transforming Spirit - Romans 8

Well, if you haven’t figured out by now, it should soon become abundantly evident that Eric Alexander and Sinclair Ferguson are two living preachers and theologians for whom I have the highest esteem. Robert M. Walker, an elder in Bishopbriggs Free Church of Scotland and committee member of The Scottish Reformed Conference, recently brought these conference audio MP3′s to my attention. The theme of the Conference was ‘Glory.’ You see the titles and download the files below:

ERIC ALEXANDER

The Glory of Christ

SINCLAIR FERGUSON

The Glory of the New Covenant
The Glory of Christian Service

If you watch this film trailer you will see the deceit of human autonomy. Ray Kurzweil is responsible for the flat bed scanner, a reading machine for the blind, OCR, voice recognition technology, together with dozens of other inventions that have revolutionized the world in which we live; but, as you will see his ideas on human achievement and ability–even to the point of thinking he will one day raise the dead–are dishonoring to the God “in whom he lives and moves and has his being (Acts 17). This trailer shows you to what extent he is seeking to keep himself alive; after all, you can’t keep changing the world if you die.

Geoff Stevens, Creative Director for Reformation Trust Publishing, is working on a logo and web design for New Covenant Presbyterian of Richmond Hill, Ga.

It is not uncommon to hear someone refer to Sinclair Ferguson as being the best theologian in the English speaking world. Anyone who has read his books or heard his sermons and lectures will admit that this is in no way an unfit commendation. His style is simply yet profound, his expositions are terse but weighty–his insights are simply unparalleled. It is due in part to his mastery of the various theological loci . His uncanny ability to wed systematic, biblical, exegetical and historical theology in his expositions of Scripture demonstrate this unsurpassed giftedness.

There is another aspect of his ministry that is often overlooked (of the same essence as that which he has so often commended in the life and ministry of Richard Baxter). Ferguson has, on several occasions, alluded to the fact that Baxter would “set time bombs in Kidderminster” by illustrating divine truth with everyday objects in the city. The brilliance of this method was that, no matter where someone walked in the city they would be reminded of something Baxter had said in a sermon. Like Baxter before him, Sinclair Ferguson exhibits the ability to draw from Scripture and bring it to bear on the experiences and objects in the world. Without trivializing transcendent truths, he demonstrates their experiential relevance in the world in which we live.

All the strengths that Sinclair Ferguson brings to his biblical expositions are found in the articles republished in Reformation Trust’s recently released, In Christ Alone. Written over a twenty year period, articles from Eternity Magazine and Tabletalk have been edited and organized into a manageable volume. Even the cover art, designed by Geoff Stevens, demonstrates the time and effort that went into making this volume so impressive. In Christ Alone is a welcomed addition to the Reformation Trust series.
(more…)

Who would you dedicate a book to if you could dedicate it to anyone? This is clearly the most outstanding book dedication ever. There is, of course, a correlation between this dedication and the author’s success!

Several years ago I was working for a construction company–renovating and building homes. It was probably one of the most difficult jobs I have ever had; but it was what God used to teach me the value of working hard. One weekday morning, I woke up and read the evening section of this particular section of the Daily Light . As I drove to work that morning I meditated on Matthew 6:26, “Look at the birds of the air, they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” I was not sure why that particular verse stuck out as the one on which I would meditate as I went to work. That morning turned out to be one of the hardest mornings I had at this job. We had just finished building an extension on the back of a home and now had to put new sod down where we had ruined the grass. I was asked to rake a huge pile of dirt across the section we would put new grass on. As I labored and grumbled, I soon discovered that there were birds (Robins) right next to me. I labored and they hopped around. After a little while I realized that they were much closer to me than birds generally get. I started wondering why they were not afraid of me. I stopped and watched them for a minute. They were eating worms. “Well,” I thought, “Birds eat worms; there’s nothing unusual about that.” Then I realized what was happening. As I raked the dirt, I was being used to uncover the worms that lay beneath. The verse I had read that morning came to mind, “Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, yet your Heavenly Father feeds them.” My Father in heaven was using me to reap and labor so that the birds would be fed. There was, of course, an even greater truth in this rare experience. My Father was teaching me that He cares so much more for me than for them. “Are you not of more value than they?” My heavenly Father has abundantly provided for me since that time. I have never been in want. He has taught me that “every good and every perfect gift comes from…the Father of lights.” He had taught me to trust Him for my needs.

Last night, almost 7 years after that event, I was sitting on my bed expressing my worries about the church plant. “How are we going to get support;” “If we can’t gather a core group we won’t have a church;” “What am I going to do?” These were the things coming out of my mouth. At that very moment, I opened the Daily Light and began to read the evening devotional I read almost 7 years ago that day. The Lord again reminded me to trust the One who feeds birds who do not labor for food, and in whom we live and move and have our being. Oh, that I would remember this lesson every day of my life. It is one of the greatest lessons we could ever learn. We have a Father in Heaven who cares deeply for us. He provides for our every need. He has so ordered nature to exhibit His care and preservation that we ought always to make the connection between His care for objects of lesser value and greater value. Above all He provided His Son as a sacrifice for sin. I am exceedingly thankful that He continues to teach me this lesson.

Here is a video to introduce you to World Wide Monk Fighting (WWMF):

HT: Roland Barnes

The Yale University and University of Glasgow sponsored Jonathan Edwards and Scotland Conference, for which I went to Scotland, ended last Tuesday. There were several significant lectures given. Of the ones that I was able to attend, David Bebbington’s lecture, “A Historical Review of Revivals,” Adriann Neele’s talk, “Petrus Van Masstricht: Exchanges in Scotland, the Netherlands, and America,” and Michael McClenahan’s, “New England’s Nemesis: John Tillotson and the dismantling of Puritanism,” were the most intellectually valuable.

David Bebbington did a outstanding job (which is typical of his work) of outlining a history of revivals throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Focusing on the different circumstances and theologies that lay behind each period of revival he persuasively argued that God was at work in each and every true revival. If these lectures are published I think you will find Bebbington’s work a worthwhile source of history on the subject. I am amazed at how much this man can unpack in so short a period of time.

Adriann Neele explained that Edwards depended on Van Massticht’s Theoretica Practica more than any other work. He went on to outline Van Masstricht’s work, drawing a convincing connection between Edwards’ History of the Work of Redemption and the later part of the Theoretica Practica. What I did not know prior to this talk was that Van Masstricht replaced Gijbertus Voetius at the Univeristy of Utrect. Van Maastrict was also a disciple of Johannes Cocceius. This is especially important since Van maasrtict’s Theoretica was the basis for Edwards’ History of the Work of Redemption. Edwards’ biblical theological approach to the Scriptures seems to have been on account of Cocceius, whether he realized that in his adoption of Van Masstricht’s principles or not. I wonder whether Van Masstricht  wed the pietistic approach of Voetius to the Biblical Theological approach of Cocceius. This would be a an interesting subject to pursue further as the two camps were sort of antithetical during the Nadere Reformatie.

Michael McClenahan gave consideration to Edward’s polemical responses to John Tillotson in regard to Tillotson’s rabid arminianism. Sadly, the electricity went out during his lecture making it more difficult to pull together all the material he had to present on Monday and then finish on Tuesday. It was a helpful talk which posited Edwards’ writings on good works in contrast to much of what Tillotson was promulgating.

I also benefited from David Jones’ lecture on Edwards’ connection to the Welsh evangelical ministers of the 18th and 19th centuries. Jones did an exceptionally good job in relation to Edwards’ influence on William Williams, the noted theologian and hymn writer.

It was at this conference that I spent some time with William and Carine MacKenzie, owners of Christian Focus publication. Their commitment to Christ was incredibly refreshing, and the presence of so many of the good books they have published was a great encouragement at a highly scholastic conference on Edwards.

It is probable that the whole of Matthew’s Gospel is a typological fulfillment of Israel’s history. This means, of course, that all of Christ’s life is the chronological anti-type of Israel’s experience. Here is a brief explanation:

Matthew opens with the words: “The book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the Son of Abraham.” Why only mention David and Abraham? Simply put, they were the two Israelitish covenant heads who were organically related to Christ. Jesus did not come from Moses’ seed, but he did come from Abraham and David. Note also the way that Matthew mentions David first, then Abraham. As the genealogy unfolds he starts with Abraham, moves to David, goes through the exile and finally comes to the fulfillment of the promises. This structure sets the grid for understanding Matthew’s Gospel.

Matthew could have chosen to take the genealogy back to Noah and Adam (as Luke chooses to do) but it appears that he wanted to stop at Abraham to explain the Israel/Christ typology. This is further developed by the reference to Hosea 11:2 in Matthew 2, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” Then by the baptism, the temptation in the wilderness, the Sermon on the Mount, the feeding of the multitudes, the references to David and Solomon, the pronouncement of ‘woes’ on the leaders of Israel, and His death on the cross (i.e. the great exile).
(more…)

Revelation 1:5-10 really is the master key to unlock the structure of the book. While the throne of God, the trumpets, bowls, and seals all play a central role in this book, the book would be, as I noted in the previous post, meaningless without its Christological structure. Put simply, the book is about Jesus Christ–specifically with regard to His first and second coming. And is this a surprise to us? It shouldn’t be if we have come to see that the Bible is about the Lord Jesus Christ and the work He does in His first and second coming. Isn’t this what Jesus taught to His disciples on the road to Emmaus, concerning the doctrine of the Old Testament, when he said to them, “O foolish ones and slow in heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and entered into His glory ?” There, Jesus proceeded to open the Scriptures and “beginning with Moses and the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself .” Peter also explained this when he wrote, “10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow (1 Peter 1:10-11).”
(more…)

At the end of March I will be presenting a paper at the Jonathan Edwards and Scotland Conference at the University of Glasgow. The Jonathan Edwards Center and Glasgow University are hosting what looks like a very stimulating conference. Speakers include David Bebbington, Wilson H. Kimnach, and Michael McClenahan. You can check out the conference schedule here. The title of my paper is “Edwards, McLaurin and the Transatlantic Concert of Prayer.”

The more things change the more they stay the same…

I would take some notice of another thing, observable in the writings of Dr. T. and many of the late opposers of the more peculiar doctrines of Christianity, tending (especially with juvenile and unwary readers) not a little to abate the force, and prevent the due effect, of the clearest scripture-evidences in favor of those important doctrines; and particularly to make void the arguments taken from the writings of the apostle Paul, in which those doctrines are more plainly and fully revealed, than in any other part of the Bible. What I mean, is this: These gentlemen express a high opinion of this apostle, and that very justly, for his eminent genius, his admirable sagacity, strong powers of reasoning, acquired learning, etc. they speak of him as a writer of masterly address, of extensive reach, and deep design, everywhere in his epistles, among in every word he says.

This looks exceedingly specious: it carries a plausible appearance of Christian zeal and attachment to the Holy Scriptures, to bear such a testimony of high veneration for that great apostle, who was not only the principal instrument of propagating Christianity, but with his own hand wrote so considerable a part of the New Testament. And I am far from determining, with respect at least to some of these writers, that they are not sincere in their declarations; or, that all is mere artifice, only to make way for the reception of their own peculiar sentiments. However, it tends greatly to subserve such a purpose; as much as if it were designedly contrived, with the utmost subtlety, for that end. Hereby their incautious readers are prepared the more easily to be drawn into a belief, that they, and others in their way of thinking, have not rightly understood many of those things in this apostle’s writings, which before seemed very plain to them. Thus they are prepared, by a prepossession in favor of these new writers, to entertain a favorable thought of the interpretations put by them upon the words and phrases of this apostle; and to admit in many passages a meaning which before lay entirely out of sight; quite foreign to all that in the view of a common reader seems to be their obvious sense; and most remote from the expositions agreed in by those who used to be esteemed the greatest divines, and best commentators. As to this apostle, being a man of no vulgar understanding, it is nothing strange if his meaning lies very deep; and no wonder then, if the superficial observation of vulgar Christians, or indeed of the herd of common divines, such as the Westminster Assembly, etc. falls vastly short of the apostle’s reach, and frequently does not enter into the true spirit and design of his epistles. They must understand, that the first reformers, and indeed preachers and expositors in general, for fifteen or sixteen hundred years past, were too unlearned and short-sighted, to be capable of penetrating into the sense, or fit to make comments on the writings, of so great a man as this apostle; or else had dwelt in a cave of bigotry and superstition, too gloomy to allow them to use their own understandings with freedom, in reading the Scripture.

But, at the same time, it must be understood, that there is risen up now at length, in this happy age of light and liberty, a set of men, of a more free and generous turn of mind, of a more inquisitive genius, and of better discernment. By such insinuations, they seek advantage to their cause; and thus the most unreasonable and extravagant interpretations of Scripture are palliated and recommended: so that, if the simple reader is not very much on his guard, if he does not clearly see with his own eyes, or has too much indolence, or too little leisure, thoroughly to examine for himself, he is in danger of being imposed on with delusive appearances.

But I humbly conceive, that their interpretations — particularly of the apostle Paul’s writings, though in some things ingenious — are in many things extremely absurd, and demonstrably disagreeable, in the highest degree, to his real design, to the language he commonly uses, and to the doctrines currently taught in his epistles. Their criticisms, when examined, appear far more subtle, than solid; and it seems as if nothing can possibly be strong enough, nothing perspicuous enough, in any composure whatever, to stand before such liberties these writers indulge. The plainest and most nervous discourse is analyzed and criticized, till it either dissolves into nothing, or becomes a thing of little significance. The Holy Scripture is subtilized into a mere mist; or made to evaporate into a thin cloud, that easily puts on any shape, and is moved in any direction, with a puff of wind, just as the manager pleases. It is not in the nature and power of language, to afford sufficient defense against such an art, so abused; as, I imagine, a due consideration of some things I have had occasion in the preceding discourse to observe, may abundantly convince us.*

I pray that our great God will preserve us from the kind of handling of the Sacred Word that Edwards identifies and rightly chastizes here.

* This is found in the conclusion of The Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended in The Works of Jonathan Edwards: Vol. 3/Original Sin. Clyde E. Holbrook, ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 434-37.

Editor’s Note: We previously wrote a post in which Edwards dealt with the arguments now espoused by proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul,” which, by the very fact that Edwards deals with them, proves that they are not, in any way, “new.” You can read that post here.

The Ligonier Ministry Blog has posted an article by Sinclair Ferguson on Jonathan Edwards’ Resolutions. Ferguson offers an extremely insightful analysis of the Resolutions, emphasizing Edwards’ age, theology and spiritual maturity. You can read the article here.

Ligonier Ministries Blog has posted the second part of John Gerstner’s teaching on Jonathan Edwards and Covenant Theology. You can find the first part here. You can find the second part here.

I’m going to preempt our resident Jonathan Edwards scholar and announce George Marsden’s new, shorter biography of Jonathan Edwards. Marsden, having already written what is perhaps the greatest Edwards biography, has written an entirely new work based on his research. This should prove to be a great introduction to this immense figure in American Christianity.

It is not uncommon to hear someone speak of longing to be with a loved one who has gone to be with the Lord. Heaven has often been thought of as being a place where we are reconciled to those who have passed to glory before us. In his first published sermon, God Glorified in Man’s Dependence, Jonathan Edwards made a striking observation about the reason why we would enjoy being with loved ones in heaven. He wrote:

I am happy to report that I have received this week two new books on Jonathan Edwards. The first is by John Carrick, a professor at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, entitled The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards. This is a substantial, 400+ page volume published by our good friends at Banner of Truth. Carrick analyzes the form and content Edwards’ sermons. I will be blogging on this volume in the days ahead.

The second book I received is A New Inner Relish: Christian Motivation in the Thought of the Jonathan Edwards by Dane Ortlund, a PhD student at Wheaton Graduate School. This book is brought to us by Christian Focus. Again I will blog on this too in the coming days.

Keep your eyes on this blog. I have not forgotten Cornelius Van Til’s The Defense of the Faith so you will see blogs on that book as well. I would encourage you to read good books. I trust that one of the things my commentary will do is to whet your appetite to read worthwhile literature.

As I was preparing a sermon on John 3:14-21 I came across this quote by Jonathan Edwards concerning the nature of the eternal life that God provides hell deserving sinners through Jesus Christ. Edwards wrote:

This is a profound thought that you may not have considered before. God could have brought us back to the place we were with Adam before the fall. He could have pardoned our sins and given us another covenant of works. But God answered the eternal punishment due to us with the eternal life He provides in Christ.

[1] Jonathan Edwards The Works of Jonathan Edwards ed. Harry S. Stout (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003) vol. 22 p. 539

In his Unpublished Essay on the Trinity Jonathan Edwards provides one of the strongest arguments for the notion that Christ is the “wisdom of God.” He wrote:

In a footnote to this paragraph he notes:

In a footnote to this paragraph he notes:

As I was reading through Jonathan Edwards Notes on Scripture I found this interesting interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29:

This morning, as I was walking down the street in Philadelphia, I stopped to talk with two Jehovah Witnesses. In the course of our talk one of the women asked me why the Father and the Son were mentioned in places in the New Testament without reference to the Holy Spirit. (Of course you know they were trying to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity since they do not believe that Jesus nor the Holy Spirit are Divine). It was interesting that they raised this question since I had been preparing my sermon for this coming Lord’s Day on Ephesians 1:1-2. As in many of Paul’s epistles the church is met with a salutation from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 1:2 Paul writes, “Grace to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” So, why isn’t the Holy Spirit mentioned? Is He not interested in bestowing on the saints grace and peace as well?

The answer to this question is, I believe, found in Jonathan Edwards’ Unpublished Essay on the Trinity (which was actually published in 1903). There Edwards writes:

I can think of no other good account that can be given of the apostle Paul’s wishing grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in the beginning of his Epistles, without ever mentioning the Holy Ghost, – as we find it thirteen times in his salutations in the beginnings of his Epistles, – but [i.e., except] that the Holy Ghost is Himself love and grace of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; and in his blessing at the end of his second Epistle to the Corinthians where all three Persons are mentioned he wishes grace and love from the Son and the Father [except that] in the communion or the partaking of the Holy Ghost, the blessing is from the Father and the Son in the Holy Ghost. But the blessing from the Holy Ghost is Himself, the communication of Himself. Christ promises that He and the Father will love believers (John 14:21,23), but no mention is made of the Holy Ghost, and the love of Christ and the love of the Father are often distinctly mentioned, but never any mention of the Holy Ghost’s love.

(This I suppose to be the reason why we have never any account of the Holy Ghost’s loving either the Father or the Son, or of the Son’s or the Father’s loving the Holy Ghost, or of the Holy Ghost’s loving the saints, tho these things are so often predicated of both the other Persons.)

Jeff Waddington, one of the co-founders and speakers at the Castle Church website, has a discussion of Jonathan Edwards’ eschatology, affectional psychology and Trinitarian theology. You can find the audio here. I would also recommend the talks on atonement and covenant theology.

Jeff Waddington, one of the co-founders and speakers at the Castle Church website, has a discussion of Jonathan Edwards’ eschatology, affectional psychology and Trinitarian theology. You can find the audio here. I would also recommend the talks on atonement and covenant theology.

As I have been working on my Th.M on the Song of Songs I have been more and more impressed with the biblical theology that structures Solomon’s thoughts. It has not been an easy task to bring together the biblical theological themes while at the same time doing justice to the text. Here is one small section of my work (which needs serious revision) that starts to develop these concepts in an attempt to prove the Christology of the greatest of Solomon’s Songs:

“As we look at the unraveling of the covenant promise in Scripture we soon begin to see that there is a sphere in which this promise occurs. What is lost by Adam in the Garden because of his sin is restored to man throughout redemptive history by Christ. The Garden of Eden is the first place where God dwells in communion with man. When man is forced to leave the Garden (representing the breach of communion between the creature and the Creator) he is driven into a world that is ravished by the effects of sin. Thorns and thistles now cover the ground. Fertile places become barren wastelands. Streams dry up and plants whither. When God chooses a people for Himself He brings them into the wilderness (representative of these effects of sin) and there He begins to fulfill His covenant promises to them. He comes to dwell with them, and He becomes like them by dwelling in the same place that they dwell (i.e. in a Tent). The Tabernacle is the first step in the restoration of Eden.
The presence of God is the source of living waters that is meant to make the people of God into a fruitful garden/vineyard. When God finally brings Israel into the promised land (also a partial renewal of Eden—a land flowing with milk and honey) He raises up a king, Solomon, to build a more established place of dwelling—the Temple. The Temple was to be inlaid with cedar. A diversity of botanical images were to be carved around it. The Temple really was a typical stepping stone in the restoration of Eden. Ellen F. Davis explains the significance of the decorative symbolism:

As the lengthy description of the Temple (1 Kings 6-7) shows, the Temple is designed as a Garden. Idealogicaly, it is a second Eden (legend has it that the Temple was built on the spot where the Garden of Eden stood). The cedar paneled walls were carved ‘all about with’ palm trees,’ open flowers, and cherubim (1 Kings 6:29). Before the Holy of holies stood ten golden lanpstands shaped like flowers (1 Kings 7:49). In the forecourt were two great bronze pillars (1 Kings 7:18-19, 42), each a stylized tree of life surmounted by a lily
shaped capitol. Nearby was a huge bronze basin also shaped like a lily (1 Kings 7:26). Small wash basins rested on stands with cherubim , lions and palm trees (1 Kings 7:36). Pomegranites, lions, palm tress, lilies and cedars. All these are features of the paradise that is both the lover’s landscape and the woman herself. The language of the Song leads us into the locked garden of the Temple precinct.(1)

The Scriptures teach that all these symbols (i.e. gardens, tents, various aspects of the Temple, and Jerusalem) find a rich fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and consequently in His people. Philip Ryken explains that the door of the Temple “really was like the gates of Paradise. And for many people the way of access was still denied. Unless they were priests they would never see the golden wonders inside. Only the High Priests would enter that most holy place. Yet however limited it was there was access. You see God was opening back up the way to Paradise. You might think of Solomon’s temple as a kind of spiritual portal. The paradise lost could be regained.”(2) The covenant promise of the restored presence of God comes to its climax, in that point in redemptive history, in the days of Solomon with the completion of the Temple. A glory cloud came down upon the holy place—representing the Divine presence. But Solomon understood, even at that time of fulfilled promises, that there was another temple that God would dwell in. No sooner had the glory cloud descended upon the place where the priests ministered that Solomon said to the people, “Will God indeed dwell on earth? Behold heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less than this house that I have built (1 Kings 8:27).”

Solomon understood that the covenant promises, typified in the Temple that he had built, would be fulfilled in God Himself. Jesus explicitly declares Himself to be the antitype of the Temple. Despite the fact that the Temple He alludes to, at least referentially, in Matthew 12:6 and John 2:19-21 is not the one built by Solomon, it is hard to escape the fact that the redemptive significance of Solomon’s Temple in view as well. In the Gospels Jesus is said to be the plei/on Solomon and the mei/zo,n Temple. The building of the Temple was Solomon’s greatest achievement and it lay at the heart of the Davidic Covenant. Much of the language of the Song comes from the promises of the Davidic covenant and find their significance of the Temple. Though, at this point, we will not consider the role of the King-Shepherd in the Song that also can be demonstrated to be based on the Davidic Covenant.

This leads us to a few examples from the writings of Jonathan Edwards in association with what has been stated. Edwards’ is one of the few expositors in church history who was more consistent with a grammatical-historical method while always guiding these principles with a theological method. It could be said that, at times, he held a covenantal view of the Song. This can be demonstrated based on the comments he makes concerning particular symbols in the Song. Concerning the reference to “oil” in the Song, Edwards writes:

The excellencies both of bridegroom and bride are compared to spices, chap. 1: 12-14; 4:6, 10, 13, 14, 16; 5:5,13; 8:2, and ointment perfumed with spices, chap. 1:3; 4:10. The same spices were made use of to represent spiritual excellencies in the incense, and anointing oil in the tabernacle and temple, and also in the oil for the light.(3)

With regard to the symbolism of pomegranates he writes:

The fruits of the spouse are often compared to pomegranates in this song. Chap. 4:3,13; 6:7; 8:2. So the spiritual fruits of the church of God are represented by pomegranates in the tabernacle and temple. The spouse is in this song said to be like the palm-tree. Chap. 7:7,8. So was the church of Israel, whose representation were the seventy elders, typified by seventy palm-trees. Exod. 15:27. So the temple was everywhere covered with cherubim and palm-trees, representing saints and angels. 1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35; 7:36. 2 Chron. 3:5. So in Ezekiel’s temple. Ezekiel 40:16.(4)

In His comments on Song of Songs 2:14, Edwards’ suggests that the stairs are an allusion to the
stairs of the Temple:

“O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice.” There is probably respect here to the rock of mount Zion, on which Solomon’s house was built, or of the mountain of the temple, and to the stairs by which they ascended that high rock, to go up to Solomon’s palace. See Neh. iii. 15. and xii. 37. or the stairs by which they ascended through the narrow courts into the temple; it comes much to the same thing, whether we suppose the rocks and stairs referred to, to be of the mountain of Solomon’s palace or temple, for both were typical of the same thing, and both mountains seemed to have been called by the same name, mount Zion…Her love to the spiritual Solomon causes her to remain near his house, about the mountain on which his palace stands, watching at his gates, and waiting at the posts of his doors, and by the stairs by which he ascends to his house, but yet hides herself as if ashamed, and afraid, and unworthy to appear before him, like the woman that came behind Christ to touch the hem of his garment.(5)

Concerning the symbolism of the tent and curtain in chapter 1:5, Edwards again makes reference to the redemptive significance of the Tabernacle and Temple:

“As the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.” That the spouse in this song is compared to a tent, and to the curtains of the tabernacle and temple, is an evidence that this song is no ordinary love song, and that by the spouse is not meant any particular woman, but a society, even that holy society, the church of God. It is common in the writings of the Old Testament to represent the church of God by a tent, or tents, and a house and temple, but never a particular person. See Isa. liv. 2. Zech. xii. 7. Isa. xxxiii. 20. Lam. ii. 4, 6. Isa. i. 8. And the tabernacle and temple were known types of the church, and the curtains of both had palm-trees embroidered on them, which are abundantly made use of to represent the church. The church of God is called a house, in places too many to be mentioned. The church used to be called the temple of the Lord, as appears by Jer. vii. 4. The church is represented by the temple, as is evident by Zech. 4:2-9.

These are only a few of the examples of a covenantal approach to the Song being worked on in the writings of Jonathan Edwards. Criticisms could be raised at many points and the charge of employing an allegorical method could be leveled against him from time to time. However, based upon the definitions, guidelines, and methods proposed it cannot be said that Edwards’ has no theological, or for that matter grammatical-historical grounds, for drawing many of these conclusions.

(1) Ellen F. Davis Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2000) p. 270
(2) This except was taken from a sermon on 1 Kings 6:37-38. It was preached on September 9, 2007 at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, PA. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91107228406

(3) Jonathan Edwards Notes on the Bible p. 359
(4) Ibid., p. 359
(5) Ibid. p. 359

Jonathan Edwards’ Notes on the Bible can be found in vol. 2 of his works (both in the Banner of Truth edition as well as in the Hendrikson set). This work is of supreme value to the minister of the Gospel or those pursuing the ministry because of the depth of theological insight found in these short writings. Edwards’ worked his way through many portions of Scripture writing down his thoughts about or conclusions concerning these passages. If I had to recommend only one or two passages to read I would direct you to #460 (titled “The Book of Solomon’s Song, no common love song”) and #140 starting from his comments on 2 Peter 1:16. You can find the section on the Song of Songs here. His thoughts on 2 Peter can be found here. So that you will see the depth of Edwards’ understanding into the Scritpure consider the following portion:

2. This glory that appeared in the person of Christ, did exactly resemble that excellent glory that the apostle speaks of, out of which the voice came, verse 17. For there was there in the mount an external glory, as a visible symbol of the presence of God the Father, and by which he was represented; as well as an external glory in God the Son, viz. that bright cloud that overshadowed them. There was a glory in that cloud that the apostle calls an excellent glory. When it is said in the evangelists that a bright cloud overshadowed them, it is not meant such a light or white cloud as shines by a cast of light upon it from some shining body, such as are some clouds by the bright reflection of the sun’s light; but a cloud bright by an internal light shining out of it, which light the apostle calls an excellent glory. It probably was an ineffably sweet, excellent sort of light, perfectly differing from and far exceeding the light of the sun. All light is sweet, but this seems to have been immensely more sweet than any other that ever they had; impressing some idea which we cannot conceive, having never seen it, as we can conceive of nothing of light more than we have seen; we could have conceived of no such light as the light of the sun, had not we seen it, nor of any colour, blue, red, green, purple, nor any other. God doubtless can excite other ideas of light in our minds besides any of those that we have had, and far exceeding them; a light affording sweetness and pleasure to the sight, far exceeding all pleasure of the grosser and inferior senses. Therefore, Peter the apostle, that writes this epistle, was exceedingly delighted with it in the time of it, which made him say, “It is good for us to be here;” and made him talk of building tabernacles, and thinking of spending the rest of his days there; and he still (though now old and near his end, verses 13, 14.) retains a lively sense of the exquisite gloriousness and pleasantness of that light, when he expresses himself as he does here, calling it the excellent glory. And there probably was an exact resemblance between the glory that the disciples saw in Christ’s face, and that which they saw in this cloud, which declared him to be the Son of God; for they saw him to be his express image.