Erica
Haimbaugh
Prof
Westblade
18th
Century Theology
12.2.15
A Marriage of Three Strands
In his life, Jonathan Edwards experience
three kinds, or types, of marriage. The most obvious, of course, was his
literal marriage to Sarah Pierpont Edwards, but he also had a definite
understanding of his being married to his parish congregation, a marriage
ordained by God, as was his marriage to Sarah. Finally, and most importantly,
Edwards also compared his relationship with God as a marriage, in which Edwards
was the bride and Christ the bridegroom. These three marriages in the life of
Edwards were shaped and formed by the others into a fuller understand of how
each marriage was meant to look like and be expressed in their differing
contexts. The former two marriages were possible because of the marriage of his
soul to God via justification and sanctification, and thus he was capable of
fulfilling his role as spouse to both Sarah and to his church at large. The
three were almost in a symbiotic relationship, as well, because God graciously
grants human beings types of earthly relationships that help humans better
understand their own with God. Thus EdwardsÕ marriage to Sarah and to his
church also helped him to better understand God and GodÕs role in EdwardsÕ own
life. The primary marriage in EdwardsÕ life was his marriage to God, but his
understanding of that relationship was shaped by his experiences in marriage to
Sarah and also in his pastoring of his church. The individual (and elect)
members of the church, too, had their own marriage to God as well as to Edwards
as their minister of GodÕs love. These other marriages within the church and
within the life of Edwards himself act as foils to and complements of each
other, so that EdwardsÕ three kinds of marriages would all build and interact
in such a way as to create a more full understanding of both God and the human
person, and the relationships therein.
On his deathbed, Jonathan Edwards
described his marriage to Sarah Pierpont Edwards as Òan uncommon union.Ó[1]
He wasnÕt wrong: Jonathan and Sarah were in some ways polar opposites. He kept
to his study, more awkward and less at ease in company. She was more
extroverted, easily able to make conversation with others and help them to feel
at home. Surrounded as she was by the bustle of a
busy household, with many children to direct, guests to welcome, and chores to
oversee, Sarah ensured that Jonathan had the time and quiet he needed to write
sermons, to study the Word, and to prepare himself to care for his flock. She
minded the house and farm affairs so that he could devote the greater part of
his attention to God and his own studies in theology. He, in turn, was her
closet confidant, and she took her cares to him so that he might point her to
Christ and remind her that there were greater things than to be approved of by
the parish.[2] In
this way, their human marriage pointed them toward the heavenly marriage they
each shared with Christ, and this marriage with Christ offered a supreme model
for husband and wife to follow as they slowly built up their earthly
relationship.[3]
Earthly relationships pointed to the divine, especially marriage: many Puritans
argued that marriage was ordained before the Fall of man, and so it was not
only a sort of lesson or cure for sinfulness, but part of the higher state Adam
and Eve had experienced pre-Fall. Post-Fall, marriage became a way to heal or
in some way remedy our desire to sin because it points human beings to God and
shows them a new way of understanding Him, and a way to love Him in a newer,
more intimate way.[4]
Edwards also had a very strong view of his relationship to
his congregation as a marriage, as evidenced by the sermon he preached at
Samuel BuellÕs installation as minister of a church in East Hampton. In it, he
exhorted Reverend Buell to have Òardent and tender affectionÓ for his flock,
and the congregation to submit and honor their minister:
A faithful minister, that is in a Christian manner united to a Christian
people as their pastor, has his heart united to them in the most ardent
and tender affection. And they, on the other hand, have their hearts united to
him, esteeming him very highly in love for his workÕs sake, and receiving him
with honor and reverence, and willingly subjecting themselves to him, and
committing themselves to his care, as being, under Christ, their head and
guide.[5]
Each believer is,
of course, wed to Christ in his or her own soul, but together as a church body,
they also create a family of believers, which is the bride of Christ. Thus the
church as well has a dual understanding and a dual marriage, both to their
minister, who Ògives himself to the church, to be hers, in that love, tender
care, constant endeavor, and earnest labor for her provision, comfort, and
welfare, that is proper to his office, as a minister of Providence, as long as
he livesÉÓ and to their God, who Òis in her eyes the chief among ten thousands,
fairer than the sons of men: Éhe is her pearl of great price, for which she
parts with all; and rejoices in him, as the choice and rest of her soul.Ó[6]
God is the fulfillment of everything the church needs and could never desire.
Thus the good ministerÕs goal, like the husbandÕs, is to point their spouse to
God.
That was EdwardsÕ goal in marriage, and his ideal structure
for a minister and congregation. Having been married to Sarah for about nine
years at this point, Edwards would have had a greater understanding of marriage
to draw from as he wrote this sermon than he would have had before he married
her, because he had years of martial experience to draw from and to further
develop his thoughts. Thus Edwards could offer advice to the church as a man
who understood how difficult marriage could be to another human being—because
although Edwards did not know what it was like to be married to himself as his
congregation would have experienced it, he did know what it was like to be
married to an inherently sinful human being. Edwards understood how difficult marriage
was, but he also understood that marriage is meant to be a reciprocal
relationship in which both parties do their best to honor God and each other. In
the sermon, he went on to say, Ò[The]
congregationÉ make it their constant care to promote his comfort, to make the
burden of his difficult work easy, to avoid those things that might add to the
difficulty of it, and that might justly be grievous to his heart.Ó[7]
The good minister, because he wishes the best for his congregation, would
rightly be grieved by a congregationÕs failure to seek God.
While the church at Northampton may not always have succeeded
in their endeavor to seek God and do their best by their pastor, Sarah did
succeed, day in and day out. Yet theirs was not an unequal marriage, in which
Sarah was the primary force behind their martial happiness and functionality:
ÉWhat makes [EdwardsÕ] construction
of types on marriage so intriguing is the absence of hierarchical arrangements
in the relationship. While there is no question as God as the absolute center
of the relationship, Edwards develops marriage as a type in terms of
reciprocity rather than asymmetrical obedienceÉ EdwardsÉ stresses in his
interpretation of Genesis the equality of male and female.[8]
The
EdwardsÕ marriage may have been an Òuncommon unionÓ not only because of the
clearly differing personalities of the two partners, but also because of their
understanding of submission and partnership within marriage. Sarah clearly
valued very highly the esteem of her husband, but she also carried to him her
worries and concerns, and he comforted her. In his turn, Edwards greatly valued
his wife and admired her spiritual strength. Sarah submitted to her husband, as
Scripture commands, but he thought of her as he helpmeet and equal, as God
created Eve to be for Adam. Their marriage was highly functional and healthy
because they followed the Biblical design, one made complete in Christ with His
church. In marriage, men and women were meant to be the best of friends, and to
spiritually, mentally, and emotionally nourish each other in order that they
might carry out GodÕs calling in their lives to the fullest possible extent.[9]
Marriage also acted to stabilize the community:
children were meant to discipline themselves into submission to God from a
young age, and this was best done, the Puritans thought, within the context of
a family. Parents would gently but firmly resist any outburst of stubbornness
or temper, because if a child could not submit lovingly to their parents, who
they could empirically know, there was no way a child would submit to a God
they could not sense. In the family, children also learned the hierarchical structure
of Puritan society, so that they might be able to integrate seamlessly into
their world as adults. In order for children to be properly trained, their
parents had to keep themselves under good regulation, and this was done through
a healthy marriage, one in which both partners understood their roles.[10]
The Edwardses had a remarkably functional and
healthy marriage, which was perhaps possible because they both so completely
understood their roles within the marriage, in relation to God and in relation
to each other. The concept of submission, though it raises eyebrows in a modern
world, was ÒvaluedÓ by both Jonathan and Sarah Edwards, Òfar more than it is
usually valued today.Ó[11]
Each knew it to be of the utmost importance to submit themselves
fully to God. All that Edwards wrote in his installation sermon for Reverend
Buell on how the church body ought to relate to the minister also applied to
EdwardÕs own relationship with God. As the church Òin a holy covenant commit the care of their souls, and subject themselves, to [the minister],Ó[12]
so too did Edwards commit the care of his own soul, and subject himself, to
Christ. Especially, Edwards sought to avoid anything that Òmight justly be
grievous to [ChristÕs] heart,Ó[13]
even as his wife and his parish were meant to avoid things that might grieve
Edwards, as their type of Christ on earth. Edwards himself could only be so
humble because he understood his own role to be a submissive one as well: he
was totally under and subject to the will of God.
Sarah, too was subject to
the will of God, and she was also subject to her husband. In January of 1742,
Sarah had some kind of spiritual ecstasy or possibly a kind of spiritual crisis
related to her ability and desire to submit to God fully. Whatever it was,
however, Sarah emerged from it with a remarkable sweetness of temper and submission
to God that had been unseen in her makeup so completely before this episode.
Her husband marveled at it, and Sarah lived the rest of her forty-eight years
in cheerful submission to and willingness to live out GodÕs plan for her life.[14]
This combination of two people, fully realizing their own need to submit to God
in their own personal life, made for a remarkable match. They could therefore
ÒÉboth subordinate and enhance their relationship by constant prayerful
reminders that it was a type of ChristÕs love for his church.Ó[15] Edwards
himself wrote in the installation sermon, ÒAll
that tender care which a faithful minister takes of his people as a kind of
spiritual husband—to provide for them, to lead, and feed, and comfort
them—is not as to his own bride, but his masterÕsÉ.Ó[16] This
was EdwardsÕ role for both his congregation, and for his wife. Edwards played a
strange role, as all husbands and pastors did, as both bride and bridegroom. As
bridegroom to Sarah and to the church, he pointed to the ultimate Bridegroom
that was Christ. As bride of Christ in his own soul, he offered Òlove, and honor, and submissionÉ to Christ.Ó Sarah
offered this same love, honor, and submission to both her husband, as the head
of her earthly household and as her spiritual leader, and to Christ, as head of
the church, of which she was a member, and she offered it to him as the Bridegroom
of her soul.
Jonathan Edwards could only love his wife
because he loved God. In his Treatise on
Grace, he writes, ÒIf duties towards men are [to be]
accepted of God as a part of Religion and the service of the Divine Being, they
must be performed not only with a hearty love to men, but that love must flow
from regard to Him.Ó[17]
Jonathan loved Sarah because Christ first loved Jonathan and made him capable
of loving and being loved. Christ also first loved Sarah and made her loving
and lovable. Because their souls were so deeply intertwined in the love and
loving of Christ, they could and did understand their marriage as a metaphor or
a type of the love that they each had for Christ and Christ for them. The human
person as a bride to Christ, and so the human person must chase after God, love
God, and spend time with God as they do with their human spouse. Edwards
understood the Christian life as a marriage to God, in which every day the
human person was meant to draw nearer to God because God is so supremely
lovable that the human cannot help but draw close to Him. ÒChristÕs marriage
with believers now provided a model for husband and wife as they sought to
build and sustain their relationshipÉ. Heavenly and terrestrial marriage thus
became symbioticÉ.Ó[18]
Although humans cannot fully understand the love of the Trinity, they can
understand what marriage looks like and the commitment and sacrifice it
entails. This commitment and sacrifice of Christ, which was brought to full
expression and completeness on the Cross, acts as a sustainer for each spouse
as well as an example. The love of Christ allows them to love even in the
difficult times, and also shows them what their love ought to look like. Additionally,
the marriage between the human and Christ makes a human-human marriage
possible. It is only through the love of Christ and His gift for our ability to
understand that marriage is meant to be an example of His love for us that we
have the motivation to carry out the acts of service and acts of love every
day. ÒThe delight one takes on anotherÕs love find expression in and is further
cultivated by closer relations with the deity and with other humans.Ó[19]
The greatest commandment is to love God and neighbor, and the more one loves, the more one has the capacity to love.
In his life, Jonathan Edwards had a tri-fold marriage: his soulÕs marriage to God, his
earthly marriage to Sarah, and his ordained marriage to the people of his
parish. All three of these types of marriage shaped and formed each other into a fuller understanding of the
other two. The earthly marriages were possible because EdwardsÕ soul was
married to God. Through his marriage to God, Edwards was capable of fulfilling
his role as spouse to his wife, Sarah, and to his congregation as their earthly
head. The earthly marriages also taught Edwards of his relationship to God,
because God works through human means in order to bring the human to an
understanding of God. The most important marriage in EdwardsÕ life was of course
his marriage to God, but his understanding of that relationship was affected by
his experiences in marriage to Sarah and his church. The purpose of the earthly
marriages of which Edwards was a member were all means by which God allowed
Edwards, Sarah, and their congregation to more fully know Him in this life and
on this earth. After all, the goal of a Puritan marriage—and especially,
one imagines, the goal of Jonathan and Sarah EdwardsÕ marriage—was to
more fully know, love, and submit to God.
Bibliography
Bloch, Ruth H. ÒChanging Concepts of Sexuality and
Romance in Eighteenth-Century America.Ó The
William and Mary Quarterly 60, no. 1 (2003): 13-42. Accessed: October 24,
2015. http://0-www.jstor.org.library.hillsdale.edu/stable/3491494
Cooey, Paula M. ÒEros and Intimacy in Edwards.Ó The
Journal of Religion 69, no. 4 (1989): 484-501. Accessed: October 24, 2015.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1204032
Dodds, Elisabeth D. Marriage to a Difficult Man: The ÒUncommon UnionÓ of Jonathan and Sarah
Edwards. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, n.d.
Edwards,
Jonathan. The churchÕs marriage to her
sons, and to her God: a sermon
preached
at the installment of the Rev. Mr. Samuel Buel as
Pastor of the church
and
congregation at East-Hampton on Long-Island, September 19, 1746. Boston: Kneeland and Green in Queen-Street: 1746. Accessed:
November 27, 2015. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.iii.ii.html.
--. The Nature of True Virtue.
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1960
--. Treatise on Grace.
Accessed: November 27, 2015
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/treatiseongrace.pdf.
Godbeer, Richard. ÒÕLove RapturesÕ: Marital,
Romantic, and Erotic Images of Jesus
Christ
in Puritan New England, 1670-1730. The
New England Quarterly 68, no. 3
(1995):
355-384. Accessed: October 24, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/366160
Mardsen, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. Cambridge: Yale University Press, 2003.
[1] Elisabeth D. Dodds,
Marriage to a Difficult Man: The
ÒUncommon UnionÓ of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press. 201
[2] Ibid, 97-100
[3] Paula M. Cooey,
ÒEros and Intimacy in Edwards.Ó The Journal of Religion 69, no. 4
(1989): 359
[4] Edmund Leites,
ÒThe Duty to Desire: Love, Friendship, and Sexuality in Some Puritan Theories
of Marriage.Ó Journal of Social History
15, no 3 (1982): 387
[5] Jonathan Edwards, The churchÕs marriage to her sons, and to her God: a sermon preached at the installment of
the Rev. Mr. Samuel Buel as Pastor of the church and congregation at East-Hampton on
Long-Island, September 19, 1746. Boston: Kneeland
and Green in Queen-Street: 1746.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Edwards, The ChurchÕs Marriage
[8] Cooey, 497-8
[9] Leites, 391
[10] Richard Godbeer.
ÔLove RapturesÕ: Marital, Romantic, and Erotic Images of Jesus Christ in
Puritan New England, 1670-1730. The New
England Quarterly 68, no. 3 (1995): 358
[11] George Mardsen,
Jonathan Edward: A Life, 247
[12] Edwards, The ChurchÕs Marriage
[13] Ibid.
[14] Dodds 105
[15] Mardsen 209
[16] Edwards, The ChurchÕs Marriage
[17] Jonathan Edwards, Treatise on Grace, ch 2 section 3
subsection 1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/treatiseongrace.pdf, 18
[18] Godbeer, 359
[19] Cooey, 490