JONATHAN EDWARDS THEOLOGY OF MARY

 

By James Swan

Tertiumquid@msn.com

May 2005

 

 

-Table of Contents-

Introduction

 

Edwards View of the Roman Catholic Church

 

The Titles of Mary

 

The Genealogical Importance of Mary in the Biblical Record

 

Mary The Prophet

 

Mary and the Church (Part One)

 

Mary and the Church (Part Two)

 

Edwards Use of Islam in His Mariology

 

Conclusion

 

Works Cited

 

Endnotes

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Protestants and Catholics have debated crucial theological points for five hundred years.  One key area of irreconcilable difference pertains to the person and role of Mary in Christian theology. Reverend Donald Flanagan laments, “The history of marian theology since Trent shows all the evidence of a marian apartheid. The Mary of Catholic doctrine and devotion gradually becomes a figure quite foreign to Protestants. Catholicism gives her greater and greater prominence and Protestants, in many Reformation traditions, reply, almost instinctively, by playing down Mary.”[1] John Henry Newman once commented that since the Reformation, Protestantism’s progressively downgrading of Mary simply reflected its downgrading of Christ.[2]   This is indeed a serious charge. Have Protestants neglected Mary? Do these Roman Catholic charges have substance?

 

It is possible to look through the writings of some of the sixteenth century reformers and extract a doctrine of Mary much richer than later Protestant theologians. Particularly with Luther, a fairly sizable amount of quotes concerning Mary can be constructed by looking through his treatises and sermons. Even Calvin makes enough statements about Mary that one could piece together his thought on who she was and her role in Biblical theology. What though of the next centuries? Were the greatest Protestant minds of later centuries downgrading Christ by avoiding Mary?  Did they give her such little notice that they can be charged with making her into a figure quite foreign in their theology? It will be the purpose of this paper to show that one of the greatest theologians of the eighteenth century and of Protestantism in general, Jonathan Edwards, proves Roman Catholic criticism incorrect. Edwards presented a fair and balanced Biblical treatment of Mary, and far from downgrading Christ, his Mariology greatly augmented his Christology. While Edwards did not overly dwell on the person and role of Mary, what he says is balanced, thought provoking, and profoundly Biblical. Roman Catholics would be surprised to see how Edwards understands Mary.

 

 

EDWARDS VIEW OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

It’s important at the commencement of this study to clarify that Jonathan Edwards would not think highly of the Roman Catholic Church. He would go as far as identifying the Roman Church with negative facets of end times prophecy: “the church of Rome is called the dragon, the beast… Now the scribes and Pharisees were the teachers of the nation, and as their clergy, and were the haughtiest, most hypocritical, most covetous, deceitful, and malicious, persecuting sort of men in the whole nation; their enormities that are here and elsewhere, exactly to a wonder corresponding with those of the Romish clergy, and the high church; their temper and behaviour was just as this is.”[3]

 

Thus, Edwards was not an ecumenicist, and would not spend a great deal of time interacting with Roman Catholic Mariology. Rather, Edwards viewed many aspects of Roman Catholicism as “darkness” and “gross delusions”. Edwards says, “Many nations are under popish darkness, and are in such gross delusions that they worship the Virgin Mary, and a great multitude of dead men, whom their church has canonized for saints; some real saints, and others abominably wicked men… they worship the relics of dead saints; such as pieces of their bones, their teeth, their hair, pieces of their garments, and the like. And innumerable other such foolish delusions are they under.”[4]  Hence, Edwards would presuppose certain aspects of Roman Catholic Marian theology as blatantly non-biblical. He will not even consider the possibility of praying to Mary or the saints. In this, Edwards is most biblical, as a cursory analysis of the biblical text will bear out. The few passages that Catholic scholars use to substantiate their prayer and veneration to the saints are inferences not substantiated by the text.

 

By his dismissal of a key Roman Catholic tenant of Mariology, that of Mary as intercessor, Edwards’s view of Mary will take a different course, and that course will be based on his Biblical insights. It will be shown that even though Edwards denies the central Catholic doctrine of saint worship, this does not automatically indicate his Marian theology will be sub-biblical or downgraded.  

 

 

THE TITLES OF MARY

Roman Catholic theology is very interested in “titles” for Mary. Much is made of such designations like, “Mother of God” or “Queen of Heaven.” Edwards steers far away from such titles. He does though refer to Mary as “blessed Virgin,”[5] “Virgin Mary,”[6]  “the mother of Christ,”[7] and “pure virgin.”[8] In these designations though, Edwards shows no hint of either glorifying Mary for her virginity (or perpetual virginity), or her blessedness in being chosen as Christ’s mother. 

 

Rather, in the case of the title, “Virgin Mary” he often uses it simply as designation that highlights Christ’s miraculous conception. When he uses the title “pure virgin” he has in mind the human attribute of chastity. This differs greatly from Catholicism, which uses the title to refer to not only Mary’s perpetual virginity, but her immaculate conception as well. Edwards says, “The mother of Christ was a pure virgin; so are believers represented in Scripture; they are represented as chaste virgins to Christ, they are those that are not defiled with women, for they are virgins, as is said in Revelations.”[9]  Here Edwards brilliantly links together the virgin birth of Christ and His work in the lives of believers. The pure virgin’s chastity becomes a picture of the imputed righteousness of Christ in the lives of his chosen people.

 

Edwards notes that Mary was a wise theologian. She understood the promises of God were certain, and she trusted fully in them. In doing this she acted “reasonably”. She thus had an “immovable foundation of her faith”. This is what makes her “blessed,” that is, her “immovable foundation of faith” in God’s promises.[10] Edwards says,

 

It was impossible that the Messiah should fail of persevering in integrity and holiness, as the first Adam did, because this would have been inconsistent with the promises, which God made to the blessed Virgin, his mother, and to her husband; implying, that he should “save his people from their sins,” that God would “give him the throne of his father David,” that he should “reign over the house of Jacob for ever;” and that “of his kingdom there shall be no end.” These promises were sure, and it was impossible they should fail, and therefore the Virgin Mary, in trusting fully to them, acted reasonably, having an immovable foundation of her faith; as Elizabeth observes, ( ver. 45.) “And blessed is she that believeth; for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.”[11]

 

In Roman Catholicism, Mary is seen as blessed for her choice to be the Mother of God, for her sinless life, for her perpetual virginity, and for her work of intercession and miracles in the lives of people. Edwards though, sees Mary as simply blessed for trusting in God’s promises. While Roman Catholicism would not deny this, they would add to it. They do not deny that faith is a part of salvation, but works must also join it meritoriously for the goal of eventual authentic salvation. Here though Edwards follows in the Protestant tradition of Luther, who saw Mary as an example of justification by faith alone.   In Protestant thought, being justified by faith alone is a profound link to Christ. Therefore, for Mary to be justified by her faith in no way diminishes either her or Christ. She takes on the righteousness of Christ which covers her sins. The value she has is the infinite value of Christ.

 

As Edwards saw Mary to be a wise theologian for trusting in the promises of God, so also Edwards also followed the example of Mary and evaluated advise given to him from other Christians. In 1749 letter, Edwards talked about the infant college he was part of:

 

“I am getting the best advice and assistance I can in the draught of a charter, which I intend to give to our infant college, and I thank you, Sir, for all the kind hints you have given me, for the service of this excellent undertaking: and as St. Luke says of Mary, She kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart; so you may depend, what you have said about the college will not be lost with me; but, as far as God shall enable me, I shall exert and lay out myself in every way to bring it to maturity, and then to advance its future welfare and prosperity; for this I believe will be acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; a relish for true religion and piety, being great strangers to this part of America.”[12]

 

 

THE GENEALOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF MARY IN THE BIBLICAL RECORD

Edwards saw Mary as a key person in the Biblical record. He guards the humanity of Jesus and the integrity of Biblical prophecy when he notes that Mary makes Jesus legally and naturally descended from the kings of Judah, Edwards first notes that on Mary’s side, “[Christ] was both legally and naturally descended from David. He was naturally descended from Nathan the son of David; for Mary his mother was one of the posterity of David by Nathan, as you may see in Luke’s genealogy.”[13] On Joseph’s side Edwards points out that Christ was only legally descended: “Joseph being in the direct line of the kings of Judah, of the house of David, [Christ] was in this respect the legal heir of the crown of David; and Christ being legally his first-born son, he was his heir; and so Christ, by the law, was the proper heir of the crown of David, and is therefore said to sit upon the throne of his father David.”[14] In this way, Edwards see that Mary (and Joseph) safeguarded the Biblical record. Edwards says,

 

“And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” This genealogy proves that the kingdom of Israel was Christ’s by right of inheritance. Christ, though he was not the real son of Joseph, yet was the legal son; with greater reason than, when a man took a wife, and died, and left no seed, his brother’s seed by her were to be looked upon as his, and had the right of inheritance.”[15]

 

Edwards goes on to explain the greatness of Jesus, “Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, those two diverse excellencies are sweetly united”[16] the two diverse excellencies are his perfect human and divine nature. First Edwards praises the divine nature: 

 

“He is a person infinitely exalted in glory and dignity. Phil. ii. 6. “Being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” There is equal honour due to him with the Father. John v. 23.—“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.” God himself says to him, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” Heb. i. 8. And there is the same supreme respect and divine worship paid to him by the angels of heaven, as to God the Father, Heb. i. 6. “Let all the angels of God worship him.”[17]

 

Then Edwards contrasts this with Christ’s human nature. Edwards highlights in almost paradoxical terms what it means for God to be human:

 

But however he is thus above all, yet he is lowest of all in humility. There never was so great an instance of this virtue among either men or angels, as Jesus. None ever was so sensible of the distance between God and him, or had a heart so lowly before God, as the man Christ Jesus. Matt. xi. 29. What a wonderful spirit of humility appeared in him, when he was here upon earth, in all his behaviour! In his contentment in his mean outward condition, contentedly living in the family of Joseph the carpenter, and Mary his mother, for thirty years together, and afterwards choosing outward meanness, poverty, and contempt, rather than earthly greatness; in his washing his disciples’ feet, and in all his speeches and deportment towards them; in his cheerfully sustaining the form of a servant through his whole life, and submitting to such immense humiliation at death.”[18]

 

For Edwards, while Mary fulfilled her genealogical role in the Biblical story, she also provided more than simply his perfect humanity. She and Joseph also safeguarded an actual human life for Jesus, as Edwards says, Jesus “contentedly living in the family of Joseph the carpenter, and Mary his mother, for thirty years together, and afterwards choosing outward meanness, poverty, and contempt, rather than earthly greatness…” The Lord was not raised in a monastery, or a kingly palace. He was not schooled in secret esoteric wisdom like a Taoist monk. Rather, Mary and Joseph were key in establishing a the great humility of Christ. Christ was to be raised in an ordinary life, as part of the great mass of unprivileged common folk.  But, this human nature that Christ received from Mary will one day judge the entire world. Edwards says,

 

“The person by whom God will judge the world, is Jesus Christ, God-man. The second person in the Trinity, that same person of whom we read in our Bibles, who was born of the Virgin Mary, lived in Galilee and Judea, and was at last crucified without the gates of Jerusalem, will come to judge the world both in his divine and human nature, in the same human body that was crucified, and rose again, and ascended up into heaven: Acts i. 11. “This same Jesus that is taken up from you into heaven, shall come in like manner, as ye have seen him go into heaven.” It will be his human nature which will then be seen by the bodily eyes of men. However, his divine nature, which is united to the human, will then also be present: and it will be by the wisdom of that divine nature that Christ will see and judge.”[19]

 

 

MARY THE PROPHET

Jonathan Edwards saw from the Biblical record that shortly after Malachi, the spirit of prophecy ceased. God was no longer giving prophetical utterances to his people. Many Biblical commentators point out that the next prophet to directly hear from God was John the Baptist. Edwards though points out that Mary received a prophecy: “The spirit of prophecy returned though, and Mary was fortunate to receive prophecy.” He says,

 

The return of the Spirit; which indeed began a little before, but yet was given on occasion of his birth. I have before observed how the spirit of prophecy ceased, not long after Malachi. From about the same time visions and immediate revelations ceased also. But on this occasion, they were granted anew, and the Spirit in these operations returns again. The first revealed instance of its restoration is the vision of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, (Luke i.) The next is the vision which the Virgin Mary had, (ibid.) The third is the vision which Joseph had, (Matt. i.) In the next place, the Spirit was given to Elisabeth, (Luke i. 41.) Next, it was given to Mary, as appears by her song, (Luke i. 46, &c.) Then to Zacharias again, ( ibid. ver. 64.) Then it was sent to the shepherds, (Luke ii. 9.) Then it was given to Simeon, (Luke ii. 25.) Then to Anna, ( ver. 36.) Then to the wise men in the east. Then to Joseph again, directing him to flee into Egypt; and after that directing his return.”[20]

 

While Edwards grants that others around Mary were also receiving prophecy, Mary seems to be the most important to him. He points out that “Mary was fortunate to receive divine revelation, in the line of the prophets.” He comments

 

“The next particular I would observe, is the addition made to the canon of the Scriptures soon after the captivity by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, who were prophets sent lo encourage the people in their work of rebuilding the city and temple; and the main argument they use to that end, is the approach of the coming of Christ. Haggai foretold that Christ should be of Zerubbabel’s legal posterity. This seems to be the last and most particular revelation of the descent of Christ, till the angel Gabriel was sent to reveal it to his mother Mary.”[21]

 

 

While the revelations given to Elizabeth and Zachariah were important, the most important was the revelation given to Mary concerning Christ the savior. Since the entire Bible is the story of Christ, Edwards sees Gabriel’s message to Mary as a central. prophecy. Edwards though doesn’t see the prophecy given to Mary as a one-time event. Edwards goes on to point out that Mary’s Magnificat was also a prophecy: ““Next, it [prophecy] was given to Mary, as appears by her song, (Luke i. 46, &c.)”[22]  One doesn’t normally think of Mary as a prophetess, yet Edwards saw crucially that Mary was given  “the last and most particular revelation of the descent of Christ,” as well as one of most beautiful songs in the entirety of Scripture. 

 

 

MARY AND THE CHURCH (PART ONE)

In a passing comment, Edwards notes that Mary was a member of the church while on earth. Speaking of the joy of the incarnation, Edwards points out that those in heaven and those of the church on Earth rejoice at the birth of Christ:

 

“Notice was taken of it by Elisabeth and the Virgin Mary before the birth of Christ; not to say by John the Baptist before he was born, when he leaped in his mother’s womb as it were for joy, at the voice of the salutation of Mary. Elisabeth and Mary most joyfully praise God together, with Christ and his forerunner in their wombs, and the Holy Spirit in their souls. And afterwards what joyful notice is taken of this event by the shepherds, and by those holy persons, Zacharias, and Simeon, and Anna! How do they praise God on the occasion! Thus the inhabitants of heaven, and the church on earth, unite in their joy and praise on this occasion.”[23]

 

But is Edwards simply downgrading Mary to the status of a simple ordinary member of Christ’s universal church? No, Edwards elsewhere describes Mary’s special importance to the church. In a long passage, Edwards describes how Mary can be seen as a “type” of two things:

 

“The Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ, was a type of two things: she was a type of the church, that is often in Scripture represented as Christ’s mother that travails in pain with him, and brings him forth; she brings him forth in the hearts of believers, and especially those that are ministers in the church, who (as the apostle said he did) do travail in birth with souls; and he, being brought forth, appears and lives in their lives. The church is also represented as a chaste, pure virgin, and she is often called his undefiled in the Canticles. She nourishes Christ, or grace, in the hearts of the saints by the ordinances of religion, and those means of grace that are maintained in the church. She affords the sincere milk of the word, by which believers, as new-born babes, are nourished, and do grow.”[24]

 

Here Edwards proclaims that Mary is a “type of the church.” First, as Mary “travails in pain” (in childbirth?) and brings forth Christ, the church brings forth Christ “in the hearts of believers.” Indeed, it can surely be said that the persecuted church brings forth Christ with great pain when it preaches the Gospel to fallen sinners, either regenerate or unregenerate.  Edwards then develops the analogy further. The analogy of Mary being a type of the Church is expanded to see Mary as a type for individual leaders of the church.   Edwards specifically mentions the pain ministers’ feel as they watch over their flock, nourishing them with the Word, praying for their daily lives and eternal destiny.

 

Edwards also sees Mary as a “type” of the entire Old Testament church, while the New Testament church was his spouse. Edwards says,

 

“The Old-Testament church was as Christ’s mother, but the New-Testament church is as his wife, whom he treats with far greater affection and intimacy. He forsook his mother also in this respect, viz. as he made a sacrifice of that flesh and blood, and laid down that mortal life, which he had from his mother, the Virgin Mary; that which is born of the flesh is flesh; though he did not derive flesh from his mother in the sense in which it is spoken of, John iii. 6. viz. corrupt, sinful nature; and therefore, did not forsake his mother for the church, in the same sense wherein the church is advised to forsake her father’s house for Christ’s sake, viz. to forsake sin, and lusts derived from parents, by crucifying the flesh, with the affections and lusts. Yet Christ derived flesh from his mother, viz. the animal nature, and human nature, with that frailty and mortality that is the fruit of sin; this Christ forsook, and yielded to be crucified for the sake of the church.”[25]

 

Edwards argues that Christ “forsook his mother” by his sacrifice of his flesh, and then has to qualify exactly what that means- it being the untainted human nature. Edwards’s main point appears to be genealogical on the one hand. The Old Testament church gave him his perfect human nature and kingly rights. This Christ sacrificed for his church.   On the other hand, Edwards’s typology seems to struggle here to make a perfect analogy. How is it that Christ could treat the Old Testament church with “greater affection and intimacy”? Edwards held strongly to the unity of believers in the two testaments. Both groups of believers had their sins covered fully by the redeeming work of Christ.           

 

Edwards though would not designate Mary the official “type” of the church. Throughout his writings, Edwards often found “types” of the church in the Biblical record. For instance, other women could be seen as a “type.” Mary Magdalene is a type of the church:

 

“The grace of God’s Spirit is not only a precious oil with which Christ anoints the believer by giving it to him, but the believer anoints Christ with it, by exercising it towards him; which seems to be represented by the precious ointment Mary poured on Christ’s head. Herein it seems to me, that Mary is a type of Christ’s church, and of every believing soul. And if so, doubtless the thing in which she typifies the church, has in it something peculiar to the church. There would not be a type ordered on purpose to represent only something that is common to the church and others. Therefore unbelievers pour none of that sweet and precious ointment on Christ.”[26]

 

Mary Magdalene also becomes a “type” of the church in a different way, along with Martha:

 

“Martha and Mary seem to be types of different churches, or rather different parts of the christian church: the one showing their respect to Christ by much external service and ceremony, as Martha was cumbered about much serving; the other that part of the church that is more pure and spiritual in their worship, as Mary sat at his feet, and heard his word. Particularly Martha represents the Jewish christian church in the apostles’ days, made up of Jews and judaizing Christians, who were fond of the ceremonies of the Jewish worship. Mary represents the Gentile church; they were more spiritual in their worship. What is signified in this type is also exemplified in the church of England, that is cumbered about much serving; their worship consisting much in external form and ceremony: and the church of Scotland, and the dissenters in England, are like Mary, who worship Christ according to his own institutions, without the pomp and cumbrance of outward forms. Martha was the elder sister, so the Jewish church was the elder sister with respect to the Gentiles; so the church of England is the elder sister, and has the ascendant over the other, and has the chief government of the house, as the house that Christ was in is called Martha’s house, ver. 38.”[27]

 

 

MARY AND THE CHURCH (PART TWO)

What follows the initial analogy of Mary as a “type” of the church is one of Edwards’s most detailed descriptions of how he thought about Mary. Edwards makes six points by analogy that makes Mary the biblical figure extremely personal to the entire church and the individual believer.

 

First, Edwards presents an analogy showing the similarities between Christ being formed in the womb of Mary and Christ being formed in every believing soul. He says, “As Christ was formed in her, so is he in every true convert; he was formed in her by the Holy Ghost’s coming upon, and the power of the Highest overshadowing her; which is a lively representation of the manner in which the new creature is formed in the saints.”[28]

 

Second, Edwards presents an analogy showing the similarities between the pure virginity of Mary and pure state of believers found in Christ. He says, “The mother of Christ was a pure virgin; so are believers represented in Scripture; they are represented as chaste virgins to Christ, they are those that are not defiled with women, for they are virgins, as is said in Revelations.”[29]

 

Third, Edwards presents an analogy showing the similarities between Christ being given birth by pain and the way believers come to faith in Christ through pain: “The blessed Virgin brought forth Christ with pain; so is Christ commonly brought forth in the hearts of believers with that contrition, and repentance, and sorrow for sin, that self-denial and mortification, that may fitly be compared to the pains of a woman in travail.”[30]

 

Fourth, Edwards presents an analogy showing the similarities between Christ being nourished by Mary’s breast and Christ being nourished by our good works: “As the blessed Virgin nourished her babe with nourishment from her breast, so Christ in the heart is refreshed with the exercises of graces in the saints, and their good works, which are often represented in Scripture as food to Christ in the heart, or the principle of grace there, which is as a new-born child, and causes it to grow; and the exercises and fruits of grace that come from the hearts of the saints, do as it were nourish Christ’s interest in the world, and cause Christ’s mystical body, which is small as in infancy, to be strengthened and increased.”[31]

           

Fifth, Edwards presents an analogy showing the similarities between how Christians should watch over their faith carefully, just like Mary watched over Christ: “The mother of Christ was very careful of Christ when he was an infant, tended him with great care, watched over him lest he should be hurt, and was careful to feed and nourish him, when he was wounded to heal him, to please and gratify him, and by all means to promote his health and growth, as tender mothers are wont to do their little children. So should the believer do with respect to Christ in the heart. The care that a tender mother has of her infant, is a very lively image of the love that a Christian ought to have of grace in the heart. It is a very constant care; the child must be continually looked after; it must be taken care of both day and night. When the mother wakes up in the night she has her child to look after and nourish at her breast, and it sleeps in her bosom, and it must be continually in the mother’s bosom, or arms, there to be upheld and cherished; it needs its food and nourishment much oftener than adult persons; it must be fed both day and night; it must in every thing be gratified and pleased; the mother must bear the burden of it as she goes to and fro.”[32]

 

Sixth, Edwards presents an analogy showing the similarities between the way the flock should be watched over by its leaders, just like Mary watched over Christ: “This is also a lively image of the care that the church, especially the ministers of the gospel, should have of the interests of Christ, committed to their care; 1 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 8, 9. “We might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ; but we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children. So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail; for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.” That when the church is spoken of under the character of a mother, the ministers are especially meant, see Note on Cantic. ii. 11. at the latter end.”[33]

 

In these six arguments Edwards develops a Mariology that emphasizes Christ’s work in the life of both believer and church. Rather than seeing Mary as a personage of great holiness and stature to be worshipped, Edwards shows how Mary’s life and faith in Christ can be practically applied to our lives.  He uses Mary to highlight justification and sanctification in a profoundly Protestant way. When one considers Mary, one is contemplating their very own justification and sanctification. One is considering how they were brought to faith, how the nurture their faith, and how the church is responsible for their faith.

 

 

EDWARDS USE OF ISLAM IN HIS MARIOLOGY

With some similarity to his views on Roman Catholicism, Edwards held Islam to be an example “extreme darkness, blindness, weakness, childishness, folly, and madness of mankind in matters of religion…”[34] This though did not deter Edwards from reviewing aspects of Islamic theology and sifting truth from error. Edwards noted, ““Mahometanism itself may be considered as one thing belonging to the propagation of Christianity, and as a part of that propagation, in as far as it consists in a propagation of a professed belief of those facts. It is so far an instance of the propagation of that which is the foundation of Christianity, that it proves all the rest.”[35] Edwards would quote the Koran to prove the validity of the Biblical role of Mary.

 

Edwards notes that the Koran relates the truth of Mary’s miraculous conception of Christ: “The Alcoran owns Jesus to be a great prophet; “the messenger of God,” (Surat. v. 84.) that he wrought miracles, healing a man blind from his birth, and the leprous, (Surat. v. 119.) also raising the dead; and that Jesus as born of Mary was himself a miracle, (Surat. xxiii. 52.)... This is the foundation of the whole, and proves all the rest. It owns that Jesus was miraculously conceived and born; (Surat. iii. 47. xix. 20, 21.) and without sin.”[36] Edwards highlights Mohammed’s statements on Mary’s virginity: “Mahomet owns Jesus, and ascribes the conception of Christ alone to the power of God, and the inflation of his Spirit. In Surat. xxi. 19. are these words, as the words of God: “And Mary was a chaste virgin, and We inspired her with Our Spirit, and set up her and her son as a miracle to all ages.”[37] Edwards then notes that Mohammed concurred with the Biblical record that Mary received prophecy: “He owned Jesus to be the Messiah foretold in the law and the prophets; Surat. iii. 45. “When the angels said, O Mary, certainly God declares to thee his own word; his name shall be Jesus Christ, the son of Mary:” Surat. xix. 29. Surat. iv. “Certainly Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, is the ambassador of God and his word.”[38]

           

For Edwards, even non-Christian religions spoke of the truth of Mary’s role in salvation. “…[T]he great propagation of the Mahometan religion is a confirmation of revealed religion and so of the christian in particular…[39] Edwards saw that even though Muslims were in a “miserable, blind, helpless state”[40] the truth of Mary’s role in the birth of Christ could not be played down.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 While Edwards did not spend countless treatises exploring Mariology, it can hardly be said that he perpetuated a “Marian apartheid” or that the Mary in his theology became a figure quite foreign to his thinking. True, Catholicism does give Mary greater and greater prominence while Protestants in many Reformation traditions downplay Mary. Since modern-day Roman Catholics embrace Cardinal Newman’s development of doctrine hypothesis, it is theoretically unknown how developed Roman Catholic Mariology will be, or how developed it is supposed to be. But with Edwards, Mary was a biblical personage, and therefore of extreme value.

 

Edwards repeatedly highlights the miraculous conception of Christ, which is Mary’s central role in the Bible. Edwards sees Mary as guarding the humanity of Jesus and the integrity of Biblical prophecy. Mary was key in establishing the great humility of Christ,  providing him an ordinary life, as part of the great mass of unprivileged common folk.  For Edwards, Mary takes on the special role of a Prophet. She receives  crucial key prophecies in the biblical record. She receives the further prophecy of one of the most beautiful songs in the entirety of Scripture. Edwards describes the entire personage of Mary as a “type” of both the New and Old Testament churches, as well as a “type” of the regeneration and sanctification of individual Christians.  And lastly, he further gives prominence to Mary by noting even non-Christian religions realize her crucial role in life of Christ.

 

Does Jonathan Edwards’s treatment of Mary fall under John Henry Newman’s historical /theological condemnation, that since the Reformation, Protestantism’s progressively downgrading of Mary simply reflected its downgrading of Christ? Indeed, that treatment does not. In most instances in which Mary is mentioned in Edwards’s writings, Mary is linked to and utilized for the glory of Christ and his work of redemption.

           

 

 

 

WORKS CITED

Edward Hickman, ed. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. I. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987.

 

Edward Hickman, ed. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. II. Edinburgh: The Banner of  Truth Trust, 1987.

 

Alberic Stacpoole, Mary’s Place in Christian Tradition. Connecticut: Morehouse-Barlow Co., 1982.

 

David F. Wright, Chosen By God: Mary In Evangelical Perspective. London: Marshall-Pickering.

 

 

Endnotes