Jonathan Edwards on the Marriage Covenant

It would be a mistake to assume that the Puritans were devoid of romance, solely focused on strict discipline and logic. Challenging the negative stereotype of inflexibility, the young Jonathan Edwards mused about his fiancée Sarah, writing in his journal, “How greatly we are inclined to the other sex; nor doth an exalted and fervent love to God hinder this but only refines and purifies it.”^[1]

At twenty-four and she seventeen, it was the perfect moment for the marriage covenant to commence — particularly given the frequent disruptions to families in New England due to mortality. Additionally, the young man was running out of ways to express his affection for his future bride. In his private writings, his musings on the love of Christ for the church echo not only Scripture but also a longing for his beloved Sarah. Waxing poetic, he lined his paper, thus:

How soon do earthly lovers come to an end of their discoveries of each other’s beauty; how soon do they see all that is to be seen! Are they united as near as ‘tis possible, and have communion as intimate as possible? how soon do they come to the most endearing expressions of love that ‘tis possible to give, so that no new ways can be invented, given or received.^[2]

These expressions of longing for the opposite sex might only be matched by a Solomon. Yet, the sweetness of this longing was to Edwards merely a reflection of otherworldly things. We would do well to rediscover such an elevated vision of the marriage covenant for the twenty-first century as was found in America’s most brilliant philosopher-theologian. The renowned orator of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” was also a student of the “vivid images of gospel truths” found in the natural world, such as marriage.^[3]

As a student of virtue-aesthetics, Edwards thought the marriage covenant beautifully illustrates the infinite unseen God, revealing his glory. It showcases the glory of the Trinity through the excellence of the inter-penetration of divine persons, known as perichoresis. God’s excellence transcends what we observe in the world, whose excellence gives every part of creation, including marriage, its own meaning.

In his early years, Edwards envisioned excellence as the harmonious agreement of two similar beings creating a new entity through their union.^[4] The term consent pertains not to the decision of autonomous individuals but to the manner in which one element aesthetically relates to another. For instance, our subconscious naturally gravitates towards harmony and regularity in our surroundings. We are adept at unconsciously adjusting the arrangement of furniture in our minds when we notice a couch that is misaligned, not proportionally positioned relative to the other sofa. There is a sense of delight in observing two pieces of furniture, though not identical, that relate to each other in proportion to the rest of the room’s space. This tendency to pair elements brings joy or happiness.

Edwards finds his sense of excellence rooted in God’s nature as expressed in 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” Love, by its nature, needs an external object to avoid being selfish. Therefore, the Father is the source of love, which is poured out on the Only Begotten Son. The Father and the Son share a mutual loving agreement, forming a union so profound that it is embodied in the Holy Spirit. This divine triunity exemplifies excellence through its unity. And reflecting on God’s excellence brings the highest form of happiness to his creatures.

Edwards acknowledged that there is a delightful joy when a man and woman unite to form a single entity. However, for a marriage to be truly beautiful, it necessitates a willing agreement to harmonize with each other. This consent is both aesthetic and voluntary because humans possess a spirit. Unlike inanimate objects such as a sofa and a couch, anything less than voluntary consent leads to objectification, chaos, and violence.

In a healthy marriage, mutual consenting love weaves a bond of union akin to a third presence, as seen in the Godhead. As hearts unite, this bond between male and female forms a genuine new entity, transcending mere legality. It is a persona that exists between a man and woman. This can be exemplified by the joyful discovery of finishing each other’s sentences or sitting in silence as one brings up a topic the other was just contemplating. This results in a kind of happiness that only spiritual beings can truly appreciate. Edwards wrote of this intimate bond saying,

And how happy is that love, in which there is an eternal progress in all these things; wherein new beauties are continually discovered, and more and more loveliness, and in which we shall forever increase in beauty ourselves; where we shall be made capable of finding out and giving, and shall receive, more and more endearing expressions of love forever: our union will become more close, and communion more intimate.^[5]

Turning now to that unattractive deformity which consists of hatred and malice, Edwards recognized. Edwards realized that fallen humanity can distort the marriage covenant, damaging it completely by reversing love. How? By pursuing one’s own happiness apart from the well-being of the whole.^[6]

While Edwards eloquently expressed the ideal of marriage, he was acutely aware of the practical constraints imposed by humanity’s fallen nature in aligning with God’s will. This understanding might have been influenced by his grandfather’s experience, who sought a divorce after his wife had six children and then abandoned the family for an extended period. In an exceptionally rare case, after a second attempt supported by a “council of ministers,” a Connecticut court approved Edwards’s grandfather’s request for a divorce from Elizabeth Tuthill Edwards.^[7] The marriage covenant could become a burdensome ordeal if one partner is unwilling to return the love of the other. Later, when Jonathan Edwards was asked by the Hampshire Ministerial Association for his thoughts on marital duties, he would write:

[It] is said by experience to have cast off the fundamental duties of marriage towards his wife, may justly be looked upon as having put away his wife. […] If such duties are cast off by an husband, the wife is not only not scandalous for departing, but ‘tis her duty to depart; the great law of self-preservation obliges her to it.”^[8]

Despite Edwards’s status as one of the greatest philosophers in American history, he was profoundly simple in the pulpit — especially during his second and final pastorate at Stockbridge, MA. After his dismissal from Northampton, he relocated his family to the Berkshire frontier among the Mahican. On a cold January weekday lecture, he warmly taught the Mahican about union with Christ from 1 Corinthians 10:17. He described this relationship to Christ as “the union of hearts.” This union, he explained, was much like the “vital union” that occurs in marriage. It is the most solemn kind of union, as hearts become one by “their own free act and deed more solemn than a mere oath.”^[9] This comparison provided a simple way to understand the excellence that is found in a marriage covenant.

Edwards pondered marriage profoundly and devoted himself to loving his wife Sarah in a manner that was truly admirable. After thirty-one years of marriage, eleven children, and two pastorates, they both passed away in 1758. He succumbed to complications from a smallpox inoculation, and she died of dysentery a few months later. However, before Sarah’s passing, she received a heartfelt dictation of her husband’s final words. The doctor attending Edwards conveyed to Sarah, “Tell [my dear wife], that the extraordinary bond that has long existed between us has been of such a nature that I trust is Spiritual and therefore will endure forever: and I hope she will find strength under such a great trial and accept cheerfully the Will of God.”^[10] Edwards viewed his marriage as more than just a union of two individuals; he saw it as a spiritual existence or a third entity.

[1] Jonathan Edwards, “Miscellanies,” no. 189, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (WJE Online, Vol. 13), Ed. Harry S. Stout, 331–332.

[2] Edwards, “Miscellanies,” no. 198, 336–337.

[3] Edwards, “Miscellanies,” no. 119, 284.

[4] “The consent of being to being, or being’s consent to entity. The more consent is, and the more extensive, the greater is the excellency.” Jonathan Edwards, “The Mind,” The Works of Jonathan Edwards (WJE Online, Vol. 6) Ed. Wallace E. Anderson, 336.

[5] Edwards, “Miscellanies,” no. 198, 336–337.

[6] Edwards, “The Mind,” 337–338.

[7] Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 22-23.

[8] Emphasis added. Jonathan Edwards, “On Marital Duties. Fragment.,” Family Writings and Related Documents, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (WJE Online, Vol. 41), Ed. Jonathan Edwards Center.

[9] Jonathan Edwards, “Sermon 977. 1 Cor. 10:17b, Stockbridge Jan 1750/51 Lecture before sacrament,” Sermons, Series II, 1751, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (WJE Online, Vol. 69), Ed. Jonathan Edwards Center.

[10] Jonathan Edwards, “William Shippen, C143. William Shippen to Sarah Pierpont Edwards, March 22, 1758,” Correspondence by, to, and about Edwards and His Family, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (WJE Online Vol. 32), Ed. Jonathan Edwards Center.