There is a lot of things that could go into buying a book. Most of the time, I will see a recommendation of sorts and be compelled to purchase the book. Sometimes, I am given the book by friends, family, or at conferences. And sometimes, I’ll be strolling through a book store and see an intriguing book and have to buy it. That was the case with “Jonathan Edwards and Hell” by Chris Morgan.
Honestly, most of the purchase had to do with the cover art and thinking it was cool looking. After that grabbed my attention, I noticed “Jonathan Edwards” and “Hell” on the cover and thought, “That sounds intriguing.” And the purchase was made. And is the case with most books I bought, it was placed in a large pile of books that had to wait until after Seminary was over.
A couple of weeks ago, I decided I was going to walk to work. Leah needed the car, I needed the exercise and didn’t have my bike at home, and I figured it would be a good chance to do some reading. A light 2 mile walk with a good book is an hour well spent.
Once I was well into the book, I was quickly disappointed as to the actual content of the book. The first three chapters are all about annihilationists and their view points, followed by a chapter on the evangelical response. That makes up Part I of the book. Part II had to do with Edwards. The first chapter of Part II was about annihilationism in the 18th century, followed by a chapter on Edwards response. The closing chapter discusses how to apply Edward’s method to today’s theological climate.
So, in 140 pages of content in a book entitled “Jonathan Edwards on Hell”, there are 16 pages specifically about Jonathan Edwards on the topic of Hell.
That isn’t to say it wasn’t an enjoyable and profitable read, but it seemed misleading to say the least. During my time in seminary I had to read through Robert Peterson’s book “Hell on Trial”, and that covered most of what this book does. The only thing that this book does differently, is just scratch the surface of Edward’s thoughts on the topic.
What Morgan does is explain the views in the words of the proponents of such views, and then offers a critique of the strength of the argument. Morgan offers good insight and has good things to say about how the debate should be discussed. There are good things about linguistic, exegetical, philosophical, and polemic approaches to the argument, but Morgan appeals to the theological approach Edwards takes.
The other approaches offer good input, but both sides are still left at an impass. Here are some helpful notes taken from those sections:
- One insight that I found interesting is the debate over the word ‘aiwvios’. That is the word for ‘eternal’. Some annihilationists would say that there are two senses to the word. One is quantity, meaning everlasting. The other is a qualitative sense, meaning a time to come in contrast to the present time. This view is best propgated by Edward Fudge. Instead of focusing on everlasting punishment, they focus on the eternal result of the punishment. The main weakness, as I understand, would be the same word being used in relation to the eternal life granted to believers.
- The other main point that I liked was how he pointed out that many Annihilationists, including John Stott, find it primarily difficult to believe because of the heinous nature of everlasting torment. They see it as being a doctrine that does not fit with their defintion of God. Edwards had this to say:
“It is an unreasonable and unscriptural notion of the mercy of God that He is merciful in such a sense that He cannot bear that penal justice should be executed. That is to conceive of the mercy of God as a passion to which His nature is so subject that GOd is liable to be moved, affected, and overcome by seeing a creature in misery so that He cannot bear to see justice executed… The Scriptures everywhere represent the mercy of God as free and sovereign, and not that the exercises of it are necessary.”
Edwards saw it as an issue of questioning God’s sovereignty of His creation. God’s sovereignty is absolute, universal, and unlimited.
To the objection that everlasting punishment is not suitable for God, Edwards had this to say:
“Since the infinite hatred of sin is suitable to the divine character, then the expressions of that hatred are also suitable to His character… It is suitable that He should execture infinite punishment on it.”
All in all, it was a profitable read, but reader beware that the title may mislead you into thinking the book is about Jonathan Edwards and Hell.