Undeserved Mercy: Blessings Not Just for the Ones Who Kneel

“The more you know the less you feel
Some pray for others steal
Blessings are not just for the ones who kneel . . . luckily.”¹

In his outstanding hook What’s So Amazing about Grace?, Philip Yancey describes his spiritual pilgrimage and his resultant struggle to understand and accept grace. He writes: “Grace makes its appearance in so many forms that I have trouble defining it. I am ready, though, to attempt something like a definition of grace in relation to God. Grace means there is nothing we can do to make God love us more—no amount of spiritual calisthenics and renunciations, no amount of knowledge gained from seminaries and divinity schools, no amount of crusading on behalf of righteous causes. And grace means there is nothing we can do to make God love us less—no amount of racism or pride or pornography or adultery or even murder. Grace means that God already loves us as much as an infinite God can possibly love.”² Later, Yancey concludes: “Grace is Christianity’s best gift to the world, a spiritual nova in our midst exerting a force stronger than vengeance, stronger than racism, stronger than hate. Sadly, to a world desperate for this grace the church sometimes presents one more form of ungrace. Too often we more resemble the grim folks who gather to eat boiled bread than those who have just partaken of Babette’s feast.”³

Although it is possible to quibble over Yancey’s definition of grace, his emphasis on unmerited favor seems accurate and his claim that grace is Christianity’s best gift to the world seems beyond controversy.⁴ As evangelicals, we affirm that salvation is by grace through faith; that the blessings of God to sinful creatures are always unmerited. Yet many of us who have spent significant time in the evangelical community wonder whether we have experienced much grace. Often, the church is little more gracious in its treatment of others than those outside the community of faith, and sometimes even less so.⁵ Many of us can identify with Yancey’s testimony: “As I look back on my own pilgrimage, marked by wanderings, detours, and dead ends, I see now that what pulled me along was my search for grace. I rejected the church for a time because I found so little grace there. I returned because I found grace nowhere else.”⁶ I wonder, however, if there are not more than a few who have rejected the church largely because they have found what looks and feels like grace outside of her, even if this has been counterfeit rather than genuine grace.⁷

Few contemporary theologians have been more intoxicated by the transformative power of grace than Bono, the lead singer of the phenomenally successful Irish rock band U2.⁸ It would be hard to find a more concise definition of grace than in the final lyrics of the song “City of Blinding Lights,” “The more you know the less you feel/Some pray for others steal/Blessings are not just for the ones who kneel. . . luckily.”⁹ In short, Bono says, God often extends his blessings, by grace, to those who remain in rebellion against him. Luckily.

Although a paper on grace in U2’s lyrics would not be inappropriate, this paper has a different focus. It is devoted to an examination of a sermon by Jonathan Edwards in the mid-eighteenth century.¹⁰ In this sermon, entitled “Undeserved Mercy,” Edwards explains that, when God withholds judgment from sinners, even (or perhaps particularly) Christians who sin, it is due to nothing other than God’s “undeserved and wonderful mercy.” In short, God sometimes extends grace even to those who deserve his judgment, even to those who refuse to kneel, to submit to him. Although separated by several centuries and significant cultural and theological differences, Jonathan Edwards and Bono are united in their appreciation for the amazing grace of God.¹¹

“Undeserved Mercy”

Historical Setting

On 13 March 1737, the front gallery of the Northampton church collapsed during the pastor’s sermon. Miraculously, no one was seriously injured in the accident. Here is Edwards’s description of the incident, from a letter to Benjamin Colman, dated 19 March 1737:

We in this town were, the last Lord’s Day (March 13th), the spectators, and many of us the subjects, of one of the most amazing instances of divine preservation, that perhaps was ever known in the land. Our meeting house is old and decayed, so that we have been for some time building a new one, which is yet unfinished. … In the midst of the public exercise in the forenoon, soon after the beginning of the sermon, the whole gallery—full of people, with all the seats and timbers, suddenly and without warning—sunk, and fell down, with the most amazing noise, upon the heads of those that sat under, to the astonishment of the congregation. The house was filled with dolorous shrieking and crying; and nothing was expected than to find many people dead, or dashed to pieces.

The gallery, in falling, seemed to break and sink first in the middle; so that those that were upon it were thrown together in heaps before the front door. But the whole was so sudden, that many of those who fell knew nothing what it was, at the time, that had befallen them. Others in the congregation thought it had been an amazing clap of thunder. The gallery seemed to be broken all to pieces before it got down; so that some who fell with it, as well as those that were under, were buried in the ruins; and were found pressed under the heavy loads of timber, and could do nothing to help themselves.

But so mysteriously and wonderfully did it come to pass, that every life was preserved: and though many were greatly bruised, and their flesh torn, there is not, as I can understand, one bone broken, or as much as put out of joint, among them all. Some, who were thought to be almost dead at first, are greatly recovered; and but one young woman seems yet to remain in dangerous circumstances, by an inward hurt in her breast: but of late there appears more hope of her recovery.

None can give an account, or conceive, by what means people’s lives and limbs should be thus preserved, when so great a multitude were thus eminently exposed. It looked as though it was impossible but that great numbers must instantly be crushed to death or dashed in pieces. It seems unreasonable to ascribe it to any thing else but the care of providence, in disposing the motions of every piece of timber, and the precise place of safety where every one should sit and fall, when none were in any capacity to care for their own preservation. The preservation seems to be most wonderful with respect to the women and children in the middle alley, under the gallery, where it came down first and with greatest force, and where there was nothing to break the force of the falling weight.

Such an event may be a sufficient argument of a divine providence over the lives of men. We thought ourselves called on to set apart a day to be spent in the solemn worship of God, to humble ourselves under such a rebuke of God upon us, in the time of public service in his house, by so dangerous and surprising an accident; and to praise his name for so wonderful, and as it were miraculous, a preservation. The last Wednesday was kept by us to that end; and a mercy, in which the hand of God is so remarkably evident, may be well worthy to affect the hearts of all who hear it.¹²

As Edwards mentions, on Wednesday, 16 March, three days after the accident, the congregation met for a day of prayer.¹³ In the context of this miraculous preservation of life, the pastor instructed his Northampton congregation on the nature of grace and their responsibility to the God who had treated them in such a surprisingly merciful manner.¹⁴

Text of the Sermon

The text for this sermon is taken from Ezek. 20:21—22: “Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; they polluted my Sabbaths: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish mine anger against them in the wilderness. Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for my name’s sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth.”¹⁵

Edwards begins this sermon according to his standard style, setting this biblical text within its context in the book of Ezekiel. He observes that in the early part of this chapter, “The elders of Israel came to the prophet Ezekiel to inquire of the Lord, as though they had a desire to know what the will of God was.”¹⁶ But God recognized their hypocrisy, saw that their interest in his will was feigned, a pretense. “Though they set before the Prophet, as if it was to hear God’s word and to know his will, yet they did but dissemble in it; for they took no care to do what they did know, and what they had often heard already. And therefore God gave ’em an awful rebuke, as they set before Ezekiel. He told them he would not be inquired of by ’em, and bids the Prophet to judge them, and make them to know of their unworthiness to be allowed to come before God, to inquire of him or hear his word.”¹⁷

In the message delivered by the prophet Ezekiel, God reminds the people of his work of redemption and revelation on their behalf and how they had consistently “grieved and provoked him by their evil ways.”¹⁸ This people were not ignorant of the God they treated so contemptuously. Rather, they had been the recipients of incredible blessings and thus their culpability for their sin was even greater.

From this brief summary of the text of Ezekiel 20, Edwards makes several observations. First, although God rebukes the people for their sins, “a particular sin is mentioned, viz. that they polluted God’s Sabbaths.”¹⁹ Throughout the sermon, Edwards calls attention to this sin against the Sabbath. In his view, that the accident in Northampton occurred on the Sabbath was no mere coincidence.²⁰

Second, Edwards calls attention to the conjunction that introduces the text: “Notwithstanding, the children rebelled against me.”²¹ God seems to be incensed particularly because Israel’s rebellion followed his gracious care, protection, and deliverance of this people. His relationship with them makes their rebellion even more offensive.

Third, God is not simply angry with his people, but his fury and his hand are described as already stretched out against them. Edwards observes, “The fury of God signifies a great and dreadful degree of wrath.”²²

Fourth, Edwards calls attention to the mercy of God when he explains, “We may observe what wonderful mercy was mixed with, or rather took place of, this manifestation of God’s displeasure. He withdrew his hand, and spared, and delivered ’em. He did not destroy them, as he appeared to be about to do, but wrought for them for their preservation and deliverance. While God appeared in awful displeasure, just ready in a most awful manner to destroy ’em, mercy stepped in. Mercy drew back that hand of judgment that God’s anger had stretched out, and so spared his people.”²³ This type of merciful act of God, Edwards notes, is seen often in this chapter of Ezekiel.

Fifth, God’s mercy toward this people, Edwards explains, is not due to any worth in them but “to glorify his own free and sovereign grace.” He continues, “It could not be for anything else; for God had before declared how far they were from being worthy.”²⁴ Thus, God’s mercy was unmerited; it was due only to his grace. It seems important to note here that Edwards emphasizes not simply that God’s work was designed to bring him glory, but that it was to glorify his free and sovereign grace.

Sixth, in the text of Ezekiel, God addresses the Israelites as children. From this, Edwards draws two implications. God’s anger was heightened because these were his children; “it was much more aggravated than if slaves had rebelled.”²⁵ Further, God’s mercy was kindled because these were children; “his pity and affection towards ’em (to speak of God after the manner of men), wrought the bowels of a father; and he drew back his hand again, and did not do as he seemed to do: as a tender father, when about in anger to chastise a child, will in the midst of it sometimes feel the bowels of tenderness and pity working towards his child that may make him stay his hand.”²⁶ The point seems clear: God’s anger toward them was particularly aroused because these were his children, those upon whom he had showered much grace previously. But, perhaps more importantly, his mercy was also particularly aroused because these were his children.

The Doctrine of the Sermon

From this text, and following this brief exposition of the context of the scripture and its historical context in the story of the nation of Israel, Edwards develops the doctrine: “When God’s professing people behave themselves unanswerably to great things that God has done for ’em, God sometimes appears ready in [an] awful manner to destroy them, and yet in undeserved and wonderful mercy withdraws his hand and spares them.”²⁷ In short, when God deals mercifully with his people, when he withholds the judgment or punishment they deserve, it is due to nothing but his mercy, and that mercy is totally undeserved. The only explanation for God’s merciful treatment of his erring people is his grace.

Consideration of the Doctrine

In support of this doctrine, Edwards provides a series of propositions. These propositions defend, clarify, explain, and illustrate the doctrine.

In the first proposition, Edwards explains that “God sometimes does great things for a professing people.”²⁸ These blessings are of both a material and spiritual nature. In Edwards’s view, the spiritual blessings are greater than the temporal or material ones. These are “the greatest things that ever God does for any people, and the greatest things that can be done for a people; more than all temporal mercies, more than if he made the rocks to pour out to ’em rivers of oil, or showered down a plentiful shower of silver and gold and pearls upon them. That deliverance that is granted in the carrying on of such a work from the bondage of sin, and Satan, and from eternal death, is more than all temporal deliverance. That deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt was a type of this.”²⁹ Thus, although the deliverance of God’s people from slavery in the Exodus was a great demonstration of God’s mercy, it is more significant as a type of the spiritual deliverance of sinners from bondage to sin and Satan.

In the second proposition Edwards argues that God’s blessing should produce an appropriate and corresponding behavioral response in his people. Sadly, however,

Sometimes the behavior of a people so blessed, is in many respects very unanswerable to the great things God has done for ’em. Their love and obedience don’t only fail of being in proportion to the greatness of the mercies they have received; for such mercies are so great that nothing in us can be proportionable to them; nor is this expected, at least not of fallen creatures. But what is found in them, in their carriage and behavior, is not answerable or suitable in any wise as to the quality of it, as well as not proportionable in degree. They don’t behave themselves, as might justly be expected of God and man. There is not such a behavior as manifests a suitable sense of the great things God has done for ’em; but on the contrary, a great insensibleness. There is a manifestation of much of the unthankful spirit: their carriage in many respects tends to the dishonor of God, that has done such great things for ’em in the eye of other people that behold ’em, and in whose sight God has put honor upon them, by what he has done for ’em.³⁰

This leads to the third proposition: “When it is thus, this is very displeasing to God.”³¹ When God is gracious towards people, when their circumstances are such that they receive God’s unmerited favor, when he pours out blessings which are undeserved, those recipients of such grace should respond appropriately. When they do not, God is very displeased. In fact, their behavior is “more displeasing to God than the like behavior in another people that han’t received such mercy.”³²

God’s displeasure at being treated so disrespectfully, Edwards says, often results in his threatening action toward those rebellious people. “God therefore sometimes manifests his displeasure toward such a people by appearing ready to destroy them.”³³ Edwards notes that the greatness of God’s displeasure is manifested in two ways: first,

in the dreadfulness of the calamity that he seems to be going to bring upon [them]. He seems to be about to cut them off, or at least many of them: to cut ’em off from the enjoyment of means of grace, as worthy to enjoyment no longer: to cut ’em down out of his vineyard, as cumberers of his ground: to cut ’em off from his house, as being not worthy to be in his house any longer, to cut ’em off out of the land of the living, as unworthy to live upon the earth: to take away at once all those great privileges that he has bestowed on ’em in this world.³⁴

Edwards concludes: “The greatness of God’s displeasure appears in the severity of the blow that he seems to be about to strike, and in the dreadfulness of the rod that he lifts up, and seems to be going to strike with.”³⁵

But, more than that, the greatness of God’s displeasure is seen “in his appearing as if he were about to do this suddenly and immediately.”³⁶ When God’s people, who have been recipients of his grace and mercy, treat him with disdain and act rebelliously, God’s wrath is incited and the degree of his anger is seen in the severity of the promised judgment and the suddenness of its appearance.

Yet, even though his wrath has been righteously kindled and his disobedient and rebellious children deserve his judgment, God sometimes withholds from them this threatened punishment. Sometimes, even though they have not appreciated the grace he has given them and thus deserve his anger and judgment, God instead extends even more grace. Edwards describes this in his fifth proposition.

God notwithstanding as it were withdraws his hand, and spares and delivers them. Though he be greatly displeased, and though he manifests his displeasure, as though he were just going awfully to accomplish his anger, and even actually stretches out his hand; yet he draws it back again, and don’t strike that stroke that he seemed about to strike. He mercifully spares the lives of his people. Thus God often doth in such a case, as it has been mentioned. God does as it were repent of the evil that he was about to do. His pity and mercy prevails, and takes place of his wrath and displeasure. This is one character ascribed to God, that he is a God that repenteth of the evil.³⁷

Of course, Edwards points out, it is “not that God really changes his mind, or properly repents. But there is such a manifestation of mercy in God’s works, as there is [in] men of tender affections when about terribly to punish, but in the midst of it are overcome by bowels of pity. God manifests himself to men after the manner of men. And it livelily sets forth the mercy of God to his people, to compare it to that tender love that makes a father’s heart relent, when he has lifted up his hand severely to strike a child.”³⁸ The word pictures he paints are worthy of quotation in full.

God does sometimes as it were actually come forth in a whirlwind of wrath, as if to destroy a professing people. He actually raises the storm; but in the midst of it, while it is blowing, he mercifully abates the roughness of it, and stays it from those fatal effects that God seemed to be about to bring by it. . . . God does as it were turn aside his own sword that is lifted over the heads of his people. As it comes down, Mercy turns it aside; so that it does as it were go beside them, and they are saved. Justice’s displeasure throws a dart that is leveled at the heart; but Mercy interposes as a shield between, and causes it to glance aside, and the precious life is preserved.³⁹

That God withholds judgment and destruction from his people is due to nothing other than God’s mercy. Edwards puts it this way:

When God doth thus withdraw his hand and spare his people, ’tis the effect of his undeserved and wonderful mercy. ‘Tis because he is full of compassion, that he thus turns aside his anger. … It can’t be anything else, as the circumstances of its bestowment do make especially manifest. It can’t be because of their worthiness; for ’tis their unworthiness that is the thing that God is provoked by, thus to appear ready to destroy them. It can’t be because they ben’t so unworthy as others; for ’tis the exceeding aggravation of their unworthiness, in that ’tis in his children, and those that he has done such great things for, that is the thing that especially displeases and grieves him. It can’t be because God don’t take notice how unworthy they be, and is not much offended at it; because he is then, at that very moment, taking notice of their unworthiness, and manifesting his great displeasure, even so that at that time he appears ready to accomplish his anger against them.⁴⁰

Thus, Edwards concludes, “There is nothing left whence it should be that God should withdraw his hand, but only sovereign and infinite mercy.”⁴¹

In support of this claim, Edwards provides two arguments based upon the exercise of divine grace. First, he explains that God’s mercy is exceeding great. Second, the exercise of God’s mercy is not for their sake but for Christ’s. As an illustration of God’s great mercy, Edwards compares God to a human father. “As a loving father is very loth to come to correct his child with severity, and so sometimes, when he is going about it, repents in the midst of it, his bowels yearn over his child. And though he lifted up his hand, as with an intention to strike a severe blow, yet his affections do as it were hold it back, or so abates the force of the blow, that the child is but lightly hurt. This seems intimated in the text, in God’s covenant people being called his children.”⁴²

Second, in support of the claim that God’s mercy is exercised for Christ’s sake, Edwards explains that Christ “is that name of the Lord that is a strong tower, where God’s people are safe. Even at the time when God seems to be about to pour out his wrath, this tower shelters ’em from his wrath. So that though it may in some sense be said that mercy overcomes justice, and rejoices against judgment; yet in Christ Jesus justice rather willingly yields to mercy. Justice withdraws its hands, and goes away satisfied, without the blood of God’s offending people; because ’tis satisfied in the blood of their surety.”⁴³

Edwards explains how this inter—Trinitarian relationship functions. “So that indeed into this is this wonderful dealing of God towards his people to be resolved, that when he seems to be about to cut them off, he yet stays his hand. It is because Christ interposes, as Moses, the type of Christ, did of old.”⁴⁴ He uses two metaphors to explain this relationship between the Father and the Son. First, he compares the deliverance brought by Christ to a shield: “Christ is the shield that comes between the breasts of God’s people and the sword of God’s wrath, that turns it aside, that it don’t give their hearts the justice levelled [sic] at them.”⁴⁵ Second, Edwards compares Christ’s work of deliverance to a strong hand that restrains the judgment of God: “When God lifts up his hand to strike a professing people, Christ many a time as it were steps in, and holds back the hand of justice; so that there is no blow, or if there be, ’tis but a light one; so that they are corrected in measure, and are not delivered over unto death.”⁴⁶

Finally, Edwards emphasizes the substitutionary nature of Christ’s work of deliverance: “When God stretches forth his hand to cut them off, then oftentimes Christ as it were at that instant presents his blood to God’s view; and that is always prevalent. God’s wrath does as it were upon this at once fall, and he withdraws his hand. He beholds the face of his anointed, and turns away his hand from beholding their transgressions.⁴⁷

Application or Improvement

Having completed the exposition of the doctrine, Edwards now “proceed^] to apply the doctrine that has been considered to this town, with relation to that extraordinary providential event that we have lately been the spectators of, the last sabbath.”⁴⁸ In this sermon, divided into two preaching units, the application is approximately 40 percent longer than the exposition of the text and doctrine. Although this ratio is not unusual in an Edwards’s sermon, the amount of time and space devoted to application here clearly indicates how important the pastor considered the congregation’s appropriate response to God’s grace in their midst to be.⁴⁹

The beginning of the application entails a reminder of God’s “surprising and wonderful” mercy. “When we consider the evident and remarkable hand of God in the disposal of the accident, we have reason to stand astonished still, and to wonder all the days of our lives. And indeed the more we consider, the more shall we see cause to stand and wonder. What is said in the text of God’s people Israel, and his dealings with them, seems very applicable to the present case; and we have been remarkably the subjects of what is expressed in the doctrine.”⁵⁰

Over several paragraphs, Edwards rehearses God’s material and spiritual blessing of the people of Northampton, including the “remarkable a pouring out [of] his Spirit” in the recent revivals.⁵¹ Edwards, then, introduces the improvement which follows. “So that we have two things to consider and improve in this providence, viz. the rebuke and manifestation of divine displeasure in it, and the wonderful and surprising mercy of our preservation. And therefore I would consider and improve ’em, first, distinctly and, secondly, jointly; and that, first, to all of us in general and, second, particularly to those that have been the more immediate subjects of this providence.”⁵²

First, Edwards asks his audience to “consider and improve the awful rebuke of God upon us and manifestation of his displeasure in this providence. Threatenings are a manifestation of divine displeasure as well as executions.”⁵³ According to Edwards, the accident was a threat of divine judgment which they should take very seriously. That God would send such a warning of his anger toward this congregation should lead to a time of personal and communal introspection. Since God has threatened this congregation with judgment, Edwards encourages them to consider “wherein we have carried ourselves unsuitably to the great things God has done for us.”⁵⁴ An enumerated list follows. First, “let us consider in the general how greatly we are backslidden; what a great alteration is there for the worse, from what there was here the year before last; how dull {we are now}; in how great a degree we have forsaken God and Christ {from what we were}.”⁵⁵ Second, “Let this rebuke of God upon us lead us to reflect on that worldly spirit that has of late prevailed upon us. Have we not shamefully departed from God and Christ, that our hearts seemed to be so engaged after, and gone after, the world?”⁵⁶ Third, “Has there not been manifest, from time to time, too much of a heat of spirit, and a disposition to contention, in our public affairs?”⁵⁷ Fourth, “Let it be inquired what frame did this surprising providence {of God} find us in. Was there not consideration of this spirit of strife, spirits of many greatly edged, {many} reflectings {on one another}; yes, something of ridiculing in a paper set up. Who the person was that did it, I know not. I hope he is not ashamed of it.”⁵⁸ Fifth, “Let it be inquired how we have improved our sabbaths. From time to time God has given us surprising and amazing rebuke on a sabbath; {the death of} Mr. Hawley {by his own hand}; and a little while ago one {failed attempt by another}; and now in the midst of public exercise {the falling of the gallery}. Certainly we are called upon to inquire how we keep sabbaths. Don’t God see something amongst us on sabbath days that is very unbecoming?”⁵⁹ Sixth, “Let it {be} particularly inquired how we have of late attended on God’s public worship. This we are abundantly called to by such a rebuke in the time of worship.”⁶⁰

Such a strong warning of God’s anger toward his people must be taken seriously, according to Edwards. Since God’s providence is comprehensive, this incident was no accident. Rather, it was a providential warning from an angry God. Since God is just, there must be a cause of God’s wrath, and repentance is the only legitimate response, lest God’s anger be increased.⁶¹

This first specific application is then directed specifically to two groups of hearers. To the unconverted—”those of you that are in a natural condition”—Edwards says that they should recognize the deliverance as a gift of divine grace.

It is a wonder that you that fell then, when you dropped with the gallery that fell, that you did not drop into hell. ‘Tis a wonder that you stopped before you got to hell. And if you were under [it], ’tis a greater wonder that you was not struck into hell by that blow. A wonder of divine preservation it was, that it was not so. This providence, one would think, should be sufficient to wake you up. If you are asleep still, ’tis to be feared you never will wake, till you wake in hell. How awful would that have been, to have been taken directly out of the house of God, and from hearing a sermon, and sent in a moment to hell.⁶²

To those who “hope yourself to be converted,” Edwards warns, “consider your ways. Han’t you backslidden, shamefully carried yourself unsuitably {and} proudly in a senseless, careless, negligent frame; {carried yourself in a} carnal frame, minding vanity; thoughts taken up about trifles {of the world}; lost your first love {of God}; swallowed up with other things? If God was doubtless greatly displeased and offended. No wonder he lifted up his hand thus against you.”⁶³ Particularly offensive in the eyes of God, or at least in the eyes of the pastor, has been their practice in the meetinghouse. Edwards concludes, “Particularly inquire in what manner you have lately attended to the public worship. How have you heard sermons, {your} eyes wander, {your} thoughts in the ends of the earth? How was it with you then at that time?”⁶⁴

The second specific application focuses on the mercy of God. “Let us improve the great mercy of God to us in so wonderful a preservation, to praise and thankfulness of so many that were so exposed by this accident. There are other things that pertain to this providence that are remarkable, but this is the most remarkable thing belonging to it by far, the wonderful preservation.”⁶⁵ In this extended section, Edwards calls for the praise and worship of God for his merciful character. It is a marvelous example of doctrinal preaching, of the use of rich theological themes to lead a congregation in a practical, worshipful response to their God. Here is a representative section:

What wonderful mercy is here! What an affecting, endearing tenderness of God towards [us], a lothness as it were to hurt us, or to see us hurt. How gracious was the watchful, omniscient eye of God, even when his hand was lifted up. How [he] has dealt with us, though so unworthy, as a parcel of little dear children. He took care that no life should be lost. Mercy stepped in at that time, and had its effects in all parts of the falling gallery, and the space under it. God took care of them that fell as it were to ease ’em down, lest they should fall too hard. And he took care of all that were beneath, to turn the heavy timbers aside in all those places where they came with peculiar force, that they might no dash them in pieces. He was tender, and took care, lest they should have too hard a blow.

How sottish indeed shall we be, if we ben’t affected with thankfulness at such a mercy. And you in particular, that have been the immediate subjects of such a remarkable and almost miraculous preservation, what cause have you of praise. Is there one heart among you all that is not affected with such an instance of the kindness and mercy of God to you? If there be, ’tis to be feared God will set a mark upon that person. Do you consider who it is has preserved [you]; or are you so stupid, as to attribute all that to blind chance? If you han’t a heart of flint, yea, of adamant, certainly such mercy, such tenderness will melt it. O, take heed that you give God the glory he expects.⁶⁶

Finally, Edwards connects “the rebuke and mercy” of God and concludes the sermon with an exhortation to “hearken to and obey the call of God in it.”⁶⁷ This act of God’s deliverance issues

a loud call. It is to us to reform all our evil ways, and to walk more becoming the great things God has done for us. The manifestation of God’s displeasure in bringing such an accident, and his marvelous mercy in preserving us in [it], do both aloud call to this. There scarcely could have been a providence so circumstanced, as to contain greater incitements to this; much greater than if we had had judgment without mercy. For now God has manifested his awful displeasure at our sins, to deter us from them; and yet in such a way, as yet to spare and show great mercy to us. He has awfully warned us, and endearingly drawn us, both at the same time. It also contains greater incitements to this than if there had been only mercy, without such an awful manifestation {of his displeasure}. For now God has at the same time that he has shown us such great mercy, awfully put us in mind of our own unworthiness of any mercy; our unworthiness to be in his house; {our unworthiness} to come to the throne of grace; {our unworthiness} to be on the earth. If we still continue to walk as unsuitably as we have done, we shall show ourselves as both exceeding daring and monstrously base and ungrateful at the same time.⁶⁸

Edwards reminds his audience again that greater privilege brings greater responsibility.

If we think to escape divine judgments as much as other people, with living no better than other people, we are much mistaken. No such thing is to be expected. We are a city set on a hill, and the honor of religion, and the honor of God, doth greatly depend on our behaviour. But if we won’t take care of God’s honor, God will take care himself by executing vengeance on us, that his name may not be polluted amongst those in whose sight he brought them forth.

Our obligations were exceeding great before by reason of the great things God has done for us, but now ’tis greater; for God has done another great thing for us. And if we go on to behave unsuitably, our provocation will be far greater than ever, and God won’t always deliver [us]; but we must expect that the next time, when God’s hand is lifted up, that it will come down upon us with its full might.⁶⁹

Edwards then returns to the call to treat the Sabbath appropriately.

Here is a loud call to us better to improve our sabbaths and sermons, and to prepare for death. God but a little while ago, by suddenly taking away one by death between meetings, that was here well in the forenoon in the house of God hearing his word, put in mind how uncertain we are, when we are at meeting, whether ever we shall be allowed to set foot {in another}; when we are hearing a sermon, whether ever {we shall} hear another. But now he has shown that we are hearing a sermon that is begun, how uncertain that we shall live to hear that sermon out; {how} but that we shall [be] sent immediately out of God’s house into eternity.⁷⁰

The sermon concludes with an evangelistic invitation: “If you have never given yourself to God, now do it. If you have, do it now renewedly, and with greater ardor of soul than ever; otherwise you surely won’t behave answerable to what God has done for you, and will show yourself ungrateful. And if you now won’t give yourself to God, how can you expect that for the time to come he shall [take] care of you as his; but leave you to yourself, to preserve your own life, and preserve yourself from destroying calamities, as well as you can.”⁷¹

Conclusion

In Edwards’s theology, God’s providence is revelatory. That the gallery fell was not an accident but an act of God, an act which needed to be interpreted. His interpretation is clear: God is angry. This incident is a wake up call for the congregation. A time of introspection and self-evaluation is called for. God’s anger is just; the people deserve his wrath.

But God has been merciful to them. For this unmerited favor, God deserves praise. If the congregation does not respond appropriately, Edwards has no doubt that God’s anger will only increase. And the next time he threatens judgment, he likely will not be as merciful. The next time, grace might not intervene; the people would then get what they deserve.

Could there be any dispute that Bono’s testimony is that of all of us? “I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep [dung]. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins unto the Gross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity. . . . The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death.”⁷² Were we to reap what we sow, were we to get what we deserve, were God to treat us according to justice we would all be in big trouble. What we deserve from God is eternal punishment.
God is just and he would be perfectly justified to enforce the penalty and consequences of our sin upon us. We live at all times under the penalty of death. It appears that at times he allows us to see how he has treated us graciously, in order to remind us of the contrast between what we deserve and what he grants us by grace. Edwards’s evaluation of the miraculous deliverance of the Northampton congregation seems accurate. Could there be any other explanation for those events than that God had been gracious to them? And there could be nothing in the people that earned such treatment for they had earned judgment. Instead, there could be no explanation other than the unmerited mercy of a gracious God. Further, Edwards’s applications seem appropriate. The only legitimate response to such deliverance is worship and obedience. Or, as Bono puts it, “The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled. . . . It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of Heaven.”⁷³ How could those who have been recipients of divine grace ever be proud or arrogant? Could there be anything more contradictory than an arrogant Christian, a proud evangelical?

May the words of this eighteenth-century pastor and of a twenty-first-century musician remind all of us of the incredible gift of God’s grace which we have received and continue to enjoy only because of his undeserved mercy. May God grant that we who receive that transformative grace might be ever renewed more and more into faithful and obedient servants of him. And may God deign to use us as agents of such grace in the midst of a corrupt and perverse generation. After all, grace really is a “thought that changed the world.”⁷⁴ And it continues to do so.

1. U2, “City of Blinding Lights,” the fifth song on How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Island, 2004); lyrics accessed at http://www.u2boy.nl/u2/u2_lyrics.php?id =allt05_u2_city_of_blinding_lights_lyrics, 20 September 2005. ↩︎
2. Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 62. ↩︎
3. Ibid., 27-28. The Academy Award winning film Babette’s Feast is an excellent visual portrayal of grace. It is worthy of repeated viewings in order to grasp the profundity and impact of the story. This film won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film in 1988 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092603/awards, accessed 8 August 2006). ↩︎
4. One might criticize Yancey, for example, for his emphasis on love alone in his definition of grace. Grace is not disconnected from other divine attributes, including justice and wrath. On the other hand, it does seem right to connect grace and love, so I do not think such criticism is necessary. ↩︎
5. This admission is not intended to “bash the church.” It is rather an honest confession based upon personal experience and a pattern of anecdotal evidence collected over the years. In the interest of full disclosure, it is likely that those who have interacted with me in the context of the church would have a similar testimony. That is, although grace is central to our theological position, few of us are very gracious in our treatment of one another. ↩︎
6. Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace?, 15. ↩︎
7. See a comparison of the church and the neighborhood bar as dispensers of grace in Charles R. Swindoll, Growing Strong in the Seasons of Life (Portland: Multnomah, 1983), 254-55. ↩︎
8. According to Steve Stockman, Walk On: The Spiritual Journey of U2 (Lake Mary, FL: Relevant, 2001), 173, Yancey’s book has been influential in Bono’s own theological pilgrimage. In fact, he has given copies of the book to others to read, including Noel Gallagher of Oasis. For the most explicit expression of his Christian faith, particularly his view of grace, see Michka Assayas, Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas (New York: Riverhead, 2005). ↩︎
9. U2, “City of Blinding Lights,” How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb; lyrics accessed at http://www.u2boy.nl/u2/u2_lyrics.php?id=allt05_u2_city_of_blinding_lights _lyrics, 20 September 2005. On the “Vertigo” tour, this song began the concert and was followed by “Vertigo,” which includes the pivotal lyric, “Your love is teaching me how to kneel,” an apparent reference to God’s love. ↩︎
10. For such discussion, see my “‘She Travels Outside of Karma’ and ‘The Terms of Prayer,’ Bono and Jonathan Edwards on the Nature of Grace,” paper read at the annual meeting of the Southwest Region of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dallas, Texas, March 2003, and “Blessings Not Just for the Ones, Who Kneel,” paper read at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Philadelphia, PA, November 2005. ↩︎
11. On Edwards and grace, see my “Jonathan Edwards’s Theology of Prayer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (2003): 434-56; “‘God Never Begrutches His People Anything They Desire’: Jonathan Edwards and the Generosity of God,” Reformation and Revival Quarterly 12 (2003): 71-91, and “Sinners in the Hands of a Gracious God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006): 259-75. ↩︎
12. Jonathan Edwards, “Letter to the Reverend Benjamin Colman,” in Jonathan Edwards, Letters and Personal Writings, ed. George S. Claghorn, vol. 16 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 65-66. ↩︎
13. It was not uncommon at the time for the city fathers to call for a day of prayer when such events occurred. In addition to prayer, this was an opportunity for the town’s pastor, the spiritual leader of the community, to speak prophetically to the town. ↩︎
14. In doing so, Edwards is functioning as the pastor of his town. It is his responsibility to interpret these events for the community/church. Whether he would have similarly interpreted events in other communities as a warning from God is unclear. He did, however, believe it appropriate to speak for God to his congregation. ↩︎
15. Authorized Version. ↩︎
16. Jonathan Edwards, “Undeserved Mercy,” in Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses, 1734-1738, ed. Μ. X. Lesser, vol. 19 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 631. ↩︎
17. Ibid. ↩︎
18. Ibid., 632. ↩︎
19. Ibid. ↩︎
20. Edwards interprets this event as part of a pattern of such events that occurred on the Sabbath, following a hermeneutic widely practiced in his day. ↩︎
21. Edwards, “Undeserved Mercy,” 632. ↩︎
22. Ibid., 633. ↩︎
23. Ibid. ↩︎
24. Ibid. ↩︎
25. Ibid. ↩︎
26. Ibid., 634. It should be noted that Edwards’s language here is not nuanced as it would likely be in our day, when we are, appropriately, concerned about the evils of child abuse. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the acceptability of the use of physical force in child-rearing. But it does seem appropriate to call attention to the historical and cultural distance between the eighteenth century and today. Were Edwards preaching today his language likely would be a bit different. ↩︎
27. Ibid. ↩︎
28. Ibid. ↩︎
29. Ibid. ↩︎
30. Ibid., 635. ↩︎
31. Ibid. ↩︎
32. Ibid. In support of this claim, Edwards cites Pss. 78:40, 95:9-10, and Isa. 63:9-11. ↩︎
33. Ibid., 636. Note that this is a threatened judgment not an actual one. ↩︎
34. Ibid. Edwards continues, “So it was with the children of Israel in this test. He said he would pour out his fury upon them, to accomplish his anger against them in the wilderness. He said he would consume them, as [the] thirteenth verse of the context.” ↩︎
35. Ibid. ↩︎
36. Ibid. ↩︎
37. Ibid., 637. In support of this claim, Edwards cites Joel 2:13, Exod. 32:14, 2 Sam. 24:16, Luke 13:7-8. ↩︎
38. Ibid. It is almost as if Edwards anticipates open theism and responds to it centuries before it appears. ↩︎
39. Ibid., 638. ↩︎
40. Ibid. ↩︎
41. Ibid. ↩︎
42. Ibid., 639. Edwards quotes the following as biblical support for this claim: Ps. 106:45; Deut. 5:29; Ps. 81:13-14; Isa. 48:18; Luke 19:41-44; and James 2:13. ↩︎
43. Ibid., 639-40. Psalm 85:10 is quoted in support of this claim, “Mercy and truth met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” ↩︎
44. Ibid., 640. Psalm 106:23 is quoted in support of this claim, “Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them.” ↩︎
45. Ibid. ↩︎
46. Ibid. ↩︎
47. Ibid. This statement concludes the first part of the sermon. The second part is an extended application. ↩︎
48. Ibid. ↩︎
49. Edwards’s sermons were often heavily focused on application. He was interested not only in communicating information, albeit important doctrinal content, but in changing hearts and lives. ↩︎
50. Edwards, “Undeserved Mercy,” 640-41. ↩︎
51. Ibid., 642. ↩︎
52. Ibid. ↩︎
53. Ibid., 642-43. ↩︎
54. Ibid., 643. ↩︎
55. Ibid., 644. ↩︎
56. Ibid.
    ↩︎
57. Ibid., 648. ↩︎
58. Ibid.
    ↩︎
59. Ibid., 649. ↩︎
60. Ibid. ↩︎
61. This apparent ability to interpret God’s activity in history makes me nervous. Throughout history, many Christian leaders have done this, some better than others. In our day, there are numerous examples of evangelical Christian leaders who have interpreted current events as divine judgment on America, whether the flooding of the Mississippi River, terrorist attacks such as on 11 September 2001, and hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. In my view, extreme caution should be exercised here. I do not think it wise for Christian leaders today to follow Edwards’s example, unless such proclamations are properly and abundantly nuanced as mere possibilities. Better to avoid presuming to speak for God than to embarrass the Christian community, and likely God, by silly claims that God is really angry with New York City and New Orleans for some reason, and apparently not as angry with Las Vegas, Chicago, Fort Worth and Dallas. Edwards’s historical context « was significantly different than our context. His audience expected him to speak
    for God in this way and perhaps understood a nuance which we do not hear. Another major difference was the “privacy” he enjoyed. His words were not broadcast around the world as such claims to speak for God are in ours. ↩︎
62. Edwards, “Undeserved Mercy,” 650. The similarity of this language to that in “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is striking. On grace as the theme of this sermon, see my “Sinners in the Hands of a Gracious God,” in Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006): 259-75. ↩︎
63. Ibid., 650-51. ↩︎
64. Ibid., 651. ↩︎
65. Ibid.
    ↩︎
66. Ibid., 651-52. ↩︎
67. Ibid., 652. ↩︎
68. Ibid., 652-53. ↩︎
69. Ibid., 654. ↩︎
70. Ibid. ↩︎
71. Ibid., 655. ↩︎
72. Bono, quoted in Assayas, Bono, 204. ↩︎
73. Ibid. ↩︎
74. U2, “Grace,” the last song on All that You Can’t Leave Behind (Interscope, 2000); lyrics accessed at http://www.u2boy.nl/u2/u2_lyrics.php?id=al0tll_u2_ grace_lyrics, 30 August 2005. ↩︎