WESLEY’S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN HIS DOCTRINAL TEACHINGS

by

John N. Oswalt

When one sets out to write a paper on Wesley’s use of the Old Testament in his doctrinal teachings, one must first delimit those of his writings understood to be doctrinal. Fortunately, expert opinion is generally agreed. The Standard Sermons and the Explanatory Notes on the New Testament were put forward by Wesley himself as being thc compendia of his teachings which all Methodist preachers were required to master.¹ Beyond this, his two treatises: A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, and on, and Original Sin have been widely seen as his finest, and most clearly doctrinal, works.² Richard Green, the Wesleyan biographer, adds a slight disclaimer when he asserts that "An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion" and "A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion" have a "unity of design, a close concatenated reasoning and a brilliancy" which Original Sin lacks.³

For the purposes of this paper, then, it was determined to consult the Standard Sermons, including all 53 published in 1771, the Plain Account, Original Sin, and the two "Appeals." To these was added "Predestination Calmly Considered" because of the significant use of the Old Testament in that writing. No attempt was made to study the Explanatory Notes in a systematic way in the light of their very limited "use" of the Old Testament.

As the study developed, it became clear that an exhaustive investigation of all the uses of the Old Testament in each of these writings was not possible in the time available. It was therefore decided to study the Sermons in depth (particularly since no index of Old Testament quotations is available), and to allow those findings to form the substance of the paper, supplementing them with the results of more cursory study of the other writings. Since Wesley’s general use of the Old Testament was found to be the same in all the writings, and since the number of usages upon which doctrinal teachings are directly based is rather small (and thus easily identifiable), it is believed this approach to the work has yielded valid results.

A review of Wesley’s general attitude toward, and method of approach to, the Bible will be helpful. Here four secondary sources, while not often specifically referred to below, provided invaluable guides to the location of many key statements. They are: William M. Arnett’s John Wesley, Man of One Book,⁴ Paul O’Brien’s Sources of Authority in The Theological writings of John Wesley,⁵ W. E. Sangster’s The Path to Perfection,⁶ and George Turner’s The Vision Which Transforms.⁷

Those present will hardly need to be reminded of Wesley’s estimate of the Bible’s place in the world. It is the source of authority, like which there is no other. Numerous passages can be adduced in evidence of this, but three in particular are worth quoting.

This attitude issued in his oft-repeated demand that every statement be supportably by Scripture. An example is found in his sermon "The Means of Grace": "I pray, where is this written? I expect you should show me plain Scripture for your assertion; otherwise, I dare not receive it; because I am not convinced that you are wiser than God."¹¹

It was the conviction that William Law had replaced his own institutions for Scripture which led to Wesley’s eventual break with his earlier mentor and an uncharacteristically heated letter in which, among other things, he challenged Law to "speak neither higher nor lower things, more nor less, than the oracles of God."¹²

As has often been pointed out, Wesley’s conviction that the Bible came from God and was inspired by God led him to accept the syllogistic reasoning that the Bible was therefore inerrant. The Journal entry of July, 24, 1776, is well know. "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that Book, it did not come from the God of truth."¹³

By the same token, he argued that "every part [of the Bible] is worthy of God and all together are one body, wherein is no defect, no excess."¹⁴

But his observant and analytical mind was never the prisoner of his logic. He was, as Turner says, "candid enough to recognize the possibility of error in the sources used by Matthew."¹⁵ He was equally candid when it came to explaining why he left out several whole Psalms and parts of numerous others from his liturgy for American Methodist. He said such things were "highly improper for the mouths of a Christian congregation."¹⁶

All of this indicates that for all his undoubtedly high view of Scripture, Wesley was no naïve Biblicist, treating every text as an isolated gem of truth independent of every other text. His method of interpretation bears witness to the fact that he recognized the Scriptures to be amenable to the same kinds of analysis which one would apply to a merely human book. For instance, he understood the fact that its statements are conditioned both by time and culture and that a correct interpretation of any statement demands taking both of these into account. "I apply no Scripture phrase either to myself or any other without carefully considering, both the original meaning and the secondary sense, wherein (allowing for different times and circumstances) it may be applied to ordinary Christians."¹⁷

Furthermore, he recognized that the plain rules of grammar and syntax gave the meaning of any statement without recourse to any esoteric spiritualizations.¹⁸ To arrive at this plain meaning, one had to take into account not only the immediate context, but also the entire biblical context. For the Scriptures, bearing a message of God’s relatedness to human beings, are not themselves a group of unrelated satements.¹⁹

To be sure, he sometimes assumed a greater theological unity overall in the Scriptures than might be accepted to day, and, as a result, had no qualms about reading back into the Old Testament certain aspects of the New. But, by and large, he was very restrained in this. Much more to the point, he had a feel for the wholeness of biblical theology which obtrudes itself in every expression of his, whether sermonic, didactic, or controversial. This explains his sermon style especially. While he rarely expounded a text or passage of Scripture, his sermons were profoundly biblical. Any one sermon or a subject would cover the whole range of the relevant biblical teaching, so that one writer says, "His method was Biblical-ex-pository, not text-expository."²⁰

One of the most characteristic aspects of Wesley is seen no less in his biblical interpretation than elsewhere. That was his relentless logic, or as he called it, reason. It must have taken either a courageous or a foolhardy person to contend with him and brave that razor-edged analysis. He was a master both of decimating others’ premises and formulating his own. And given certain biblical information, he would follow out the logical conclusion as steadily and remorselessly as ever did John Calvin.²¹

Yet, there is more of a humaneness about Wesley in the end, for he was never trapped by his logic. If the logical interpretation was not borne out in daily experience, it was the interpretation which was subjected to experience, rather than the evidence denied for the sake of the interpretation. Nowhere is this expressed more clearly than in the Plain Account when he says,

At the same time, anyone who has read much of Wesley knows that a great deal of the talk about the "Wesleyan quadrilateral"—Scripture, Reason, Experience, and Tradition—which, in effect, places Scripture on a par with the other three is utterly misleading. Scripture is the authority. And while reason, Experience, and Tradition provide the interpretive keys to the meaning of that Authority, they never stand on their own, independently of it, nor are they allowed to nullify it.²³

How did Wesley use the Bible as a whole? It will be well for us to summarize the findings of others on this subject so that they might serve as a backdrop for the specific analysis of Old Testament usages which follows.

First of all, he wove biblical quotations all through his speech, as much in his letters as in his sermons or other writings.²⁴ Sugden notes that his sermon "Scriptural Christianity" has hardly a sentence which is not directly derived from the Scriptures.²⁵ The same could be said for several other sermons. Sangster sums it up when he says, "He seems to have lived in the Scriptures so long that Bible phrasing has become second nature to him, and he swims from one citation to another with effortless ease."²⁶ The investigator cannot help but be amazed and awed at such familiarity with the Bible that even obscure passages can be quoted as freely, and apparently, as undesignedly as the more familiar ones. It is evident that his talk about the Bible as supreme source of truth was not just talk, but was matched by a lifetime of poring over that source.

A second use of Scripture was his determined statement of his doctrines in biblical language.²⁷ He says in one letter, "Now you and I are bigots to the Bible. We think the Bible language is like Goliath’s sword, that ‘there is none like it.’"²⁸ It is perfectly characteristic of the man that this statement of the superiority of biblical language is itself couched in biblical language! In the sermon "On Perfection" he says he will not use the word "suspended" of the sinful nature because the Bible nowhere uses that word.²⁹

A third use of Scripture was what may be called an illustrative one. The biblical experience or statement is used to illustrate the present situation or the point being made. Turner is referring to such a usage when he says,

Kallstad, in his study on the impact of the Bible upon Wesley’s psychological makeup, also notes this usage. He comments, "We might say that Wesley employs biblical constructs to interpret hi world and to anticipate events."³¹

Such a use may quickly become abuse if due attention is not paid to the sense of the passage and the contextual setting. But most analysts agree with turner when he says, "It is difficult to find an instance where Wesley has clearly misinterpreted or erroneously turned a passage to his own advantage."³² In view of the immense number of quotations used, this care is all the more praiseworthy.

A fourth use might be called exegetical. Although Wesley did not often base his own teachings upon an exegesis of a particular verse or passage, his controversial writings make it abundantly clear that he could do so if he wished.³³ Again and again, he would take the scripture passages his opponents were hurling at him and demonstrate by reference to context and grammatical analysis the invalid interpretations they were drawing. A fine case in point would be his controversion of the Archbishop of York in the "Father Appeal."³⁴

In summary, Wesley seems not to have used the Bible so much as the immediate source form which to develop each concept, but as the breadth or lifeblood which flowed through the totality of his thinking. His normal pattern was more inferential or implicational than narrowly exegetical. Yet his inferences and his logic are not pre-exegetical, but post-exegetical. There is every evidence that he has done the hard, slow exegetical work and that if it is not now on the surface of his work, one does not have to go far beneath the surface to find it.

With these general statements forming the backdrop, let us turn to an analysis of the uses made of the Old Testament in the Standard Sermons, after which additional material from the other writings will be shared.

Since the writer could discover no index to the quotations of the Old Testament in the Sermons, one was created. The result forms an appendix to this paper. It is not possible to claim completeness for this index because of the nature of the material. The vast majority of the quotations are without reference. Thus, the investigator had to determine first of all whether a given quotation was likely to be from the Old Testament. If he decided in favor, a concordance had to be consulted in most cases. If the passage contained all common words, the search became a tedious, and sometimes, a fruitless, task. In cases where biblical phrases are repeated exactly, but without quotation marks, the possibility of overlooking them became even higher. Therefore, although the author sought to take every care and believes the results to be almost complete, he is under no illusions of having achieved absolute perfection, perhaps not an inappropriate position for a student of Wesley!

Two hundred ninety-five quotations were identified and indexed, both according to biblical occurrence and as to occurrence in the Sermons (Sugden edition). An attempt was made to classify the quotations according to use. Five basic categories were chosen: allusive, illustrative, supportive, expository, and exegetical.

The writer is conscious that his use of the term "allusive" is not precisely in keeping with the contemporary definition: and indirect reference. Surely if all Wesley’s indirect references to the Old Testament were identified, they would run into the thousands! Rather, this term is used of those direct quotations which have no particular cognitive weight. A typical example appears in "The Use of Money" where Wesley announced that those who had amassed wealth through distilling liquor would soon be destroyed and "their memorial will perish with them" (Ps. 9:6).³⁵ This quotation does not support or prove his point, in that the Scripture is not talking about distillers at this point. At the same time, he is not abusing the quotation, for the passage is talking about the wicked whom God has destroyed. This is typical of the care with which he used even these rather casual references. As noted above, he was convinced that the very language of Scripture had an impact which could not be gainsaid. This kind of use, of which there were 83, or slightly less than one-third of the total, illustrates that conviction.

A second major category was called illustrative. Here the preacher used some Old Testament incident or teaching to illustrate the point he was making. He did not appeal to it as a basis for his point or as proving the point, but as collateral evidence for the kind of thing he was talking about. So, when he encouraged the believer accosted by Satan to react in faith, he told them to cry out, "I know that my Redeemer liveth" (Job. 19:25).³⁶ Job’s faith illustrated the kind of faith the preacher was commending. Fifty-one references were used in this way.

The third category was called supportive. Here Wesley sought to draw specific support for the point he was making from the Old Testament reference. This is not to say that the point arose from the Old Testament, but rather, having been made, normally from the New Testament, it is supported from the Old. Thus, having argued that the will of God is the only rule of action for us, he appeals to Ps. 100:3, "It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves."³⁷ This demonstrates that we are creatures and thus must obey the Creator’s will. This use was slightly more frequent than the allusive, appearing 96 times.

The remaining two uses were much less common than the previous three. They were the expository and the exegetical, occurring 8 and 13 times, respectively. In these cases there was effort made to draw the point from, or at least to support the point unusually heavily from, the text. The two usages were differentiated in this manner: whenever there was extended treatment of the quotation with regard to its meaning for the present, that usage was classed as expository. Whenever the grammar, context, etc., were consulted to determine the meaning of the text, that usage was classed as exegetical.

An example of the expository usage is found in "Justification by Faith" where Isa. 53:4-5, and 10 are applied to the hearers as explaining what Christ has done for them.³⁸ It should be said that most usages of an Old Testament quotation as the sermon text were classed as expository, although the actual exposition may have been very limited (as for instance that of Ps. 94:16 in "The Reformation of Manners"³⁹).

The exegetical usage was commonly restricted to a negative aspect, as noted in the survey above. Several examples occur in "The Means of Grace" where Wesley takes passages supposed to teach total withdrawal from all good works and shows they teach nothing of the kind.⁴⁰

Inevitably, in any classification scheme such as this, there are occurrences which do not fit precisely into any one category. It was sought to keep such to a minimum since any great number would destroy the usefulness of the whole scheme. Nonetheless, it was felt worthwhile to create four "middle" categories for those references where precise classification was unusually difficult. Three of these involved the supportive category: where it was felt the usage was slightly more extended than merely support, supportive/expository was used (8 occ.); where it was difficult to decided whether the quotation was really being used to support the point, supportive/illustrative (11 occ.) or supportive/allusive (18 occ.) were utilized. The fourth "middle" category was called illustrative/allusive and 6 references were classed in this way.

When one examines the Old Testament books from which Wesley drew his quotations in the Sermons, the breadth of his intimate knowledge of the Scriptures becomes apparent. Of the 39 books, only 8 are not represented: Joshua, Ruth, Esther, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Haggai. And it may be that one or more of these is indeed referred to, but that the reference was overlooked.

Nor are the references necessarily to the most familiar passages. To be sure, many of the familiar references are there (Deut. 6; Ps. 51; Isa. 53), but many more unfamiliar, yet always apt, ones are there. An interesting case was the strange appellation of "daubers with untempered mortar" to those who indiscriminately preached the promises of God as a cure for a state of spiritual darkness.⁴¹ This phrase occurs only in one place in the Bible: Ezek. 13:10-12. Yet, like most of the other quotations which this writer has styled allusions, it is given without any biblical reference and in the midst of other allusions. It is asking to much to believe that he scoured his Bible looking for appropriate allusions to every point and thus, in this case, happened on this phrase which, by the way, Ezekiel applies to false prophets. Surely, the truth is that he knew even the obscurer parts of the Bible well enough, in context, that such a phrase as this would come to the surface at the appropriate time.

If most of the Old Testament books are represented, it is also true that Wesley had his favorites. Psalms has, by far, the most references (78), followed by Isaiah (52). Of the sections of the canon according to the English arrangement, references to the poetic section are most frequent (121). It is interesting to note that Ecclesiastes, a book some of whose teachings troubled Wesley (see below), is referred to only once fewer (10) than either Exodus or Ezekiel (both 11). So also Job is referred to 19 times. This probably indicates what has been noted before, namely, that the value of any particular reference for a given circumstance was judged on its own merit rather than upon the total teaching of the book in which it occurred.

Beyond these points, when it is recognized that most of the references to the prophetic books come from poetic sections of that material, it becomes clear that Wesley made a disproportionately small use of the prose section of the Old Testament (100 references to prose versus 195 to poetry). This is probably reflective of the kind of use Wesley was making of the material. The poetic writings lend themselves more easily to the allusive, illustrative, and supportive usages. By the same token, however, it might be argued that the reverse is true: that the kinds of materials he remembered shaped the uses he made of the material and that this explains why so little exegesis or exposition is found. However, 10 of the 30 expositional or exegetical uses are more poetic passages, so one must raise at least some question about such a hypothesis.

It may be that one explanation for Wesley’s startling familiarity with the Old Testament, and the poetic portions especially, has to do with its inclusion in the Anglican ritual in which Wesley took part daily. Sugden’s note that many of the quotations of the Psalms are from the Prayer Book version lends some support to this thesis.⁴²

Certain sermons have significantly more references than the others. Particular cases in point are: "Scriptural Christianity" (24);⁴³ "The Spirit of Bondage and Adoption" (15);⁴⁴ "Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount: VII" (21);⁴⁵ "Christian Perfection" (12);⁴⁶ "The Wilderness State" (14);⁴⁷ The Great Assize" (15);⁴⁸ "The Reformation of Manners" (12).⁴⁹ Only 7 of the 53 sermons (or 6 of the 44), appear to have no Old Testament quotations, and allowing for errors of the indexer, there may be fewer than that.

In the sermons just cited, where more numerous references appear, varying uses are made. Of the 24 in "Scriptural Christianity" fully 18 appear in point III in which the preacher argues that the Bible predicts a Christian world and uses various millennial prophecies of the Old Testament to reinforce his claim. One may argue the merits of premillennial or postmillennial theory,⁵⁰ but the fact is that Wesley uses these statements in a forceful way to show his hearers how far short of God’s standards they fall. Several of the occurrences designated allusive/supportive are in this passage. They are not appealed to in a directly logical way, yet their cumulative force is such as to clearly support the point being made.

A similar use is made in "The Great Assize" where Wesley draws extensively from the Old Testament for his picture of the Last Judgment. Sugden protests, and with some reason, that the references are drawn from everywhere without questioning what event is in view.⁵¹ It does appear that the quotations are used as much for impact as anything else. At the same time, without excusing Wesley for whatever might be his errors, it must be pointed out that the precise reference of many eschatological statements is not as easy to pin down as Sugden might imply.

In "Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount: VII" almost all of the references are used to illustrate or support what Wesley is saying about the proper and improper uses of fasting. One is impresses with the careful and logical analysis of each of the incidents or teachings he adduces. This would be an appropriate place to observe that Sugden seems overly harsh when he says that Wesley takes no opportunity to relate the Sermon on the Mount to the Old Testament.⁵² He surely does at this point, and to a lesser extent, in several of the other sermons as well.

In "Christian Perfection" ten Old Testament references appear in four passages, but all to disprove the claims put forward on the basis of these passages that a Christian must sin. He argues that Christians have a fuller revelation of God’s love and power than did Old Testament saints. Only three references are used to positively support the doctrine (see below).

In the other sermons where an extraordinary number of quotations appeared, no particular pattern emerged.

Several of Wesley’s basic attitudes toward the Old Testament became clear during the study. It is plain that, despite his obvious familiarity with the Old Testament, he was primarily a man of the New Testament. Only 6 of the 53 sermons (or 4 of the 44) are built upon the Old Testament texts. And even these are not lengthy expositions of the text, for the most part. Rather, having briefly explained it, he quickly moves to New Testament ground. It is plain that he saw the Old Testament as a background to the New, supplying literary, illustrative, and supportive underpinning, but not as teaching doctrines on its own which could be confirmed or amplified in the New. In this respect, Sugden’s previously quoted comment on the sermons, on our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount is appropriaate.⁵³

This concept of the relationship between the Old and New Testament is clearly indicated in "Christian Perfection" as noted above. When it is urged upon him that saints of the Old Testament sinned, he responded, on the basis of Matt. 11:11, that

The same concept is illustrated in his willingness to correct Solomon for saying there is no wisdom in the grave (which Wesley takes to mean the afterlife).⁵⁵ It is fascinating that he makes this an occasion to affirm the absolute authority of heavenly (or scriptural) wisdom, and then proceeds to reword the verse in a way which is clearly not in agreement with the plain sense of the passage!

A final example is seen in his attitude toward tithing. He says,

Surely this is an entirely appropriate understanding of the relation between law and grace, Christian duty and Christian liberty, but it does show a distinct modification of the above-quoted statement that "the Scripture is equal in all its parts."⁵⁶

These findings, however, must not obscure Wesley’s deep and fundamental respect for the law of God as proclaimed in the Old Testament. Hear him, when, commenting upon II Tim. 3:15-17, he says,

Or again,

Wesley demonstrated a remarkable ability to keep law and gospel in balance. So, in his "The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law" he maintains that it was God’s love which move Him to proclaim the law to a fallen humanity,⁵⁹ in order to bring us face to face with ourselves and our need of a Saviour.⁶⁰ And when the Saviour comes, although the ceremonial aspects of the law are abolished as having achieved their purpose, the moral aspects are lifted to new glories.⁶¹ So law and gospel are inseparable. "’Though shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart,’ when considered as a commandment is a branch of the law; when regarded as a promise, is an essential part of the gospel—the gospel being no other than the commands of the law, proposed by way of promise."⁶²

One must confess, however, that when one comes to inquire of Wesley precisely what is contained in the moral law, beyond Deut. 6:5 (as quoted in Matt.), he is vague at best. Although he talks at great length about the law in "The Law Established Through Faith,"⁶³ he does not identify any specific passages. It appears that be "law" he means the general demands of God for righteousness, which, if not kept, issue in judgment.⁶⁴

Of greater concern is his treatment of the covenant of works. As Sugden points out, there is no biblical evidence for this covenant with Adam, and it only appears in the Westminster Creed.⁶⁵ Nevertheless, Wesley describes this covenant at great length, and that resting on one misapplied text, Lev. 18:5, "Ye shall therefor keep my statutes and my judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord."⁶⁶

It is rather clear that Wesley’s logic has gotten him into trouble at this point. When exegeting Romans 10:5-8, he noted that Paul quoted the above passage as referring to the righteousness of the law. But he also noticed that Paul used Moses’ words about the Mosaic covenant (Deut. 30:11-12, 14) to describe the righteousness that is by faith. Therefore, Wesley concluded that, as Paul was talking about two different covenants, Lev. 18:5 could not be talking about the Mosaic covenant. He was furthered in this error by his own previously mentioned conclusion that the Mosaic law was a gift of God’s grace. Therefor, Paul could not be talking about the Mosaic code as the bearer of death.

Nevertheless, even cursory examination of the context of the Leviticus passage makes it abundantly clear that it refers to the Mosaic code. What Wesley failed to take into account was Paul’s rabbinic style of exegesis, wherein he felt free to find in the words of Deuteronomy a "hidden" meaning. So Moses’ words to the effect that the law is not some far-off, impossible thing are reinterupted to say that Christ is not far off. Wesley was tripped up by the fact that Paul’s rules of logic and his own were different at this point and by the fact that Paul seems to make a distinction between the call to godly living which he issues in his letters and the "law," a distinction Wesley did not draw.

Of course Wesley’s estimate of the Law was related to his own conviction of the unchanging nature of God’s call to righteous living (to which Paul is equally committed, but with a different kind of logic). This leads us directly into a consideration of Wesley’s use of the Old Testament with relation to the doctrine of Christian Perfection. At this point we will also draw on the Plain Account of Christian Perfection.

For the most part, as far as direct exegesis is concerned, this doctrine is made to rest upon the New Testament. The three sermons most clearly related to it: "Christian Perfection,"⁶⁷ "Repentance of Believers,"⁶⁸ and "The Scripture Way of Salvation,"⁶⁹ have, apart from the negative references already mentioned in "Christian Perfection," relatively few Old Testament quotations (5, 5, and 4, respectively), while "Sin in Believers," which has an at least preparatory function, has none.

The same situation prevails in the Plain Account. Sangster reports 224 New Testament references used in the work (189 different texts), whereas only 24 Old Testament quotations (22 different texts) appear.⁷⁰ (The writer’s investigation yielded slightly different figures from Sangster’s. He discovered 25 quotations, of which 19 were different.⁷¹ But the relative disproportion between Old and New Testament references is unchanged.)

Despite the rather infrequent use of the Old Testament, its general impact is clearly felt. And a few texts are made to do yeoman duty. They are Deut. 6:5⁷² and Lev. 19:18;⁷³ Deut. 30:6⁷⁴ and Ezek. 36:25-29.⁷⁵ Also important are Ps. 130:8⁷⁶ and Jer. 31:31-34.⁷⁷ Somewhat unaccountably, Sangster dismisses all of these except Ezek. 36:25-29, and of this he says, "It is dubious whether this passage provides Wesley with support of that idea of burning ethical purity which lies at the heart of his doctrine of Christian perfection."⁷⁸

It is, of course, clear that Wesley uses some of these in a very broad and general way, assuming that since the Church is the Israel of God, they are addressed to Christians in all times and conditions. A case in point would be Ps. 1330:8: "And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." That this refers in any way to a Christian’s being made pure in heart is, to use Sangster’s word, "dubious," as Turner agrees.⁷⁹

On the other hand, the other key passages cited above seem to this author to be used by Wesley in their primary sense. Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 are surely picked up in the New Testament and applied to Christians. Their spirit and character breathe all through the Sermon on the Mount. It may be fairly said that these sum up true religion for Wesley and that the belief that they were achievable shaped his whole concept of ministry.⁸⁰

By the same token, his understanding that the new covenant involved an internalization of the law as predicted in Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34, and Ezek. 36:25-29 is surely agreed to both specifically and by implication throughout the New Testament.⁸¹ If there is a question which must be addressed to these, it is whether perfect purity or perfect love are necessarily implied in them. And made to stand by themselves, perhaps not. This may be what Sangster was referring to in his comment about Ezek. 36:25-29. On the other hand, when put alongside the other ethical demands of the Old Testament and the glorious promises of the New, what other implication does such a statement as "I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes…and I will deliver you from all your uncleanness’" have? As mentioned above, Wesley’s forte was in drawing together and applying the total impact of Scripture in a given area. It seems to the writer that the implications which Wesley draws from these are quite correct in the light of all of Scripture. Turner expresses himself very astutely at this point.

It is interesting to notice that three passages which the descendants of Wesley have been wont to quote as illustrative of the doctrine and experience of Christian Perfection are conspicuous by their absence. They are: the entire book of Joshua; Ps. 51; and Isa. 6. Joshua’s absence is perhaps easiest to explain. One only arrives at the teaching by spiritualizing the historical experiences involved. This Wesley only rarely did.⁸³ His sermon "The Wilderness State" takes its title from the fact that many people saw spiritual darkness as analogous to the wilderness wanderings of Israel; but after noting that fact, Wesley makes no further mention of the wandering.

The neglect of the other passages is more puzzling, for both seem to be directly related to the doctrine. One can only speculate upon the possible reasons, and one speculation seems no more probable than any other.

When one turns to the doctrine of Original Sin as taught by Wesley, the same general observations may be made as were made concerning Christian Perfection. All of Wesley’s study of life led him to the conviction that human beings in general chose the evil rather than the good; his study of the New Testament confirmed this and gave him a reason for the phenomenon: inbred sin. When we went to the Old Testament, while he did not find many references which explicitly taught this doctrine, he did find many whose implications were entirely in keeping with his understanding of the New Testament.

So in Original Sin, as well as in the sermon by the same title, he makes extensive use of the Old Testament to illustrate the fallen condition of man and asks what accounts for this.⁸⁴ When Dr. Taylor protests that the Old Testament passages by themselves are ambiguous, Wesley argues that one cannot take them by themselves but must interpret them in the light of Scripture and reason.⁸⁵ And of course the primary Scripture in this instance is the New Testament.⁸⁶

Typically, most of the exegetical work is in contradiction of another position, here that of Dr. John Taylor. A good example of his best work is seen in his treatment of Ps 51:5.⁸⁷ Taylor had argued on several grounds that the Psalmist is only using figurative language to express the sense of alienation which resulted from his sinful act. Wesley ranges from word studies to parallel passages to context to show that David is saying something much deeper than that, and that what he is saying is entirely consonant with the New Testament teachings.

At the same time Wesley was capable of straining his point too far. His exegeses of Job 14:4 and 15:1 seem to be causes in point.⁸⁸ They may imply original sin, but Wesley, in good debating style, will not surrender a point and maintains they teach a doctrine. Similarly, he makes the poetic statement "though a man be born a wild ass’s colt" (Job 11:12) be a demonstration that human beings are born perverse.⁸⁹ Again, this is not impossible, but it is much less sure than Wesley depicts it. In general, there seems to be more of this kind of straining in Original Sin than in other writings studied. Perhaps this is so because this work more nearly approximates debate style.

The treatise "Predestination Calmly Considered" follows the patterns already noted. Overall, however, there is proportionately more use of the Old Testament and more use of it upon its own. He uses numerous Old Testament passages to demonstrate that God is too just to decree unconditional reprobation.⁹⁰ One of these (Ezek. 18:2, etc.) he quotes at length, commenting upon it as he goes.⁹¹ True was just noted, the Testaments are appealed to about equally.

In terms of exegesis and exposition, his treatments of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart and the supposed reprobation of Esau are masterful in their brevity, yet precision. He shows that Pharaoh himself refused to repent, having been given every reason to do so.⁹² Similarly, he points out that Malachi 1:2-3, "Esau have I hated," does not refer to Esau, the individual, but to Edomites, Esau’s descendants, who have brought just punishment upon themselves.⁹³

In his study of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, he showed how the benefits of each are conditional upon obedience.⁹⁴ And, by means of an analysis of Ezek. 18:24, he demonstrated that one who has enjoyed God’s covenant blessings can, nevertheless, be lost.

All in all it is the writer’s conclusion that "Predestination" shows Wesley as his best in his use of the Old Testament.

In conclusion, how may we summarize Wesley’s use of the Old Testament? Put it in outline form, it would be as follows:

1. He revered the Old Testament as a art of the Oracle of God. Therefore he regarded its language and conceptual framework as providing a part of the fundamental fabric for thought, illustration, and illumination.
2. He believed the Old Testament to be entirely consonant with the New. Therefore he used the Old Testament to support New Testament teachings.
3. He believed the Old Testament by itself was inferior to the New. Therefore,

1. He made little systematic use of the Old Testament.
2. He interpreted or reinterpreted Old Testament statements in the light of the New.
3. He read the New Testament into the Old.

1. He believed the Old Testament (with the New Testament) to be an inherently unified book. Therefore,

1. He systematized Old Testament statements with liberal use of inference and implication.
2. He felt free to fill in "gaps" without any clear indication of where the text left off and the filling began.

1. He believed the Old Testament to be an inherently rational book. Therefore,

1. He shunned typological or spiritualized exegesis.
2. He held strenuously to the literal sense of any passage in its context.
3. He sometimes rationalized his exegesis to the point of overworking the text.

1. He believed the Old Testament to have been given by God into certain specific chronological and cultural situations. Therefore he sought to understand those situations before making indiscriminate applications of Scripture.

How did he use the Old Testament? With deep reverence, great care, and conscientious thought. But above all, he used it in such a way that, linked with the New Testament, its power as the Word of God was unleashed in the lives of men and women.

FOOTNOTES

0. Cf. Sugden’s discussion of this in his edition of the Standard Sermons, vol. I, pp. 17-19.
1. Eg., Martin Schmidt, John Wesley: A Theological Biography (Vol. 2, Pt. 2, tr. Denis Inman; New York: Abingdon Press, 1973), p. 80.
2. R. Green, The Works of John and Charles Wesley (London, 1896), p. 101.
3. William M. Arnett, "John Wesley: Man of One Book" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University: Madison, N. J., 1954).
4. Paul O’Brien, Sources of Authority in the Theological Writings of John Wesley (unpublished S.T.M. thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, Baltimore, Md., 1957).
5. W. E. Sangster, The Path of Perfection (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1943).
6. George A. Turner, The Vision Which Transforms (Kansas City, MO.: Beacon Hill Press, 1964).
7. The Standard Sermons of John Wesley (ed. E. H. Sugden, fifth edition; London: Epworth Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 225f. (Hereinafter referred to as Sermons.)
8. Sermons, vol. II, p. 470.
9. The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. (London: Epworth Press, 1931), Vol. IV, p. 216; cf. also Ibid., vol. VI, p. 126.
10. Sermons, vol. I, p. 253.
11. . Letters, vol. III, p. 370.
12. The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. (ed. Nehemiah Curnock; London: Charles Kelly; n,d.), Vol. VI, p. 117. Cf. Also Sermons, I, p. 249f., and II, p. 279.
13. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (London: Epworth Press; 1958 reprint), p. viiif.
14. Turner, op. cit., p. 229.
15. Journal, vol. VII, p. 18n.