Like the rest of us, John Wesley wrestled with the knotty problem of the role of the law in the life of the New Testament believer. And as the rest of us do, Wesley had the Sermon on the Mount particularly to contend with in the shaping if his view. The passage which provides a point of focus for that problem is Mathew 5:17-20.

This paper does not purport to be thorough analysis of all that is said by Wesley on the law, but it does intend to be a fair report of sermon XXV published in his Works (volume I of the older edition, volume V in a newer printing) on that text.

Harvey K. McArthur has listed a series of some twelve different interpretations which have been placed on the Sermon by interpreters. The five which are most prominent may be summarized as follows:

1. It is a law which must be followed to the letter
2. It is an "interim ethic" intended for a brief interval before His return, which Jesus expected to be almost immediate.
3. It is not possible for us to obey it, but it inspires us to greater efforts and nobler thought.
4. It is the law for the Kingdom Dispensation, the Millennium, and not for Christians in the Dispensation of Grace.
5. It is a continuing call to humility and repentance because though we take it seriously we fail to live up to its radical demand.¹

Wesley, in his sermon, quoted Mathew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil." His first observation then is that this verse does not refer to ritual are ceremonial law, and this is supported by an appeal to the analogy of Scripture, specifically using the statements of Barnabas, Saul, and Peter in Acts 15:6, 10, and 24.²

Wesley then turns to "the moral law," which he terms a law that can never be broken, and which Christ "did not take away": the ritual law

The "letters once wrote by the finger of God" are now somewhat defaced by sin, but they cannot be blotted out. To quote again:

Wesley refers to Jesus’ statement, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil," and responds that Jesus’ meaning is "I am come to establish it in its fullness, in spite of all the glosses of men: I am come to place in a full and clear view whatsoever was dark or obscure therein: I am come to declare the true and full import of very part of it; to show the length and breadth, the entire extent of every commandment contained therein, and the height and depth…"⁵

He continues:"…the great author of it himself condescended to give mankind this authentic comment on all the essential branches of it; at the same time declaring it should never be changed, but remain in force to the end of the world."⁶

And again: "…no one commandment contained in the moral law, nor the least part of any one, however inconsiderable it might seem, [will] ever be disannulled…"⁷

With emphasis such as this, Wesley builds strong the case for the abiding validity of every point of Old Testament moral law in the Church and in the life of the believer. He says there is no "contrariety" between law and gospel:

It is probably worthy of note that Wesley refers to several scriptural statements which he treats as statements of law, but none of them is either from the Decalogue or from any part of the Old Testament which is not directly quoted in the New. The Old Testament passage he selects is in fact more familiar to Christians from the New, and is what Jesus called the First (Great) Commandment; the other passages are not even that directly linked with the Old Testament, for they are from the Beatitudes. One could wish that Wesley the preacher had either reached to the OT law to illustrate his point, or illustrated in the context that what he means here by "Law" was in fact the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. If here, Wesley means the latter, he does not mean precisely what Jesus means in the context of Matt. 5:17-20.⁹

In regard to verse 19, on loosing one of these least commandments, Wesley says, "Can any preach the law more expressly, more rigorously, than Christ does in these words? And who is he that shall amend them? Who is he that shall instruct the Son of God how to preach?"¹⁰

Further, on the phrase, "he shall be called least in the Kingdom of heaven," Wesley says (here, as he also does in his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament) "that is, shall have no part therein."¹² The question is a small one perhaps, whether it is significant that Jesus did not say such a person, who loses one of the least of the commandments – and who goes that next terrifying step "and teaches men so" – would "lose his poor soul forever and ever." Jesus did not say it: that is true. But then is being "called least in the kingdom of heaven" really the equivalent of not reaching the kingdom at all? The question may be minor, but to the person who will be called least in the kingdom it is a question of destiny!

To suggest an answer to this question, I would call attention to two other Matthean passages which speak of least and greatest in the kingdom. In 18:1-4, the statement is that "whoever humbles himself like this child…is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In 11:11, Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Here at least, to humble oneself like a child gives one immediate status as "greatest," and yet one who is "least in the kingdom" appears to have made it in. (In his note on Matt. 11:11, Wesley speaks on both sides of the question. First he grants that he that is least in the kingdom has received Christian regeneration. Then he qualifies, and indicates that the phrase may refer to "the least true Christian believer" who is greater than John the Baptist merely in that he has a more perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ, of his redemption and kingdom, than John the Baptist had, who died before the full manifestation of the gospel.¹³ Wesley truly appears quite reluctant to accept one who is "least in…" to be "in" at all.)

Mathew 5:20 says, "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Wesley enters into a rather full and generous description of scribes and Pharisees and their kind of righteousness.

Sincerity, Wesley will give them. A good conscience before God, he grants. Even that they may live free from any outward sin, and from anything for which their own hearts condemn them, Wesley admits, is included in the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees – this along with constant attention to the means of grace, fasting, and tithing¹⁴ (Wesley here appears to enjoin a double-tithe). With all this the believer merely equals the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. How can it be exceeded?

If some scribe or Pharisee were blameless in keeping the whole law, the Christians righteousness exceeds that in that he, and not the scribe or Pharisee, keeps also the spirit of the law. "The Pharisee labored to present God with a good life; the Christian with a holy heart."¹⁶ So Wesley’s final advice to the Christian is first of all not to fall short of the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, in regard to good and evil.

Secondly, the Christian is admonished to at least equal their diligence with regard to the "ordinances of God," viz., fasting (twice a week or as often as strength will permit); prayer (at every private and public opportunity); the sacrament of bread and cup; searching the Scriptures; meditation therein; embracing every opportunity in the hearing of the Word.¹⁷

Thirdly, the Christian is exhorted to at least equal the Pharisee in doing good: i.e., in gifts of alms, food, clothing, and other gifts and acts of mercy.¹⁸

Fourth, one is to keep all the commandments with all his might.¹⁹

Fifth, Wesley’s rule is to exceed their righteousness in purity and spirituality.

It is not the purpose of this paper to contradict the position of John Wesley on the place of the law in Christian doctrine. It must be said however that the principles used by Wesley himself in the exposistion of Scripture, if legitimate at all, may be used as well by his interpreters.

In discussing Mathew 5:17-20, Wesley stayed close to the passage at hand. At one point he clarified a point by recourse to the principle of the analogy of Scripture.²¹ Let us do the same, if we can.

The writings of Paul to the Galatian Christians have as one part of their express purpose the clarification of this very matter, the relevance of law for the believer. The apostle says, among other things:

"Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?" (3:2)

"All who rely on works of the law are under a curse." (3:10)

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law." (3:13)

"Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring [that

This series of scriptural quotations is complied, I believe, in the spirit of their context;²² and demonstrates a somewhat different approach to law than that taken by Wesley in Sermon XXV.

But of even more pertinent concern for our purpose is the use of the law in Mathew’s Gospel as a whole. Jesus in the Great Commission, for example, tells His disciples to "[teach] them to observe all things that I have commanded you." We note incidentally that it is what Jesus commanded, not what the law commands. In chapter 23, Jesus told the crowds to follow the teachings of the scribes and the Pharisees, though not their actions, for they did not practice what they preached.

Further, the ethic of Jesus – particularly as it is developed in the Gospel according to Mathew – comes forth in the final two pericopes in the Sermon on the Mount, Mathew 7:21ff and 7:24-27: "Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven …" Thy key here is doing God’s will.

In this pericope "these words of mine" are the same in both cases: They are the words of Jesus, especially those in the Sermon on the Mount. The hearing is also the same. The difference is simply the distinction of doing Jesus’ words or not doing them. Incidentally, the Sermon on the Mount is not a word on conversion, so the "doing" is not to be found in that doctrine.

The ethic of the Sermon on the Mount includes a significant amount of "doing" and "not doing," and indeed has much to do with the moral law of the Old Testament. But the moral law is not merely redeclared, reemphasized, or repeated. It is reinterpreted and given new application. While the Decalogue had said "do not murder," Jesus said that calling one’s brother a fool is equally to be condemned, and that anger with a brother or the insult of a brother makes one liable to judgment or "the council."

Further, the Old Testament moral law has forbidden adultery: Jesus applied this proscription likewise to the look of lust. Upon which principle did Jesus make these radical demands? The missing element in both cases is love. If you "put down" your brother, you aren’t occupied in loving him. If you look on a woman as an object of sexual gratification, you look on her as just that – an object. She is to you no longer a person made in God’s image, nut merely a thing to be used. Love is missing. The key point in at least five of the six antitheses of Mathew 5:21-48, for example, is love. And it is, I submit, precisely this in which you righteousness can exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

With this principle kept central, the other difficulties of Mathew 5:17-20 come into their proper perspective. The word plero’o is often used by Mathew, and always the appropriate meaning includes the idea of "filling up" (perhaps with new meaning). In 5:17, if we may test that translation, Jesus may be saying, "I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fill them up with greater significance."

Interestingly enough, Wesley’s usual way of speaking of ethics for the Christian is aptly summed up in the words "faith working through love." It is beyond dispute that love was central to Wesley’s thought. Yet in this sermon, first published in 1747 and republished in 1771, that principle is drowned out with an extreme legalism.

It is one of the problems with which Wesleyans have to contend that this sermon is left for us. But it is in the collections of Wesley’s Works, and in the collection of his sermons. We have the task of either affirming it or explaining it.

The sermon was first published at a time when Wesley was struggling with the problem of antinomianism; and it was republished in a similar time some twenty-four years later. One might suggest that the best way to counter antinomianism is not with legalism, but that begs the question. An aunt (not my own) who was so proud of her dark fine hair in advanced age plucked out the two or three gray hairs, and everybody thought she dyed her hair. She had robbed herself of the flaw which would have proved authenticity. Similarly, the larger perspective of Wesley comes through his writings - and is driven home with greater force because we know that the man, though a giant, was not larger than life.

Footnotes

1. Harvey K. McArthur, Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Harper and Row, 1960) pp. 91ff.

2. Wesley, Sermon, XXV, I.1. 3. XXV, I. 2.

4. Ibid.

5. XXV, I. 3.

6. XXV, I. 4.

7. XXV, II. I. In several places Wesley’s discussion on "law" might be interpreted as signifying the law of Christ, especially from the Sermon on the Mount. In the present reference it is plain that he means the entire moral law.

8. XXV, II. 2-3.

9. It seems evident to me that Jesus, in 5:17-20, meant to designate the law as it would have been understood upon the occasion. The latter half of chapter five, known commonly as the Antitheses, is the nearest Jesus comes to so-called "New Law"; and he certainly is pointing out the central principle of the old.

10. XXV, III. I.

11. XXV, III. 2.

12. XXV, III. 3.

13. Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, Matt. 11:11, pp. 58-59.

14. XXV, IV. 3-9.

15. XXV, IV. 10.

16. XXV, IV. 11.

17. XXV, IV. 12.

18. Ibid.

19. XXV, IV. 13.

20. Ibid.

21. At that place (XXV, I. 1) Wesley indicated, by reference to Acts 15:6, 10 and 24, that the Christian is not bound to the ritual or ceremonial law: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost (and to them) to lay no such burden on them…[this] hand writing or ordinances our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to his cross." (Ibid.) He is correct in this interpretation for the point at issue at the time of the Jerusalem Council was whether Gentile converts should be bound by the Jewish law, viz., those commandments concerning circumcision and abstinence from certain foods.

22. It is true of course that one part of Paul’s polemic concerned the rite of circumcision (5:2) and observing days, months, seasons, and years (4:10). But surely these are not the law which he called the "custodian", or the "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ.

Edited by KimberLee Bingham for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University, 2000.