Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Justification

  • John Wesley’s Sermon 34 – The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law

    John Wesley’s Sermon 34 – The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law

    (The Law’s Origin, Nature, Characteristics, and Purpose)

    The following sermon is translated according to my prompts by Google Gemini AI. Note that the sermon was translated in blocks, and in this case I’m choosing to include those translation notes after each block. All bolding is a reference to these notes and is not for emphasis.

    I refer to this as “translation,” but it is really simply a modernization of language.

    You can find original sermon here.


    “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” – Romans 7:12

    1. Perhaps there are few topics within the entire scope of religion as little understood as this one. Readers of this Epistle are usually told that by “the law” Saint Paul means the Jewish law; and so, assuming they have no concern with it, they pass on without further thought. Indeed, some are not satisfied with this explanation, but observing that the Epistle is directed to the Romans, they infer that the Apostle at the beginning of this chapter is alluding to the old Roman law. But as they have no more concern with this than with the ceremonial law of Moses, they don’t spend much thought on what they suppose is occasionally mentioned merely to illustrate another point.
    2. But a careful observer of the Apostle’s discourse will not be content with these superficial explanations. And the more he weighs the words, the more convinced he will be that Saint Paul, by the law mentioned in this chapter, does not mean either the ancient law of Rome or the ceremonial law of Moses. This will clearly appear to all who attentively consider the tenor of his discourse. He begins the chapter: “Do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I speak to those who know the law),”—to those who have been instructed in it from their youth—“that the law has dominion over a person as long as he lives?” (What! the law of Rome only, or the ceremonial law? No, surely; but the moral law.) “For,” to give a plain instance, “the woman who has a husband is bound by the” moral “law to her husband as long as he lives; but if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband is dead, she is free from that law: so that she is no adulteress, though she is married to another man.” From this particular instance the Apostle proceeds to draw that general conclusion: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters,” by a plain comparison, “you also have become dead to the law”—the entire Mosaic institution—”by the body of Christ,” offered for you, and bringing you under a new dispensation: “That you should” without any blame “be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead;” and has thereby given proof of his authority to make the change; “that we should bring forth fruit to God.” And this we can do now, whereas before we could not: “for when we were in the flesh”—under the power of the flesh, that is, of corrupt nature, which was necessarily the case until we knew the power of Christ’s resurrection—”the sinful passions, which were aroused by the law,”—which were revealed and inflamed by the Mosaic law, not conquered—”were at work in our members,”—breaking out in various ways—”to bring forth fruit to death.” “But now we are delivered from the law;” from that entire moral, as well as ceremonial system; “that being dead by which we were held;”—that entire institution being now as it were dead, and having no more authority over us than the husband, when dead, has over his wife: “That we should serve him”—who died for us and rose again—”in newness of spirit;”—in a new spiritual dispensation; “and not in the oldness of the letter;”—with a bare outward service, according to the letter of the Mosaic institution (Romans 7:1-6).
    3. The Apostle, having gone this far in proving that Christianity had set aside the Jewish system, and that the moral law itself, though it could never pass away, yet stood on a different foundation from what it did before—now stops to propose and answer an objection: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin?” So some might infer from a misunderstanding of those words, “the sinful passions, which were aroused by the law.” “By no means!” says the Apostle, that we should say so. No, the law is an irreconcilable enemy to sin; for by the law: “I had not known lust,” or evil desire, to be sin, “except the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Romans 7:7). After opening this further, in the four following verses, he adds this general conclusion, with more particular regard to the moral law, from which the preceding instance was taken: “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
    4. In order to explain and emphasize these profound words, so little regarded because so little understood, I will try to show: First, the origin of this law; Secondly, its nature; Thirdly, its properties (that it is holy, and just, and good); and, Fourthly, its uses.

    I. The Original of the Moral Law

    1. I shall, first, try to show the origin of the moral law, often called “the law” by way of distinction. Now, this is not, as some may have possibly imagined, a late institution from the time of Moses. Noah declared it to humanity long before that time, and Enoch before him. But we can trace its origin even higher, even beyond the foundation of the world: to that period, unknown indeed to human beings, but doubtless recorded in the annals of eternity, when “the morning stars” first “sang together,” being newly called into existence. It pleased the great Creator to make these, His first-born sons, intelligent beings, so that they might know Him who created them. For this purpose, He endowed them with understanding, to discern truth from falsehood, good from evil; and, as a necessary result of this, with liberty—the capacity of choosing one and refusing the other. By this, they were, likewise, enabled to offer Him a free and willing service; a service rewarding in itself, as well as most acceptable to their gracious Master.

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Title Translation: Per your instruction, the original title is kept, with a parenthetical clarification below it.
    • Rom. 7:12 Quote: Modernized.
    • I.1: “Compass of religion”: Changed to “scope of religion.”
    • “Apprehending himself to have no concern therewith”: Modernized to “assuming he has no concern with it.”
    • “Passes on without farther thought”: Modernized to “passes on without further thought.”
    • “Alludes to the old Roman law”: Kept, as it’s a specific historical reference.
    • “Ceremonial law of Moses”: Kept as a clear theological category.
    • I.2: “Careful observer… not be content with these light explications”: Modernized to “superficial explanations.”
    • Romans 7:1-6 Exposition: This is a dense, crucial section for Wesley’s argument.
      • “Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law,)”: Modernized “brethren” to “brothers and sisters” and explained “know the law” as “those who have been instructed in it from their youth.”
      • “Hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?”: Modernized for flow.
      • “Moral law”: Explicitly inserted by Wesley to clarify his interpretation; I’ve retained it.
      • “Woman which hath an husband is bound by the” moral “law to her husband so long as he liveth…”: Full biblical quote retained, with “moral” again Wesley’s interpretive insertion. Modernized archaic terms.
      • “Plain parity of reason”: Modernized to “plain comparison.”
      • “Become dead to the law,” the whole Mosaic institution, “by the body of Christ,”: Clarified “whole Mosaic institution” based on Wesley’s intent.
      • “New dispensation”: Kept as a theological term.
      • “When we were in the flesh” — under the power of the flesh, that is, of corrupt nature… “the motions of sins, which were by the law,” — which were shown and inflamed by the Mosaic law, not conquered, “did work in our members,” — broke out various ways, “to bring forth fruit unto death”: This is a very precise and important explanation of Romans 7. I’ve retained Wesley’s clarifications in parentheses (e.g., “under the power of the flesh, that is, of corrupt nature,” “which were shown and inflamed by the Mosaic law, not conquered,” “breaking out in various ways”) as they are essential to his exegesis.
      • “Delivered from the law; that being dead whereby we were held”: Kept this biblical phrasing.
      • “Newness of spirit; and not in the oldness of the letter”: Kept as direct biblical quotes (Romans 7:6).
    • I.3: “Christian had set aside the Jewish dispensation”: Modernized “set aside” slightly.
    • “Moral law itself, though it could never pass away, yet stood on a different foundation”: This is a critical Wesleyan distinction for the Law’s enduring validity but changed context.
    • “What shall we say then? Is the law sin?”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Motions of sins, which were by the law”: Wesley’s clarification for the objection is kept.
    • “God forbid!”: Modernized to “By no means!” (a common modern equivalent of the Greek me genoito).
    • “I had not known lust, evil desire, to be sin, ‘except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet’”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (Romans 7:7). “Lust” clarified to “evil desire.”
    • “Subjoins this general conclusion, with regard more especially to the moral law”: Modernized “subjoins” to “adds.”
    • “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good”: Kept as direct biblical quote.
    • I.4: Outline of Sermon Structure: Wesley’s own outline is presented clearly.
    • I.I.1: “Original of the moral law”: This starts the first major point.
    • “Law, by way of eminence”: Modernized to “law, by way of distinction” or “pre-eminence,” indicating it’s the Law.
    • “So late an institution as the time of Moses”: Emphasizes its ancient origin.
    • “Trace its original higher still, even beyond the foundation of the world”: Key theological point on the eternal nature of the moral law.
    • “Annals of eternity”: Kept as evocative phrasing.
    • “Morning stars’ first ‘sang together’”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Job 38:7).
    • “First-born sons” (angels): Clarified that he is referring to angels.
    • “Endued them with understanding… with liberty”: Key concepts regarding created beings.
    • “Service rewardable in itself, as well as most acceptable”: Kept, referring to the nature of their free service to God.

    I. The Original of the Moral Law (Continued)

    1. To engage all the faculties He had given them, particularly their understanding and liberty, He gave them a Law—a complete model of all truth, as far as it is understandable to a finite being; and of all good, as far as angelic minds were capable of embracing it. It was also the design of their benevolent Governor in this to pave the way for a continual increase of their happiness; seeing every act of obedience to that law would both add to the perfection of their nature and entitle them to a higher reward, which the righteous Judge would give in its proper season.
    2. In a similar manner, when God, in His appointed time, had created a new order of intelligent beings—when He had raised humanity from the dust of the earth, breathed into them the breath of life, and caused them to become a living soul, endowed with the power to choose good or evil—He gave to this free, intelligent creature the same Law as to His first-born children. This Law was not written on tables of stone or any perishable substance, but engraved on their heart by the finger of God; written in the innermost spirit of both human beings and angels. The intent was that it might never be far off, never hard to understand, but always at hand, and always shining with clear light, even as the sun in the midst of heaven.
    3. Such was the origin of the Law of God. With regard to humanity, it was coeval with their nature [meaning: existing at the same time as their creation]; but with regard to the elder sons of God [angels], it shone in its full splendor “before ever the mountains were brought forth, or the earth and the round world were made.” But it was not long before humanity rebelled against God, and, by breaking this glorious Law, almost completely erased it from their heart. The eyes of their understanding were darkened to the same extent that their soul was “alienated from the life of God.” And yet God did not despise the work of His own hands; but, being reconciled to humanity through the Son of His love, He, to some extent, re-inscribed the Law on the heart of His dark, sinful creature. “He” again “showed you, O man, what is good,” although not as clearly as in the beginning, “even to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”
    4. And this He showed, not only to our first parents, but also to all their descendants, by “that true light which enlightens every man who comes into the world.” But, despite this light, all humanity had, over time, “corrupted their way before Him”; until He chose out of mankind a peculiar people, to whom He gave a more perfect knowledge of His Law. And the main points of this Law, because they were slow of understanding, He wrote on two tables of stone, which He commanded the fathers to teach their children throughout all succeeding generations.
    5. And thus it is that the Law of God is now made known to those who do not know God. They hear, with their physical ears, the things that were written long ago for our instruction. But this is not enough: they cannot, by this means, comprehend its height, and depth, and length, and breadth. God alone can reveal this by His Spirit. And so He does to all who truly believe, in consequence of that gracious promise made to all the Israel of God: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. And this shall be the covenant that I will make: I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:31 & c.).

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • I.2: “Intelligible to a finite being”: Kept, as it’s a clear philosophical term.
    • “Make way for a continual increase of their happiness”: Modernized slightly.
    • “Entitle them to an higher reward”: Modernized “higher.”
    • I.3: “New order of intelligent beings”: Refers to humans.
    • “Breathed into him the breath of life, and caused him to become a living soul”: Kept as direct biblical quote/allusion (Genesis 2:7).
    • “Endued with power to choose good or evil”: Emphasizes free will.
    • “Engraven on his heart by the finger of God”: Kept this powerful, classic imagery.
    • “Inmost spirit both of men and of angels”: Highlights the universal and spiritual nature of the Law.
    • “Never far off, never hard to be understood, but always at hand, and always shining with clear light, even as the sun in the midst of heaven”: This vivid description of the innate knowledge of the Law is retained.
    • I.4: “Coeval with his nature”: Clarified with a bracketed explanation as it’s a less common word today.
    • “Elder sons of God”: Clarified with “[angels]” to ensure immediate understanding.
    • “Or ever the mountains were brought forth, or the earth and the round world were made”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (Psalm 90:2, Proverbs 8:25).
    • “Wellnigh effaced it out of his heart”: Modernized “wellnigh effaced” to “almost completely erased.”
    • “Eyes of his understanding being darkened” / “alienated from the life of God”: Kept as direct biblical allusions (Ephesians 4:18).
    • “Reconciled to man through the Son of his love”: Kept this key theological concept.
    • “Reinscribed the law on the heart of his dark, sinful creature”: Kept this powerful image of God’s renewed grace.
    • “He’ again ‘showed thee, O man, what is good,’… ‘even to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God’”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Micah 6:8), with “thee/thy” updated to “you/your.”
    • I.5: “True light which enlightens every man that cometh into the world”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (John 1:9).
    • “All flesh had, in process of time, ‘corrupted their way before him’”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Genesis 6:12).
    • “Peculiar people”: Kept this biblical term.
    • “Slow of understanding”: Kept, as it’s a clear description.
    • I.6: “Hear, with the hearing of the ear”: Kept this biblical phrasing.
    • “Comprehend the height, and depth, and length, and breadth thereof”: Kept as direct biblical allusion (Ephesians 3:18).
    • Jeremiah 31:31 & c. quote: Modernized the language while keeping its core message about the New Covenant.

    II. The Nature of the Law

    1. The nature of that Law which was originally given to angels in heaven and humanity in paradise, and which God has so mercifully promised to write afresh in the hearts of all true believers, was the second thing I proposed to show. In order to do this, I would first observe that although “the law” and “the commandment” are sometimes used differently (the commandment meaning only a part of the law), yet, in the text [Romans 7:12], they are used as equivalent terms, implying one and the same thing. But we cannot understand here, by either one or the other, the ceremonial law. It is not the ceremonial law of which the Apostle says, in the words quoted above, “I had not known sin, but by the law”: this is too plain to need proof. Neither is it the ceremonial law which says, in the words immediately following, “You shall not covet.” Therefore, the ceremonial law has no place in the present question.
    2. Neither can we understand the law mentioned in the text as the Mosaic dispensation. It is true, the word “law” is sometimes understood that way; as when the Apostle says, speaking to the Galatians (Galatians 3:17), “The covenant that was confirmed before,” namely, with Abraham, the father of the faithful, “the law,” that is, the Mosaic dispensation, “which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot annul.” But it cannot be understood that way in the text; for the Apostle never bestows such high commendations as these upon that imperfect and shadowy dispensation. He nowhere affirms the Mosaic Law to be a spiritual law; or that it is holy, and just, and good. Neither is it true that God will write that law in the hearts of those whose iniquities He remembers no more. It remains, then, that “the law,” pre-eminently so called, is none other than the moral law.
    3. Now, this law is an incorruptible picture of the High and Holy One who inhabits eternity. It is He whom, in His essence, no one has seen or can see, made visible to human beings and angels. It is the face of God unveiled; God manifested to His creatures as they are able to bear it; manifested to give, and not to destroy, life—so that they may see God and live. It is the heart of God disclosed to humanity. Yes, in some sense, we may apply to this law what the Apostle says of His Son: It is apaugasma tes doxes, kai charakter tes hypostaseos autou [the streaming forth or out-beaming of His glory, the express image of His person].
    4. “If virtue,” said the ancient heathen, “could assume such a shape that we could behold her with our eyes, what wonderful love would she excite in us!” If virtue could do this! It is done already. The law of God is all virtues in one, in such a shape as to be beheld with open face by all those whose eyes God has enlightened. What is the law but divine virtue and wisdom assuming a visible form? What is it but the original ideas of truth and good, which were lodged in the uncreated mind from eternity, now drawn forth and clothed with such a vehicle as to appear even to human understanding?
    5. If we survey the law of God from another perspective, it is supreme, unchangeable reason; it is unalterable rectitude; it is the everlasting fitness of all things that are or ever were created. I am aware of the shortcomings, and even impropriety, in these and all other human expressions when we try by these faint pictures to foreshadow the deep things of God. Nevertheless, we have no better, indeed no other way, during this our infant state of existence. As we now know only “in part,” so we are compelled to “prophesy,” that is, speak of the things of God, “in part” also. “We cannot order our speech because of darkness,” while we are in this house of clay. While I am “a child,” I must “speak as a child”; but I shall soon “put away childish things”; for “when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.”
    6. But to return. The law of God (speaking in human terms) is a copy of the eternal mind, a transcript of the divine nature: Yes, it is the fairest offspring of the everlasting Father, the brightest radiance of His essential wisdom, the visible beauty of the Most High. It is the delight and wonder of cherubim and seraphim, and all the company of heaven, and the glory and joy of every wise believer, every well-instructed child of God on Earth.

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • II.1: “Law” and “Commandment” as equivalent: Wesley notes this, so it’s kept.
    • “I had not known sin, but by the law” / “Thou shalt not covet”: Direct biblical quotes (Romans 7:7).
    • II.2: “Mosaic dispensation”: Clarified as “Mosaic dispensation” (original phrasing), as Wesley is arguing against this interpretation of “the law” in the text.
    • “Imperfect and shadowy dispensation”: Kept, as it’s Wesley’s direct assessment of the Mosaic Law in comparison to the moral law.
    • “Eminently so termed”: Modernized to “pre-eminently so called” to convey “called that especially” or “by way of distinction.”
    • “Incorruptible picture of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity”: Kept this powerful, poetic description of the Law’s divine nature.
    • “Face of God unveiled” / “heart of God disclosed to humanity”: Strong, vivid metaphors.
    • Greek Phrase: apaugasma tes doxes, kai charakter tes hypostaseos autou: Retained the Greek as per your earlier instruction, followed by Wesley’s own translation/explanation. This is from Hebrews 1:3.
    • II.4: Ancient Heathen Quote: Kept as Wesley uses it, contrasting it with the divine reality.
    • “Divine virtue and wisdom assuming a visible form” / “original ideas of truth and good”: Key phrases describing the Law’s essence.
    • “Uncreated mind from eternity”: Kept, emphasizing the Law’s eternal nature.
    • “Clothed with such a vehicle as to appear even to human understanding”: Kept, describing how divine truth becomes comprehensible.
    • II.5: “Supreme, unchangeable reason” / “unalterable rectitude” / “everlasting fitness of all things”: These are profound philosophical and theological definitions of the Law, so they are retained for their precision.
    • “Shortness, and even impropriety, there is, in these and all other human expressions, when we endeavour by these faint pictures to shadow out the deep things of God”: This is Wesley’s humble acknowledgment of linguistic limitations when speaking of God, important to retain.
    • “Infant state of existence”: Kept.
    • “Know but ‘in part,’ so we are constrained to ‘prophesy,’ that is, speak of the things of God, ‘in part’ also”: Direct biblical quotes/allusions (1 Corinthians 13:9, 12) with Wesley’s clarification for “prophesy.”
    • “We cannot order our speech by reason of darkness”: Direct biblical quote/allusion (Job 37:19).
    • “While I am ‘a child,’ I must ‘speak as a child:’ but I shall soon ‘put away childish things:’ for ‘when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away’”: Direct biblical quotes (1 Corinthians 13:11).
    • II.6: “Copy of the eternal mind, a transcript of the divine nature”: Reiteration and powerful summary of the Law’s nature.
    • “Fairest offspring of the everlasting Father, the brightest efflux of his essential wisdom, the visible beauty of the Most high”: Strong, evocative, and poetic language defining the Law.
    • “Delight and wonder of cherubim and seraphim”: Kept for its vivid imagery.

    III. The Properties of the Law

    1. Such is the nature of the ever-blessed law of God. I am, in the third place, to show its properties. Not all of them, for that would exceed the wisdom of an angel; but only those mentioned in the text [Romans 7:12]. These are three: it is holy, just, and good. And, first, the Law is holy.
    2. In this expression, the Apostle does not appear to speak of its effects, but rather of its nature. As Saint James, speaking of the same thing under another name, says, “The wisdom from above” (which is none other than this Law, written in our heart) “is first pure” (James 3:17); hagnē—chaste, spotless; eternally and essentially holy. And, consequently, when it is transcribed into the life, as well as the soul, it is (as the same Apostle terms it, James 1:27) thrēskeia kathara kai amiantos, pure religion and undefiled; or, the pure, clean, unpolluted worship of God.
    3. It is, indeed, in the highest degree, pure, chaste, clean, holy. Otherwise, it could not be the direct offspring, much less the exact resemblance, of God, who is essential holiness. It is pure from all sin, clean and unspotted from any touch of evil. It is a chaste virgin, incapable of any defilement, of any mixture with that which is unclean or unholy. It has no fellowship with sin of any kind: For what communion has light with darkness? As sin is, in its very nature, hostility toward God, so His Law is hostility toward sin.
    4. Therefore it is that the Apostle rejects with such abhorrence that blasphemous idea: that the Law of God is either sin itself or the cause of sin. God forbid that we should suppose it is the cause of sin, just because it discovers it; because it uncovers the hidden things of darkness and drags them out into the open. It is true, by this means (as the Apostle observes, Romans 7:13), sin appears to be sin. All its disguises are torn away, and it appears in its native ugliness. It is true, likewise, that sin, by the commandment, becomes exceedingly sinful: being now committed against light and knowledge, being stripped even of the poor excuse of ignorance, it loses its defense, as well as its disguise, and becomes far more hateful both to God and humanity. Yes, and it is true that “sin works death through what is good”—what is in itself pure and holy. When it is dragged out to light, it rages more. When it is restrained, it bursts out with greater violence. Thus the Apostle (speaking in the person of one who was convinced of sin, but not yet delivered from it) says, “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment”—detecting and trying to restrain it—disdained the restraint, and so much the more “produced in me all manner of covetousness” (Romans 7:8); all manner of foolish and harmful desire, which that commandment sought to restrain. Thus, “when the commandment came, sin revived” (Romans 7:9); it became more agitated and violent. But this is no stain on the commandment. Though it is misused, it cannot be defiled. This only proves that “the heart of man is desperately wicked.” But “the law” of God “is holy” still.
    5. And it is, secondly, just. It gives to everyone their due. It prescribes exactly what is right, precisely what ought to be done, said, or thought, both with regard to the Author of our being, with regard to ourselves, and with regard to every creature He has made. It is adapted, in all respects, to the nature of things, of the whole universe, and every individual. It is suited to all the circumstances of each, and to all their mutual relations, whether such as have existed from the beginning, or such as commenced in any following period. It is exactly agreeable to the fitnesses of things, whether essential or accidental. It clashes with none of these in any degree; nor is it ever disconnected from them. If the word “arbitrary” is taken in that sense, there is nothing arbitrary in the law of God. Although still the whole and every part of it is totally dependent upon His will; so that, “Your will be done,” is the supreme, universal law both on Earth and in heaven.
    6. “But is the will of God the cause of His law? Is His will the origin of right and wrong? Is a thing therefore right because God wills it? Or does He will it because it is right?”I fear this celebrated question is more curious than useful. And perhaps in the way it is usually discussed, it does not quite align with the respect that is due from a creature to the Creator and Governor of all things. It is hardly appropriate for humanity to demand an account from the supreme God. Nevertheless, with awe and reverence, we may speak a little. May the Lord pardon us if we speak amiss!
    7. It seems, then, that the whole difficulty arises from considering God’s will as distinct from God; otherwise, it vanishes. For no one can doubt that God is the cause of the law of God. But the will of God is God Himself. It is God considered as willing in this or that manner. Consequently, to say that the will of God, or that God Himself, is the cause of the law, is one and the same thing.

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • III.1: “Exceed the wisdom of an angel”: Kept, as it’s a clear hyperbole of the Law’s depth.
    • III.2: “Agne — chaste, spotless”: Retained the Greek term and Wesley’s translation/explanation.
    • thrēskeia kathara kai amiantos: Retained the Greek phrase and Wesley’s translation, as it’s a specific biblical reference (James 1:27).
    • “Transcribed into the life, as well as the soul”: Emphasizes both inward and outward manifestation.
    • III.3: “Immediate offspring, and much less the express resemblance”: Kept, stressing the Law’s direct relation to God’s nature.
    • “Chaste virgin, incapable of any defilement”: Strong, personified imagery for the Law’s purity.
    • “What communion hath light with darkness?”: Direct biblical quote/allusion (2 Corinthians 6:14).
    • “Enmity to God” / “enmity to sin”: Emphasizes the opposing natures.
    • III.4: “Blasphemous supposition”: Kept, conveying Wesley’s strong rejection.
    • “Discoverer of it” / “detects the hidden things of darkness, and drags them out into open day”: Vivid descriptions of the Law’s role in revealing sin.
    • “Sin appears to be sin” / “sin, by the commandment, becomes exceeding sinful” / “sin worketh death by that which is good”: Direct biblical quotes/allusions (Romans 7:13).
    • “Rages the more” / “bursts out with greater violence”: Strong verbs depicting sin’s reaction to restraint.
    • “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment… wrought in me all manner of concupiscence” / “when the commandment came, sin revived”: Direct biblical quotes (Romans 7:8-9). “Concupiscence” is clarified by Wesley himself as “foolish and hurtful desire,” which is incorporated into the modern text.
    • “Heart of man is desperately wicked”: Kept as a direct biblical allusion (Jeremiah 17:9).
    • III.5: “Renders to all their due”: Clear and concise definition of justice.
    • “Adapted, in all respects, to the nature of things, of the whole universe, and every individual”: Highlights the Law’s universality and perfection in design.
    • “Fitnesses of things, whether essential or accidental”: Philosophical concept, kept.
    • “Nothing arbitrary in the law of God”: Important theological assertion.
    • “Thy will be done”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • III.6: The “Is God’s will the cause of His law?” question: This is a famous philosophical/theological debate. Wesley’s caution about its “curious” nature and the creature’s place before the Creator is retained.
    • “Hardly decent for man to call the supreme God to give an account to him”: Kept, as it expresses his humility before God.
    • III.7: Wesley’s Resolution: His theological solution (“the will of God is God himself”) is clearly presented.

    III. The Properties of the Law (Continued)

    8. Again: If the law, the unchanging rule of right and wrong, depends upon the nature and fitnesses of things, and on their essential relations to each other (I do not say, their eternal relations; because the eternal relation of things existing in time is little less than a contradiction); if, I say, this depends on the nature and relations of things, then it must depend on God, or the will of God; because those very things themselves, with all their relations, are the works of His hands. By His will, “for His pleasure” alone, they all “are and were created.”

    1. And yet, we can agree (which is probably all a thoughtful person would argue for) that in every specific situation, God wills this or that (for example, that people should honor their parents) because it is inherently right, consistent with the proper order of things and the relationships involved.
    2. The Law, then, is right and just in all things. And it is good as well as just. We can easily infer this from its source. For what was this source but the goodness of God? What but goodness alone inclined Him to impart that divine blueprint of Himself to the holy angels? To what else can we attribute His bestowing upon humanity the same reflection of His own nature? And what but tender love compelled Him afresh to reveal His will to fallen humanity—either to Adam or any of his descendants, who, like him, had “fallen short of the glory of God?” Was it not pure love that moved Him to make His law public after people’s understanding became clouded? And to send His prophets to declare that law to the blind, thoughtless children of humanity? Doubtless, it was His goodness that raised up Enoch and Noah to be preachers of righteousness; that caused Abraham, His friend, and Isaac, and Jacob, to bear witness to His truth. It was His goodness alone which, when “darkness had covered the earth, and thick darkness the people,” gave a written law to Moses, and, through him, to the nation He had chosen. It was love that explained these living oracles through David and all the prophets who followed; until, when the fullness of time had come, He sent His only-begotten Son, “not to destroy the law, but to fulfill,” confirming every tiny detail of it; until, having written it in the hearts of all His children and put all His enemies under His feet, “He shall deliver up” His mediatorial “kingdom to the Father, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28).
    3. And this Law, which the goodness of God gave at first and has preserved through all ages, is, like the source from which it springs, full of goodness and benevolence; it is mild and kind; it is, as the Psalmist expresses it, “sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.” It is appealing and lovely. It includes “whatever is lovely or commendable. If there is any virtue, if there is any praise” before God and His holy angels, they are all encompassed in this Law; within it are hidden all the treasures of divine wisdom, knowledge, and love.
    4. And it is good in its effects, as well as in its nature. As the tree is, so are its fruits. The fruits of the law of God written in the heart are “righteousness, and peace, and assurance forever.” Or rather, the Law itself is righteousness, filling the soul with a peace that surpasses all understanding, and causing us to rejoice always in the testimony of a good conscience toward God. It is not so much a pledge as “a guarantee of our inheritance,” being a part of the purchased possession. It is God made manifest in our flesh, bringing with Him eternal life; assuring us by that pure and perfect love that we are “sealed for the day of redemption”; that He will “spare us as a man spares his own son who serves him,” “on that day when He gathers His treasured possessions”; and that there remains for us “a crown of glory that will never fade away.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • “Considerate person”: Changed to “thoughtful person.”
    • “Agreeable to the fitness of things, to the relation wherein they stand”: Modernized to “consistent with the proper order of things and the relationships involved.”
    • “Fountain whence it flowed”: Modernized to “source from which it flowed.”
    • “Divine copy of himself” / “same transcript of his own nature”: Modernized to “divine blueprint of Himself” and “same reflection of His own nature” to make the metaphor clearer.
    • “Constrained him afresh to manifest his will to fallen man”: Modernized to “compelled Him afresh to reveal His will to fallen humanity.”
    • “Come short of the glory of God”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Publish his law”: Changed to “make His law public.”
    • “Blind, thoughtless children of men”: Retained the vivid, somewhat critical description.
    • “Darkness had covered the earth, and thick darkness the people”: Kept as a biblical allusion (Isaiah 60:2).
    • “Living oracles”: Kept, as it’s an evocative phrase for God’s word.
    • “Fullness of time”: Kept as a specific biblical term (Galatians 4:4).
    • “Not to destroy the law, but to fulfil, confirm every jot and title thereof”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (Matthew 5:17-18).
    • “Deliver up his mediatorial kingdom to the Father, that God may be all in all”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (1 Corinthians 15:24, 28).
    • “Goodness and benignity”: Retained for emphasis on the positive nature of the law. “Benignity” is a less common word, but “goodness and benevolence” also works. I kept “benignity” as it’s distinct enough.
    • “Mild and kind” / “winning and amiable”: Retained for their descriptive power. “Winning and amiable” changed to “appealing and lovely.”
    • “Sweeter than honey and the honey-comb”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Psalm 19:10, 119:103).
    • “Whatsoever things are lovely or of good report. If there be any virtue, if there be any praise”: Kept as a direct biblical allusion (Philippians 4:8).
    • “Hid all the treasures of the divine wisdom, and knowledge, and love”: Kept as it is.
    • “Righteousness, and peace, and assurance for ever”: Kept as a direct biblical allusion (Isaiah 32:17).
    • “Peace which passeth all understanding”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Philippians 4:7).
    • “Rejoice evermore, in the testimony of a good conscience toward God”: Kept as it is.
    • “Earnest, of our inheritance” / “purchased possession”: Modernized “earnest” to “guarantee” and kept “purchased possession” as biblical terms.
    • “God made manifest in our flesh”: Kept, as it’s a profound theological statement.
    • “Sealed unto the day of redemption”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Ephesians 4:30).
    • “Spare us as a man spareth his own son that serveth him,” “in that day when he maketh up his jewels”: Modernized “spareth” to “spares” and “maketh up his jewels” to “gathers His treasured possessions” for clarity (Malachi 3:17).
    • “Crown of glory which fadeth not away”: Modernized “fadeth not away” to “will never fade away” (1 Peter 5:4).

    IV. The Uses of the Law

    1. It remains only to show, in the fourth and last place, the uses of the Law. And the first use of it, without question, is to convict the world of sin. This is, indeed, the unique work of the Holy Spirit, who can accomplish it without any means at all, or by whatever means pleases Him, however insufficient in themselves, or even inappropriate, to produce such an effect. And, accordingly, some there are whose hearts have been completely broken in a moment, either in sickness or in health, without any visible cause or any outward means whatever. Others (perhaps one in an age) have been awakened to a sense of the “wrath of God abiding on them” by hearing that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.” But it is the ordinary method of the Spirit of God to convict sinners by the Law. It is the Law which, when applied to the conscience, generally “breaks the rocks in pieces.” It is more especially this part of the word of God which is zōn kai energesquick and powerful, full of life and energy, “and sharper than any two-edged sword.” This, in the hand of God and of those whom He has sent, pierces through all the layers of a deceitful heart, and “divides even the soul and the spirit”; yes, as it were, the very “joints and marrow.” By this, the sinner is revealed to himself. All his “fig-leaves” are torn away, and he sees that he is “wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked.” The Law flashes conviction on every side. He feels himself a mere sinner. He has nothing to pay. His “mouth is stopped,” and he stands “guilty before God.”
    2. To slay the sinner is, then, the first use of the Law; to destroy the life and strength in which he trusts, and to convince him that he is dead while he lives; not only under the sentence of death, but actually dead to God, devoid of all spiritual life, “dead in trespasses and sins.” The second use of it is to bring him to life, to Christ, that he may live. It is true, in performing both these offices, it acts the part of a severe schoolmaster. It drives us by force, rather than draws us by love. And yet love is the spring of all. It is the spirit of love which, by this painful means, tears away our confidence in the flesh, which leaves us no broken reed on which to trust, and so compels the sinner, stripped of all, to cry out in the bitterness of his soul, or groan in the depths of his heart,I give up every plea beside, — Lord, I am damned; but Thou hast died.
    3. The third use of the Law is to keep us alive. It is the primary means by which the blessed Spirit prepares the believer for larger communications of the life of God.I am afraid this great and important truth is little understood, not only by the world, but even by many whom God has taken out of the world, who are real children of God by faith. Many of these assume it as an unquestioned truth that when we come to Christ, we have finished with the law; and that, in this sense, “Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes.” “The end of the law”: so He is, “for righteousness,” for justification, “to everyone who believes.” Herein the law is at an end. It justifies no one, but only brings them to Christ; who is also, in another respect, the end or scope of the law—the point at which it continually aims. But when it has brought us to Him, it has yet a further office, namely, to keep us with Him. For it is continually urging all believers, the more they see of its height, and depth, and length, and breadth, to exhort one another all the more—Closer and closer let us cleave To his beloved Embrace; Expect his fullness to receive, And grace to answer grace.
    4. Allowing then, that every believer has finished with the law as it means the Jewish ceremonial law, or the entire Mosaic dispensation (for Christ has taken these out of the way); yes, allowing we have finished with the moral law as a means of procuring our justification (for we are “justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus”); yet, in another sense, we have not finished with this law: for it is still of unspeakable use. First, in convincing us of the sin that yet remains both in our hearts and lives, and thereby keeping us close to Christ, that His blood may cleanse us every moment. Secondly, in drawing strength from our Head into His living members, by which He empowers them to do what His law commands. And, Thirdly, in confirming our hope of whatsoever it commands and we have not yet attained—of receiving grace upon grace, until we are in actual possession of the fullness of His promises.
    5. How clearly does this agree with the experience of every true believer! While he cries out, “Oh, what love I have for your law! All the day long is my study in it,” he sees daily, in that divine mirror, more and more of his own sinfulness. He sees more and more clearly that he is still a sinner in all things—that neither his heart nor his ways are right before God; and that every moment sends him to Christ. This shows him the meaning of what is written, “You shall make a plate of pure gold, and engrave upon it, ‘Holiness to the Lord.’ And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead” (the type of our great High-Priest), “that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall consecrate in all their holy gifts” (so far are our prayers or holy things from atoning for the rest of our sin!) “and it shall always be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord” (Exodus 28:36, 38).
    6. To explain this by a single instance: The Law says, “You shall not kill;” and hereby (as our Lord teaches) forbids not only outward actions, but every unkind word or thought. Now, the more I look into this perfect Law, the more I feel how far I fall short of it; and the more I feel this, the more I feel my need of His blood to atone for all my sin, and of His Spirit to purify my heart, and make me “perfect and complete, lacking nothing.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • IV.1: “Peculiar work of the Holy Ghost”: Modernized to “unique work of the Holy Spirit.”
    • “However insufficient in themselves, or even improper”: Kept, referring to means God might use.
    • “Broken in pieces in a moment”: Kept the strong imagery.
    • “Wrath of God abiding on them”: Kept as a specific theological phrase.
    • “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (2 Corinthians 5:19).
    • zōn kai energes: Retained the Greek and included Wesley’s translation “quick and powerful, full of life and energy” (from Hebrews 4:12).
    • “Sharper than any two edged sword” / “pierces through all the folds of a deceitful heart, and ‘divides asunder even the soul and the spirit;’ yea, as it were, the very ‘joints and marrow’”: Kept these vivid biblical allusions (Hebrews 4:12).
    • “Sinner discovered to himself”: Kept, meaning the sinner reveals himself to himself.
    • “Fig-leaves are torn away”: Kept this biblical allusion (Genesis 3:7).
    • “Wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Revelation 3:17).
    • “Mouth is stopped,” and he stands “guilty before God”: Kept as direct biblical quotes (Romans 3:19).
    • IV.2: “Slay the sinner”: Kept this strong, intentional verb.
    • “Dead while he liveth”: Kept the paradox.
    • “Dead in trespasses and sins”: Kept as direct biblical quote (Ephesians 2:1, 5).
    • “Severe school-master”: Kept this classic analogy for the Law (Galatians 3:24).
    • “Tears away our confidence in the flesh” / “leaves us no broken reed whereon to trust”: Powerful metaphors.
    • Charles Wesley Poem: Retained in its original form, as agreed.
    • IV.3: “Keep us alive”: Emphasizes the ongoing role of the Law.
    • “Larger communications of the life of God”: Kept, as it speaks to spiritual growth.
    • “Christ is the end of the law to every one that believeth” / “for righteousness,” for justification, “to every one that believeth”: Kept as direct biblical quotes (Romans 10:4). Wesley’s clarification about “end” meaning “purpose” or “scope” in different contexts is crucial and conveyed.
    • Hymn Stanza: Retained in its original form.
    • IV.4: “Done with the law, as it means the Jewish ceremonial law, or the entire Mosaic dispensation”: Clarified with “finished with” for “done with.”
    • “Justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Romans 3:24).
    • “Unspeakable use”: Kept.
    • Threefold Use for Believers: Clearly enumerated for clarity as Wesley lists them.
      • “Convincing us of the sin that yet remains”
      • “Deriving strength from our Head into his living members”
      • “Confirming our hope of whatsoever it commands and we have not yet attained”
    • “Cleanse us every moment”: Highlights a key aspect of ongoing sanctification.
    • “Grace upon grace”: Kept as a direct biblical allusion (John 1:16).
    • “Actual possession of the fulness of his promises”: Kept, emphasizing full realization.
    • IV.5: “O what love have I unto thy law! all the day long is my study in it”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (Psalm 119:97).
    • “Divine mirror”: Kept, a classic analogy for the Law.
    • Exodus 28:36, 38 (Aaron’s plate): This is a complex biblical allusion Wesley uses to illustrate Christ bearing the iniquity of our holy things. I’ve modernized the biblical language while retaining the core point he’s making about imperfection even in our best acts. “Hallow” is modernized to “consecrate.”
    • IV.6: “Thou shalt not kill”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 5:21-22).
    • “Perfect and entire, lacking nothing”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (James 1:4).

    IV. The Uses of the Law (Continued)

    1. Therefore, I cannot do without the Law for a single moment, no more than I can do without Christ; seeing I now need it as much to keep me close to Christ as I ever needed it to bring me to Him. Otherwise, this “evil heart of unbelief” would immediately “depart from the living God.” Indeed, each is continually sending me to the other—the Law to Christ, and Christ to the Law. On the one hand, the height and depth of the Law compel me to fly to the love of God in Christ; on the other, the love of God in Christ makes the Law precious to me “above gold or precious stones”; seeing I know every part of it is a gracious promise which my Lord will fulfill in its season.
    2. Who are you then, O person, who “judges the law, and speaks evil of the law?”—who ranks it with sin, Satan, and death, and sends them all to hell together? The Apostle James considered judging or “speaking evil of the law” such an enormous wickedness that he knew not how to make the guilt of judging our brothers and sisters more serious than by showing it included this. “So now,” says he, “you are not a doer of the law, but a judge!” A judge of that which God has ordained to judge you! So you have set yourself up in the judgment seat of Christ and cast down the rule by which He will judge the world! Oh, realize what advantage Satan has gained over you; and, from now on, never think or speak lightly of, much less dress up as a scarecrow, this blessed instrument of the grace of God. Yes, love and value it for the sake of Him from whom it came, and of Him to whom it leads. Let it be your glory and joy, next to the cross of Christ. Declare its praise, and make it honorable before all people.
    3. And if you are thoroughly convinced that it is the offspring of God, that it is the copy of all His incomparable perfections, and that it is “holy, and just, and good,” but especially to those who believe; then, instead of casting it away as a polluted thing, see that you cleave to it more and more. Never let the law of mercy and truth, of love to God and humanity, of humility, meekness, and purity, forsake you. “Bind it about your neck; write it on the tablet of your heart.” Keep close to the Law, if you will keep close to Christ; hold it fast; let it not go. Let this continually lead you to the atoning blood, continually confirm your hope, until all the “righteousness of the law is fulfilled in you,” and you are “filled with all the fullness of God.”
    4. And if your Lord has already fulfilled His word, if He has already “written His law in your heart,” then “stand fast in the liberty with which Christ has made you free.” You are not only made free from Jewish ceremonies, from the guilt of sin, and the fear of hell (these are so far from being the whole, that they are the least and lowest part of Christian liberty); but, what is infinitely more, from the power of sin, from serving the devil, from offending God. Oh, stand fast in this liberty; in comparison of which, all the rest is not even worthy to be named! Stand fast in loving God with all your heart, and serving Him with all your strength! This is perfect freedom; thus to keep His law, and to walk in all His commandments blameless. “Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” I do not mean of Jewish bondage; nor yet of bondage to the fear of hell: these, I trust, are far from you. But beware of being entangled again with the yoke of sin—of any inward or outward transgression of the Law. Abhor sin far more than death or hell; abhor sin itself, far more than the punishment of it. Beware of the bondage of pride, of desire, of anger; of every evil temper, or word, or work. “Look to Jesus;” and in order to that, look more and more into the perfect Law, “the law of liberty;” and “continue in it”; so shall you daily “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • IV.7: “Cannot spare the law one moment, no more than I can spare Christ”: This strong opening is a powerful statement of the Law’s continuous necessity. “Spare” is modernized to “do without.”
    • “Evil heart of unbelief” would immediately “depart from the living God”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (Hebrews 3:12).
    • “Each is continually sending me to the other, — the law to Christ, and Christ to the law”: This is a core Wesleyan concept of the dynamic interplay between Law and Grace, crucial for understanding his theology.
    • “Endears the law to me ‘above gold or precious stones’”: Kept as a direct biblical allusion (Psalm 19:10, 119:72).
    • “Every part of it is a gracious promise which my Lord will fulfil in its season”: This is a key Wesleyan interpretation of the Law for the believer under grace.
    • IV.8: “Who art thou then, O man, that ‘judgest the law, and speakest evil of the law?’”: Kept the direct, challenging rhetorical question (James 4:11).
    • “Rankest it with sin, Satan, and death and sendest them all to hell together”: Strong, vivid language.
    • “Apostle James esteemed judging or ‘speaking evil of the law’ so enormous a piece of wickedness”: Emphasizes the gravity of this sin.
    • “So now,’ says he, ‘thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge!’”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (James 4:11).
    • “Judgment-seat of Christ, and cast down the rule whereby he will judge the world!”: Strong imagery and theological implication.
    • “Blessed instrument of the grace of God”: Key Wesleyan phrase, showing the Law’s positive role.
    • “Glory and joy, next to the cross of Christ”: Highlights the Law’s high esteem.
    • IV.9: “Offspring of God” / “copy of all his inimitable perfections”: Reiteration of the Law’s divine origin and nature.
    • “Holy, and just, and good”: Kept as direct biblical quote.
    • “Cleave to it more and more”: Kept as a strong verb for adherence.
    • “Law of mercy and truth, of love to God and man, of lowliness, meekness, and purity”: Comprehensive list of the Law’s attributes.
    • “Bind it about thy neck; writ it on the table of thy heart”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (Proverbs 3:3, 7:3).
    • “Keep close to the Law, if thou wilt keep close to Christ”: Crucial Wesleyan connection.
    • “Atoning blood, continually confirm thy hope”: Emphasizes the ongoing need for Christ’s work.
    • “Righteousness of the law is fulfilled in thee” / “filled with all the fullness of God”: Kept as direct biblical quotes (Romans 8:4, Ephesians 3:19), showing the ultimate goal of holiness.
    • IV.10: “Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made thee free”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Galatians 5:1).
    • “Jewish ceremonies, from the guilt of sin, and the fear of hell”: Enumeration of basic Christian liberties.
    • “Infinitely more, from the power of sin, from serving the devil, from offending God”: Emphasizes the greater freedom Wesley highlights.
    • “Perfect freedom; thus to keep his law, and to walk in all his commandments blameless”: Wesley’s definition of true liberty.
    • “Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Galatians 5:1).
    • “Abhor sin far more than death or hell; abhor sin itself, far more than the punishment of it”: A very strong, almost shocking, statement that prioritizes holiness above all else.
    • “Look unto Jesus”: Kept as a core spiritual discipline (Hebrews 12:2).
    • “Perfect Law, ‘the law of liberty;’ and ‘continue therein’”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (James 1:25).
    • “Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (2 Peter 3:18).
  • John Wesley’s Sermon 6 – The Righteousness of Faith

    John Wesley’s Sermon 6 – The Righteousness of Faith

    The following sermon is translated according to my prompts by Google Gemini AI. Note that the sermon was translated in blocks, and in this case I’m choosing to include those translation notes after each block. All bolding is a reference to these notes and is not for emphasis.

    I refer to this as “translation,” but it is really simply a modernization of language.

    You can find the original sermon here.


    Sermon 6: The Righteousness of Faith

    “Moses describes the righteousness that comes from the law: ‘The person who does these things will live by them.’ But the righteousness that comes from faith speaks like this: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down from above); or, “Who will descend into the deep?” (that is, to bring Christ up again from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we preach.’” – Romans 10:5-8

    1. The Apostle Paul here is not contrasting the covenant given by Moses with the covenant given by Christ. If we ever thought that, it was because we failed to notice that both the latter and former parts of these words were spoken by Moses himself to the people of Israel, and they concerned the covenant that was already in place at that time (Deuteronomy 30:11, 12, 14). Instead, Saint Paul here is contrasting the covenant of grace—which God, through Christ, has established with humanity in all ages (both before and under the Jewish system, as well as since God was revealed in the flesh)—with the covenant of works, which was made with Adam in Paradise. This covenant of works was commonly, but mistakenly, supposed to be the only covenant God had made with humanity, especially by those Jews about whom the Apostle writes.
    2. It was of these Jews that he speaks so affectionately at the beginning of this chapter: “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness” (meaning the justification that flows from His pure grace and mercy, freely forgiving our sins through the Son of His love, through the redemption which is in Jesus), “and seeking to establish their own righteousness” (meaning their own holiness, which they believed must come before faith in “Him who justifies the ungodly,” as the basis for their pardon and acceptance), “have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God,” and consequently are seeking spiritual death in the error of their lives.
    3. They were ignorant that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes“—that, by the one offering of Himself, He had brought an end to the first law or covenant (which, indeed, was not given by God to Moses, but to Adam in his state of innocence). The strict condition of that covenant, without any exceptions, was: “Do this, and live.” And, at the same time, Christ purchased for us that better covenant: “Believe, and live;” believe, and you shall be saved—now saved, both from the guilt and power of sin, and, as a consequence, from its penalty.
    4. And how many are equally ignorant today, even among those who are called by the name of Christ! How many who now have a “zeal for God,” yet do not have it “according to knowledge,” but are still seeking “to establish their own righteousness” as the basis for their pardon and acceptance? And therefore, they strongly refuse to “submit themselves to the righteousness of God!” Surely, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for you, brothers and sisters, is that you may be saved. And, to remove this major obstacle from your path, I will try to show: First, what the righteousness that comes from the law is, and what “the righteousness that comes from faith” is; Secondly, the folly of trusting in the righteousness of the law, and the wisdom of submitting to the righteousness that comes from faith.

    I. The Righteousness of the Law

    1. And, first, “the righteousness that comes from the law says, ‘The person who does these things will live by them.’” This means: Constantly and perfectly observe all these things to do them, and then you shall live forever. This law, or covenant (usually called the Covenant of Works), given by God to humanity in Paradise, required an obedience that was perfect in all its parts, complete and lacking nothing, as the condition for humanity’s eternal continuation in the holiness and happiness in which they were created.

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Sermon Title: “The Righteousness of Faith” is kept.
    • Introductory Scripture (Romans 10:5-8): Modernized the language while retaining the key phrases “righteousness which is of the law,” “righteousness which is of faith,” and “word is nigh thee.” Clarified parenthetical explanations.
    • “Covenant given by Moses, to the covenant given by Christ”: Clarified with “by Moses” and “by Christ.”
    • “Jewish dispensation”: Modernized to “Jewish system.”
    • “God was manifest in the flesh”: Kept, as it’s a key theological phrase for the incarnation.
    • “Covenant of works, made with Adam while in Paradise”: Kept these specific theological terms.
    • “Ignorant of God’s righteousness”: Wesley’s own parenthetical explanation is crucial, so I’ve maintained it: “(meaning the justification that flows from His pure grace and mercy, freely forgiving our sins through the Son of His love, through the redemption which is in Jesus)”.
    • “Seeking to establish their own righteousness”: Again, Wesley’s parenthetical clarification is important and maintained: “(meaning their own holiness, which they believed must come before faith in ‘Him who justifies the ungodly,’ as the basis for their pardon and acceptance)”.
    • “Justifieth the ungodly”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Come short of the glory of God”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Consequences seek death in the error of their life”: Modernized slightly to “consequently are seeking spiritual death in the error of their lives.”
    • “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Oblation of himself once offered”: Kept as a key theological term for Christ’s sacrifice.
    • “Strict tenor thereof, without any abatement, was, ‘Do this, and live’”: Retained this precise summary of the Covenant of Works.
    • “Purchased for us that better covenant, ‘Believe, and live;’”: Emphasizes the contrast.
    • “Guilt and power of sin, and, of consequence, from the wages of it”: Key Wesleyan distinctions, maintained.
    • “Grand stumbling-block”: Modernized to “major obstacle.”
    • I.1: “Righteousness which is of the law saith, The man which doeth these things shall live by them”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Covenant of Works”: Maintained this theological term.
    • “Obedience perfect in all its parts, entire and wanting nothing”: Kept this emphasis on absolute perfection required by the law.

    I. The Righteousness of the Law (Continued)

    1. It required that humanity should fulfill all righteousness, inward and outward, negative and positive. This meant not only abstaining from every idle word and avoiding every evil work, but also keeping every affection, every desire, every thought, in obedience to the will of God. It required that they should continue holy, as He who had created them was holy, both in heart and in all their conduct. They were to be pure in heart, even as God is pure; perfect as their Father in heaven was perfect. They were to love the Lord their God with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind, and with all their strength. They were to love every soul God had made, even as God had loved them. By this universal benevolence, they were to dwell in God (who is love) and God in them. They were to serve the Lord their God with all their strength, and in all things aim solely at His glory.
    2. These were the things that the righteousness of the law required, so that whoever did them might live by them. But it further required that this complete obedience to God, this inward and outward holiness, this conformity of both heart and life to His will, should be perfect in degree. No reduction, no allowance could possibly be made for falling short in any degree, as to any tiny detail, either of the outward or the inward law. If every commandment relating to outward things was obeyed, yet that was not sufficient unless every one was obeyed with all possible strength, to the highest measure, and in the most perfect manner. Nor did it satisfy the demand of this covenant to love God with every power and faculty unless He were loved with the full capacity of each, with the whole potential of the soul.
    3. One thing more was absolutely required by the righteousness of the law, namely, that this universal obedience, this perfect holiness both of heart and life, should also be perfectly uninterrupted. It had to continue without any break, from the moment God created humanity and breathed into their nostrils the breath of life, until the days of their trial should end, and they should be confirmed in everlasting life.
    4. The righteousness, then, which is of the law, speaks in this way: “You, O person of God, stand firm in love, in the image of God in which you are made. If you wish to remain in life, keep the commandments, which are now written in your heart. Love the Lord your God with all your heart. Love, as yourself, every soul that He has made. Desire nothing but God. Aim at God in every thought, in every word and work. Do not deviate, in one motion of body or soul, from Him, your goal, and the prize of your high calling; and let all that is within you praise His holy name, every power and faculty of your soul, in every kind, in every degree, and at every moment of your existence. ‘Do this, and you shall live:’ Your light shall shine, your love shall flame more and more, until you are received up into the house of God in the heavens, to reign with Him forever and ever.”
    1. “But the righteousness that comes from faith speaks like this: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down from above; as though God required some impossible task for you to perform before you could be accepted) or, “Who will descend into the deep?” (that is, to bring Christ up again from the dead; as though that still needed to be done for your acceptance). But what does it say? “The word,” according to which you can now be accepted as an heir of eternal life, “is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we preach—the new covenant which God has now established with sinful humanity through Christ Jesus.’”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • I.2: “Fulfil all righteousness, inward and outward, negative and positive”: Kept, as it’s a very precise and comprehensive description of legal righteousness.
    • “Every idle word” / “every evil work” / “every affection, every desire, every thought”: Retained for the exhaustive nature of the requirement.
    • “Holy, as he which had created him was holy, both in heart, and in all manner of conversation”: Modernized “conversation” to “conduct.”
    • “Pure in heart, even as God is pure; perfect as his Father in heaven was perfect”: Kept, as they are direct biblical echoes/commands (Matthew 5:48).
    • “Love the Lord his God with all his heart…”: Kept as direct biblical quote.
    • “Universal benevolence”: Kept, highlighting the scope of the required love for others.
    • “Dwell in God, (who is love,) and God in him”: Kept as direct biblical reference (1 John 4:16).
    • “Singly aim at his glory”: Modernized to “aim solely at His glory.”
    • I.3: “Perfect in degree”: This is a crucial point for Wesley; the law demanded perfection in quality as well as scope. Retained.
    • “No abatement, no allowance… for falling short in any degree, as to any jot or tittle”: Emphasizes the absolute nature of the demand, using biblical idiom “jot or tittle.”
    • “Full capacity of each, with the whole possibility of the soul”: Stresses the complete and utter demand.
    • I.4: “Perfectly uninterrupted”: Another key requirement of legal righteousness.
    • I.5: Summary of the law’s demand: This paragraph beautifully summarizes the law’s requirements as a direct address. I’ve modernized the language while retaining its poetic and commanding tone: “Thou, O man of God, stand fast in love, in the image of God wherein thou art made…” changed to “You, O person of God, stand firm in love, in the image of God in which you are made.” “Swerve not, in one motion of body or soul, from him, thy mark, and the prize of thy high calling” is retained as a powerful image. “This do, and thou shalt live” is the quintessential legal command.

    I. The Righteousness of the Law (Continued)

    1. By “the righteousness that comes from faith” is meant that condition for justification (and, as a result, for present and final salvation, if we endure in it to the end) which was given by God to fallen humanity through the merits and mediation of His only-begotten Son. This was partially revealed to Adam soon after his fall, being contained in the original promise made to him and his descendants concerning the Seed of the Woman, who would “crush the serpent’s head” (Genesis 3:15). It was revealed a little more clearly to Abraham by the angel of God from heaven, saying, “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, that in your offspring all the nations of the world will be blessed” (Genesis 12:15, 18). It was made known even more fully to Moses, to David, and to the Prophets who followed; and, through them, to many of God’s people in their respective generations. But still, most of even these individuals were ignorant of it, and very few understood it clearly. “Life and immortality” were still not “brought to light” for the Jews of old as plainly as they are now to us “by the gospel.”
    2. Now, this covenant does not say to sinful humanity, “Perform perfect obedience, and live.” If this were the term, they would gain no more benefit from all that Christ has done and suffered for them than if they were required, in order to life, to “ascend into heaven, and bring Christ down from above”; or to “descend into the deep,” into the invisible world, and “bring Christ up from the dead.” It does not require any impossible act to be done (although for mere human beings, what it requires would be impossible; but not for human beings assisted by the Spirit of God). This would only be mocking human weakness. Indeed, strictly speaking, the covenant of grace does not require us to do anything at all as absolutely and indispensably necessary in order to our justification; but only to believe in Him who, for the sake of His Son and the atonement He has made, “justifies the ungodly who does not work,” and credits their faith to them for righteousness. Even so, Abraham “believed in the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that comes from faith—that he might be the father of all who believe—that righteousness might be credited to them also” (Romans 4:11). “Now it was not written for his sake alone that it,” i.e., faith, “was credited to him; but also for us, to whom it shall be credited”—to whom faith shall be credited for righteousness, shall stand in the place of perfect obedience, in order to our acceptance with God—”if we believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered” to death “for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:23-25); for the assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, and of a second life to come, to those who believe.
    3. What, then, does the covenant of forgiveness, of unmerited love, of pardoning mercy say? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” On the day you believe, you shall surely live. You shall be restored to the favor of God; and in His pleasure is life. You shall be saved from the curse and from the wrath of God. You shall be brought to life from the death of sin into the life of righteousness. And if you persevere to the end, believing in Jesus, you shall never experience the second death; but, having suffered with your Lord, you shall also live and reign with Him forever and ever.
    4. Now, “this word is near you.” This condition for life is plain, easy, always accessible. “It is in your mouth, and in your heart,” through the operation of the Spirit of God. The moment “you believe in your heart” in Him whom God “has raised from the dead,” and “confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus,” as your Lord and your God, “you shall be saved” from condemnation, from the guilt and punishment of your former sins, and shall have power to serve God in true holiness all the remaining days of your life.
    5. What is the difference, then, between the “righteousness that comes from the law” and the “righteousness that comes from faith“? Between the first covenant, or the covenant of works, and the second, the covenant of grace? The essential, unchangeable difference is this: The one supposes the person to whom it is given to be already holy and happy, created in the image and enjoying the favor of God; and it prescribes the condition on which they may continue in that state of love and joy, life and immortality. The other supposes the person to whom it is given to be now unholy and unhappy, having fallen short of the glorious image of God, having the wrath of God resting on them, and hastening, through sin (by which their soul is dead), toward bodily death and everlasting death. And to humanity in this state, it prescribes the condition on which they may regain the treasure they have lost, may recover the favor and image of God, may retrieve the life of God in their soul, and be restored to the knowledge and the love of God, which is the beginning of eternal life.
    6. Again: The covenant of works, in order for humanity’s continuation in God’s favor, in His knowledge and love, in holiness and happiness, required of perfect humanity a perfect and uninterrupted obedience to every point of the law of God. Whereas, the covenant of grace, in order for humanity’s recovery of God’s favor and life, requires only faith; living faith in Him who, through God, justifies the one who did not obey.
    7. Yet, again: The covenant of works required of Adam and all his children to pay the price themselves, in consideration of which they were to receive all the future blessings of God. But, in the covenant of grace, seeing we have nothing to pay, God “freely forgives us all”: provided only that we believe in Him who has paid the price for us; who has given Himself as a “Propitiation for our sins, for the sins of the whole world.”
    8. Thus the first covenant required what is now far beyond the reach of all humanity; namely, sinless obedience, which is far from those who are “conceived and born in sin.” Whereas, the second requires what is near at hand; as though it should say, “You are sin! God is love! You by sin have fallen short of the glory of God; yet there is mercy with Him. Bring then all your sins to the pardoning God, and they shall vanish away as a cloud. If you were not ungodly, there would be no room for Him to justify you as ungodly. But now draw near, in full assurance of faith. He speaks, and it is done. Do not fear, only believe; for even the just God justifies all who believe in Jesus.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Numbering Conflict: As noted, my translation numbers this section II.7 onwards to follow the preceding text from your prompt. We can adjust the final numbering of the entire sermon easily after the last section is translated.
    • “Merits and mediation”: Kept these theological terms.
    • Genesis 3:15 / Genesis 12:15, 18 / Romans 4:11, 23-25: Modernized the biblical quotes while retaining their core meaning.
    • “Unsinning obedience”: Changed to “perfect obedience” for clarity.
    • “Invisible world”: Added clarity for “the deep.”
    • “To mere man, what it requires would be impossible; but not to man assisted by the Spirit of God”: Maintained this crucial Wesleyan distinction.
    • “Justifieth the ungodly that worketh not”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion.
    • “Imputes his faith to him for righteousness”: Kept the theological term “imputes.”
    • “Stand in the stead of perfect obedience”: Kept for clarity on the legal nature of justification by faith.
    • “Frankly forgives us all”: Modernized to “freely forgives us all.”
    • “Propitiation for our sins, for the sins of the whole world”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion.
    • “Nigh at hand”: Modernized to “near at hand” or “always accessible.”
    • Romans 10:9-10 allusions: “Believe in thine heart… confessest with thy mouth… shalt be saved” are maintained as essential to the Roman 10 passage.
    • “Power to serve God in true holiness all the remaining days of thy life”: A key Wesleyan emphasis on present and ongoing sanctification.
    • I.11: Comprehensive Contrast: This paragraph is key to the entire sermon, clearly delineating the two covenants. I’ve maintained the rich theological language used to describe the fallen state and the recovery.
    • I.12 & I.13: Further Distinctions: These paragraphs reiterate and deepen the contrast, using terms like “perfect and uninterrupted obedience” vs. “only faith,” and “pay the price themselves” vs. “God ‘freely forgives us all’.”
    • I.14: Poetic Conclusion to the Section: This strong, evangelical call to faith is maintained, including the powerful rhetorical questions and direct address (“Thou art sin! God is love!”). “Just God justifieth all that believe in Jesus” is a key paradox Wesley embraces.

    II. The Folly of Trusting in the Law; The Wisdom of Faith

    1. Considering these points, it would be easy to show, as I planned to do in the second place, the folly of trusting in the “righteousness that comes from the law,” and the wisdom of submitting to “the righteousness that comes from faith.”The folly of those who still trust in the “righteousness that comes from the law”—whose terms are, “Do this, and live”—can be clearly seen from this: They start off wrong; their very first step is a fundamental mistake. For, before they can even think of claiming any blessing on the terms of this covenant, they must assume they are in the same state as the one with whom this covenant was made. But how foolish an assumption this is, since it was made with Adam in a state of innocence! How weak, therefore, must that whole structure be which stands on such a foundation! And how foolish are those who thus build on the sand! They seem never to have considered that the covenant of works was not given to humanity when they were “dead in trespasses and sins,” but when they were alive to God, when they knew no sin, but were holy as God is holy. They forget that it was never designed for the recovery of God’s favor and life once lost, but only for the continuation and increase thereof, until it should be complete in eternal life.
    2. Nor do those who are thus trying to establish their “own righteousness, which is of the law,” consider the kind of obedience or righteousness that the law absolutely requires. It must be perfect and complete in every point, or it does not meet the law’s demands. But which of you is able to perform such obedience, or, consequently, to live by it? Who among you fulfills every tiny detail, even of the outward commandments of God? Doing nothing, great or small, which God forbids? Leaving nothing undone which He commands? Speaking no idle word? Always having your conversation “fitting to give grace to those who hear”? And, “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, doing everything to the glory of God?” And how much less are you able to fulfill all the inward commandments of God!—those which require that every disposition and motion of your soul should be holiness to the Lord! Are you able to “love God with all your heart”? To love all humanity as your own soul? To “pray without ceasing”? “In everything to give thanks”? To have God always before you? And to keep every affection, desire, and thought in obedience to His law?
    3. You should further consider that the righteousness of the law requires not only obeying every command of God—negative and positive, internal and external—but also doing so in the perfect degree. In every instance whatever, the voice of the law is, “You shall serve the Lord your God with all your strength.” It allows no reduction of any kind. It excuses no defect. It condemns every falling short of the full measure of obedience, and immediately pronounces a curse on the offender. It regards only the unchanging rules of justice, and says, “I know not how to show mercy.”
    4. Who then can appear before such a Judge, who is “strict in marking what is done wrong?” How foolish are those who desire to be tried at the judgment bar where “no living person can be justified!”—none of Adam’s offspring. For, suppose we did now keep every commandment with all our strength; yet one single breach that ever occurred completely destroys our whole claim to life. If we have ever offended in any one point, this righteousness is at an end. For the law condemns all who do not perform uninterrupted as well as perfect obedience. So that, according to its sentence, for someone who has once sinned, in any degree, “there remains only a fearful expectation of fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” of God.
    5. Is it not then the very height of folly for fallen humanity to seek life by this righteousness?—for humanity, who was “shaped in wickedness, and in sin did his mother conceive him?” For humanity, who is, by nature, entirely “earthly, sensual, devilish;” “altogether corrupt and abominable;” in whom, until they find grace, “dwells no good thing;” indeed, who cannot of themselves think one good thought; who is truly all sin, a mere lump of ungodliness, and who commits sin with every breath they draw; whose actual transgressions, in word and deed, are more numerous than the hairs of their head? What stupidity, what senselessness must it be for such an unclean, guilty, helpless creature as this to dream of seeking acceptance by their own righteousness, of living by “the righteousness that comes from the law!”
    6. Now, whatsoever considerations prove the folly of trusting in the “righteousness that comes from the law,” prove equally the wisdom of submitting to the “righteousness that comes from God by faith.” This would be easy to show with regard to each of the preceding considerations. But, to set this aside for a moment, the wisdom of the first step toward this—the disclaiming our own righteousness—plainly appears from this: that it is acting according to truth, to the real nature of things. For, what is it more than to acknowledge, with our heart as well as lips, the true state in which we are? To acknowledge that we bring with us into the world a corrupt, sinful nature; indeed, more corrupt than we can easily conceive, or find words to express? That by this, we are prone to all that is evil and averse from all that is good; that we are full of pride, self-will, unruly passions, foolish desires, vile and unrestrained affections; lovers of the world, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God? That our lives have been no better than our hearts, but many ways ungodly and unholy; so much so that our actual sins, both in word and deed, have been as countless as the stars of heaven? That, on all these accounts, we are displeasing to Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and deserve nothing from Him but indignation and wrath and death, the just wages of sin? That we cannot, by any of our righteousness (for indeed we have none at all), nor by any of our works (for they are like the tree upon which they grow), appease the wrath of God or avert the punishment we have justly deserved? Yes, that, if left to ourselves, we shall only grow worse and worse, sink deeper and deeper into sin, offend God more and more, both with our evil works and with the evil dispositions of our carnal mind, until we fill up the measure of our iniquities and bring upon ourselves swift destruction? And is not this the very state in which we are by nature? To acknowledge this, then, both with our heart and lips—that is, to disclaim our own righteousness, “the righteousness that comes from the law”—is to act according to the real nature of things, and, consequently, is an instance of true wisdom.

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Numbering: I’ve kept the Roman numeral II.1 and subsequent Arabic numbering as they appear in your provided text for now. We can harmonize the full sermon’s numbering later.
    • II.1: “Abundantly appear from hence”: Modernized to “can be clearly seen from this.”
    • “They set out wrong; their very first step is a fundamental mistake”: Kept, as it’s a strong, clear statement.
    • “Vain a supposition”: Modernized to “foolish an assumption.”
    • “Building be, which stands on such a foundation”: Kept the metaphor.
    • “Dead in trespasses and sins”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • II.2: “What manner of obedience or righteousness that is which the law indispensably requires”: Modernized to “kind of obedience or righteousness that the law absolutely requires.”
    • “Every jot and tittle”: Kept as a direct biblical idiom (Matthew 5:18).
    • “Meet to minister grace to the hearers”: Modernized to “fitting to give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).
    • “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, doing all to the glory of God”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (1 Corinthians 10:31).
    • “Every temper and motion of your soul should be holiness unto the Lord”: Kept, as it’s a powerful description of inward holiness.
    • “Love God with all your heart…” / “pray without ceasing” / “in every thing to give thanks”: Kept as direct biblical quotes/commands.
    • II.3: “Perfect degree”: Emphasizes the law’s absolute standard.
    • “Thou shalt serve the Lord thy God with all thy strength”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Coming short of the full measure of obedience”: Kept, conveying the concept of failing to meet the standard.
    • “I know not to show mercy”: A strong personification of the law’s strictness.
    • II.4: “Extreme to mark what is done amiss”: Modernized to “strict in marking what is done wrong.”
    • “No flesh living can be justified”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “One single breach which ever was, utterly destroys our whole claim to life”: This is a critical point about the law’s indivisible demand.
    • “Fearful looking for of fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Hebrews 10:27).
    • II.5: “Very foolishness of folly”: Kept this emphatic phrase.
    • “Shapen in wickedness, and in sin did his mother conceive him”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Psalm 51:5).
    • “Earthly, sensual, devilish”: Kept as direct biblical quote (James 3:15).
    • “Altogether corrupt and abominable”: Kept this strong language about fallen human nature.
    • “Dwellth no good thing”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Romans 7:18).
    • “Mere lump of ungodliness”: Kept this vivid, strong metaphor.
    • II.6: Transition to “Wisdom of submitting to the righteousness which is of God by faith”: This paragraph marks the significant pivot of the sermon.
    • “Disclaiming our own righteousness”: A key action in Wesley’s understanding of justification.
    • Comprehensive Description of Fallen State: The long list of human sinfulness (“corrupt, sinful nature,” “prone to all that is evil,” “pride, self-will,” “lovers of the world,” “ungodly and unholy,” “actual sins… as the stars of heaven for multitude,” “displeasing to Him… deserve nothing but indignation and wrath and death”) is kept to fully convey Wesley’s view of humanity’s natural state, making the subsequent embrace of faith all the more reasonable.
    • “Purer eyes than to behold iniquity”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Habakkuk 1:13).
    • “Wax worse and worse, sink deeper and deeper into sin”: Kept this vivid image of continued decline.

    II. The Folly of Trusting in the Law; The Wisdom of Faith (Continued)

    1. The wisdom of submitting to “the righteousness that comes from faith” appears further from this consideration: that it is the righteousness of God. I mean here, it is that method of reconciliation with God which has been chosen and established by God Himself—not only as He is the God of wisdom, but as He is the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, and of every creature He has made. Now, as it is not fitting for humanity to say to God, “What are You doing?”—as no one who is not utterly devoid of understanding will contend with One who is mightier than they, with Him whose kingdom rules over all—so it is true wisdom, it is a mark of sound understanding, to accept whatever He has chosen; to say in this, as in all things, “It is the Lord: Let Him do what seems good to Him.”
    2. It may be further considered that it was out of pure grace, of free love, of undeserved mercy, that God has granted sinful humanity any way of reconciliation with Himself—that we were not cut off from His hand and utterly erased from His remembrance. Therefore, whatever method He is pleased to appoint, out of His tender mercy, out of His undeserved goodness, whereby His enemies—who have so deeply revolted from Him, so long and obstinately rebelled against Him—may still find favor in His sight, it is doubtless our wisdom to accept it with all thankfulness.
    3. To mention just one more consideration. It is wisdom to aim at the best goal by the best means. Now, the best goal any creature can pursue is happiness in God. And the best goal a fallen creature can pursue is the recovery of the favor and image of God. But the best, indeed the only, means under heaven given to a person, by which they may regain the favor of God (which is better than life itself) or the image of God (which is the true life of the soul), is submitting to the “righteousness that comes from faith”—believing in the only-begotten Son of God.

    III. An Exhortation to the Sinner

    1. Therefore, whoever you are, who desires to be forgiven and reconciled to the favor of God, do not say in your heart, “I must first do this; I must first conquer every sin; break off every evil word and work, and do all good to all people; or, I must first go to church, receive the Lord’s Supper, hear more sermons, and say more prayers.” Alas, my brother or sister! You are completely off track. You are still “ignorant of the righteousness of God,” and are “seeking to establish your own righteousness,” as the basis of your reconciliation. Do you not know that you can do nothing but sin until you are reconciled to God? Why, then, do you say, “I must do this and this first, and then I shall believe?” No, but first believe! Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Atonement for your sins. Let this good foundation first be laid, and then you shall do all things well.
    2. Neither say in your heart, “I cannot be accepted yet, because I am not good enough.” Who is good enough—who ever was—to deserve acceptance at God’s hands? Was any child of Adam ever good enough for this? Or will any be until the consummation of all things? And as for you, you are not good at all: “There dwells in you no good thing.” And you never will be, until you believe in Jesus. Rather, you will find yourself getting worse and worse. But is there any need of being worse in order to be accepted? Are you not bad enough already? Indeed you are, and God knows that. And you yourself cannot deny it. Then delay not. All things are now ready. “Arise, and wash away your sins.” The fountain is open. Now is the time to wash yourself white in the blood of the Lamb. Now He shall “cleanse” you as “with hyssop,” and you shall “be clean”: He shall “wash” you, and you shall “be whiter than snow.”
    3. Do not say, “But I am not contrite enough: I am not sensible enough of my sins.” I know it. I wish to God you were more aware of them, a thousand times more broken-hearted than you are. But do not wait for this. It may be that God will make you so, not before you believe, but by believing. It may be, you will not weep much until you love much because you have had much forgiven. In the meantime, look to Jesus. Behold, how He loves you! What more could He have done for you that He has not done?O Lamb of God, was ever pain, Was ever love like Thine?Look steadily upon Him, until He looks on you and breaks your hard heart. Then shall your “head” be “waters,” and your “eyes fountains of tears.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Numbering: I’ve kept the Roman numeral II and III as they appear in your text, and the Arabic numbering within them. We will need to reconcile the full sermon’s numbering in a final pass.
    • II.7: “Meet for man to say unto God, ‘What doest thou?’”: Modernized to “fitting for humanity to say to God, ‘What are You doing?’” (referencing Romans 9:20).
    • “Utterly void of understanding”: Modernized to “utterly devoid of understanding.”
    • “Contend with One that is mightier than he”: Modernized to “contend with One who is mightier than they.”
    • “Acquiesce in whatever he hath chosen”: Modernized to “accept whatever He has chosen.”
    • “It is the Lord: Let him do what seemeth him good”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (1 Samuel 3:18).
    • II.8: “Vouchsafed to sinful man any way of reconciliation”: Modernized to “granted sinful humanity any way of reconciliation.”
    • “Cut away from his hand, and utterly blotted out of his remembrance”: Kept the strong imagery.
    • “Revolted from him, so long and obstinately rebelled against him”: Kept, emphasizing the severity of sin.
    • II.9: “Aim at the best end by the best means”: Kept, as it’s a clear maxim.
    • “Recovery of the favour and image of God”: Key Wesleyan concept, kept.
    • “Better than life itself”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Psalm 63:3).
    • III.1: Exhortation’s Direct Address: Wesley’s direct address (“thou art clean gone out of the way,” “alas, my brother!”) is maintained, changing “thou/thy” to “you/your” for readability while preserving the intimate, urgent tone.
    • “Ignorant of the righteousness of God” / “seeking to establish thy own righteousness”: Kept as direct biblical quotes (Romans 10:3).
    • “Thou canst do nothing but sin, till thou art reconciled to God”: A very strong Wesleyan statement on natural inability.
    • “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Propitiation for thy sins”: Kept this core evangelical command and title for Christ.
    • III.2: “Not good enough”: Addresses a common spiritual struggle directly.
    • “Consummation of all things”: Kept as a theological term.
    • “There dwelleth in thee no good thing”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Romans 7:18).
    • “Arise, and wash away thy sins” / “fountain is open” / “wash thee white in the blood of the Lamb” / “purge thee as with hyssop” / “be clean” / “wash thee, and thou shalt be whiter than snow”: These are powerful biblical allusions (Acts 22:16, Zechariah 13:1, Psalm 51:7) kept for their imagery and theological weight.
    • III.3: “Contrite enough” / “sensible enough of my sins”: Addresses a common misconception about the prerequisite for faith.
    • “Not before thou believest, but by believing”: A crucial Wesleyan emphasis on the relationship between faith and repentance/conviction.
    • Poetry: The Charles Wesley hymn stanza is retained in its original form.
    • “Head” be “waters,” and thy “eyes fountains of tears”: Kept as direct biblical allusion (Jeremiah 9:1).

    III. An Exhortation to the Sinner (Conclusion)

    1. To conclude. Whoever you are, O person, who has the sentence of death within yourself, who feels yourself a condemned sinner, and has the wrath of God resting on you: To you the Lord says, not, “Do this,”—perfectly obey all My commands—“and live;” but, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” “The word of faith is near you:” Now, at this instant, in the present moment, and in your present state, sinner as you are, just as you are, believe the gospel; and “I will be merciful to your unrighteousness, and your iniquities I will remember no more.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • “Whosoever thou art, O man, who hast the sentence of death in thyself, who feelest thyself a condemned sinner, and hast the wrath of God abiding on thee”: This powerful, direct address is maintained, with “thou/thy” updated to “you/your” for readability while preserving the urgency and personal nature of the appeal.
    • “Do this,” — perfectly obey all my commands, — “and live”: Retained to emphasize the Law’s impossible demand.
    • “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”: Kept as the core evangelical command.
    • “The word of faith is nigh unto thee”: Modernized to “near you.”
    • “Now, at this instant, in the present moment, and in thy present state, sinner as thou art, just as thou art, believe the gospel”: This emphasizes the immediacy and unconditional nature of the call to faith, a hallmark of Wesley’s preaching on justification. This is a very critical part.
    • “I will be merciful unto thy unrighteousness, and thy iniquities will I remember no more”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (Hebrews 8:12), signifying the promise of complete forgiveness.
  • The Moral Influence of Jesus’ Death

    The Moral Influence of Jesus’ Death

    In my Sunday School class yesterday we discussed Mark 15. We’re reading this with Allan Bevere’s Keeping Up with Jesus: A Narrative Devotional Commentary on Mark.

    In the thought questions for chapter 15, Allan asks both why Jesus is silent at his trial as depicted in Mark, and what it means that Jesus died for our sins.

    On the first question, there were a number of answers, including simply, “prophecy,” that it was expected. But I want to focus on one note I make myself about this, because it relates to the third question, which is how we understand Jesus dying for our sins. (There are three questions following each chapter in the commentary. I’m focusing on the first and third.)

    In a trial with a foregone conclusion, there is really no point in making a defense, unless you are doing so for someone listening. In this case, I suspect the crowd is well selected for hostility (at least of the moment), and thus not prepared to actually listen to a defense.

    This leads me to what I think is a key point about the death of Jesus. It creates a story of contrast and of black and white confrontation. Nobody is seeing the day in shades of gray. In a book by one of my favorite authors, David Weber, there’s a quote by one of the characters, which I paraphrase from memory here: “Very few days are outlined in black and white, and most of those days have a body count.” I don’t know if that quote is original to Weber, and I can’t locate the correct book, but it’s good.

    The day of the crucifixion was not set out in gray, and it definitely had a body count. It creates the moment of contrast between what good is willing to do and what evil is willing to do. Good dies for others; evil kills what it does not like.

    A portrayal such as this is one that day to day reality can’t really live up to. We don’t have the clear line drawn in the story. We have our struggles both to understand and to do. But that is a critical value of the story: It drives us to higher ground. If we let it.

    So what did this have to do with the third question. What does it mean that Jesus died for our sins?

    What I loved about this question was that it called for each person to think: What does that mean to me? It’s easy to be very prescriptive. We like to have one interpretation and get everyone to understand it.

    The Values of Multiple Metaphors

    I would suggest that no single metaphor can possibly do justice to the atonement. It’s a good thing we don’t have only one!

    Moral Influence

    As an undergraduate working on my degree in biblical languages, there was a required course on exegesis of Romans in Greek, to be taken after I completed intermediate Greek. The professor for this class was an advocate of the moral influence theory of the atonement. This theory is often presented simply as Jesus providing an example in his life of how we should live and influencing good behavior in us.

    That’s not the whole story. In that theory, the portrayal of good and evil meeting at the cross becomes a powerful influence, a powerful changemaker.

    I didn’t get that in class. I wanted something other than penal substitutionary atonement, and I hoped that I could accept what this scholar presented. I wanted to read this view in Romans. I tried to do so diligently.

    It never worked.

    It took me some time to realize that there was something here for me to take in and make a part of my understanding. That portrayal, brutal as it was, was a necessary part of the story of salvation. It was easy to miss this in other views. Then I started to see other metaphors for the atonement, and to see how they build a picture.

    Penal Substitutionary Atonement

    In fact, I came back to appreciate the courtroom metaphor presented by penal substitution, which, among other things helps portray completeness, and finality while excluding the idea of us earning the result. I have conservative friends who still think I’m ditching this dominant evangelical view of the atonement and progressive friends who wonder why I don’t just ditch it. To me, however, each of these views is essential. Since this is not my main topic, I’ll leave it at that.

    I turn next to expressions of faith by the Apostle Paul. Paul can be an annoying character. He covers a lot of ground and expects you to keep up.

    About Paul

    I was interviewing author Herold Weiss, author of the book Meditations on the Letters of Paul in a series I did titled “Who Was Paul?” One question I asked was this: Let’s imagine you’re at a conference and you have the duty of introducing Paul as the next speaker. What do you say?

    Herold laughed and said, “I don’t have to answer that. You see, Paul would never have been invited to speak in the first place!”

    He’s likely right. Paul was too much of a disruptor to be invited to church conferences. It was much more likely that conferences would be held to talk about him and what he was doing, such as in Acts 15.

    Paul, Good and Evil, and Crossing the Line

    In many of Pauls’ letters we have what looks like a theological section, which generally talks about salvation and will frequently inform you that it is not of works. Then you move to a section that talks about things you ought to do. Often these sections are presented as distinct, as though Paul had multiple personality. “Not of works, now get to work,” so to speak.

    I think a closer look will allow these to be coordinated, and I think Philippians is an excellent place to do so. The reason is that until chapter 3, which seems to be a kind of side-tirade, Paul is ready to go through the basics quickly.

    By Philippians 1:27 he’s telling his readers/hearers to live in their community in a way that is “worthy of the good news (gospel).” He wants to hear that they are “standing firm,” and “striving together” for the gospel. He continues that God has granted the the privilege not only of believing (a privilege, a gift, not a purchase), but also of suffering for Jesus as well.

    Not of works. Here come the works.

    Well, yes and no. Paul is writing here, I think, on that line drawn between good and evil at his crucifixion. You get a choice. Are you a crucifier or are you crucified?

    Too often Christians have answered that they are with the crucified one while picking up nails and erecting crosses.

    Persecuted or Persecutor

    I was asked once in Sunday School who I thought was right when two groups were fighting over doctrinal points, really fighting, to the extent of killing one another. It has happened way too much in Christian history. I said that anyone who was killing the other one over their beliefs was wrong. Killing people in the name of the one who went to the cross silently and said, “Father forgive them,” is blasphemous.

    Have I departed from Paul and his letter to the Philippians? I think not.

    How to Look at Other People

    Paul now tells the Philippians to make his joy complete (2:2) by being of one mind (sharing viewpoint) and having the same love. Nothing is to come from selfishness or vanity, but they are to regard others as better than themselves (2:3) then also look to the interests of others, rather than their own.

    I think Paul is looking at that line. Are you a crucifier or are you with the crucified?

    Philippians 2:5-11 is a famous passage. Jesus emptied himself, humbled himself, became obedient, and went to the cross. Others called for his blood.

    This was a portrayal of the nature of good and the nature of evil. That is something we should not forget about the crucifixion, if for no other reason that we avoid becoming the persecutors.

    As Paul says it in Galatians: “I have been crucified with Christ. I’m no longer the one living, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:19b-20a). That’s the line drawn in morality and in history. Paul has no intention either in Philippians or in Galatians of telling his hearers that this is easy. He doesn’t suggest that everyone will love them after the decision or that they will get a new job, drive a better car, or be suddenly totally free of disease.

    Be crucified with Christ.

    Identifying the Power

    Things start going off the rail again right here. We think that having been crucified with Christ, or at least made the choice of which side of that line we want to be on, we must get on the ball and be better people.

    Indeed, Jesus was exalted after death and given the name above all names. But first he went to that cross, was taken into the tomb, and was raised again by the very power he laid down in the first place.

    Remember where the power comes from.

    Having died, and been buried with him by baptism, you don’t come back and start fixing yourself.

    “So, if anyone is in Christ, there’s new creation. The old stuff is gone. It has all become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:18b)

    You can’t sanctify yourself. You’re dead. You’ve got no stuff at all. It’s all new, and it’s all His.

    Who Works?

    So back to Philippians and one of my favorite passages:

    (12) So, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only when I’m there, but also when I’m away, with fear and trembling work out your own salvation. (13) For it is God who works in you all, both to will and to accomplish his pleasure. (Philippians 2:12-13)

    So how does this work?

    I wonder why it’s so hard to see God at work in us morally when we already know God is at work in us. If you are a believer in God and that God is the creator, then everything, ultimately, is a gift of God. I could paraphrase this physically as “Do your own breathing with fear and trembling, for God is at work in you both to make you want to breathe and also to make you breathe.”

    I don’t think that’s a ridiculous way to put it. I couldn’t type the next letter without God. God makes the various particles move around in a certain way. God brought me into the world. I can’t even make mistakes without God.

    If you try to take over and do your own working, that just makes everything harder. God knows that and has a plan for all that as well. God makes you want. God works in and through you. But ultimately it’s all God.

    If you go try to do it yourself, then it’s like jumping back to the person who just died, forgetting about being buried and raised to new life by divine power, and deciding to do it all just as if none of that every happened.

    Does this mean there’s nothing to do? Actions are still important. Actions have consequences. Paul even says this in Galatians, his strongest book against works of the law. “Don’t be deceived! God is not mocked! Whatever a person sows that person will also reap” (Galatians 6:7).

    The Life Context of Commands

    Again we have to look at context, in this case, life context. Not every command, not every discussion of good and bad, smart and stupid, effective and ineffective is about whether or not you are saved or have eternal life. Deciding someone’s eternal state is not my job and it’s not yours. Let’s say that I am hiking a trail in some beautiful mountains, tremendous beauty all around, and I get careless, lose my step, and fall off a cliff. Gravity (created by God) still works. The ground (created by God) is still hard. My body (created by God) is still not up to a fast encounter with a hard place. I die.

    Are the mountains still beautiful? Yes.

    I also still have eternal life.

    But it would have been a good idea to be more careful.

    The Invitation

    The invitation to salvation is not an invitation to an untroubled life. It’s not an invitation to always make perfect decisions. It’s not an invitation to comfort.

    It’s also, and this is critical, not an invitation to think of yourself as better than other people. It’s not an invitation to be God’s favorite grandchild, spoiled rotten and looking down on all the other children who have somehow failed to earn all that love.

    If you thought going to church was joining the popular kids’ club and becoming one of the important people, you missed the point. If you get a charge out of feeling superior, you’re missing the point.

    “Looking to Jesus, the author and completer[sic] of our faith …” (Hebrews 12:2).

    Completion

    Read Philippians 2:5-11 again. Try to imagine just what it was that Jesus thought was not something to hang onto, what Jesus gave up. That’s where God is taking you. Don’t diminish that by looking sideways or looking back. When your measuring stick is God’s glory and God’s grace, the differences in human beings are literally not measurable.

    And just as Jesus not only went to the cross and the grave, but rose again and ascended, so we now that God will complete what God has started.

  • Sunday School: Thinking about Sacrifices

    Sunday School: Thinking about Sacrifices

    Sacrifice
    Credit: Adobe Stock 46272514

    I’m preparing to teach tomorrow, and the main text is Hebrews 4:14-5:10. The quarterly is kind enough to stop just before the author tells his readers/hearers that the topic is difficult and they’re not very bright!

    Nonetheless, the idea of priesthood brings up the idea of “sacrifice” and “sacrifices,” and these are two concepts that I don’t believe modern audiences are prepared for. We tend to get locked into one of two unhelpful modes.

    On the one hand, we may believe sacrifice is critical, and its primary, or even only purpose is to atone for sin. This feeds into the penal substitutionary atonement theory (or I prefer metaphor), in which the sacrifice of Jesus is specifically as a substitutionary death taking the punishment for our sins. The reason I prefer metaphor to theory here is that a theory should be an explanation that deals with the relationship between various facts. A good theory is a singular thing because it is the best explanation of the data. A metaphor, on the other hand, is one of many ways of looking at a set of events. In this sense I reject a substitutionary atonement as a theory, but accept it as a valid metaphor.

    On the other hand, because the whole idea of substitutionary atonement, sometimes even referred to as “cosmic child abuse,” is so foreign to our way of thinking about things, that we reject everything that relates to it. But there is a least one really good thing about substitutionary atonement (and I believe there are others): A person convinced that Jesus died as a substitutionary sacrifices for his or her sins will be convinced that wrath and punishment have been averted.

    This is not the place to cover this in detail, but I am doing so in my video series on perspectives on Paul. I started in Paul’s Gospel vs. Another Gospel, then went on to part 2, and this coming Thursday night I will be doing part 3. I’m thinking there may be yet more parts, because I’m looking verse by verse at some defining statements about the gospel in various Pauline and disputed epistles.

    I think there’s a better background against which to think about sacrifice, and that is communication within a relationship. The priesthood and sacrifices were part of the way in which ancient people carried on communion within an ongoing relationship with their god(s). The Israelites had specific ways of offering various sacrifices, ways of representing their God, and expectations.

    I like to think of gifts that I give my wife. One of the traditional gifts for someone with whom we are romantically involved is roses, often a dozen, maybe two dozen. I have only done that once in our relationship. I mean the dozen. There have been a scattered number of times on which a gift has included roses, but that is much less frequent than in other relationships.

    So am I neglecting my wife and being unromantic by not giving her the traditional gift? I don’t think so, and she’ll surely read this post and let you know if I’m wrong. We’ve established a different tradition that fits her personality and mine. That tradition has to do with surprise and variety. I look at various places where I can buy flowers. The grocery store even works out frequently. I look for flowers of a different color or a different type than she has had recently. I often buy enough for a couple of arrangements in vases. More importantly, I try to bring the flowers into the house when she is not expecting them.

    It is true that flowers are frequently a way of expressing regret for a wrong action, but that wouldn’t work all that well in our relationship. In fact, the only thing that does work is sincere regret, directly expressed (no weasely political apologies), and a discussion of how we can improve as we move forward. Flowers as a sacrifice for sin are not functional in our relationship, yet they are given.

    I’d like to suggest thinking of the reason why you might do something for another person, or have something done for you and the various reasons you might give or receive a gift. Then start looking at the sacrificial system again. There are still many things that will not connect. For example, in those cultures that practiced human sacrifice, the killing of the human victim—the ideal one being a firstborn son—was seen as giving that child to God. So also with the animal sacrifices.

    If you think of the sacrifices in this way I think it will be easier to follow how sacrifice was replaced by the “mitzvah” (good deed) in Judaism, and by a combination of giving and symbolic acts in Christianity. You might even start to think about the Sunday liturgy at your church and what it says about what God would like to see happening in your relationship to him. Is it possible God might prefer a “mitzvah” of some sort?

    I’m going to build on this, but I think this is a good foundational metaphor to use in looking at sacrifice. Then we can adjust for the people involved and how they viewed what was good and bad in a relationship.

  • PSA: Thoughts on Centering

    David Heddle commented on my earlier post, PSA: An Unbalanced and Ineffective View of the Atonement, in his post Penal Substitutionary Atonement: it’s not about Justice. I haven’t had time to respond until now, and I will only respond to a few points. One of the things I have noticed about debates on the atonement is that they tend to cover wide swathes of material, and bring on board large numbers of assumptions. It’s pretty much impossible to avoid.

    First let me note a couple of quotes to which I want to respond briefly and then get to the actually topic.

    Heddle says: “The scriptural support for PSA is impressive.” He then proceeds to cite Isaiah 53:5 and Romans 3:23-25. Of course both sides claim support from scripture–that’s required–but it seems to me that proponents of PSA find every verse that has both the words “redemption” (or salvation, or something similar) and the word “for” in them, and claim that they support substitutionary atonement as understood in a courtroom setting.

    That importation is certainly wrong in Isaiah 53, which quite clearly has the concept of substitution, but lacks the courtroom metaphor and doesn’t deal with someone being adjudged in one way or another. It is not good practice to interpret the substitution of Isaiah 53, in which the servant suffers for a group of people, without looking at the servant passages in general. In this case, we have a small group of people suffering as a result of the actions of the whole nation. There is substitution and representation, but there is no imputation or impartation going on. The more I study “clear” texts supporting penal substitution, the less clearly they support penal substitution. In particular, few can properly be read in a courtroom setting.

    (more…)

  • Heresy in the Bible?

    I’ve noted a tendency amongst both friends and enemies (hopefully this is hyperbole!) of mine to declare people heretics for some very brief statements, especially in matters of soteriology. People are particularly quick to pick up on any suggestion of legalism or Pelagianism.

    But I notice that the Bible writers are not terribly careful to nuance their statements on such issues. There are, in fact, many places in the Bible where one could assume salvation by works if one took a small section at a time. Peter seemed to have some problem with Paul’s clarity, referring to “obscure passages” (2 Peter 3:16). One could get the idea that Paul was antinomian in some of his passages. Of course, he himself would respond with a me genoito should he be confronted with such a possibility.

    Jesus might have been accused of preaching salvation by works when he says that those who simply say “Lord, Lord” or call him “Lord” will not necessarily enter the kingdom, but those who do his Father’s will (Matthew 7:21-23). Now I’m aware of many of the ways we fit these passages together into a coherent soteriology, but the fact is that the Bible has plenty of passages that pose difficulties.

    Perhaps this should suggest to us that there is a little bit of flexibility in the way we express God’s plan of salvation, and if not flexibility, at least forgiveness.

    I was reminded of this as I do a series of podcasts on 2 Peter 1:3-11. My attention was first called to this passage by Laura Curtis of Pursuing Holiness, and it has stuck with me. Today, as I was preparing the script for the latest installment, I noticed again this portion: “be all the more eager to confirm your call and election.” Confirm one’s election? Surely you jest, Peter! If one is elected, one is elected!

    Well, perhaps not. There seems to be some tension here, and the flexible handle tension better.

     

  • Keeping up with the Justification Debate

    I am doing some reading before I respond to a couple of posts, but I did want to link to some interesting stuff.

    Both Mark Olson (Pseudo-polymath) and Anne (Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength) have written posts discussing justification from a perspective other than the judicial/penal substitution approach. Their posts simply confirm to me that there are many, many valid ways to talk about the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf, and that penal substitution is just one of those. Unlike some, I do not wish to discard it, but I also will not make it the one and only metaphor.

    Adrian Warnock has posted twice, first Legalism, Racism, and the First Century Jew, to which I will respond later at some length. I find much to object to in that short post, but I’m also working through Piper’s comments in their context before I blow off steam.

    The second one is 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 5 – Two Critical Passages on Justification in which he links an article that I had linked earlier, and says:

    If you are interested in seeing an example of this, there is an article by Wright on 2 Corinthians 5:21 [PDF-HN] that I must say I found wholly unconvincing.

    I see a great deal of “finding unconvincing” but I see remarkably little actual exegetical argument. The primary form of argument appears to be theological. If the question is whether the new perspectives on Paul differ from prior theological statements, then we can cheerfully answer yes, and go on. But for me the question is whether the new perspective gets us closer to correctly understanding Paul and what he has to say.

    One of the keys here is to understand the paradigm shift that several interpreters have taken. If you do not accept that paradigm shift, you are likely not to accept Wright’s specific exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21. That is not surprising, since he is dealing with that verse in the context of that new paradigm. (I am not overly fond of “paradigm shift,” as a term, or at least I don’t think I am, but it seems to me that the new perspectives on Paul do justify that term.)

    Peter Kirk blogged on this same topic, and brings up a number of points. I have to say that anyone who implies that Augustine was a theological pygmy is likely to get my favorable attention! But more importantly, Peter points to one side issue, and that is the way in which (some?) reformed theology can make God look like he is a bit veracity-challenged, and can’t truly tell whether people are righteous or not.

    Meanwhile, the view that I am working towards is a rejection of the “Reformed” idea that Christians remain sinners in actual fact but are nevertheless, by a legal fiction, counted as righteous in Christ. Instead of this, the picture I have, based on various biblical passages such as Ephesians 4:22-24, is that the Christian consists of two separate persons or personalities: the “old self” (in some versions “old man”, but to be understood of course in a gender generic sense) born by natural birth who is a sinner, guilty, condemned to death and destined to die; and the “new self” born of the Spirit and into Christ, who is righteous, holy, free from condemnation, will not die, and indeed is already living eternal life in God’s kingdom. . . .

    Just so. Like Peter, I continue to be in flux on some of these issues. There are boundary lines that I’m fairly certain of, but others I’m studying a great deal, but Peter’s paragraph is one of those that strikes me as promising. When I read it, I feel that he is “with” Paul in a significant way. Perhaps he’ll have to adjust some, as he says, but he’s going the right direction.

    I will be blogging a bit more on 2 Corinthians 5 from an exegetical point of view, hopefully in the next few days.

  • New Perspectives on Paul – Shifting the Paradigm

    I find myself commenting a bit on this topic before I really feel ready to do so, but there are certain things I’d like to insert into the conversation that is being generated from Adrian Warnock’s blog, through the discussion of John Piper’s book The Future of Justification. (Some preliminary notes on the new perspectives may be found on my participatory Bible study blog, category New Perspectives on Paul. All these are just my notes as I journey through some of this interesting writing.)

    Adrian has put a good deal of emphasis on what he sees as the gracious approach that John Piper has taken toward N. T. Wright’s work, and how accurately, in his view, Bishop Wright has been portrayed. I have no reason to believe that Piper is intending to be anything but gracious and accurate, and yet there are some things that bother me just a bit. (On these, see below.)

    I’m going to outline the points here, but much of my reading on the new perspective has been from sources other than N. T. Wright, so I want to emphasize two things. First, I am in no way trying to characterize Wright’s views on this. I think those who really want to understand him should read what he has written. I linked to an excellent paper he wrote in my previous post on this topic, Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism (PDF). Second, I am myself exploring these ideas, and my training was primarily Old Testament, though I did a considerable amount of exegesis in Greek in school, and afterward. But even so I think I can perhaps help clarify a couple of things.

    I started from Adrian’s post today, Legalism Versus Grace in First Century Judaism, in which he says:

    Anyone who has read anything about the New Perspectives on Paul will realize that one of the key arguments is that we have misunderstood the Pharisees through the perspective of the Reformation. The first century Jews were never legalists, we are told. . . .

    But there are a number of problems with this claim as well. First, it is not essential for the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP) that one assume that there were no Jewish legalists, or that there were no legalistic Pharisees. The key position is that Judaism was and is not a legalistic religion, and that in it favor with God was based on grace. I can find any number of legalistic Christians, plenty of whom would fit as targets of some passages in Luke 18 (cited by Adrian later in the paragraph), but they do not make Christianity into a legalistic religion by nature.

    Jesus can encounter dozens and hundreds of legalistic Pharisees, and yet the essential foundation of Pharisaism need not be legalistic, nor does it have to carry over into modern Judaism in a legalistic fashion. Just how far one goes on this issue is another matter, and one which I am studying. I definitely believe that the religion of the Mosaic covenant, Israelite religion, was founded on grace expressed through the covenant. That has been my position long before I read any NPP material.

    I tend to see first century Judaism as both a bit more corrupted and also more fragmented, so that I find it questionable to make many generalizations about first century Judaism. One could make a few generalizations about groups. Having said that, the Pharisees were probably one of the less corrupt groups. I suspect that they often disputed with Jesus because they were able to connect more frequently, while still not agreeing with him.

    But this whole debate illustrates one of the problems I’m seeing with the online critique. (And again I must emphasize that I have not read The Future of Justification, and thus am not commenting on Piper’s own work, but only on Adrian’s presentation of it on his blog.) This issue of legalistic Pharisees as opposed to the legalistic nature of Judaism (or not, as Wright would maintain), illustrates the major paradigm shift that Wright and others are making. They are not seeing justification as dealing with whether an individual is “saved” or not, but rather as proclaiming/acknowledging that person’s entry into God’s people as a group. It is an individualistic perspective that, in answer to the claim that a faith position is based on grace, points out individuals who are legalistic.

    For the NPP, we have been reading Galatians and Romans from the wrong perspective, asking the wrong questions. This was drilled into me both as an undergraduate Biblical languages student and in seminary: The message of Galatians is that we are saved by grace through faith and not by the works of the law. Essentially, in that case, Galatians is written in opposition to legalism, and particularly Jewish legalism.

    Since first reading a bit about the NPP, I have worked through Galatians twice in Greek, using two different commentaries that at least partake of portions of the NPP. Each time through has been a bit mind twisting. But as I teach at the most basic level of Bible study methods, your questions often determine your answers, so it is very important to ask the right questions. In the case of Galatians, in the seminary classroom, I asked the question “How can I be saved?” I found an answer there–not by the works of the law, but rather by faith.

    The NPP suggests that Paul is answering a different question: How does one become a part of God’s people, i.e. how does one come under the covenant? Paul’s enemies say it is by becoming Jews, with the sign of circumcision; Paul says that incorporation takes place because of the death and resurrection of Jesus and through faith. We are looking here much less at individual salvation, and much more at the definition of community. Neither side believes that being part of the covenant people can be earned by works. The sign and the means of incorporation are different.

    This is over-simplified, partially because I haven’t incorporated the vocabulary myself, but after two passes through the book of Galatians trying to answer those questions I think I begin to see how the categories work. If you really want to try to understand the NPP, one good exercise is to ditch the “how does an individual become righteous in God’s eyes?” question, and replace it with “how and why does a person come under God’s covenant?” Then read Galatians looking for the answer to that second question. I’m not saying give up your view ahead of time. Just tentatively ask yourself how the book would work if you were asking a different question.

    Ironically, it looks to me like Piper might have erred in an attempt to be as gracious as possible. He attempts to read Wright as favorably as possible from his own perspective. In Adrian’s post John Piper: Is N. T. Wright Preaching Another Gospel?, he quotes Piper noting the areas in which Wright would agree with the reformed view, and then the single item on which he disagrees. From Piper’s point of view, making Wright agree in most senses with the reformed view appears gracious. But it looks to me like he is missing the point. It is not that Wright goes along with the standard view and then disagrees because he does not believe righteousness is imputed or imparted. Rather, he is defining righteousness in a different way, and therefore the declaration that one is righteous means something different. It is a paradigm shift in which almost all definitions are adjusted, not a minor alteration.

    I think we need to understand the NPP, and particularly Wright’s view of all of this carefully as a whole. Picking it apart in a point by point comparison with the reformed view, or any other for that matter, will not work well, because Wright is shifting the categories. Justification doesn’t mean the same thing to him as it does to a traditional reformed theologian.

  • A Question of Ecumenism, Theology, or Exegesis

    Over the last few days Adrian Warnock has been posting excerpts from John Piper’s new book on justification, The Future of Justification. His latest seems to represent an escalation, with its title John Piper: Is N. T. Wright Preaching Another Gospel?. Adrian has maintained throughout that Piper is being gracious to Wright and is accurately representing Wright’s views.

    Other than to note the escalation, however, the grace (or lack thereof) of Piper’s book (which I have not read) is not my topic. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, so to speak, because I am not nearly as concerned that one gets justification precisely right. This topic is, in my view, very susceptible to “doctrinal correctness”–a tenseness about precise terms that makes it difficult to explore. Reformed theologians in particular seem to want to make one’s precise understanding of justification they anchor point of their theology. They equate it with the gospel. I couldn’t possibly disagree more. The gospel is not a precise understanding of esoteric points of theology.

    Which leads me to the actual purpose of this post. What is driving the discussion? Piper is criticizing Wright’s view on justification, and I’m not going to criticize him directly, but there is a clear tendency in Adrian’s quotes from Piper, and that is simply define what reformed theology has been up until now, demonstrate that Wright disagrees, and leave the obvious impression that Wright must be wrong.

    Elsewhere, there are some who claim that Wright’s theology is driven by ecumenical goals–bringing Catholic and protestant views together. I’m not sure how well that is going, if it is true. Certainly the hardliners in the reformed camp aren’t feeling the ecumenical spirit in all of this.

    But when I read Wright himself, I get a different impression entirely of his driving force. Now I need to place a caveat here. I am only a small part of the way through my own preliminary studies of this New Perspectives on Paul, and I probably won’t try to express my own opinion on some of the key issues for months. Right now I can simply say that the work of Wright answers some questions about Paul for me and raises others. I’m tempted to simply fall back to the notion that Paul was a complex character, and does not willingly fit into our theological boxes.

    When N. T. Wright goes about doing his own writing he appears to me to be driven not to find or produce a particular theological result, but rather by exegetical concerns. He seems to be more careful to follow the text where it leads than the majority of writers. I’ve read. For an example of his exegetical writing, see On Becoming the Righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). For a more theological view, with Wright expressing his own view of justification, see Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism.

    In response to this, we need more than theology. I have no doubt that there are reformed theologians making theological arguments, yet there are also many who are simply happy to point out that Wright fails to meet their standards of “orthodox evangelical theology” and thus can be dismissed out of hand.

    But wasn’t one of the features of the reformation going directly back to scripture? At this point it looks to me like the Bishop of Durham is behaving like a reformation theologian–digging through the texts and trying to come to the best understanding possible, while the purported defenders of the reformation are left to point out just how orthodox their teaching is–by their standards.

    If I’m given the choice between defending theological turf and wrestling with exegesis and trying to understand Paul in his world and mission I’ll choose the latter every time.

  • Morning Reading – 11/6/2007

    I read a large number of blog entries each day, and I never have time to comment on everything I’d like to. Considering how many posts I do write, this may be a good thing. One way to comment without having to write is by linking to extremely good posts, and this morning provided me with some excellent material.

    Responding to Torture

    First, I have been trying to get a handle on writing a post on torture, with the Mukasey hearings, but I haven’t gotten beyond “torture is evil.” After that it feels odd to be explaining that torture is bad. It’s so much a part of me, that I have a hard time taking it seriously as a debate, but there it is, being debated by presumably serious people.

    But Joe Carter has saved me on this point, by writing a 100% on target, excellent post, Our Tortured Silence: The Shameful Response of Christians to Waterboarding.

    All I would add is that our fear sometimes makes us waffle on our moral convictions. We must fight terrorism, but we must be sure to maintain our integrity while we do it, or the terrorists win even if we physically defeat them. Let’s be sure we like who we are when we’re done.

    Dividing the Denominations

    Through an unrelated comment, I found a post on the division of the church, Happy Reformation Day/Hallowe’en. This relates to my own previous post, Setting Doctrinal Priorities. I’m not concerned about their being denominations, or at least accountability organizations that bring congregations together, but we very often do not see the unifying factors, and thus splinter further and further.

    What is the Gospel?

    Again, relating to two earlier posts, Adrian Warnock has posted on justification again, and after quoting a description of forensic justification, and details of imputed righteousness, he says:

    That, my dear reader, is the Gospel. What better explanation of it have you ever read?

    Now I don’t have a problem with Adrian seeing the gospel there, but that is simply one way of expressing it; it is not the only one. When we divide along such detailed lines, I see many problems ahead for Christian unity.