JOHN WESLEY’S CHRISTOLOGY: A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH

Introduction

There are multiple ways to examine and classify an individual’s Christology. One

approach in studying the life and works of Christ may be better than another. The

method used to accomplish this task may depend on the theologian and his or her views

and interpretations. Just as there are many ways to study and categorize Christology,

there are many theologians’ writings, thoughts, and speeches that might make excellent

studies in this arena. The purpose here is to examine one such theologian, John Wesley.

The goal is neither to survey every possible topic in his Christology, nor is it to scrutinize

every sermon and word of John Wesley in order to apply them to a certain context. By

taking a close look at Wesley’s sermons, notes, and others’ interpretations of Wesley’s

writing, it will be possible to see a glimpse of Wesley’s Christology in a systematic

format concentrating on the areas of: Preexistence, Incarnation, Christ’s Nature, The

Three offices of Christ, Soteriology, and Eschatology.

Background

John Wesley was an 18th century theologian raised mainly by his Christian mother

in a strict homeschool setting. According to Ralph Del Colle, Wesley was saved in 1738,

but notes further that Wesley was inwardly converted and devoted his life to God in

1725.1 Del Colle points out that although Wesley may have been converted at age 23

(1725) he was negligent in attending to grace in his life.2 This is perhaps why some
1
Ralph Del Colle, “John Wesley’s Doctrine of Grace in Light of the Christian
Tradition,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.2 (July 2002): 173.
2
Del Colle, 173

1
 2

might argue that Wesley’s “real” conversion was in 1738. Although the dates may be

argued for Wesley’s conversion, the important aspect in examining Wesley’s Christology

is to know that he began his ministry at a young age. Roger Olson notes that Wesley

attended Oxford University and studied to be in the ministry.3 Because Wesley was so

well educated and was a Bible scholar, perhaps one of the best of his time, this makes

understanding his theology a worthy task.

Wesley was also a preacher and Albert Outler (among others to be sure) credits

him with being the spiritual director for the Methodist movement.4 Known and

recognized as the spiritual director of a denominational movement certainly lends weight

to Wesley’s Christology being worthy of a systematic examination.

In undertaking this endeavor, it is important to note that Wesley did not provide a

statement of his Christology, whether systematic or other form. John Deschner noted that

in fact Wesley not only did not preach on Christology, he left very few writings or

thoughts at all on this topic.5 How is a Christology formed when Wesley does not

provide any thoughts on the topic? When attempting to compile systematic approach to

Wesley’s Christology, it will have to be a work of analysis and interpretation.

3
Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1999), 510.
4
Albert Outler, ed. The Works of John Wesley. (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1984), 68.
5
John Deschner, Wesley’s Christology, (Dallas: Southern Methodist University
Press, 1960), 5. Olson also notes that Wesley had no desire to write or teach a systematic
theology (or Christology no doubt) because he (Wesley) thought there was enough
compendiums of doctrine and speculator theology already (see Olson, pg. 511).
 3

Another obstacle to making a conclusive look into this topic is how Wesley

formatted and gave his sermons. Outler makes note of this in his edition of Wesley’s

works and makes the effort to point out that Wesley knew the scripture so much that it

was a part of his daily talk.6 This can make Wesley’s sermons hard to interpret at times

especially when trying to discern his own personal beliefs on such topics as Christology.

Deschner also made note that in Wesley’s sermons, there is very little, if any systematic

passages.7 It seems Wesley did not speak in a way that would lend to an easy analysis of

his theology. The goal will then require a small bit of deduction, application, and

reasoning to provide a full picture into the studied subject matter discussed here. Even so,

due to his background, education, and time spent as a minister, the study of Wesley’s

Christology is a task well worth the time and effort.

Preexistence

The preexistence of Christ is a topic that has been debated over the years. Did

Christ exist since the beginning of time, or did He come into existence at the incarnation?

John Wesley, in one of his sermons, notes that Christ was with God from the beginning

of time, and more specifically, from the time of creation.8 Wesley references Genesis

1:26-27, where God used the words “us” and “our” when forming humankind at

creation.9 It is presumed that Wesley was taking the words “us” and “our” to mean God

6
Outler, 69.
7
Deschner, 5.
8
John Wesley, Sermons II, The Works of John Wesley, ed. Albert C. Outler.
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 188.
9
The Holy Bible. The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible King James Version.
Edited by Kenneth Barker. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), Genesis
 4

was talking to Jesus, and some might say even to the Holy Spirit, lending to the Trinity in

this case. Even so, Wesley provided no overt personal interpretation on this verse and so

any correlation made may be considered conjecture. Wesley did provide this statement

when preaching about the fall of mankind, “He was manifested as the only-begotten Son

of God, in glory equal with the Father, to the inhabitants of heaven, before and at the

foundation of the world.”10 Once again Wesley plainly states that Christ was preexistent

with God before the foundation of the earth was built. Wesley does not provide a

personal exegesis of the Scripture, but does give his own interpretation here. This makes

it suitable to say here that Wesley was thinking of Christ as preexistent with God in this

passage.

According to Deschner’s interpretation, Wesley would say that Christ was an

eternal generation of the Father.11 This would then lead once more to a conclusion of

Christ’s preexistence in Wesley’s view. Yong Lee states that Wesley’s message is made

on the ground that Christ is the incarnate Son of God.12 Donald McKim defines

“incarnation” as, “The doctrine that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became a

human being and “assumed flesh” in Jesus of Nazareth (italics by me to provide

emphasis).”13 In order to be “incarnate” then, Christ would have to be eternal and was

1:26-27.
10
Wesley, Sermons II, 478.
11
Deschner, 16.
12
Yong Lee, “Gregory of Nyssa and John Wesley’s Theological Dialogue on
Christian Perfection,” (MoA Diss., Concordia University, 2004): 85.
13
Donald McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, (Louisville,
Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1996), 140. Although the incarnation of Christ is defined
here, a more in-depth look at Wesley’s views of this topic will be examined later. This
 5

with God from the beginning. The actual incarnation of Christ will be examined further

in the next section.

One point which does not seem to require any guess work in this area is the view

that Christ and God are one. Christ’s deity is not in question according to Wesley.

Wesley points out that he believes that Christ is God, as well as the Holy Spirit in his

sermon.14 This indicates that he viewed Christ equal to God and therefore Christ must

have been preexistent with God. Deschner also points to Wesley emphasizing the unity

of the Father and the Son, seemingly making them one together from the beginning.15 If

this were not the case, Wesley could not view them as one and as equal. The opposite

would then be true as well. For if Wesley viewed Christ as anything other than God, he

could not say Christ was preexistent with God because Christ would have to have been

created at some time. According to Deschner, Wesley not only believed that the Son was

equal to the Father, but that He was, and is, one with the Father and so deserves the same

honor as the Father.16 If the two concepts are added together, the idea that Christ is one

with the Father, and that Christ is due the same honor as the Father, the preexistence then

becomes a logical conclusion. In this light, it seems consistent to say once again that

Wesley believed Christ was preexistent with God the Father.

short dialogue is used here to prove the preexistence of Christ in Wesley’s theology.
14
Wesley, Sermons II, 378.
15
Deschner, 17.

Ibid., 16. This is seen in a few of Wesley’s sermons. See John Wesley,
16

Sermons I, 453 for one example.

 6

Perhaps the most interesting proof offered by Wesley in this area is Christ’s

manifestations to individuals in the Old Testament. According to Wesley, Christ

appeared to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and Jacob.17 Wesley is clear to make

it known he does not think this is a fleshly manifestation, but simply that Christ appeared

to them. This non-flesh manifestation in itself being a mystery to Wesley. This does,

however, lend to Wesley’s Christological view that Christ was with God from the

beginning. One last point Wesley makes in noting Jesus’ preexistence comes in a sermon

when he states that Christ ascended into heaven into the glory that He had before the

world began.18 Here Wesley notes that Christ was in His glory before the creation of the

universe and so would have to be with the Father from all eternity past. Wesley does not

question whether Christ is eternal, even if he does not use the term “preexistent” it seems

reasonable to conclude that this is Wesley’s stance in his Christology.

Incarnation

Wesley taught that Jesus came to the earth as a human being. But what

was his teaching around this coming to earth? What is the incarnation’s role within

Wesley’s Christology? The definition of “incarnation” has been established above, so the

next area to consider is if Wesley’s idea of incarnation fit within that definition. Wesley

states that Christ came into the world, made of a woman.19 This is clearly Wesley’s

belief of Christ having a human body since he is pointing out that He came from a fleshly

17
Wesley, Sermons II, 479.
18
Ibid., 480.
19
Wesley, Sermons II, 479.
 7

woman. Deschner states that according to Wesley, “Christ came in the flesh because God

decreed it from all eternity.”20 This statement makes a few points known about Wesley’s

Christology. First, Wesley believed that Christ came in the flesh. Jesus was not just a

Spirit floating around “looking” like a body. Wesley made this clear in his sermon when

he referenced John 1:14 stating that the Word became flesh.21 If Wesley thought

anything other than Jesus coming to the earth as a human being, certainly he would have

highlighted that fact. No doubt he thought this was obvious, or he would have included

more of his own thoughts on the subject here.

The next topic to uncover is the reason it was necessary for Christ to come to

earth as human. This leads to the second point from the above quote from Wesley. That

is, this also shows that Christ was the plan for salvation, through the incarnation, from the

beginning of time. Deschner goes on to point out that Wesley saw this as God’s will

from eternity, to offer the choice of salvation to every man and woman, and that this is

the single task for which Christ came.22 For Wesley, Christ knew His mission for coming

to earth from the beginning of time. Christ knew He would take the fleshly human form,

and provide a way of redemption.

For Wesley, the incarnation of Christ was the starting point for salvation and

restoration. Wesley, in his sermon, “On The Holy Spirit,” stated:

20
Deschner, 18.
21
Wesley, Sermons II, 384. Wesley makes it known here as well that the manner
in which Jesus became flesh is a mystery, but that Jesus did become flesh is not the
mystery
22
Deschner, 71.
 8

When he was incarnate and became man, he recapitulated in himself all

generations of mankind, making himself the centre of our salvation, that what we
lost in Adam, even the image and likeness of God, we might receive in Christ
Jesus. By the Holy Ghost coming upon Mary, and the power of the highest
overshadowing her, the incarnation or Christ was wrought, and a new birth,
whereby man should be born of God, was shown; that as by our first birth we did
inherit death, so by this birth we might inherit life.23

Wesley in this part of his incarnation theology notes that Jesus became fully man through

the incarnation and because of this, salvation through Christ would be made available.

Wesley states that the incarnate Christ is the center of salvation. So it seems fitting to

conclude that for Wesley, without the incarnation there would be no salvation.

Wesley makes another point that through Christ’s incarnation that men and

women have the opportunity to inherit eternal life. Deschner points out that Wesley

thought it was necessary for Christ to take human nature in order to provide for the

restoration of God’s people back to Himself.24 Deschner makes the point again that this

is real flesh, and not just a spiritual event or an illusion.

Another of Wesley’s beliefs about the incarnation was that Christ came to earth so

that He could destroy the works of the devil.25 Christ not only came into the world to

provide salvation, but also to defeat the whiles of Satan. By defeating the whiles of the

devil, Christ is defeating the power of sin. This event would then lead to the believer’s

ability to overcome the sin in his or her life. Going further in this area leads into

John Wesley, Sermon 141 – On The Holy Spirit. Online sermon. Available from
23

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-
141-on-the-holy-spirit/. Internet. Accessed 22 October 2014.

Deschner, 19. Wesley teaches this in remarking that through the “first Adam sin
24

entered into the world, but through the second Adam (Christ) we are reconciled to God
(see Wesley, Sermons I, 187).
25
Wesley, Sermons II, 474.
 9

Wesley’s belief of sanctification, and will not be covered at this point. The important

fact in Wesley’s Christology is that Christ came, in part, to defeat the devil and his

schemes.

Wesley’s Christology in this area has many parts. The incarnation to Wesley was

not just an event in history that had no higher outcome. Wesley seemed to believe that

Christ’s incarnation was for the purposes of accomplishing the plan from the beginning,

providing a way for salvation, and to destroy the works of Satan.

Christ’s Nature

Once Wesley’s view of Christ’s preexistence is established, the next area to

examine is his view of Christ’s nature. Here Wesley is not ashamed to take on the idea

and discuss Christ’s equality with God and, according to Kenneth Collins, often refers to

God as the Three-One God.26 Wesley does not use the word “trinity,” but is not refuting

the triune God. Instead, Wesley in his sermon on creation Genesis chapter one uses that

exact phrase noted by Collins.27 So it appears as though Wesley views Christ’s nature

and God’s nature as one. Wesley taught that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one.28

So it seems reasonable to conclude that Wesley thought Christ was divine in nature. Not

only is it important to look at the divine nature in definition, but a deeper survey,

accomplished a little later, will uncover the work Christ accomplishes in that nature.

Kenneth Collins, “A Reconfiguration of Power: The Basic Trajectory in John

26

Wesley’s Practical Theology,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 33.1 (Spring 1998): 166.
27
Wesley, Sermons II, 188.
28
Wesley, Sermons II, 378. See also, pg. 384 and 385.
 10

Before diving into this area of Christ’s work, it is essential to note that Wesley did

not over value the divine nature. Wesley taught about Christ’s divine and human nature

side-by-side, making note of them equally.29 Here Wesley taught that there are aspects to

both the divine nature and the human nature that impact salvation. For Wesley, Christ’s

divine nature held His divine righteousness, that is that He was God and existed overall;

further, the human nature held His human righteousness as the mediator between God

and man.30 Wesley was well aware of Christ’s human nature and its importance. In

noting the importance of the human nature, Deschner states, “The human nature, in

particular, will be important for Wesley when he thinks of Christ’s coming again as a

judge.”31 It is necessary to highlight here though that there are some that believe

otherwise.

There are differing views on how extreme Wesley took the natures of Christ.

Richard Riss notes that some have gone so far as to say Wesley was close to advocating

Docetism.32 Riss does not necessarily agree with this summary, but does not seem to

29
John Wesley, Sermons I, The Works of John Wesley, Ed Albert C. Outler.
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984), 452.
30
Ibid.
31
Deschner, 117.
32
Richard Riss, “John Wesley’s Christology in Recent Literature,” Wesleyan
Theological Journal 45.1 (March 2010): 108. It is interesting that Riss does not list any
particular names for reference but just says “some.” Deschner comes close to supporting
this claim about Wesley’s Christology in his book and states when discussing the person
of Christ, “The subject of atonement is the God-man, seen from a perspective of His
divine nature, but provided a human nature ass a necessary instrument for His atoning
work, which consists primarily in His death, not so much as a man, as for man.” He goes
on to say that the one who suffers and dies is God, but Wesley permits the resurrection to
the human nature. See Deschner, 167. So it seems here Deschner Sees Wesley as saying
Christ was only a man in so much as He needed to die for man. This does appear to show
Wesley downplaying Christ’s human nature. Deschner attempts to further his agenda in
 11

refute as strongly as others. Deschner is quick to point out that Wesley does not over or

under emphasize either nature. He states, “Wesley frequently goes out of his way to

emphasize both natures.”33 Riss, on the other hand, upon observing Outler’s comments

makes note that Wesley’s strong emphasis on the divine nature appears as Wesley tended

toward monophysitism.34 Riss refutes this as well by stating that Wesley made many

verbal statements affirming Christ’s humanity.35 This is important to stress because

Wesley did not believe Jesus was only spiritual and just looked like a human. In fact,

Wesley states in a sermon that the righteousness of Christ was in the form of His divine

nature and His human nature.36 Others in studying Wesley have come to the same

conclusion. Yong Lee notes that Wesley spoke of the nature of Christ as very man and

very God.37 Although Lee does not say that the two natures are equal, it would be

reasonable to conclude that Wesley would find this to be true. Lee also notes that Wesley

this area by overstating this again in his conclusion of the book. Once again, Deschner
tries to highlight the fact the Wesley over emphasized the deity of Christ and downplayed
Christ’s humanity. See Deschner, 191. In contradiction to himself, Deschner later states
that Wesley believed Christ did not just assume a perfect human nature but also human
kind’s imperfect nature. See Deschner, pg. 25. He seems to use these ideas when they
suit him and not when trying to make a correct exegesis of Wesley’s theology. It will be
shown that Deschner misinterprets Wesley’s Christology here.
33
Deschner, 166. See also page 24 where Deschner points to a lack of emphasis
on the human nature of Christ.
34
Riss, 114.
35
Ibid. Further in his article, Riss also states that when evaluating Wesley’s
Christology, one should take into account the fact that Wesley repeatedly asserts his
belief in both the human and divine nature of Christ (see Riss, pg. 128).
36
Wesley, Sermons I, 453.
37
Lee, 90.
 12

confirms the two natures not just through Scripture but in the Apostles’ Creed as well.38

Wesley seemed to confirm the creed and made overt attempts to make it known his

stance on the nature of Christ.

In light of this information, it seems Wesley did not over emphasize either nature

of Christ but saw them both as important and equally valuable. He knew that both the

divine and human side of Christ played important roles in His life and ministry on earth.

The Three Offices of Christ

Another significant aspect of Wesley’s Christology is the “three offices of

Christ.” According to Deschner, these three offices Christ holds was a prominent part in

Wesley’s thinking.39 This is not a conjecture on Deschner’s part. Wesley noted in his

sermons that Christ performed three functions that he points to, and labels them as, “the

offices of Christ.”40 In exploring these three areas of “the offices of Christ” we can

uncover some of Wesley’s Christology.

The approach to this subject area will have to be careful and thoughtful.

According to Fred Guyette, this theme of Christ’s offices was not approached in a

systematic way by Wesley, rather he simply preached the topic.41 Since Wesley did not

attempt to provide his interpretations in this area in a theologically systematic way, some

reasoning may be used to uncover Wesley’s Christology. Wesley states in a sermon,

38
Ibid, 91.
39
Deschner, 74.
40
Deschner, 73.

Fred Guyette, “Jesus as Prophet, Priest, and King: John Wesley and the
41

Renewal of an Ancient Tradition,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 40.2 (Fall 2005): 94.
 13

“We are not ourselves clear before God unless we proclaim him in all his office.”42 The

offices of Christ were important to Wesley in his preaching, so this creates the motive for

the examination of this subject area.

Priest

According to Wesley, Christ functions as the High Priest. Deschner notes that in

Wesley’s view of the priestly office Christ has two functions, one as the sacrifice for sin,

and the other as the intercessor for the transgressors in the world.43 This seems to fit the

mold of the Old Testament priest, as one who would offer sacrifices for the people, and

also as the New Testament priest who sits at the right hand of God interceding for the

believers. Wesley provided the answer to the question why one would need to view

Christ as our priest. Guyette, quoting some of Wesley’s notes on the Bible, states that we

are separated and alienated from God and we want a mediator and intercessor.44 Wesley

seems to be saying that human kinds’ natural nature of alienation from God incites in

them a desire, even a requirement, for a High Priest.

This is a good picture of Christ fulfilling the law in His priestly role, and is

perhaps why Wesley gave it so much attention. Wesley believed part of this priestly

42
John Wesley, Sermon 36 – The Law Established Through Faith: Discourse Two.
Online sermon. Available from http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-
of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-36-the-law-established-through-faith-
discourse-two/. Internet. Accessed 22 October 2014.
43
Deschner, 74-5. Wesley quotes Roman 8:34 when discussing this area of
Christ’s priestly office noting that He is at the right hand of God making intercession for
us (See Wesley, Sermons II, pg. 426).

Guyette, 94. The notes from Wesley, according to Guyette, are available at
44

http:www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/matthew/ Wesley/matthew1.htm.
 14

office was accomplished by Jesus while He was on earth. Wesley states that Christ

executed the priestly office when He came of due age by doing mighty wonders,

performing signs, and preaching like no one had ever preached before.45 This is perhaps

a third function of the office as seen by Wesley, and so would add to Deschner’s

interpretation. Deschner is not wrong here in his understanding of Wesley’s take on

Jesus as Priest, however, it seems he may be incomplete in his view of Wesley’s

Christology.

Prophet

Another function of Christ, as Wesley viewed it, was that of prophet. Wesley in

his notes states that in the prophetic office we want Christ to teach the will of God and

enlighten the mind.46 In an attempt to further interpret what Wesley was saying,

Deschner observes that Christ’s work in the prophetic office is one of enlightenment,

teaching, and providing wisdom, of both the law and the gospel.47 Here Christ provides

insight into the truths of God and supplies the believer with wisdom to understand and

apply these truths. Wesley makes this claim in his teachings making the statement, “He

both opens and enlightens the eyes of our understanding.”48 Christ opens the human mind

to the will of God and enlightens it with the wisdom of how to accomplish this will.

45
Wesley, Sermons II, 479.

Guyette, 95. The notes from Wesley, according to Guyette, are available at
46

http:www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/matthew/ Wesley/matthew1.htm.
47
Deschner, 75.
48
Wesley, Sermons II, 481.
 15

In observing Wesley’s words on the teaching aspect of this office, Guyette falls in

line with Deschner, to a point, but mainly speaks of this office as the true teacher.49 This

is the teachings of truth and holiness. Christ is the only one who can truly teach these

things since He lived the perfect life. It is through these teachings that Christ enlightens

the believers’ mind to truth and then gives them wisdom to carry out His will.

King

The final of the functions from Wesley is that of king. It is in this office that

Deschner points to Christ as the victor and eternal ruler.50 Because Christ defeated death

and hell, He is the king and ruler over the world. Guyette brings another interpretation of

Wesley here by stating that Christ works in the heart to order the virtues and passions.51

Pointed out further, by Deschner, is the idea that in this office Christ is progressively

conquering the sin in the believer.52 This is no doubt in reference to Wesley’s theology of

sanctification, but is still a part of this office Christ holds. Christ would then be seen as a

conquering king, although not in the sense of political or geographical over-taking.

Christ is the conqueror of sin and the effects of sin. Guyette does point out that Wesley

would think of Christ as a king ready to set up rule in areas of justice and peace for those

who are imprisoned and humiliated.53 Although it is unlikely that Wesley would say

Christ would do this through war or subjection, it is a part of this office.

49
Guyette, 95.
50
Deschner, 75.
51
Guyette, 95.
52
Deschner, 75.
53
Guyette, 96.
 16

There appears to be another role in the kingly office in Wesley’s Christology.

Guyette notes that Christ transforms the heart.54 This transformation would then lead to

the matter of subduing every thought to Christ. Wesley in his notes seems to make his

interpretation of this office known. Here Guyette again references Wesley’s notes and

points to him stating that Christ subdues all things to Himself and rules in the heart.55 It

seems that according to Wesley, Christ first transforms the heart and then subdues the

resulting thinking and emotions. Christ as King rules over not only the physical and

spiritual world, but He also rules in the heart of the believer.

After a close, although certainly not all exhaustive look into the three office, it is

easy to recognize why Wesley would place such high emphasis on these roles Christ has

in the life of the believer.

Soteriology

This is perhaps the most important part of Christology to Wesley. Salvation is the

reason Christ came to earth, bled, died, and rose again. Wesley views Christ’s blood,

death, and resurrection as the only form of salvation. He states directly that Jesus is the

“saviour of the world.”56 This is the place to start in forming the foundation of Wesley’s

Soteriology based in Christ’s work on earth. According to Olson, Wesley believed and

trusted in Christ alone for his salvation.57 But there was more to this than a simple trust

54
Ibid.

Ibid., 95. The notes from Wesley, according to Guyette, are available at
55

http:www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/matthew/ Wesley/matthew1.htm.
56
Wesley, Sermons I, 119.

Olson, 511. See John Wesley, Sermons I, pg. 120 and 214 for Wesley’s
57

teaching on this topic.

 17

in Christ. It seems that Wesley thought more of this trust than only a belief. According

to Wesley, salvation was accepting Christ and accepting Him in all three of His offices.58

“Receiving Christ,” according to Wesley, was receiving all of Christ, not just one or two

aspects. This was not just believing things about Christ, but taking all of Him into one’s

life. That was salvation to Wesley.

Further study indicates that Wesley also believed the righteousness of Christ

played a significant role in salvation, because only a perfect sacrifice would be acceptable

in payment for our sins. Wesley taught in his sermons that the price that was paid for our

sins by Jesus was through His blood and righteousness.59 He also believed in the

sanctification of the believer. For the purpose here, sanctification will not be presented in

depth, even though he believed this is the second general part of salvation in the

believer’s life. The reason for foregoing an examination of sanctification is due mainly

to the fact that Wesley saw this as a work of the Holy Spirit.60 The focus will remain on

Wesley’s view of the salvation work of Christ.

Wesley seems to believe that Christ’s merit has a part to play in salvation. This

would then lend more weight to Wesley’s view of both the divine and human nature of

Christ. Without Christ’s dual nature being equal, the merit of Christ’s death would be

questioned. Thomas Noble also reflects on the merit of Christ’s death, and goes further

58
Wesley, Sermons II, 161.
59
Wesley, Sermons II, 157, and another sermon pg. 481. See also John Wesley,
Sermons I, 382 where Wesley explicitly states it is by Christ’s blood alone that a sinner
can be reconciled.
60
Ibid. For Welsey’s teaching on the Holy Spirit and sanctification as a gradual
process, see John Wesley, Sermons II, 160.
 18

to mention the power of the resurrection in our salvation.61 It is necessary to recognize

the resurrection when discussing Wesley’s view of salvation. For him this was an

essential aspect of the topic.

Wesley routinely speaks of Christ’s love as playing a significant role in salvation.

This love of Christ is evident in Wesley’s teachings, and is essential to his soteriology. In

one particular sermon Wesley states that Christ died for sins, loves us, and gave Himself

for us.62 The love Christ had for the sinners of the world was important to Wesley.

Wesley did not teach in-depth about the possibility of Christ’s suffering for mankind at

the hand of an angry Father. Wesley does state that Christ was obedient on the cross and

He chose to remain there voluntarily.63 The obedience of Christ was for the propitiation,

or atonement, of the believers’ sins.

Wesley certainly places importance on the atonement of Christ. Darren Wood

observes that the theme of atonement is an act of deliverance from sin.64 This atonement

then is the act that provides salvation to the human race. Wood notes that the atonement

is a penal substitution, that is, humans are pardoned from their sins due to the merits of

Thomas Noble, “John Wesley as a Theologian: An Introduction,” Evangelical

61

Quarterly 82.3 (July 2010): 243.

62
Wesley, Sermons I, 194. See also, John Wesley, Sermons II, 157 where he
again states that Christ loved us and gave Himself for us. See also, John Wesley,
Sermons II, pg. 426.
63
Deschner, 153. According to Deschner, Wesley used the passage in Matthew
27 for his reference on this idea of obedience.

Darren Wood, “Suffering with the Crucified Christ: The Function of the Cross
64

in the Works of John Wesley and Dorothee Soelle.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 43.1
(Spring 2008): 186.
 19

Christ.65 This is not a once imputed for all time righteousness, as the Calvinist might

believe. For Wesley, that would take away from the necessity of the individual to

continue to grow in Christ-likeness. He believed the sinner was saved at conversion, but

that the work of Christ would continue in the individual’s heart.

Wood continues in his article by noting that Wesley sees Jesus as the “second

Adam” and has tasted death for all, providing the just requirement of punishment for our

sin.66 It was through this act that the atonement and possibility of salvation is available to

anyone who accepts it. Deschner on the other hand, points to Wesley’s idea that the

atonement from Christ is only a penal substitution.67 Although Deschner points to both

justification and sanctification here in Wesley’s teachings, he fails to take Wesley in

context. As already stated, Wesley knew and trusted in Christ’s work on earth, blood,

death, and resurrection for salvation, just as a “substitution” for human’s sins. It appears

that Deschner is attempting to pull Wesley’s words out of context and make them fit his

idea of where he believes Wesley’s falls on this topic.

Olson furthers this topic by noting that Wesley’s soteriology rejects human

meritorious works from any role in salvation.68 Wesley’s belief was that humans could

nothing for salvation, it was all based on Christ’s actions and merit. He preached that

there is no good dead, whether taking communion, prayer, or reading the Bible that could

65
Ibid., 187.
66
Wood, 186. Wesley taught this, see John Wesley, Sermons I, 187.
67
Deschner, 175.
68
Olson, 515. Wesley takes on this topic in a sermon, and plainly states there is
nothing a human can do to earn righteousness. See John Wesley, Sermons I, 214.
 20

save the individual.69 According to Wesley, there is no human act, other than faith, that

could save him or her. Wesley taught that it was Christ’s “meritorious cause” that is our

justification.70 It is Christ’s perfect life in all righteousness (His merit not ours) that

provides for salvation. Olson further notes that Wesley believed that salvation was from

God’s grace through a human free will.71 So to Wesley, it was not human merit that was

key to salvation, but the human will to accept that salvation that was through the grace of

God. Wesley notes in a sermon that righteousness is from faith, a condition of, the

justification or salvation.72 Wesley certainly holds to the idea that salvation is from faith

in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Another aspect of the salvation work of Christ that has importance to Wesley is

that of restoration. Lee states that restoration is the foreground for the doctrine of

salvation to Wesley.73 Christ’s work in salvation restores us to a right relationship with

Christ. The reestablishment of a relationship with God was essential to Wesley. This

seems to be the reason for salvation for Wesley.

In looking at the atonement, resurrection, and salvation provided by Christ, it

seems appropriate to point out a missing piece of Wesley’s Christology. Noble makes an

excellent point in that Wesley failed to relate the aspects of atonement and salvation to
69
Wesley, Sermons I, 382.
70
Wesley, Sermons II, 157. See also, Sermons I, 382-3. Wesley spoke of Jesus’
external righteousness as Him having no outward sin or “guile found in his mouth.” This
is the righteousness of the human nature and part of the complete nature of Christ that
knew no sin. See, Sermons I, 453.
71
Olson, 536
72
Wesley, Sermons I, 206.
73
Lee, 90
 21

the Holy Spirit, and to also relate sanctification to the work of Christ, although he

recognized that Wesley did not do this purposefully.74 It has been shown previously here

that Wesley believed in a triune God, but he does not specifically relate these aspects to

the trinity. Perhaps Wesley assumed such a conjunction was made and he did not need to

overtly state this part of his Christology. It is the stance here that Wesley would relate

these works one to another, Christ to the Holy Spirit, with the knowledge that Wesley

saw them as separate but the same.

The final aspect of salvation in Welsey’s Christology to observe is that Christ

died for everyone. According Donal Bloesch, Wesley was adamant that Christ died for

everyone, but only those that respond will be saved.75 Wesley, with this in view, did not

believe in universal salvation through the work of Christ. H. Richard Niebuhr discusses

Wesley’s Christology in this area and notes that believers (those that choose salvation)

can be cleansed from sin.76 Here again there is agreement that salvation is not a universal

event for everyone in Wesley’s view. Erickson notes that everyone is capable of

accepting the offer of salvation, but that not everyone does.77 There must be a choice

made by the individual in order to receive that salvation and its benefits.

74
Noble, 250.
75
Donald Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1997), 187.
76
R. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture. (New York, New York: HarperCollins
Publisher, 2001), 219.
77
Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine. Edited by L. Arnold Hustad.
(Grand Rapids: Bakker Book House Publishing, 2001), 301. Erickson is more discussing
the Arminian doctrine but does make it known that this is where Wesley fell in his
Christology and Wesley believed the “prevenient grace” God gives to everyone
indiscriminately.
 22

Eschatology

What will the “end-times” hold for Christians? John Wesley spoke of

eschatology in his sermons, although not a lot. It seems that Wesley believed Christ

would return to the earth and, this was a part of his Christology. There are other aspects

of the end times Wesley taught as well. Jerry Mercer notes that Wesley does not have an

eschatology in light of systematic theology, but Wesley taught on subjects relating to the

end times.78 Even though Wesley did not have what might be called a systematic

approach to the eschatology, he preached on some relative subjects making it possible to

get a glimpse of his theology in this area. The aim here is to touch on those subjects as

they relate to his Christology.

In Wesley’s eschatology, the millennium was certainly a topic on which he

preached. Wesley spoke of the eschaton in two stages, or two millennia. According to

Larry Wood, Wesley thought the first is when the world will be filled with righteousness

and the second when Christ returns.79 The first millennium may point towards Wesley’s

idea of sanctification, and the second lends towards the more often noted “end times.”

Mercer point out that for Wesley, the first millennia will be the spread of the Gospel.80

78
Jerry Mercer, “The Destiny of Man in John Wesley’s Eschatology,” Wesleyan
Theological Journal 2.1 (Spring 1967): 56. He further emphasizes this point when
stating that Wesley was more interested in the practical application of the events in end
times rather than the theology of the topic (see pg. 57).
79
Larry Wood, “Can Pentecostals Be Wesleyans? My Reply to Don Dayton’s
Rejoinder,” The Journal for Pentecostal Studies 28.1 (Spring 2006): 127. Mercer
supports this stance, and makes note that in Wesley’s eschatology, it is important that the
millennium precede the second coming of Christ (see Mercer, pg. 60).
80
Mercer, 60.
 23

This supports the idea of Wesley’s first millennium being the work of sanctification. In

his teaching, Wesley does not attempt to predict when the “end times” will occur. He

seems more interested in teaching the practical aspects of the subject to lead people to

Jesus.

Upon the second coming, the judgment will take place. Mercer notes that Wesley

believes Christ will come a second time and provide the judgment of the world.81 Wesley

never speaks of a “rapture” in his teachings, so perhaps this second coming is after the

second millennia and after the dead in Christ meet the living the Christians in the air.

According to Mercer, this second coming is the “general judgment” and Christ will

separate the favor from the disfavor.82 It is not too much of a stretch to maintain that

Wesley would view Christ as the ruler of this future kingdom after He has accomplished

the final judgment. Christ is seen in His kingly role here presiding over the “trial” of

human kind. It seems Wesley would say that Christ is the one to oversee the events and

be the active ruler. This can be reasoned through the previous observation of Christ in His

kingly office and the above stated information without falling away from Wesley’s

interpretations. Deschner states that according to Wesley, Christ has the right to side over

the end events because He was humiliated in His death and suffering for the sins of the

world.83 So it seems for Wesley, Christ will not only be involved in the end times, but He

will rule over the events in the end times.

Mercer, 56. Wesley touches in this in a sermon where he states that at the
81

second coming Christ will destroy the last works of the devil, providing the final
judgment (See Wesley, Sermons II, pg. 119).
82
Ibid., 61.
83
Deschner, 75.
 24

Another aspect of eschatology Wesley spoke of, was the banquet feast that

will take place after the second coming. According to Steve Hoskins, Wesley view the

Eucharist as a connection to the banquet Christ will have with believers in the coming

kingdom.84 This shows two aspects of this portion of Wesley’s Eschatology as it pertains

to Christ. First, there will be a huge feast which Christ will have with His people.

Wesley seems to state that there will be fellowship and enjoyment in the fullness of the

kingdom. The second aspect mentioned here is that there will be another kingdom.

Edward Wimberly supports this when he states that the transforming grace through Christ

was a taste of the world to come.85 This shows another take on Wesley’s view of the

coming kingdom being full of grace.

Wesley’s eschatology has a few themes in it. First, he noted most often that this

would involve the return of Christ to the earth. Wesley also pointed to a new kingdom,

the judgment of Christ, and separation of the sinners and the believers. The end times

was important to Wesley, and certainly was something he gave some thought and time to

examine.

Conclusion

Some may find it a task too difficult to try and reason out a systematic theology

when no overt text exists with the subject matter so arranged. As is the case with John

Wesley, very little if any teaching is available in order to understand how his

Steven Hoskins, “Eucharist and Ecchatology in the Writings of the Wesleys,”

84

Wesleyan Theological Journal 29.1-2 (Spring-Fall 1994): 75.

85
Edward Wimberly, “John Wesley and the Twenty-First Century: A Realistic
Future,” Methodist Review Vol. 1 (2009): 104.
 25

interpretations in a systematic way. Further, because he was educated in theology, and

knew the Biblical manuscript so well, much of his sermons and notes were comprised

mainly of the text. This should not stop one from undertaking the task of systematically

organizing Wesley’s teaching and thoughts in order to better grasp the gospel message.

As seen in this work, Wesley’s Christology is worth examination and fruitfulness can be

gained from it. By observing writings, sermons, and notes, a successful glimpse into

Wesley’s Christology in the areas of Preexistence, Incarnation, Christ’s Nature, The

Three offices of Christ, Soteriology, and Eschatology is seen in a systematic format.