Tag Archives: Explanatory Notes

Background on the Explanatory Notes (Part II)

04 Thursday Sep 2008

Posted by in Book Review, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

In my reading today, I came across more information about the Explanatory Notes:

During the previous decade, John had hoped the publication of his Bible commentary, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, would provide doctrinal help for his preachers. The first edition, in 1755, had been prepared more hastily than Wesley had hoped. The second edition the following year was essentially a reprint, though with the errata incorporated. In 1760, however, he and Charles had embarked on a major revision of the work, further refining the biblical text and expanding the notes. They finished this new edition in 1762 and, combined with the collected Sermons on Several Occasions John had published (four volumes by 1760), it provided basic doctrinal guidelines for the preachers.

By the late summer of 1763, Wesley had firmly fixed these two resources as the measure of proper Methodist preaching. (Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 212-3)

Heitzenrater goes on to argue that the Model Deed, which controlled access to Methodist pulpits, stipulated that preachers must preach “‘no other doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wesley’s Notes Upon the New Testament, and four volumes of Sermons.’ By this stipulation, the Sermons and Notes became the doctrinal standards for the Methodist preachers.” (Heitzenrater 213)

If you are still reading, you will see that we are starting to get somewhere… The Explanatory Notes were part of the doctrinal standards of early Methodism because they were considered to be an important way of ensuring that the people who preached in Methodist pulpits were preaching a doctrine that Wesley would approve of. Thus, the Explanatory Notes were intended to play an important role in defining what was acceptable Methodist teaching.

This still leaves open for discussion the role that they do actually play today and the role that they should play today.

Background on the Explanatory Notes

03 Wednesday Sep 2008

Posted by in Book Review, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, ,

In a previous post I mentioned that I am reading through John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. Today, in re-reading Richard Heitzenrater’s Wesley and the People Called Methodists, I came across this passage:

The notes were largely a collation of material from John Heylyn’s Theological Lectures, John Guyse’s Practical Expositor, Philip Doddridge’s Family Expositor, and Johannes Bengel’s Gnomen Novi Testamenti. The latter was one of the first works of modern critical biblical scholarship, and Wesley adopted many of Bengel’s principles of textual criticism. Although the predominance of the material in the notes comes from these sources, Wesley wove them together in such an editorial way that he could own the combined whole. Having acknowledged his debt to these authors in the preface, Wesley chose not to document particular borrowings, as as not to ‘divert the mind of the reader from keeping close to the point in view’ (JWW, 14:235-39). (Heiztenrater, 188)

In a sense then, it would seem that one could argue that our doctrinal understanding of the New Testament comes from John Heylyn, John Guyse, Philip Doddridge, and Johannes Bengel as filtered and collated by Wesley. It is likely that I will not have time in the near future to learn more about these four men, but I would be very interested to explore this further at another time, as I do not know much about any of them, and only recognize Doddridge’s name.

The more I think about the Explanatory Notes and read them, the more surprised I am that they carry the weight of Doctrine for United Methodists. One could ask whether it is necessary to have a Doctrine for the interpretation of the New Testament, but perhaps more to the point, one could ask whether the Explanatory Notes continue to make a relevant contribution to the life of the United Methodist Church.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

The Sermon on the Mount as the Key to Happiness

13 Wednesday Aug 2008

Posted by in Wesley

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

I mentioned in another post that I am reading the New Testament with John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes as a devotional exercise (and also out of curiosity to see what they actually say, since they are listed as part of our doctrinal standards). There have been some surprises so far, but the main thing I want to mention in the context of this post is a striking comment Wesley makes at the very beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:1-2 the translation Wesley uses reads, “And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he was sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them…” Here is Wesley comment on the phrase “and taught them”:

To bless men, to make men happy, was the great business for which our Lord came into the world. And accordingly He here pronounces eight blessings together, annexing them to so many steps in Christianity. Knowing that happiness is our common aim, and that an innate instinct continually urges us to the pursuit of it, He in the kindest manner applies to that instinct, and directs it to its proper object.

Though all men desire, yet few attain, happiness, because they seek it where it is not to be found. Our Lord therefore begins His divine institution, which is the complete art of happiness, by laying down, before all that have ears to hear, the true, and only true, method of acquiring it.

Observe the benevolent condescension of our Lord. He seems, as it were, to lay aside His supreme authority as our Legislator, that He may the better act the part of our friend and Saviour. Instead of using the lofty style, in positive commands, He, in a more gentle and engaging way, insinuates His will and our duty, by pronouncing those happy who comply with it.”

There is so much here that could prompt a discussion, but I want to focus on what first caught my attention. Wesley seems to be articulating a framework or a lens through which to read the Sermon on the Mount. He seems to be arguing that Jesus gives the Beatitudes in order to map out for us the way to happiness. I think this is very interesting, because this is so relevant to today. Many people are seeking happiness. Yet, on the other hand, few people, it seems to me, view the Sermon on the Mount as good news in their search for happiness. Wesley invites us to read the words of Christ in Scripture as a model and a guide to finding happiness. What is your reaction to this? When you read or hear the Sermon on the Mount, is your reaction that this is good news that leads us to happiness, or is it a reaction of feeling guilty because it points to so much that you fail to do or don’t even want to do?

Wesley writes, “Though all men desire, yet few attain, happiness, because they seek it where it is not to be found.” Where are you looking for happiness? Are you finding it there?

Whatever Happened to Wesley’s Explanatory Notes?

04 Monday Aug 2008

Posted by in Ministry, Wesley

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

, ,

Listed in the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Book of Discipline is John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. The Discipline says that the Explanatory Notes are currently in print through Schmul Publishing Company’s 1975 edition. I was skeptical of this, because I had been told that it was out of print. However, through searching Schmul’s website, I discovered that it is in print. You can order a copy of it by going here.

I was pleased to discover that the book is at least currently in print, yet there still seems to be a discrepancy between what United Methodists say about Wesley’s Explanatory Notes (that it is part of our doctrinal standards, giving Wesley’s Notes an authoritative status in interpreting the New Testament) and what United Methodists actually do with Wesley’s Explanatory Notes (basically ignore it, Schmul’s website confirms that there was a period of time that the Explanatory Notes were a part of our doctrinal standards and were not in print…).

Because of my research interest in Wesley Studies, and because of my desire to take seriously the process towards becoming an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, a few years ago I decided to try to track down a copy of the Explanatory Notes. I am not sure if Schmul’s edition was in print then, but if it was none of the ways that I searched for it on the internet brought it to my attention. I had trouble finding a copy anywhere, finally finding one on ebay. I was very surprised that it was so difficult for a United Methodist pastor to even find a copy of what is considered to be part of our doctrine.

Since buying the book, I haven’t really done a whole lot with it. I looked up several passages I was preaching on in Lamont and referred to it occasionally in a sermon. Saturday, I decided to start using it as my devotional reading. My plan is to read one chapter a day with Wesley’s notes. I am interested to see what the tenor and quality of the notes are, but my primary purpose is going to be using it as a devotional resource, which is what seems to be Wesley’s goal in writing the Explanatory Notes.

In the meantime, do you have any experience with the Explanatory Notes. I have also been wondering if anyone with a background in New Testament has recently looked at Wesley’s Notes and written anything about it. I think this is a very interesting area of research, please mention any articles or books you might be aware of treating the contemporary relevance of the Explanatory Notes for biblical scholarship, or the usefulness of the Explanatory Notes in studying the New Testament in the comments of this post.

Ultimately, the questions seems to me to be: Should something be a part of our doctrinal standards if (at best) we don’t even use it, and perhaps (at worst) don’t even really know what it says? I still hear people reference Wesley’s sermons, the Articles of Religion, and the General Rules, but the only time I can remember someone else talking about the Explanatory Notes was in my UM polity class in seminary, where it was just being mentioned because it was part of the doctrinal standards.