“Setting the Bible out of the Question”—Pursuing Justice: The (Non) Use of Scripture in John Wesley’s Antislavery Argument and Its Relevance for the Contemporary Pursuit of Justice

Abstract

One of the core sources for Christian justification or critique of social justice matters is the Bible. One would think that a leading historic Christian figure, like John Wesley, whose theology was closely bound to biblical interpretation, would have used the Bible extensively to argue against an important matter such as (anti-)slavery. However, we find that his argument lacks his usual biblical-centeredness. This article explores this phenomenon and attempts to understand Wesley’s reasoning and argument in light of his limited use of scripture in this instance.

1. Introduction

The contemporary Christian pursuit of justice is often mired in debates about the meaning, significance, and application of biblical texts. Concepts of justice deeply informed by the biblical traditions seem to require social and ecclesial transformation that runs contrary to the most obvious readings of other biblical texts. For members of Methodist and Wesleyan denominations, a feasible way forward is to examine how John Wesley argued against slavery, despite biblical texts which are ambiguous about or even support slavery.

The Bible was a significant site of struggle in the eighteenth-century debates over slavery. Biblical texts were widely and convincingly used to defend and promote the enslavement of people; the opponents of slavery sought to counter these arguments appealing to other passages and providing alternative readings of those used by supporters of slavery (Barclay 2007). The use of the Bible to justify slavery was not new (Avalos 2011, pp. 159–236) and the opponents of slavery faced significant exegetical challenges in their use of the Bible. As the New Testament scholar John M. B. Barclay concludes: “when it came to detailed exegesis, and a commitment to take the Bible at face value, the pro-slavery arguments often had the better case” (Barclay 2007, p. 13). Wesley’s Thoughts upon Slavery presents us with a conundrum. While Wesley’s theological methodology draws creatively on diverse sources, he consistently argues for the primacy of scriptural authority as the normative authority for theology and ethics (Crutcher 2010; Gunter et al. 1997; Jones 1995; Maddox 2011, 2012; McEwan 2011; Thorsen 1990). This is captured in his statement: “Enjoin nothing that Bible does not clearly enjoin, forbid nothing that it does not clearly forbid”. There are similar statements throughout his writings. Scott J. Jones thus affirms that for Wesley: “Other sources of authority for the Christian community must be seen as essentially related to the one, central authority which is Scripture. It is Scripture alone that is the rule of our faith”. Yet in Thoughts upon Slavery, Wesley explicitly sets “the bible out of the question” (Wesley 2007, p. 70) and argues against slavery from the perspective of natural law and liberty. He assumes that his argument is consistent with the Bible (Wesley 2007, p. 79), or the “revealed law of God” (Wesley 2007, p. 79) and makes numerous biblical allusions but does not address texts used to support slavery. More significantly he condones, if not encourages, actions that contradict the most obvious readings of the New Testament household codes. Ephesians 6:5–8, Colossians 3: 22–26, and 1 Peter 2:18–25 require that slaves be subject to their masters obeying them in all things patiently bearing the unjustified suffering inflicted on them and obeying them even when they are not present. Wesley, in contrast, affirms the very behaviour that the New Testament writers reject. He argues that “running away” from enslavers is a “most natural act” (Wesley 2007, p. 69); that slave rebellion is the legitimate assertion of “native liberty” (Wesley 2007, p. 68); and that acts of resistance to slavery such as “stubbornness, cunning, pilfering” are the “natural, necessary fruits of slavery” (Wesley 2007, pp. 74–75). He goes as far as propose that it is the enslavers own fault if enslaved people should “cut your throat” (Wesley 2007, p. 75) The argument of Thoughts upon Slavery also alludes to core themes from Wesley’s theology, indicating that slavery is incompatible with his central theological convictions This intensifies the problem—do Wesley’s core theological commitments lead him to an ethical conclusion for which he cannot provide a biblical justification and is contrary to the most obvious readings of biblical texts?

This article is focused on Wesley’s use and failure to use the Bible in his argument against slavery given his strong affirmation of biblical authority. It does not deal with aspects of his argument such as the use of experience (except where this relates to his use of the Bible) or his understandings of natural law and natural liberty. It thus is focused on investigating the conundrum relating to his use of the Bible. It examines Wesley’s exposition of texts relating to slavery, and offers an explanation rooted in his characteristic hermeneutic. In light of this, it proposes a hermeneutic that can be used to address contemporary justice issues.

While there are a number of studies of Wesley’s arguments against slavery, and some note that he “set the bible out of the question”, they do not provide any detailed analysis of how this relates to his understanding of biblical authority, the pervasive use of the Bible in the debate on slavery, and his support of positions that are incompatible with the obvious readings of the New Testament Household Codes (Brendlinger 2006, pp. 45–72; Marquardt 2008, pp. 85–97; Stone 2001, pp. 187–97). Brendlinger does provide a brief analysis of some of Wesley’s other references to slavery but does not engage the conundrum and the pervasive use of the Bible in the debate.

2. The Bible and Justification of Slavery

Wesley’s assumption that slavery was contrary to the Bible is unexpected given the use of scripture in eighteenth century arguments about slavery. Wesley used several sources in composing Thoughts upon Slavery, the most significant being the writings of Anthony Benezet (Baker 1984). In contrast to Wesley, Benezet developed a biblical theological case against slavery which Wesley did not include. In A Short Account of that Part of Africa Inhabited by Negros, Benezet argues that the gospel was a:

Declaration of Peace on Earth, and Good Will to every Nation, Kindred tongue and People. … The Purpose of which is to introduce a universal and affectionate Brotherhood in the whole human Species; by removing from the Heart of every Individual … the Darkness and Corruption of its Nature, transforming the selfish, wrathful proud Spirit, into Meekness, Purity and Love: For this end the Son of God became Man, suffered and died…

(Brendlinger 2007, p. 176)

Christians have a duty to express this by obeying the commands to love God and one’s neighbour, to do to others as they would have the others do to them, and to act with righteousness and mercy toward human beings. Slavery was a contradiction of the gospel and must be abolished.

In Some Historical Account of Guinea (Brendlinger 2007, pp. 137–204), Benezet emphasized that the gospel was a message of peace on earth and good will to humanity and added a specific biblical case against slavery based on Luke 10:7: “the labourer is worthy of his hire” and Jeremiah 22.13 “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work.” Slavery was thus contrary to God’s law and fundamentally unjust. The prophets called rulers to exercise justice particularly to the oppressed and hence legislatures had a responsibility to abolish slavery. In A Mite Cast into the Treasury: or Observations on Slave (Brendlinger 2007, pp. 205–14), which is not a source of Thoughts upon Slavery, Benezet appealed to the Golden Rule and the ban on kidnapping and selling people in Exodus 21:16.

Another of Wesley’s sources, Granville Sharp’s A Representation of the Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery in England, (Sharp 1764) referred to the command to love one’s neighbour as oneself and Jesus’ affirmation that “the labourer is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7).

Earlier anti-slavery works such as Samuel Seewall’s The Selling of Joseph: A Memorial (Seewall 1700) and John Woolman’s Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes (Woolman 1754) also developed biblical arguments. An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, Upon Slave-Keeping (Rush 1773), an anonymous booklet attributed to Benjamin Rush, developed a biblical argument against slavery. Bush was influenced by Benezet and in contact with Sharp (Brendlinger 2007, pp. 31–33).

Wesley was aware that the Bible was used to justify slavery. He had read Morgan Godwyn’s The Negro and Indians Advocate Suing for their Admission into the Church (Wesley 1988, p. 448). Godwyn argued for the evangelization of enslaved people on the ground of their full humanity and opposed the cruel treatment of slaves. He rejected the argument that the evangelization of enslaved people would lead to their emancipation, and argued that converted enslaved people would become better, submissive, workers who would not rebel against their enslavers. He addressed the concern that enslaved people would learn the golden rule, presumably because this could be used to argue against slavery and countered that they would also learn the command to submit to their enslavers (Godwyn 1680).

Wesley had also read Two Letters of the Lord Bishop of London by Edmund Gibson (Wesley 1988, p. 448). Gibson encouraged the evangelization enslaved people, and rejected the argument that enslaved converts should be emancipated. Referring to 1 Corinthians 7 and other New Testament passages, he argued that Christianity does not change the civil relationships between persons, it brings freedom from sin but not from slavery. Enslaved Christians ought to discharge their duties more diligently out of a sense of duty to God and enslavers could enforce the obedience of enslaved Christian (Gibson 1760, pp. 14–17).

One of Wesley’s sources, Francis Hargrave’s An Argument in the Case of James Sommersett a Negro (Hargrave 1772), referred to biblical texts that were used to justify slavery (Hargrave 1772, pp. 20–21). Wesley only included Hargrave’s assertion that slavery “prevailed particularly among the Jews” and did not refer to the texts (Wesley 2007, p. 60).

Biblical arguments appeared in proslavery writings throughout the eighteenth century (Williams 1706; An African Merchant 1772; Smith 2009, pp. 251–64; Nisbet 1773; Glasson 2012). These arguments referred to the “cursing of Ham”, and Pentateuchal texts dealing with slavery. The continued relevance of these laws was affirmed based on Deuteronomy’s affirmation of the divine origin (Deuteronomy 4:5–8) and Jesus’s declaration that he had not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17 & 18). The absence of any record of Jesus condemning slavery was indicated its acceptability. 1 Corinthians 7 was used to argue for the lawfulness of purchasing slaves, and passages referring to “no slave or free” in Christ were used to argue that slavery was accepted.

While we do not know if Wesley had read theses tracts, there is evidence that he was aware of the arguments. Granville Sharp published tracts arguing against biblical defences of slavery (Sharp 1773, 1969). Sharp collaborated with Benezet and Wesley in opposing slavery provided Wesley with literature for Thoughts upon Slavery (Brendlinger 2006, pp. 19–33; 2007, pp. 19–28, 68–104). Wesley’s silence is striking in that he does respond to other proslavery arguments. In other polemical writings he counters the arguments of those he disagrees with biblical arguments seeking to prove that their arguments are not compatible with biblical teaching (Bullen 2007).

3. Biblical Allusions in Thoughts upon Slavery

There are biblical allusions in Thoughts upon Slavery.

• Wesley describes God as “loving to every man and whose mercy is over all thy works” (Wesley 2007, p. 79) paraphrasing Psalm 145:9; and as “the Father of the spirits all flesh” who is “rich in mercy” alluding to Numbers 16:22, Hebrews 12:9 and Ephesians 2:4.
• He refers to human beings as created by God who “mingled of one blood all the nations upon the earth” referring to Acts 17:26.
• Slavery was incompatible with loving one’s neighbour expressed in the Golden Rule. Alluding to 2 Timothy 2:24 and Matthew 7:12, Wesley urged those involved in the slave trade to be “gentle toward all men” and to “invariably do unto one as you would he do unto you” (Wesley 2007, p. 79). He implied that the conditions under which enslaved people were obtained, transported, live, and work violated biblical commandments.
• Slave traders were “men-stealers”, alluding to I Timothy 1:10 and Exodus 21:16.
• He refers to the spilling of the innocent blood, and that the blood of enslaved people, who are the enslavers “brothers”, calls out to God for judgement, alluding to the story of Cain and Abel and to Old Testament passages condemning the shedding of “innocent blood”. He quotes James 2:13: “He shall have judgment without mercy who shows no mercy”, and refers to Matt 10:15 to emphasize that enslavers will face divine judgment.
• Judgement in not inevitable as, quoting Hebrews 3:5, it is possible for enslavers to hear the call of God and to turn from the evil of the slavery. Alluding to Matthew 5:7, he argues that the merciful will receive mercy.

4. Wesley’s Interpretation Biblical Texts Relating to Slavery

In two other works Wesley interprets some of the texts used in the eighteenth-century debates on slavery, these are the Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament published in 1754 and “Directions to Servants” published in 1760. Of relevance is his interpretation of the household codes. In Thoughts upon Slavery, he justifies behaviour that was contrary to the most obvious reading of these texts. He argues that rebellion was the assertion of enslaved people’s right to natural liberty. The enslaved people’s resistance to their enslavers through “stubbornness, cunning, pilfering and diverse other vices” were the “natural, necessary fruits of slavery.” He warned enslavers that it would be their own fault if their enslaved people cut their throats, for they had “first acted the villain in making them slaves” (Wesley 2007, p. 75).

4.1. Slavery and the Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament

In Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (Wesley 1976) Wesley’s makes extensive use of the work of Johann Albrecht Bengel, John Guyse, John Heylyn, and Philip Doddridge and his editing of these sources is relevant.

The most explicit statement dealing with slavery is the comment on I Timothy 1:10:

“Manstealers—The worst of all thieves, in comparison of whom highwaymen and housebreakers are innocent. What then are most traders in negroes, procurers of servants for America?”

(Wesley 1976, p. 772)

Bengel (1873, p. 244), Guyse (1797, p. 149), and Doddridge (2022, p. 370) also relate “manstealing” to slavery but without Wesley’s vehemence.

Wesley comments on Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth that the “acceptable year” (Luke 4.19) is: “Plainly alluding to the year of jubilee, when all, both debtors and servants are set free.” This is an edited version of Guyse’s comments; however, Guyse interprets this as referring to spiritual freedom and forgiveness from sin (Guyse 1797, p. 43). Wesley did not include this spiritualised interpretation.

Wesley’s treatment of the letter to Philemon is ambiguous. He noted that Philemon probably gave Onesimus his freedom, but he does not include Bengel’s suggestion that Paul instruction to Philemon to receive Onesimus as one who was “above a servant” meant as a “freeman” (Bengel 1873, p. 331). However, he did not follow Doddridge that verse 15 means he would remain a servant for the rest his life (Doddridge 2022, p. 500) or Guyse that “the Christian religion makes no alteration to civil rights” (Guyse 1797, p. 251).

Wesley did not comment on words “slave nor free” in his notes on Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11. In contrast Guyse emphasized that all receive the blessing of the gospel regardless of status (Guyse 1797, p. 340). Doddridge argued that equality in Christ makes “the slave cheerful and swallows up in a great measure the sense of his servitude” (Doddridge 2022, p. 47). Wesley commented on 1 Corinthians 12:13, “we are all united in one body. … Whether slaves or freemen—Who are at the greatest distance by law and custom” (Wesley 1976, p. 623). He made no application to eighteenth century slavery.

His comment on I Corinthians 7:21–23 was that enslaved people should “embrace the opportunity” (Wesley 1976, p. 605) to gain their freedom when possible. This contrasts with Heylyn who translated verse 21 as “but if you can obtain your freedom choose rather to continue in servitude. While Wesley commented on verse 24 that those who “abide with God preserve a holy indifference with regard to outward things”, Doddridge explicitly relativized liberty: “… liberty itself, the first of all temporal blessings, be not of so great importance, as that a man, blessed with the high hopes and glorious consolations of Christianity should make himself very solicitous about it” (Doddridge 2022, p. 259).

In comments dealing with “servants” obedience to their “masters” and “masters’” treatment of “servants” Wesley followed the King James Version in translating the Greek douloi (“servants” or “slaves”) as “servants”. In his comments on Ephesians 6:5–8, he referred to “servants” and changed the translation of the King James Version from “whether he be bond or free” to “whether he be a servant or free” (Wesley 1976, pp. 720–21). Wesley commented on Colossians 4:1 that “masters” should treat their “servants” in accordance with their contract and “even beyond the letter” of “the contract” (Wesley 1976, p. 750), implying that this referred to a hired servant. None of Wesley’s sources referred to a contract.

Interpreting 1 Timothy 6:1 & 2, Wesley translated douloi as “servants” (Wesley 1976, p. 783), in contrast to Guyse who translated it as “bond slaves” (Guyse 1797, p. 185) and Doddridge who relates it to “slaves” (Doddridge 2022, p. 407). Following Bengel and Heylyn, Wesley interpreted the phrase “under the yoke” as referring to “servants” with “heathen masters” and not as a reference to slavery (Bengel 1873, p. 279). He affirmed that because Christian “masters” and “servants” are brothers, “servants” are in this “respect on a level” with their “masters”.

Wesley interpreted 1 Peter 2:18–23 (which uses oiketes for servant) to say that servants should be subject to their masters out of fear of “offending them or God” and this did not only apply to masters who were “[t]ender, kind. … Mild, easily forgiving.” He further noted that “the example of Christ is peculiarly adapted to the state of servants who easily slide into sin or guile, reviling their fellow servants, or threatening them, the natural result of anger without power” (Wesley 1976, p. 879). It is significant that he interpreted this as directed to relationships between “servants” and not to relationships between “servants” and “masters”.

Wesley used the word servant to refer to enslaved people, yet in specific cases he referred explicitly to “slaves”. He refers to crucifixion as a form of execution reserved for “slaves” (Wesley 1976, pp. 132, 590) and for “slaves or servants” (Wesley 1976, p. 731). In his introduction to Acts, he refers to the gospel spreading to different classes of people including “slaves” (Wesley 1976, p. 392). Commenting on Acts 6:9 he describes “Libertines” as those “whose fathers were once slaves and afterwards made free” (Wesley 1976, p. 415). He interprets the trade in the “bodies of men” in Revelation 18: 13 to trade in “slaves” (Wesley 1976, p. 1030). He used “slave” or “slavery” metaphorically to refer to one who was controlled by sin (Wesley 1976, p. 859). He comments on its metaphorical use in Romans 7:14 that “slaves bought with money were absolutely at their master’s disposal” (Wesley 1976, p. 545).

Wesley does not develop an argument for the liberation of enslaved people even where the texts could be interpreted in this way. He consistently rejects interpretations in his sources that supported slavery and none of his interpretations support the use of New Testament texts to justify slavery. He often translated douloi as “servants”. This retains the semantic range of the Greek and allows for some ambiguity as to whether it refers to waged servants or enslaved people. In specific cases he translated douloi as “slaves” or in his comments refers to “slaves”. These include texts dealing with the equality of douloi and free; references to enslaved people as a particular social class, and comments that interpret slavery as a condition of being completely under the control of an enslaver. This suggests that he used the term “slave” to emphasize the condition and status of slavery, in contrast to condition of freedom, as being completely under the control of an enslaver. This is consistent with his definition of slavery in Thoughts upon Slavery as a condition which “imports and obligation of perpetual service, an obligation which only the consent of master can dissolve” (Wesley 2007, p. 59). He used the term “servant” more functionally to refer to a person who serves another regardless of whether they are enslaved or not. In texts dealing with the relationship between a master and douloi, he translated douloi as “servants” and in his comments referred to “servants”. We can note three points. First, his use of “slave” to refer to the condition of slavery suggest that he does not see these verses as describing a relationship in which the douloi were necessarily completely at the disposal of the “master”. Second, he did not include comments from his sources which interpret the passages as referring to both enslaved people and hired servants. In contrast, Bengel emphasised the application to enslaved people. Third, his comments on Colossians 4:1 explicitly apply it to waged servants. Given the semantic range of douloi and Wesley’s primary addressees, British people many from the lower classes who were “servants”, it is probably that his interpretation is directed towards the situation of these people and not to enslaved people in America. While Wesley opposed slavery, it was not a focus of his attention at this time.

4.2. “Directions to Servants”

“Directions to Servants” (Wesley 1811, p. 98–108) is an exposition of the household codes, some of it is paraphrased from Willaim Gouge Domestical Duties (Gouge 1622). Wesley explicitly relates these texts to British waged servants and not to enslaved people. He does not include Gouge’s references to “slaves” or “bond-slaves”. He recognises: “that the state of English servants is widely different from the state of those to whom Paul and Peter wrote. Many of those, (perhaps the greater part,) were slaves, who were the absolute property of their masters, as such were his sheep and oxen” (Wesley 1811, p. 106). He proposed that some aspects of the texts applied to enslaved people because they had no way of escaping enslavement and did not apply to British servants.

Wesley provided creative interpretations that modified the most obvious reading of the texts. To obey one master in all things becomes “in all things specified in that agreement, which was made when you entered into service” (Wesley 1811, p. 98). Servants are not to obey their master if he commands something contrary to the “plain command of God”. Servants are to be faithful to their masters and keep their secrets unless “they tend … to the dishonour of God, or to the danger of church or common-wealth, or indeed to any private person” (Wesley 1811, p. 105). 1 Peter 2:19 & 20 applied to first century enslaved persons who were unable to escape their enslavers. British servants should not, if possible, enter a contract with an “unjust or unmerciful” person (Wesley 1811, p. 106). If they suffer cruelty and injustice, it is not their “duty to endure it”, but rather to commit themselves and their “cause ‘to him that judgeth righteously’” by appealing to a magistrate, who represents divine authority, for a legal remedy.

Wesley recognized that British servants enjoyed legal protections and encouraged them to use these even when they are contrary to the most obvious reading of the text. It is possible that his theological commitments to justice and mercy as an expression of love for one’s neighbours and his affirmation that God desires the well-being of human beings have greater theological weight than the biblical instructions to servants. Importantly, he views these texts as addressing particular contexts rather than providing universally normative rules.

5. Slavery and Wesley’s Characteristic Hermeneutic

Wesley’s exegesis provides no clear direction for understanding his (non) use of the Bible in Thoughts upon Slavery and his claim that it was contrary to “revealed law”. Further insight can be gathered from Wesley’s characteristic hermeneutic (Jones 1995; Maddox 2011, 2012; Crutcher 2010, pp. 141–83).

5.1. Wesley’s Characteristic Hermeneutic

There are two features of Wesley’s hermeneutic that are important. First, texts were to be interpreted in accordance with the analogy of faith and, second, experience functioned to verify or falsify interpretations.

Wesley argues that biblical texts cohered with each other to provide a common message designated as the “analogy of faith” or the “whole scope and tenor of scripture” (Wesley 1986, p. 552). Wesley viewed 1 John, the Sermon on the Mount, 1 Corinthians 13, and Psalm 145:9 as encapsulating this message. He provided brief descriptions of this message referring to inward and outward holiness which is constituted by love for God and our neighbours and to the process by which people become (Jones 1995, pp. 43–53, 150–158; Maddox 2011; Wall 2010). Wesley’s understanding of the “whole tenor of Scripture” can be summarised as: God is love and loves humanity, and that out of love God has acted to forgive and transform sinful human beings so that they are empowered and reorientated to love God and their neighbours by pursuing justice, mercy, and truth.

Wesley argued that because God’s revelation is consistent all biblical texts when correctly interpreted would cohere with this overarching message. A valid interpretation is one that coheres with it. The overarching message informed his interpretation of individual biblical texts and excluded interpretations which contradict it. When the most obvious reading of a text did not cohere with the overarching message, he proposed an alternative interpretation. He thus argued that the Calvinistic interpretation of specific biblical texts was illegitimate because no scripture can mean that God does not love all human beings and thus desire their salvation (Wesley 1986, p. 552).

Wesley, secondly, argued that the valid interpretation of scripture would be verified by people’s experience (Crutcher 2010, pp. 155–83). Calvinism was invalid because it deprived believers of the motivation to live holy lives; it undermined their assurance, and it negated an important motive for doing good (Wesley 1986, pp. 548–51). Interpretations of biblical passages were to be evaluated by the criterion of whether the experiential consequences of the interpretation cohered with the overall message of the Bible.

The interpretation of scripture in the light of the “whole tenor of Scripture” does not resolve all complex issues—some texts resist such an interpretation. In Wesley’s Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America excluded some Psalms used in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer stating that they were “highly improper for the mouths of a Christian congregation” (Wesley 1984, p. A1). The imprecatory Psalms are not compatible with the ideal of love which is the defining characteristic of the Christian life. Wesley, also commented on Psalm 139:22, “Perfect hatred—See the difference between the Jewish and the Christian spirit!” (Wesley 2010b, p. 203). This further complicates the tension, if these texts are not fit for the mouths of Christians and do not express a Christian spirit, how can such texts be seen to be oracles of the God of love into whose image Christians are being transformed?

5.2. Slavery and Wesley’s Hermeneutic—A Proposal

Wesley’s proposal that slavery is contrary to the “revealed law of God” it coheres with his typical hermeneutic. The biblical allusions in Thoughts upon Slavery describe God who is love and who has compassion on all humans; God acts to save people from their misery; God requires human beings to love each other by exercising justice and mercy as set out in the ten commandments (rejecting murder, stealing and fraud); judgment awaits those who oppress others, and God will transform and empower those who repent enabling them cease oppressing others. These references provide a summary of Wesley’s “whole tenor of Scripture”.

The concrete brutality and injustice of slavery that Wesley had witnessed in North America and was described in Benezet’s accounts of the slave trade and the experiences of enslaved people directly contradicted the ethical core of Wesley’s “whole tenor of Scripture”, thus resonating with his assumption that slavery is incompatible with the Bible despite the passages that were used to support slavery. When this is combined with the recognition that the “household codes” are specific contextual advice rather than universal norms, it become possible to argue that enslaved people’s resistance to enslavement was a legitimate response to a system that was contrary to the “whole tenor of Scripture”. If this interpretation of Wesley is correct, then by relating the “whole tenor of Scripture” to the question of slavery Wesley widens and deepens its meaning to address social injustice. However, the question remains as to whether this approach offers coherent readings of the texts used in support of slavery, or do these texts resist such an interpretation so that the Bible remains a site of the struggle for justice?

6. Toward a Dynamic Wesleyan Model of Biblical Authority in the Struggle for Justice

It is not possible to know if the proposed hermeneutical basis for Wesley’s rejection of slavery reflects Wesley’s own thinking, but it is consistent with his theology. It is also suggestive for the development of biblical hermeneutical tools for addressing contemporary justice issues.

First, a Wesleyan model of biblical authority is not a one-way movement from God through the Bible to humanity. It is an interactive model which includes:

• The overarching theological and ethical message of the Bible;
• The concrete issue to be addressed;
• The biblical texts that address the issue.

The authoritative message of the Bible emerges out of the interaction of all three elements. The overarching message shapes the way that the concrete issue is understood, the concrete issue shapes how the overarching message is interpreted and leads to a fuller understanding of this message. The overarching message in its interaction with the concrete issue shapes the interpretation of texts while the interpretation of texts in response to the concrete issues shapes the understanding of the overarching message.

Second, an interpretation of “whole tenor of Scripture” is the hermeneutical key to ethical interpretation and thus the adequacy of any formulation of it needs to be carefully evaluated. To identify oneself with the Wesleyan and Methodist tradition is to affirm that key aspects of Wesley’s interpretation are valid. However, other traditions have proposed other interpretations. Does Wesley’s interpretation need to be expanded, corrected, or reshaped? Such revisions can only be justified by their fruitfulness is relating the diverse aspects the Bible to each other, providing better readings of biblical texts, and enabling faithful living.

Third, the impact of biblical interpretation on the lives of people needs to be evaluated in relation to the “whole tenor of Scripture”. If the effect of our interpretation is destructive to the wholistic well-being of people, it is contrary to “whole tenor of Scripture” even if it is exegetically justifiable.

Fourth, in contrast to Wesley, the diversity and complexity of the Bible must be affirmed. The Bible does not contain one coherent message it is a discussion about the meaning and significance of God’s revelation to Israel and in Christ (Field 2011). An emphasis on interpreting texts from a particular hermeneutical perspective can result in an illegitimate harmonization of biblical material or a misinterpretation of texts to make them conform to a pre-understanding of the message of the Bible. A more fruitful approach would be to recognize the tension created by the responsible exegesis of the texts and to seek another hermeneutical solution.

Fifth, certain texts resist interpretation as expressions of an overarching message. A hermeneutical perspective shaped by “the whole tenor of Scripture” must be supplemented by one that accounts for texts that do not fit, that offer alternative, and even counter voices to the “whole tenor of Scripture”. What is the contribution of these texts to theological ethical thinking? In some cases, this expands the understanding of the overarching message enabling ethical issues to be addressed in a more creative yet faithful way.

Sixth, the challenge posed by Wesley’s dealing with the imprecatory Psalms must be taken seriously. There are situations where a responsible reading of texts produces a message that runs counter to the ethical direction of the overarching message of the Bible. Hermeneutical and exegetical integrity compels us to recognize that such texts cannot be made to conform to the direction of the Bible’s most profound ethical insights. In this case our understanding of the Bible’s overall message ought to function not merely as a hermeneutical perspective but also as a normative canon within the canon. Individual texts must be evaluated in accordance with their conformity to an understanding of the overarching message. Here we need to go beyond Wesley to be faithful to the overall direction of Wesley’s hermeneutic.

Seventh, we need to affirm the contextuality of biblical instructions and the contextual gaps between the socio-cultural environment addressed by the Bible and our own.

7. Conclusions

The conundrum of John Wesley’s (non) use of the Bible in thoughts upon slavery cannot be adequately resolved; however, the combination of some of his exegetical comments and his characteristic hermeneutic suggests a conceivable way of explaining it. While his hermeneutic is limited and needs some revision and supplementation, it can form the basis for a more adequate theological ethical hermeneutic to address controversial contemporary justice issues.