A Christmas Defense of Charles Wesley
It’s that time of year again! Advent hymns and Christmas carols are making their rounds through our churches again. Mercifully, we here at GRUK have the eminent Darren Moore to keep us correct on our terminology, and I hope my attempt here makes it past his daunting inspection. Yet, as we’re being filled with joy and gladness in singing these favorites, it’s also that time of year to talk about Charles Wesley.
No, not about that line in And Can It Be. I’ll leave that to the better and brighter here at GRUK to sort out. Rather, it’s a different line, one from Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, that deserves our attention this time of year.
Our friends over at Gentle Reformation recently reflected on these lyrics with their typical insight and rigor. It may be, however, that I like that hymn so much or that we just so happen to be preaching a series entitled Veiled in Flesh at my church, I’m not sure. But I can tell you I’m a fan of it and I think you should be too.
Veiled in Flesh, the Godhead See
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard someone who dislikes the line explain why, so let me say I understand the impulse to respond by questioning Wesley with passages like John 14:9 and Matthew 11:27. If I may be so bold, I’d add Hebrews 1:1-3:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power…
At first glance, the lyrics seem to cut against the grain. True, Jesus came to reveal. The person and work of Christ are clear and clarifying. Consider Jesus’ discussion with the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:27, explaining that all of the Scriptures testify to him. This has a clarifying effect for those who know Jesus: now we can’t stop seeing him in every passage.
‘See’ the Tension
Why, then, would I suggest we consider Wesley’s line a beautiful expression of the truth? I hope I can get you to reconsider because I believe Wesley rightly captures the tension of the incarnation the Bible itself gives us.
Wesley’s line reads in full: Veiled in flesh the Godhead see. God is invisible, yet we see him in Jesus. So Paul, ‘He is the image of the invisible God’ (Col 1:15). Far from denying the revelatory dimension to the incarnation, then, Wesley bids us to ‘see’ that which is ‘veiled,’ to view the unviewable, to behold the image of the invisible.
William Hendricksen likewise explains the tension in the Christ-hymn of 1 Tim 3:16, even quoting Wesley’s hymn! He explains that the phrase ‘He was manifested in the flesh’ indicates both the humiliation (‘in the flesh’) and exaltation (‘manifested’) of Christ. He concludes:
‘The fact that One so glorious in his pre-existence was willing to adopt the human nature in that curse-laden, weakened condition, was a manifestation of infinite, condescending love. Hence, this voluntary self-concealment was at the same time a self-revelation. From the very beginning of his coming into the flesh self-concealment and self-disclosure walked side by side in connection with this “Mystery of our devotion.”[1]
Consider the implications, then, of undoing this tension entirely. The other day, Derek Rishmawy tweeted a wonderful thread considering a different tension in the Scriptures, namely how a holy God could dwell with sinful humanity. He goes on to suggest with insight:
God dwells in the Holy of Holies beyond the Veil, where none can enter without blood, but he provides the blood on the altar and the whole system of mediating it. Jesus comes as all of this--a new Temple where God can dwell with his people, new priest who makes a way through the veil (cf. Hebrews), new sacrifice who brings cleansing (Rom. 3, etc.), and so on. Indeed, he is God veiled in the flesh for us to safely encounter him.[2]
We do not need the veil of the Old Testament to block our way to the Holy of Holies. But this does not remove the need for some mediating agent. There is still a need for something—someone—to stand between us and God, one who ‘who might lay his hand on us both’ (Job 9:33). This is Christ, in whom the ‘fulness of deity dwells bodily’ (Col 2:9).
In the end, we may come to different conclusions about Wesley’s poetry, and that is totally fine. This is not the first time two likeminded believers have come to a different conclusion on some poetic element in congregational singing, nor will it be the last! Yet, I take comfort and delight in the knowledge that there is no controversy concerning the next line:
Hail th’Incarnate Deity!
Yes and amen!
[1] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, vol. 4 of New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 140.
[2] You can find Derek’s entire tweet thread here: https://twitter.com/DZRishmawy/status/1736880802880000460
