Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2.pdf

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
arrogance of the flesh falls to the ground; for, granting that any man fulfilled the Law, he cannot
plead that he has any claims on God, having done no more than he was bound to do. When he says
that we are unprofitable servants, his meaning is, that God receives from us nothing beyond what
is justly due but only collects the lawful revenues of his dominion.
There are two principles, therefore, that must be maintained: first, that God naturally owes us
nothing, and that all the services which we render to him are not worth a single straw; secondly,
that, according to the engagements of the Law, a reward is attached to works, not on account of
their value, but because God is graciously pleased to become our debtor. 320 It would evince
intolerable ingratitude, if on such a ground any person should indulge in proud vaunting. The
kindness and liberality which God exercises towards us are so far from giving us a right to swell
with foolish confidence, that we are only laid under deeper obligations to Him. Whenever we meet
with the word reward, or whenever it occurs to our recollection, let us look upon this as the crowning
act of the goodness of God to us, that, though we are completely in his debt, he condescends to
enter into a bargain with us. So much the more detestable is the invention of the Sophists, who have
had the effrontery to forge a kind of merit, which professes to be founded on a just claim. 321 The
word merit, taken by itself, was sufficiently profane and inconsistent with the standard of piety;
but to intoxicate men with diabolical pride, as if they could merit any thing by a just claim, is far
worse.
10. We have done what we were bound to do. That is, “we have brought nothing of our own,
but have only done what we were bound by the law to do ” Christ speaks here of an entire observance
of the law, which is nowhere to be found; for the most perfect of all men is still at a great distance
from that righteousness which the law demands. The present question is not, Are we justified by
works? but, Is the observance of the law meritorious of any reward from God? This latter question
is answered in the negative; for God holds us for his slaves, and therefore reckons all that can
proceed from us to be his just right. Nay, though it were true, that a reward is due to the observance
of the law in respect of merit, it will not therefore follow that any man is justified by the merits of
works; for we all fail: and not only is our obedience imperfect, but there is not a single part of it
that corresponds exactly to the judgment of God.
LUKE 18:1-8
320 “Mais en telle sorte que Dieu se rend volontairement deteur, sans qu’il y soit tenu;” — “but in such a manner that God
voluntarily becomes our debtor, though he is under no obligation to do so.”
321 “Et d’antant plus est detestable la sophisterie des Theologiens Scho- lastiques, ou Sorbonnistes, lesquels ont ose forger leur
merite, qu’ils appellent De condigno;” — “And so much the more detestable is the sophistry of the Scholastic Theologians, or
Sorbonnists, (see p. 142, n. 2, of this volume,) who have dared to forge their merit, which they call De condigno.” The reader
will find not only the general doctrine of merit, but this particular aspect of it, fully treated by our Author in his Institutes of the
Christian Religion, Book III. ch. 15:
136
John Calvin