John Calvin’s Interpretation Of Works Righteousness In Ezekiel 18

By Steven Coxhead

[Steven Coxhead is a Part-time Lecturer at the Presbyterian Theological Centre and Visiting Lecturer in Hebrew at the Sydney Missionary and Bible College in New South Wales, Australia.]

I. Introduction

Ezekiel 18:22b, speaking of a wicked man who repents, says: “for the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.” At face value, Ezek 18:22b and other parts of Ezek 18, such as vv. 5–9, seem to define personal righteousness in Israel in terms of obedience to the Mosaic law, and also to speak of such righteousness as being necessary for eternal life. John Calvin was aware of this teaching of Ezekiel and even acknowledged that a concept of justification by works is to be found in this particular chapter. As a result, he also acknowledged that Ezek 18 poses a “difficult question” for the traditional Protestant understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.[1] If, as Calvin was willing to admit, Ezek 18 indeed teaches a doctrine of justification by works, how then are we to understand this teaching? In particular, how is Ezekiel’s teaching to be reconciled with the traditional Protestant belief in justification by faith alone? Calvin attempted to answer such questions in his lectures on Ezek 18, and it is illuminating to consider his solution to this important theological problem.

II. A Summary of Calvin’s Interpretation of Ezekiel 18

Calvin basically understands Ezek 18 to be an oracle containing rebuke and instruction, both of which are aimed at correcting the people’s unjust opinion about God and calling them to a genuine repentance. He takes the famous proverb of the sour grapes in v. 2 to be a case of an impudent distortion and rejection by the people of the message of the prophets that had indicted both them and their fathers for sin (Ez., 2:214). “Twisting” the message of the prophets, the people were using the proverb to shift the blame from themselves to their ancestors for the punishment that they were currently experiencing (Ez., 2:214). According to Calvin, this is a case of Ezekiel’s listeners “shuffl[ing] so as to free themselves from blame” only to “afterwards accuse God of cruel injus-tice”(Ez., 2:214) because he had been (in their opinion)”afflicting the innocent” (Ez., 2:215).

Calvin’s interpretation of God’s response in v. 4 differs slightly from those who would explain this verse in terms of God’s right as the Creator to judge his creatures. While admitting the truth of that interpretation, Calvin suggests that when “God pronounces that all souls are his own, he does not merely claim sovereignty and power, but he rather shows that he is affected with fatherly love towards the whole human race since he created and formed it” (Ez., 2:217). It seems that Calvin is particularly concerned to avoid the charge of “tyrannizing over men” being laid against God at this point (Ez., 2:217). Rather, the phrase the soul who sins will die “restrains the Jews from daring to boast any longer that they are afflicted undeservedly, since no innocent person shall die” (Ez., 2:217). In proposing this interpretation, Calvin refutes the idea that the intended meaning of this clause is “every guilty person should die” (Ez., 2:217). The reasoning that he gives is that such an interpretation would then mean that the verse would say too much: it “would shut against us the door of God’s mercy, for we have all sinned against him” (Ez., 2:217). Rather, the point of v. 4b is simply that no one can legitimately “boast of innocence” when one is being punished by God (Ez., 2:218).

Calvin takes the cases of the three generations in vv. 5–18 as illustrations confirming the teaching of v. 4, that the soul who sins will die; and also the converse truth, that the soul who does not sin will not die. In Calvin’s words, Ezekiel

first says, if any one faithfully keep the law, he shall prosper, since God will repay the reward of justice: afterwards he adds, if the just man beget a son unlike himself, the justice of the father shall not profit the degenerate son, but he shall receive the reward of his iniquity. But if this second person should beget a son who does not imitate his father, God promises that this third person shall be acceptable by him, because he is just, and therefore enjoys prosperity and happiness. (Ez., 2:219–20)

The point of the illustration of the three generations in vv. 5–18, therefore, is that one’s eternal destiny is determined by one’s commitment to keeping God’s law faithfully. “The Spirit’s intention” in these verses is to teach that “God has prepared a reward for each according to their lives, so that he does not permit them to be deprived of their promised blessing, nor let the impious and despisers of his law escape” (Ez., 2:220).

In explaining vv. 5–9, Calvin observes that Ezekiel “speaks generally” at first (i.e., in v. 5) and then “afterwards enumerates certain species under which he embraces the sum of the whole law” (i.e., vv. 6–8) (Ez., 2:220). He then moves from these particular examples of law-keeping back to the general statement in v. 9, which captures the idea of “form[ing one’s] life and morals” according to God’s law (Ez., 2:229–30). The significance of the prophet’s teaching in these verses is that “if any one has been just, he shall live in consequence of his justice” (Ez., 2:220). Following the language used by Ezekiel, Calvin defines justice at this point in terms of faithful obedience to the law: “whoever faithfully observes the law is esteemed just before God” (Ez., 2:220).

Calvin states that “the simple meaning of the Prophet” in vv. 10–13 (which deal with the degenerate son) is that “none who turn aside from the right way shall remain unpunished” (Ez., 2:232). In a similar manner, the example of the regenerate grandson in vv. 14–17 teaches that “if a man be born of a wicked father, he may nevertheless be pleasing to God, if he be unlike his father” (Ez., 2:232), which is to say that “the good, however they may have been born from wicked parents, [will] receive the reward of righteousness no less certainly and faithfully than if they had come down from heaven, and if their family had always been without the commission of any crime” (Ez., 2:233).

Calvin views the individual cases put forward by Ezekiel in vv. 5–17 as a refutation of the proverb recorded in v. 2 (Ez., 2:232). But having come to the end of his interpretation of vv. 1–17, he is aware that Ezekiel’s teaching on righteousness raises “a difficult question” concerning how Ezekiel’s concept of individual legal righteousness can be reconciled with the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Ez., 2:235). How Calvin solves this particular difficulty will be considered in section III below.

Concerning the interpretation of Ezek 18:18–29, Calvin views these verses as an expanded repetition of the teaching presented in vv. 5–17, “not for the sake of ornament,” but in order to “refute [the] impious saying [of v. 2] in which the Israelites so pertinaciously persisted” (Ez., 2:239–40). To this effect, Ezekiel emphasizes that “God is a just judge and treats every one according to his conduct” (Ez., 2:240).

In his comments on v. 20, Calvin attempts to solve the apparent contradiction between the biblical concepts of individual and corporate punishment by introducing the distinction between original sin and actual sin. It is as if Ezekiel’s teaching in v. 20, where it is taught that the son will not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son, contradicts the idea of corporate punishment expressed in Exod 20:5; 34:7; and Deut 5:9. To deal with this, Calvin thinks that the solution to this apparent contradiction can be found in understanding the nature of the fall of humanity in Adam (Ez., 2:241). The fall of the human race in Adam shows that “we perish through another’s fault: but … at the same time … every one perishes through his own iniquity” (Ez., 2:241). Every child is cursed from the very beginning by the original sin of Adam, the pollution of which causes people, when they “grow up,” to “acquire for themselves the new curse of what is called actual sin” (Ez., 2:241). A sinner dies “properly speaking” not because of his or her parents’ sin but because of his or her own sin (Ez., 2:242). Furthermore, when Scripture speaks of a son suffering for the iniquity of his father, this should be understood to mean that “God involves the son in the same death with the father … principally because the son of the impious is destitute of [God’s] Spirit” (Ez., 2:242).

Verses 21–22 put forward “the hope of pardon” and are an invitation and exhortation for all transgressors of God’s law to repent (Ez., 2:245). God” deigns to forget all our sins as soon as he sees us earnestly desirous of returning to him” (Ez., 2:246). Verse 23 is a confirmation of “the same sentiment in other words, that God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety” (Ez., 2:246). Calvin makes particular note of “the manner … in which God wishes all to be saved,” namely, through repentance; and states that “repentance … must precede pardon”(Ez., 2:247). He suggests that the idea that God does not will that any should perish should be understood not of “God’s secret counsel” but of God’s general call for every person to repent of his or her sins (Ez., 2:247–48). Verse 24, on the other hand, functions as a warning in order to encourage perseverance in the pure and sincere worship of God (Ez., 2:249). This verse teaches that “a mere temporary righteousness will not profit us unless we persevere unto the end in the fear of God” (Ez., 2:252). In explaining what Ezekiel means by the idea that the righteous can fall away from righteousness, Calvin asserts that the elect cannot fall away and that the concept of righteousness that is in view in v. 24 is a concept of righteousness that “is referred to our senses, and not to God’s hidden judgment”(Ez., 2:250–51). That is to say, because the knowledge of decretive election is the sole prerogative of God, we humans can only perceive righteousness on the level of its “outward form or appearance” (Ez., 2:250).

Calvin understands v. 25 as asserting the justice of God and the corruption of mere human opinions about God in the face of the insolent accusations of injustice made against God by Ezekiel’s arrogant audience (Ez., 2:253–56). Then, in vv. 26–29, Ezekiel once again returns to the “cardinal point, that God rewards every one according to his works, since he offers mercy to all the lost, and demands nothing else but a sincere and hearty return to him” (Ez., 2:256).

Finally, Calvin interprets vv. 30–32 as a call to repentance. God, after asserting his right to “discharge the office of judge … exhorts [the people] to repentance, and signifies that they have no other remedy than being dissatisfied with their sins, and deprecating his wrath” (Ez., 2:258–59). Calvin explains the idea of conversion or return spoken of in v. 30 in terms of “the renovation of the mind and heart”(Ez., 2:259). This involves “a thorough renewal” that involves people “not only conform[ing] their life to the rule of the law” but also “fear[ing] God sincerely” (Ez., 2:260). He denies that the expression get a new heart and a new spirit means that human beings have the power of free will sufficient to “convert” themselves (Ez., 2:261). This does not mean, however, that God’s call to conversion is a deceitful exhortation(Ez., 2:261). Even though God alone has the power to effect conversion, such calls to conversion have the function of moving “the saints [to] pray to God to renew them” (Ez., 2:261–62) and of “stir[ring] up the elect to deliver themselves up to be ruled by the Holy Spirit” (Ez., 2:264). He interprets the words heart and spirit in v. 31 to mean “heart and mind”(Ez., 2:264). The expression why will you die, O house of Israel? is not to be understood to teach that “the salvation or destruction of each [person] depends on themselves” (Ez., 2:265) but simply as a genuine invitation for all people to repent. The apparent “duplicity” between God’s general call and his decree of predestination (Ez., 2:266) is simply a case of God “tak[ing] up a twofold character” out of accommodation to the fact that “his counsels are incomprehensibile [to] us” (Ez., 2:265).

III. Calvin’s Understanding of the Concept of Righteousness in Ezekiel 18

Calvin’s commentary on Ezekiel is the fruit of his final series of lectures before his death in 1564. Sadly, he was only able to preach up to Ezek 20 before passing to glory. Being his last commentary, his teaching on the nature of the doctrine of justification taught in Ezek 18 may be taken to represent his final statement on the question of how the OT doctrine of justification by works should apply to believers. In sum, Calvin acknowledges that Ezek 18 teaches a doctrine of works righteousness, but he reconciles this with the cherished Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone by understanding that Ezekiel’s doctrine of justification by works presupposes the gratuitous mercy of God in Christ.

1. Calvin on the Righteousness of Obedience in Ezekiel 18

Calvin understands that the kind of righteousness that is spoken of in Ezek 18 is one that is defined in terms of the Mosaic law. Commenting on vv. 5–9, he says that “the Prophet defines what it is to be just, and he there chooses certain parts of the law: by putting a part for the whole … he signifies, that whoever faithfully observes the law is esteemed just before God” (Ez., 2:220). It is also evident that the kind of law in question at this point is the totality of the Mosaic law. Explaining the idea of walking in God’s statutes in v. 9, Calvin denies that the law referred to here can be restricted to “ceremonies” but states that it must be taken to include “edicts or decrees” (Ez., 2:229). That is to say, the righteousness spoken of in Ezek 18 involves keeping the whole of the Mosaic law, including both the moral as well as the ceremonial aspects of it.

Calvin understands the details of vv. 6–8 as particular examples of keeping the law. The person who exhibits the behavior described in vv. 6–8 is counted as righteous. For example, he says that “those who do not contaminate themselves with idols are thought just before God” (Ez., 2:222). People “are not deemed just before God unless they are inclined to benevolence, so as to supply the necessities of their brethren, and to succour them in their poverty” (Ez., 2:225). Those who “abstain from usury” are “considered” to be “observers of the law” (Ez., 2:225). In other words, righteousness is defined in Ezek 18 in terms of obedience to the Mosaic law. As Calvin puts it: “the proper definition [of justice] is, the observance of the law” (Ez., 2:236).

In dealing with the language used by Ezekiel in v. 9, Calvin accurately explains the common biblical metaphor of walking in the way of God’s law in terms of a commitment to obey it: “to walk in God’s precepts is nothing else than to form [one’s] life and morals according to the rule which has been prescribed by God; or, what is the same thing, so to conduct oneself, that in desiring to be deemed just a man should attempt nothing but what is agreeable to God’s precepts” (Ez., 2:230).

It is apparent that this biblical concept of walking in God’s precepts is not understood by Calvin as involving perfect obedience to the law. He acknowledges that “the observance of the law is difficult” because humans “are not only of a frail disposition” but also “prone to sin,” but at the same time he concludes that “whoever wishes to direct his life according to God’s precepts should attentively keep them” (Ez., 2:230). The word attentively suggests that what Calvin understands by the biblical metaphor of walking in God’s precepts is a person’s endeavoring to keep God’s commandments rather than a keeping of the law in an absolute or perfect manner. As he goes on to explain, the “just” or righteous person is the one “who has faithfully observed God’s law” and “who … sincerely worship[s] God” (Ez., 2:230). Calvin also speaks of the concept of repentance that is taught in Ezek 18 in terms of a spiritual renewal that involves people “not only conform[ing] their life to the rule of the law” but “fear[ing] God sincerely” (Ez., 2:260). It can be concluded, therefore, that Calvin understands that the kind of obedience that Ezekiel has in mind in Ezek 18 is one that consists of faithfulness and sincerity in serving God rather than the perfect keeping of the law per se.

2. Calvin on the Concept of Reward in Ezekiel 18

Following the text of Ezekiel, Calvin connects the concept of righteousness that comes through faithfully observing the law with the concept of reward. Dealing with vv. 5–9, he explains Ezekiel’s teaching as saying that “if anyone faithfully keep the law, he shall prosper, since God will repay the reward of justice” (Ez., 2:219). Reflecting on the trigenerational structure of Ezek 18, he likewise says that “the Spirit’s intention” is to teach “that God has prepared a reward for each according to their lives, so that he does not permit them to be deprived of their promised blessing, nor let the impious and despisers of his law escape” (Ez., 2:220). Explaining v. 9, he acknowledges that “if anyone has been just, he shall live in consequence of his justice” (Ez., 2:220). Summarizing vv. 5–9, he also states that “a recompense is prepared for all the just who thus sincerely worship God” (Ez., 2:230). In a similar manner, in his comments on vv. 10–13, he states that “life is laid up for all the just as the reward of their justice” (Ez., 2:232).

Calvin’s comments on v. 17 express the same idea. He acknowledges that the import of Ezekiel’s teaching is that “God’s blessing awaits all the just” (Ez., 2:235). The idea that “there is a reward for the just” is something that Ezekiel “expresses” in this particular chapter (Ez., 2:235). According to Calvin, such teaching is also found in Isa 3:10 (Ez., 2:235). Therefore, because this teaching is biblical, we ought to “determine, as Isaiah teaches, that there is a reward for the just” (Ez., 2:235). As far as Calvin is concerned, the doctrine of reward for the righteous is a truth for which “we must strive,” that is, it is a truth which ought to be maintained (Ez., 2:235). In fact, in Calvin’s opinion, this truth needs to be asserted in the face of the “perverse supposition” that “either … God is at rest in heaven, or that chance governs all things here on earth” (Ez., 2:235). It is clear, therefore, from the evidence cited above that Calvin acknowledges that Ezek 18 teaches that God rewards those who keep his law.

3. Calvin on Justification by Works in Ezekiel 18

It is one thing to link righteousness with reward, but it is another thing to hold that the doctrine of reward for the righteous is not just hypothetical in nature. Exegetes whose biblical hermeneutics are based on a strict law/gospel contrast can freely acknowledge that the Bible teaches at certain points a doctrine of reward for the righteous, but in most cases the category of the righteous is considered in reality as being an empty set (apart from the unique instance of Christ). The standard Lutheran hermeneutics of despair is an example of this kind of approach.[2] The hermeneutics of despair involves the following syllogism: God has promised to reward the righteous, but all ordinary human beings have sinned; therefore, no one (apart from Christ) is righteous, so no one (apart from Christ) can receive the promised reward. Hence, the promised reward becomes hypothetical for us in reality unless, of course, Christ fulfills the law on our behalf. In this system, the passages of Scripture that teach about rewards for the righteous function to make us despair of our own unrighteousness and hence to flee to Christ to receive his righteousness.[3]

Given the fact that Calvin’s system of theology exhibits a fundamental contrast between law and gospel similar to what is found in Luther when the law is considered according to its narrow office, it is true to say that the logic of the hermeneutics of despair is also employed by Calvin.[4] It is significant, however, that Calvin’s understanding of righteousness as used in the Bible was not limited solely to the approach represented by the hermeneutics of despair. This is evident in Calvin’s treatment of righteousness in Ezek 18 where he does not resort to treating Ezekiel’s teaching on law righteousness as a case of hypothetical language in order to escape the difficult doctrinal question that arises from Ezekiel’s teaching. Rather, Calvin understands that the category of the righteous is a populated set and that the promised rewards are really received by believers.

In linking righteousness and reward in Ezek 18 so closely with obedience to the law and by taking this at face value rather than hypothetically, Calvin has created a theological difficulty for himself. In doing this, he shows his honesty as an exegete. This is all the more admirable when one realizes that such an interpretation poses a significant challenge to the treasured Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Calvin freely acknowledges this challenge when he says in his comments on v. 17 that “a difficult question arises from the passage” (Ez., 2:235). He identifies this particular difficulty as Ezekiel’s teaching “that he is just who has kept the law” (Ez., 2:235). This is the difficulty as far as Calvin is concerned: not so much the idea that “God will bestow a recompense upon [the just],” but that Ezekiel defines righteousness in terms of obedience to the law (Ez., 2:235). As Calvin puts it: “to be just and worthy of reward through keeping the law” is “contrary” to the Scriptural teaching “that no one is just, and that none can be justified by the law” (Ez., 2:235). If it is held that the Scriptures teach that no one can be justified by keeping the law but that Ezekiel speaks of people who are “just and worthy of reward through keeping the law,” then an obvious contradiction arises (Ez., 2:235).

How then does Calvin solve this seeming contradiction? There is, as far as he is concerned, only “one remedy,” namely, “the gratuitous mercy of God” (Ez., 2:236). What Calvin means by this expression is that the solution to the “problem” created by Ezekiel’s teaching is to be found in the application of his doctrine of justification by works to believers by way of “gratuitous imputation” (Ez., 2:238). To preview what will be shown in further detail below, Calvin argues that Scripture can speak of people being justified by works, not because of any intrinsic perfection of the works or person of the one so justified, but because the perfection of Christ, with whom the believer is united by faith, justifies the imperfect works of the believer.

We will now consider Calvin’s argument in more detail. Fundamental to Calvin’s solution is his identification of two forms of righteousness, which he refers to as”a double righteousness”(Ez., 2:237). This double righteousness consists of the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith. Calvin cites support for his teaching on double righteousness from Paul in Rom 10:5–6 (Ez., 2:237).

He begins his discussion with the righteousness of the law. According to Calvin, “strictly speaking, justice is the observance of the law” (Ez., 2:236).

Hence, he can say that “the proper definition” of righteousness simply involves “the observance of law” (Ez., 2:236). Furthermore, “whoever observes [the law] will be esteemed just; and thus justification is properly said to be placed in works” (Ez., 2:236). This truth, however, needs to be held in tension with the important truth which “Scripture pronounces” and which is “entirely confirmed by experience, that no one can satisfy the law” (Ez., 2:236). Calvin cites Rom 2:13; 8:7; 2 Cor 3:5; and 1 John 3:7 as proof that no “perfect observer of the law can be found” and that “the whole soul of man is perverse” (Ez., 2:236). The Bible clearly teaches that “we are by nature all together rebels against God, so that not the slightest particle of good can be found in us” (Ez., 2:236). It is “on account of this defect” of human sinfulness that “we are all deprived of justification by works” (Ez., 2:236).

It is apparent from the argument so far that Calvin locates justification proper in works, yet in reality no human being (apart from Christ) has perfectly kept the law such that he or she can be justified in this way. Thus, the absolute depravity of humanity renders ineffective the legitimate method of justification by works on the ordinary human level. Calvin believes that this situation holds for all people, including believers (with the obvious exception of Christ). He acknowledges that “the faithful … aspire indeed to righteousness” (Ez., 2:236). The problem is, however, that they do so “lamely, and at a great distance from their aim; they often wander from the way, and they often fall, so that they do not satisfy the law” (Ez., 2:236). Because believers are sinners, they “require God’s pity” (Ez., 2:236).

This point leads Calvin to identify “the second kind of righteousness, which is improperly so called, namely, that which we obtain from Christ” (Ez., 2:236–37). In contrast to the mass of humanity that has not done righteousness, Christ “fulfilled the law” and “is esteemed just before God” (Ez., 2:237). It is because of the unrighteousness of humanity and the righteousness of Christ that “it is necessary that we should be approved by God through his righteousness; that is, it is imputed to us, and we are accepted through his righteousness” (Ez., 2:237). As Calvin re-iterates: “Since all are far distant from [the] standard [of the righteousness of the law], another is added and substituted, namely, that we may embrace the righteousness of Christ by faith, and so become just, by another righteousness without us” (Ez., 2:237).[5]

It is clear from the previous discussion of Calvin’s view of the two kinds of righteousness why he can say that “justification by faith, as it is called, is not properly righteousness” and that justification by the keeping of the law is described as “true righteousness” (Ez., 2:237). Justification by faith is not proper righteousness in the sense that it is not a righteousness that is performed by the individual believer. The righteousness that a Christian has through faith is a righteousness that properly belongs to Christ but which the believer comes to share in and benefit from thanks to his or her faith-union with Christ. As Calvin puts it, the situation is that “on account of the defect of true righteousness [in us], it is necessary to fly to this [the righteousness of Christ] as to a sacred anchor” (Ez., 2:237).

It is highly significant, however, that Calvin does not stop at the doctrine of justification by faith alone and say that the language of justification by works found in Ezek 18 is merely hypothetical. Calvin responds to those who would object that his teaching renders “justification by the law … superfluous” by denying that this is the intention of his teaching (Ez., 2:237). His argument is not all that explicit at this point in his commentary, but he appeals to Jer 31:33 and Ezek 36:26–27 as proving that “when God regenerates his elect, he inscribes a law on their hearts and in their inward parts” (Ez., 2:237). Presumably his point is that the truth of justification by faith does not render justification by the law totally superfluous because the gift of regeneration accompanies the gift of imputation. In other words, there is a legitimate sense in Calvin’s understanding in which the concept of justification by the law or justification by works can be applied to believers following the pattern of Scripture, which applies the language of justification by works to those individuals who are recipients of the regenerating work of God’s Spirit. In asserting that a doctrine of justification by works applies to believers in a positive way in tandem with justification by faith alone, Calvin has obviously gone beyond what Luther taught on this issue.[6]

Nevertheless, in asserting a continuing function for the concept and language of justification by works, it is readily apparent that Calvin’s thinking on this matter is dominated by the concept of absolute righteousness. This can be seen in his comment following his reference to Jer 31:33 and Ezek 36:26–27, where he says that the idea of the law being written on the heart does not really solve “the difficulty” (Ez., 2:237). Even though Jer 31:33 and Ezek 36:26–27 both speak of God’s people actually keeping the law as part of the new covenant, Calvin understands this in a way that subordinates the reality of law-keeping by the regenerate under the other equally valid truth taught in Scripture that human beings are unable to keep the law of God. As Calvin says: “The faithful, even if regenerated by God’s Spirit, endeavour to conform themselves to God’s law, yet, through their own weakness, never arrive at that point, and so are never righteous” (Ez., 2:237).

In what way then can the regenerate be said to keep the law and to be justified by the law, if no one (apart from Christ) can keep the law? Calvin’s solution to this seeming dilemma is rather ingenious and worthy of consideration. His answer is:

[A]lthough the righteousness of works is mutilated in the sons of God, yet it is acknowledged as perfect, since, by not imputing their sins to them, he proves what is his own. Hence it happens, that although the faithful fall back, wander, and sometimes fall, yet they may be called observers of the law, and walkers in the commandments of God, and observers of his righteousness. (Ez., 2:237–38)

Thus, for Calvin, a legitimate concept of justification by works appears in Scripture and is to be applied to believers. Despite their sin, “the faithful … may be called observers of the law” (Ez., 2:237–38; emphasis added). This is a significant acknowledgment, but at the same time it is necessary to hold that this kind of justification by works “arises from gratuitous imputation” (Ez., 2:238). It follows, therefore, that the “reward” for such righteousness comes from “gratuitous imputation” as well (Ez., 2:238).

It is Calvin’s concept of justification by works according to gratuitous imputation that enables him to give a legitimate place in his theological system for reward according to works. He clearly states that good works are rewarded by God: “The works of the faithful are not without reward, because they please God, and pleasing God, they are sure of remuneration” (Ez., 2:238). Calvin summarizes his view in the following words: “We see, then, how these things are rightly united, that no one obeys the law, and that no one is worthy of the fruits of righteousness, and yet that God, of his own liberality, acknowledges as just those who aspire to righteousness, and repay [sic] them with a reward of which they are unworthy” (Ez., 2:238).

Calvin concludes his discussion of the problem arising out of Ezekiel’s teaching in vv. 5–17 by saying that “although works tend in no way to the cause of justification, yet, when the elect sons of God were justified freely by faith, at the same time their works are esteemed righteous by the same gratuitous liberality” (Ez., 2:238). In this way, Calvin retains the primacy of justification by faith alone while preserving a legitimate but ultimately subordinate place for the doctrine of justification by works.[7]

This understanding of Calvin’s subordination of a legitimate doctrine of justification by works under the umbrella of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is confirmed by his comments on v. 20, where he interprets the expression the righteousness of the righteous will be upon him, and the impiety of the impious will be upon him in terms of a strict “legal sentence” that must be held in tension with other parts of Scripture that speak of a judgment of works in the context of grace (Ez., 2:244). As Calvin explains:

[I]f God used the same language everywhere, no hope of safety would be left to us. For who would be found just if his life were judged strictly by the law? But it has already been said, speaking accurately, that God rewards those worshippers who observe his law, and punish [sic] those who transgress it. But since we are all far from perfect obedience, Christ is offered to us, from whom we may partake of righteousness, and in this way be justified by faith. Meanwhile it is true, according to the rule of the law, that the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, since God will not disappoint any, but will really perform what he has promised. But he promises a reward to all who observe his law. (Ez., 2:244)

In reality God “owes us nothing, yet willingly binds himself to be reconciled to us; and thus his surprising liberality appears” (Ez., 2:244). Seeing us destitute “of a righteousness of our own,” God in his mercy “cloth[es] us in the righteousness of his Son” (Ez., 2:244). This means that “they are esteemed just who do not satisfy the law, since God does not impute their sins to them”; but this in turn means that “the righteousness of the law is not without fruit among the faithful” (Ez., 2:245).[8] Calvin quotes Ps 32:2 to back up his view that the works of believers “are taken into account and remunerated by God” (Ez., 2:245).

4. Calvin on the Relationship between Works and Salvation

As has been shown above, Calvin believes that there is a legitimate form of a doctrine of justification by works in the Scriptures and that it is right to say, as the Scriptures do in various places, that “the faithful are esteemed just even in their deeds” (Ez., 2:238). At the same time, however, he denies that this legitimate concept of works righteousness can be spoken of as being “a cause of [the] salvation [of the righteous]” (Ez., 2:238). He says that “we must diligently notice that the cause of salvation is excluded from this doctrine” (Ez., 2:238). The cause of salvation is properly found in “the mercy of God, and there we must stop” (Ez., 2:238).

To help in distancing works from the issue of soteric causality, Calvin is concerned at this point to clarify the distinction that he makes between faith and works. Ultimately for Calvin, as for Luther, “faith without works justifies” (Ez., 2:238). That is to say, faith and works are two separate categories that should not be confused, because ultimately it is faith that justifies, not works. Of course, Calvin is aware that the proposition faith without works justifies can be misunderstood, so such a statement “needs prudence and a sound interpretation” (Ez., 2:238). This is because the proposition “that faith without works justifies is true and yet false, according to the different senses which it bears” (Ez., 2:238). If the faith in question is a faith without works, then “the proposition, that faith without works justifies by itself, is false, because faith without works is void … because it is dead, and a mere fiction” (Ez., 2:238). But if in the proposition faith without works justifies, the phrase without works is taken as going with the verb justifies (thereby excluding works from justification), then “the proposition will be true” (Ez., 2:238). This is because it is faith which justifies, not works.

Calvin quotes 1 John 5:18 in support of his teaching that faith and works exist together in the life of a believer: “He who is born of God is just, as John says” (Ez., 2:238). Calvin obviously takes this verse to mean that the person who is born of God will exhibit “just” or righteous behavior. Calvin concludes: “Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from his heat: yet faith justifies without works, because works form no reason for our justification; but faith alone reconciles us to God, and causes him to love us, not in ourselves, but in his only-begotten Son” (Ez., 2:238).

IV. Conclusion

It has been argued above that Calvin clearly interprets Ezek 18 as teaching a doctrine of justification by works. Furthermore, he understands Ezekiel’s doctrine of justification by works as realistic in nature and not just hypothetical for the believer. At the same time, however, Calvin believes that Ezekiel’s concept of law righteousness does not contradict the scriptural teaching on justification by faith alone but stands in harmony with it. For Calvin, the solution to the apparent contradiction between justification by faith alone and the doctrine of justification by works taught by Ezekiel (and in other parts of Scripture) is found in the “gratuitous imputation” of the righteousness of Christ to the works of those who have been united to Christ through faith. Calvin’s synthesis shows that he did not commit the logical fallacy of the false disjunction whereby justification by faith alone and justification by works are considered as being mutually exclusive categories in every instance. Calvin’s teaching on the legitimate biblical doctrine of justification by works, therefore, has much to say that is relevant to the current debate on justification, where, even in the halls of Reformed orthodoxy, the use of a strident “black and white” kind of logic more akin to Luther tends to dominate the discussion, rather than the careful biblical balance characteristic of Calvin.

By way of conclusion, it is worthwhile to note that Calvin’s view on the righteousness of the good works of believers is echoed in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith 16.6, where it is taught that “the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.”

Notes

1. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. Thomas Myers; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 2:235. Hereafter this work will be abbreviated Ez., and page references will appear enclosed within parenthesis marks in the text.
2. Wolfgang Schrage describes the hermeneutical position of Lutheran orthodoxy as interpreting the biblical passages that call for individual righteousness, such as “Jesus’ demands … in the Sermon on the Mount, primarily as speculum peccati, a mirror intended to reveal to sinners their sins” (Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988], 46). Such calls are “deliberately … impossible demands” which are given “in order to provoke human failure and reveal the need for salvation” (ibid.). This hermeneutical method is based on Luther’s view of the usus proprius of the law, also called the usus theologicus, which according to Werner Elert, “is the function of the law which exposes our sin” (Werner Elert, Law and Gospel [trans. Edward H. Schroeder; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967], 15).
3. Luther writes in his Treatise on the Freedom of the Christian that through the commandments of God a person comes “to recognize his inability to do good” so as to “despair of his powers” and to seek the help which comes from Christ (Works of Martin Luther: With Introduction and Notes [ed. Adolph Spaeth; 6 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982], 2:317).
4. John Hesselink has observed that Calvin defined the term law in a broad sense and also in a narrow sense. The law can be understood broadly as “a comprehensive term” that “covers the whole era or dispensation of the old covenant,” but when understood narrowly the law speaks of the Mosaic law as abstracted from the promises of grace in the covenant. The law in the narrow sense, being without Christ and the Spirit, accuses and kills (I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law [Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1992], 157–58). Hesselink notes that Calvin understood that Moses had a “double office”: a universal office of tota lex and a particular office of nuda lex. The particular office demands the righteousness of works, whereas the broader office demands the righteousness of faith (196–97). The demands of nuda lex are unattainable for sinful humanity, making the law function as a pedagogue leading sinners to Christ (158, 219–21). Mark Karlberg has also observed the same distinction in Calvin (see Mark W. Karlberg, “Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant,” WTJ 43 [1980]: 14).
5. Calvin’s comments at this point clearly show that he believed that the active obedience of Christ in fulfilling the law constitutes the righteousness with which believers are imputed by means of faith. A few quotations from his Institutes are sufficient to confirm this idea. Calvin writes, for example: “How has Christ abolished sin, banished the separation between us and God, and acquired righteousness to render God favorable and kindly toward us? … [Christ] has achieved this for us by the whole course of his obedience” ( John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 1:507 [2.16.5]); “[T]he basis of the pardon that frees us from the curse of the law [is] the whole life of Christ” (ibid.); “By his obedience … Christ truly acquired and merited grace for us with his Father” (1:530 [2.17.3]); “For if righteousness consists in the observance of the law, who will deny that Christ merited favor for us when, by taking that burden upon himself, he reconciled us to God as if we had kept the law?” (1:533 [2.17.5]); “To declare that by [Christ] alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own?” (1:753 [3.11.23]).
6. Assuming a similarity at this point between Calvin and Zwingli, Luther’s comments against the Zwinglian view of the necessity of good works is highly illustrative of the differences that Luther felt existed between himself and the Reformed theologians concerning the relation of works to justification. As Peter Lillback has noted, Luther castigated the “sectarians” and “fanatics” (i.e., the Zwinglians) in his 1535 Commentary on Galatians for teaching “works in addition to faith” and that “observance of the Commandments of God is necessary” alongside faith for justification (Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001], 79). Luther lumped the Zwinglians together with the Papists as those who “change Christ into Moses and the Law and change the Law into Christ” (78). In this way, Luther considered that the Zwinglians had “become nothing but legalists and Mosaists, defecting from Christ to Moses and calling the people back from Baptism, faith and the promises of Christ to the Law and works, changing grace into the Law and the Law into grace” (79). At the same time, however, it should be understood that Luther’s objection against the necessity of works seems only to have applied when works were linked with justification. Alister McGrath suggests that Luther, particularly in his later years, saw works as a necessary condition (but not a cause) of salvation (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification [3d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 243).
7. This conclusion is supported by Lillback, who contrasts Luther’s and Calvin’s views on inherent righteousness: “Luther’s understanding of justification by faith alone had no room for inherent righteousness, while Calvin’s view required it as an inseparable but subordinate righteousness” (Lillback, The Binding of God, 192). Lillback argues that Calvin taught “a subordinate [works] righteousness … that is imputed to the believer’s works,” which operates in tandem with justification by faith alone (185–93, 205).
8. As stated in n. 5, Calvin clearly held to the idea that justification by faith involves the imputation of the righteousness of the active obedience of Christ to the believer. Nevertheless, it is important to note (particularly in the light of the current debate on justification) that even though Calvin believed in the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ to the believer through faith, this did not (in his understanding) render illegitimate the idea of the imputation of the righteousness of good works to the individual believer on the level of the covenant, where the grace of the forgiveness of sins in Christ is presupposed. The impression is often given in Protestant circles that justification by faith alone cannot co-exist with a realistic doctrine of justification by works that applies to sinful human beings. This, however, is a kind of reductionistic logic that Calvin did not accept. Calvin consistently taught a realistic doctrine of justification by works for the believer in his commentaries generally and also in the Institutes. The key passages in the 1559 edition of the Institutes regarding this issue are 3.17.3, 8–10. I hope to investigate Calvin’s broader teaching on the idea of a legitimate but subordinate doctrine of justification by works in a forthcoming article.