John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 20:11

"And I gave them my statutes, and showed them mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live in them." — Ezekiel 20:11 (ASV)

Here God elaborates on his favors, having given his law to the Israelites as if to prescribe for them a specific rule of living. If they had only been brought out of Egypt, that would have been an inestimable benefit. But God was much more generous, deigning to rule them intimately with his doctrine, lest they should wander to one side or the other; and in this way he testified that he would be their God.

He adds a promise, for God could have precisely commanded what he wished of his chosen people. Instead, he spontaneously adopts an approach of kindness by promising them life. Thus, we understand why this promise is mentioned; for God could have simply commanded anything, saying, “This pleases me,” using but a single word, like kings issuing a command.

Therefore, since God not only required of the Israelites what he might justly demand but, by adding a promise, gently enticed them to pursue obedience, this was certainly a mark of his fatherly kindness. Hence, he now emphasizes the people’s ingratitude by this circumstance: that neither by commands nor by kindness could he induce these obstinate and perverse dispositions to yield to the yoke.

I gave them, therefore, my statutes and my laws; and afterwards, which if a man do, he shall live in them. He thus briefly reminds them that it was not his fault if the Israelites were not in every sense happy. For when he stipulated with them for the observance of his law, he bound them in turn to himself, that they should lack nothing which contributed to a good and happy life; for in the term “life,” solid happiness is included.

Yet it is asked here how the Prophet testifies that men should live by the works of the law, when the law, according to Paul’s testimony, can only bring us death (Romans 4:15; Deuteronomy 30:15). He took this testimony from Moses, and we shall see shortly that he cites it in a different sense.

Moses there declares that human life rests on the observance of the law; that is, life was surely to be expected through satisfying the law. Some think this absurd and so restrict what is said to the present life, understanding he shall live in them in a political or civil sense; but this is a cold and superficial comment.

The reasoning that influenced them is easily answered: they object that we owe all things to God; that we ourselves and our possessions are all his by right of ownership. Therefore, if we keep the law a hundred times over, still we are not worthy of such a reward.

But the solution is near: we deserve nothing, but God graciously binds himself to us by this promise, as I have already mentioned. And from this passage, it is easy to infer that works are of no value before God in themselves and are not assessed for their intrinsic worth, so to speak, but only by agreement.

Therefore, since it pleased God to condescend so far as to promise life to men if they kept his law, they ought to accept this offer as springing from his generosity. There is no absurdity, then, if men do live—that is, if they merit eternal life according to the agreement.

But if anyone keeps the law, it will follow that he has no need of the grace of Christ. For of what advantage is Christ to us unless we recover life in him? But if this power is placed in ourselves, the remedy must not be sought anywhere but in ourselves.

Everyone, then, may be his own savior if life is placed in the observance of the law. But Paul resolves this difficulty for us when he sets forth for us a twofold righteousness: of the law and of faith (Romans 10:5–6). He says that this righteousness is of the law when we keep God’s precepts.

Now, since we are far from such obedience—indeed, the very ability to keep the law is altogether defective in us—it follows that we must fly to the righteousness of faith. For he defines the righteousness of faith as believing that Christ died and rose again for our justification.

We see, therefore, that although God promised salvation to his ancient people if they only kept the law, that promise was useless, since no one could satisfy the law and perform God’s commands.

Here another question arises. For if this promise does not take effect, God in vain considers as a benefit to the Israelites that which we see was offered them to no purpose; hence, no utility or fruit would arise from it.

But someone may say that the conception was fallacious, when God promised life and now, by his Prophet, blames the Israelites for despising such a benefit.

But the reply is easy. Although men are not endowed with the power to obey the law, yet they ought not, on that account, to detract from the goodness of God. For men’s inability by no means prevents them from appreciating the value of so generous a promise.

God is dealing with men. He might, as I have said, imperiously demand whatever he pleased and exact it with the utmost rigor; but he deals by way of an agreement, and so there is a mutual obligation between himself and the people.

No one will surely deny that God here exhibits an example of his mercy when he deigns thus familiarly to make a covenant with men.

“Ah! but this is all in vain: God’s promise is of no effect, because no one is able to keep the law.”

I confess it. But men’s inability cannot, as I have said, abolish the glory of God’s goodness, since that always remains fixed. God still acts generously in being willing thus to enter into covenant with his people.

We must, then, consider the subject simply and by itself: men’s inability is incidental. God then put forth a remarkable proof of his goodness in promising life to all who kept his law, and this proof will remain perfect and entire.