John Calvin Commentary Luke 17:7

"But who is there of you, having a servant plowing or keeping sheep, that will say unto him, when he is come in from the field, Come straightway and sit down to meat;" — Luke 17:7 (ASV)

The object of this parable is to show that God claims all that belongs to us as His property and possesses complete control over our persons and services. Therefore, any zeal we might show in discharging our duty does not place Him under obligation to us by any sort of merit. For, as we are His property, He, on His part, can owe us nothing.³¹⁷

He presents the comparison of a servant, who, after spending the day in severe toil, returns home in the evening and continues his labors until his master is pleased to relieve him.³¹⁸ Christ is not speaking of the kind of servants we have today, who work for wages, but of the slaves who lived in ancient times.

Their condition in society was such that they gained nothing for themselves; instead, all that belonged to them—their toil, their diligence, and their industry, even to their very blood—was the property of their masters. Christ now shows that a bond of servitude no less rigorous binds and obliges us to serve God, from which He infers that we have no way of placing Him under obligation to us.

It is an argument drawn from the lesser to the greater. For if a mortal man is permitted to hold such power over another man as to require of him uninterrupted services by night and by day, and yet incur no sort of mutual obligation as if he were that man's debtor, how much more will God have a right to demand the services of our whole life, to the fullest extent of our ability, and yet be in no way indebted to us? We see then that all who imagine they deserve anything from God, or that He is bound to them in any way, are held guilty of wicked arrogance. And yet, no crime is more commonly practiced than this kind of arrogance, for there is no one who would not willingly call God to account, and thus the notion of merits has prevailed in almost every age.

But we must pay closer attention to the statement made by Christ: that we render nothing to God beyond what He has a right to claim, but are so strongly bound to His service that we owe Him everything that lies in our power. It consists of two points:

1. Our life, even to the very end of our course, belongs entirely to God. Therefore, if a person were to spend a part of it in obedience to God, he would have no right to bargain that he should rest for the remainder of the time, just as a considerable number of men, after serving as soldiers for ten years, would gladly apply for a discharge.
2. God is not bound to pay us wages for any of our services, a point we have already touched upon.

Let each of us remember that he has been created by God for the purpose of laboring and of being vigorously employed in His work—not only for a limited time, but until death itself. And what is more, he shall not only live, but die, to God (Romans 14:8).

Regarding merit, we must address the difficulty that perplexes many. For Scripture so frequently promises a reward for our works that they think it allows them some merit. The answer is simple: a reward is promised, not as a debt, but from God's mere good pleasure.

It is a great mistake to assume a mutual relationship between Reward and Merit, for it is by His own undeserved favor, and not by the value of our works, that God is moved to reward them. Under the terms of the Law³¹⁹, I readily acknowledge, God is bound to men if they were to fully discharge all that is required of them. But still, since this is a voluntary obligation on God's part, it remains a fixed principle that man can demand nothing from God, as if he had merited anything.

And so, the arrogance of the flesh collapses. For, even if someone fulfilled the Law, he cannot claim that he has any demands 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.

Therefore, two principles must be maintained:

1. God naturally owes us nothing, and all the services we render to Him are not worth a single straw.
2. According to the terms of the Law, a reward is attached to works, not because of their value, but because God is graciously pleased to become our debtor.³²⁰

It would show intolerable ingratitude if, on such a basis, any person were to indulge in proud boasting. The kindness and liberality God shows towards us are so far from giving us a right to swell with foolish confidence that we are only placed under deeper obligations to Him.

Whenever we encounter the word reward, or whenever it comes to mind, let us regard this as the crowning act of God's goodness to us: that, though we are completely in His debt, He condescends to enter into an agreement with us.

All the more detestable, then, is the invention of the Sophists, who have had the shameless audacity to fabricate a kind of merit that claims to be founded on a just claim.³²¹ The word merit, in itself, was already profane enough and inconsistent with the standard of piety; but to intoxicate people with diabolical pride, as if they could merit anything by a just claim, is far worse.

³¹⁷ “Il ne pent pas estre nostre deteur;” — “he cannot be our debtor.”;” — “he cannot be our debtor.”

³¹⁸ “Iusqu’a ce qu’il se soit acquitte au bon plaisir du maistre; et qu’on luy dise, C’est assez;” — “till he is discharged at the good pleasure of the master; and till he is told, It is enough.”;” — “till he is discharged at the good pleasure of the master; and till he is told, It is enough.”

³¹⁹ “Selon les conventions contenus en la Loy;” — “according to the engagements contained in the Law.”;” — “according to the engagements contained in the Law.”

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.”;” — “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, ;” — “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 who have dared to forge their merit, which they call De condigno.” The reader will find not only the general doctrine of m” The reader will find not only the general doctrine of merit, but this particular aspect of it, fully treated by our Author in his but this particular aspect of it, fully treated by our Author in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III. ch. 15:Book III. ch. 15: