Contra Calvin on Paul's "Works of the Law"

In Romans and Galatians, St. Paul speaks against "works of the law" with respect to justification. Paul's meaning of "works of the law" has been a contentious issue in Christian theology. Traditional Protestantism, as represented by Luther and Calvin, understands "works of the law" to be equivalent to, or at least to include, morally good works. It is on the basis of this understanding that Luther interpreted Romans 3:28 as teaching justification by faith alone and that good works have no role whatsoever to play in justification. By contrast, the traditional and predominant Catholic understanding is that Paul's phrase "works of the law" refers to the ceremonial precepts of the Law of Moses such as, for example, circumcision and dietary regulations. On this interpretation, Paul means to exclude not good works but Jewish cultic observances from Christian justification. In contemporary Pauline scholarship, this interpretation is typically referred to as the "new perspective," whereas the traditional Protestant interpretation is referred to as the "old perspective." The interested reader can read my defense of the new perspective understanding of "works of the law" HERE. In this post, I want to respond to an objection to this interpretation raised by John Calvin.

Calvin's objection can be stated as follows: Paul cannot mean for “works of the law” to be restricted to the ceremonial precepts of the Torah; rather, he must mean to include the moral precepts as well. Paul teaches, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them’” (Galatians 3:10). Paul is here referencing Deuteronomy: “’Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen’” (Deuteronomy 27:26). The referent of “law” in this passage is the entire Law of Moses as laid out in Deuteronomy, which includes the Ten Commandments (cf. Deuteronomy 5:6-21). Thus, the moral law and not just the ceremonial law is in view. Consequently, Paul is excluding not just ceremonial works but also (morally) good works from justification, and this is because whoever would be justified by such works would have to perfectly keep the entire law, including the moral law, and this is manifestly impossible. This is why Paul goes on to say, “Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’; but the law does not rest on faith, for ‘He who does them shall live by them’” (Galatians 3:11-12). As Calvin himself summarizes this objection:

Does [Paul] not plainly enough attribute everything to faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, “The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;” “Being justified freely by his grace;” “Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?” (Rom. 3:21, 24, 28). Here [those who hold to the interpretation of “works of the law” as the ceremonies of the Torah] have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most childish. They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling, that they possess not even the first elements of logic. Do they think the Apostle was raving when he produced, in proof of his doctrine, these passages? “The man that does them shall live in them,” (Gal. 3:12). “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them,” (Gal. 3:10). Unless they are themselves raving, they will not say that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced only against the transgressors of them. If these passages are to be understood of the Moral Law, there cannot be a doubt that moral works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same effect are the arguments which he employs. “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3:20). “The law worketh wrath,” (Rom. 4:15), and therefore not righteousness. “The law cannot pacify the conscience,” and therefore cannot confer righteousness. “Faith is imputed for righteousness,” and therefore righteousness is not the reward of works, but is given without being due. Because “we are justified by faith,” boasting is excluded. “Had there been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe,” (Gal. 3:21, 22). Let them maintain, if they dare, that these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very children will laugh at their effrontery. The true conclusion, therefore, is, that the whole Law is spoken of when the power of justifying is denied to it (Institutes of the Christian Religion III, 11, 19).

Here, Calvin directly attacks the interpretation of “works of the law” as the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, attributing the interpretation to “Origen and some ancient writers.” And, in typical Calvin fashion, he seeks to refute this interpretation by chiding and by condescending and conceited rhetoric, referring to it as “childish” and as “an ingenious subterfuge,” and referring to those who hold to it as being guilty of “effrontery” and as “raving.” The odium evinced by Calvin is, as ever, positively palpable. It is easy to see why, of course, as this interpretation fundamentally undermines the most significant alleged prooftexts of sola fide, one of the cornerstone doctrines of Protestantism along with sola Scriptura. Let us, therefore, evaluate Calvin’s arguments against this interpretation, and let us do so without engaging in name-calling, unlike the cantankerous and snobbish Calvin.

First, Calvin’s claim that the interpretation comes from “Origen and some ancient writers” is misleading, as it suggests that this interpretation was an outlier. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Matthew J. Thomas, in his book Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception, shows that this was the understanding of “works of the law” that was held to by the earliest Christians and Church Fathers such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Thomas summarizes his conclusion as follows: 

In summary, the early perspectives on works of the law are found to align far more closely with the so-called new perspective than the old perspective, particularly with respect to the meaning and significance of these works. On these issues, the alignment between early and new perspectives is such that one can regard the "new" perspective as, in reality, the old perspective, while what we identify as the "old" perspective represents a genuine theological novum in relation to the early Christian tradition (pg. 285).

In line with this, N.T. Wright has remarked, in his review of Thomas’s book, “What Paul meant by ‘works of the law’ has been hotly debated for years. When we allow the second-century writers to have their say, the balance suddenly shifts—in favor of what has been called the ‘new perspective,’ but should now, it seems, be called the ‘original perspective’” (ibid., reviews page). Similarly, Alister E. McGrath, in his monumental work on the history of the doctrine of justification, concludes that, “If any perspective on Paul can be characterized as ‘classic’ or an ‘old perspective’, it is [this perspective], not those which emerged during the sixteenth century” (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, pg. 40). Moreover, the Church Father Origen of Alexandria, as Calvin notes, held this view in the third century, and St. Jerome and Ambrosiaster held this view in the fourth century; St. Thomas Aquinas favored this interpretation in the Middle Ages (“The Works of the Law”, essay in Ignatius Catholic Study Bible). While not a consensus view (St. Augustine, for instance, held to a broader understanding of “works of the law”), this view was dominant in the early Church and remains so to this day especially among Catholic theologians. Contemporary Protestant scholars who hold to this view include the aforementioned N.T. Wright as well as James D.G. Dunn and E.P. Sanders.

Next, let’s consider the passages of Scripture that Calvin cites against this interpretation of “works of the law.” To begin, let’s add to our consideration the following passages:

Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? (Galatians 3:2-3)

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:1-4).

What Paul is teaching in these passages and in those cited by Calvin is that the ceremonies of the Torah, circumcision in particular, are useless when it comes to salvation, which is rather the result of the grace of God being received through faith in Christ. One of Paul’s proofs of this is the fact that the Gentiles were forgiven of their sins and received the Holy Sprit through repentance and Baptism, without having been circumcised (cf. Acts 2:38; 15:8-11). And for Paul, there are two mutually incompatible ways to be saved: (1) Accept the gratuitous grace of God through faith in Christ as the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham so as to be justified, or (2) Perfectly keep the Torah in its entirety according to the Mosaic Covenant so as to be justified (cf. The Drama of Salvation, pg. 114).

Since circumcision is the entrance into this second way of salvation, for Paul, if someone receives circumcision for the purpose of salvation, then that person has ipso facto opted for the second way of salvation. Insofar as nobody is capable of attaining salvation through the second way (cf. Acts 13:38-39; 15:10, Galatians 2:10, 21; 3:10-12; 5:2-3), by accepting circumcision for the purpose of salvation, a person would be abandoning the first way of salvation and would consequently be cut off from Christ. Thus, in one and the same act, a person would cut off his foreskin and cut off himself from Christ!

Thus, Paul is not condemning the idea that good works—which are the fruit of grace (cf. John 15:4, Galatians 5:22-23, Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:12-13, Colossians 1:10)—contribute to one’s salvation and growth in righteousness before God. Rather, he is condemning the attempt to confine salvation to the Jews on the part of the Judaizers who tried to compel the Gentiles to be circumcised in order to be saved (cf. Galatians 5:7-12; 6:12-13). The New Covenant embraces the Gentiles as Gentiles without the need to be circumcised and to live under the Torah and embrace a Jewish identity. For Paul, this fact is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham that through him all the nations would be blessed (cf. Genesis 22:18, Romans 4:13-18, Galatians 3:7-9, 15-18). That works of the law, which signified obedience to the Torah as a way of life, should have any role to play in our salvation, is for Paul, therefore, a fundamental falsification of the Gospel and the promises of God. For Paul, the Torah had served its purpose as a “custodian” (cf. Galatians 3:19-26). Now that Christ has come, we are under a New Law, the Law of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Galatians 6:2). In contrast to the Law of Moses, which Paul refers to as a “yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1) and St. Peter describes as “a yoke…which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10), the Law of Christ is described as a law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12), whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light (Matthew 11:28-30), and whose commandments are not difficult (1 John 5:3).

The Law of Christ is a light burden compared to the Law of Moses both because all of the meticulous ceremonial precepts are done away with and because the grace by which we are justified enables us to keep the commandments and persevere in grace (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:13). This is in contrast to the Law of Moses, which laid down the precepts of righteousness but did not offer the grace that we receive through faith in Christ that is needed to consistently follow these precepts and to cleanse us of all our sins when we fail to follow these precepts. It is for this reason that Paul says that “the law [i.e., the Torah] brings wrath” (Romans 4:15), in contrast to “the righteousness of faith” (Romans 4:13). As St. Thomas Aquinas explains:

[T]he grace of the New Testament helps man to avoid sin…And this is why the New Law is not said to work wrath: because as far as it is concerned it gives man sufficient help to avoid sin (Summa Theologica I-II, 106, 2).

Furthermore, in Romans 4, Paul is contrasting the two paths to salvation once again: either through Christ or through the Torah. He argues that if salvation is through the Torah, then God’s promise to Abraham that all of the nations would be blessed through him as his descendants is rendered void. As Paul says, “The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law [i.e., the Torah] but through the righteousness of faith. If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void” (Romans 4:13-14). Once again, Paul is not contrasting faith with good works; rather, he is contrasting salvation through Christ with salvation through the Torah.

The ceremonies of the Torah no longer matter, but the moral commandments do, and grace enables us to follow these commandments (cf. Romans 8:4). Thus, Paul teaches that “neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19). Here, Paul pits circumcision against keeping the commandments of God. This only makes sense if Paul is condemning the ceremonial precepts of the Law of Moses while upholding its moral precepts (such as, for example, the Ten Commandments), which retain their validity in the Law of Christ (cf. Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14), which we must fulfill (cf. Galatians 6:2). Furthermore, the parallel passages of Galatians 5:6 and 6:15 suggest that, for Paul, keeping the commandments, having a faith working through love, and being made a new creation all go hand-in-hand in the order of salvation. He also teaches that obedience leads to righteousness (cf. Romans 6:16). Paul, therefore, does not reject the notion that good works performed by the grace of Christ are meritorious and contributory to salvation. Instead, he rejects both the necessity and the sufficiency of the Torah as a path to salvation. Calvin’s objection from Galatians 3:10 and like verses, therefore, has been answered.

One final point is that it can be granted to Calvin that in Romans and Galatians Paul is referring to the entire Torah. Nevertheless, what he is excluding from having a role in salvation, as has been shown by the foregoing arguments, is the ceremonial precepts of the Torah specifically. Most fundamentally, Paul is rejecting the Torah as a viable path to salvation. The only true path to salvation is through Christ (cf. John 14:6, Acts 4:12). Calvin seems to be arguing from the fact that Paul rejects the Torah as a whole as a means to salvation to the conclusion that he is therefore rejecting every part of the Torah (such as, for example, the moral precepts) as a means to salvation. But this is a textbook example of the fallacy of division, which is reasoning from a whole having a property to each part of that whole having that property simply in virtue of the whole having the property. And this is coming from a guy who said this: “They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling, that they possess not even the first elements of logic”! Jimmy Akin gives a useful analogy and explanation of this as follows:

[A] dietician might tell us that drinking Diet Coke is not necessary to good health, but we would not be permitted to draw the inference from this that drinking water (the principal ingredient of Diet Coke) is not necessary to good health. In the same way, we cannot infer from the fact that Torah is not necessary to salvation that none of the things in the Torah are necessary to salvation. The property “not necessary for salvation” applies to keeping the Torah as a whole, not to individual things required by the Torah [e.g., the moral precepts]. For example, one of the things required by the Torah is belief in God, which on anyone’s account is necessary for salvation (The Drama of Salvation, pg. 108).

The objections raised by Calvin, therefore, have been razed. One final point to keep in mind is that Catholic teaching holds that good works play a role only in progressive justification after we are already established in grace, not in initial justification whereby we are forgiven of our sins and brought into a state of salvation (cf. Titus 3:4-7, James 2:14-26).