Introduction

In Reformed systematic theology the reward of grace is often discussed in connection with justification. This is where John Calvin treated it in his Institutes, where the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism treated it, and where it may be found in many tomes of Reformed dogmatics. Why? Because of the calumnies of the false church. When the reformers recovered the truth of justification by faith alone, Rome gasped, “What! Do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?” Rome insisted that justification cannot be by faith alone because scripture speaks of a reward. This reward, said Rome, precludes any possibility that one’s righteousness is by faith only, apart from works. Over against Rome the reformers declared, “This reward is not of merit, but of grace.” Thus the traditional place of treating the reward of grace in systematic theology.

Yet the reward of grace may also be granted development in connection with eschatology.¹ The eschatological significance of the reward is clear by what Christ speaks to his church in the last few verses of the Bible. He announces in Revelation 22:12, “Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” Jesus Christ promises to bring a reward at his coming. It is a marvelous reward. This reward is cause for praising God, for the glorified saints in heaven sing, “We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty…that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great” (11:17–18).

These texts from Revelation are just two of the many passages of scripture that speak about the reward. Anyone who reads the Bible will come across this reward. The minister who practices series preaching will inevitably preach about this reward. The Reformed minister who preaches from the Catechism will encounter this reward every time he preaches on Lord’s Day 24. How shall the Reformed minister teach God’s people about this reward, rightly dividing the word of truth?

This question is occasioned by a sermon that was preached in Hope Protestant Reformed Church on December 23, 2018—the infamous “Reward of Grace” sermon.² This sermon did not expound the doctrine of the reward correctly. This sermon taught false doctrine concerning the reward. While the sermon repeatedly stated that the reward is of grace, it implicitly taught that good works merit the reward. This sermon was protested and condemned by the broader ecclesiastical assemblies in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

Yet this sermon was actually the culmination of years of bad preaching, preaching that displaced the perfect work of Jesus Christ and gave a place to good works that was out of harmony with scripture and the Reformed confessions.³ The truths of good works and of the reward were perverted. Rather than serving as a rod and a staff, these sermons served as a whip and a bludgeon to beat “good” works out of the sheep. Over the years these sermons abused the flock, such that if the word reward was even mentioned, the sheep would shudder.

But this was never the purpose of our tender Lord and shepherd. He brought the doctrine of the reward to console his flock, who must fill up his sufferings on this earth and become nothing among the wicked world. 

11. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 

12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven. (Matt. 5:11–12)

And so the purpose of this paper is to explore the practical significance of the eschatological reward in light of the “Reward of Grace” sermon, which sermon was in part—if not entirely—the occasion for writing this paper. To this end the paper will first set forth a definition of the reward and then develop each aspect of this definition.

A Definition

It is important to begin with a clear and concise definition of what the reward is. The “Reward of Grace” sermon failed at this basic point. As Classis East stated in 2020, “The sermon failed to clearly define the ‘reward of grace,’” which caused “confusion.”⁴

To begin I note briefly that both scripture and the creeds speak of a reward and particularly of a reward that will come at the end of this present age. The biblical words שָׂכָר and µισθός, together with their derivatives, are commonly translated as “reward” in the King James Version. An example from the Old Testament is found in Jeremiah 31:16: “Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded [שָׂכָר], saith the Lord.” From the New Testament there is Matthew 5:11–12: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward [µισθός] in heaven.” The Heidelberg Catechism speaks of the reward in Lord’s Day 24 when it defends justification by faith alone against the merit of good works. Belgic Confession article 24 affirms the existence of a reward in connection with its denial of merit in salvation. The Canons also speak of the reward in its rejection of errors.⁵

For a proper definition it must be acknowledged that scripture does not always speak of the reward of grace when it speaks of a reward. The wicked have a reward: “When thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward” (Matt. 6:2). This reward of the wicked differs substantially from the reward of grace. Furthermore, Jesus Christ has a reward: “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me” (2 Sam. 22:21; Ps. 18:20). The reward of grace is intimately related to this reward of Jesus Christ, but there are important differences. A proper definition must reflect all these things.

If one were to find a genus–species definition for the reward of grace in the fields of Reformed literature, he would have a pearl of great price. Without any other definition to cite, I offer my own. The reward of grace is the wages of Jesus Christ, which is freely bestowed by God in election and which superabundantly replaces all that the children of God lose in this life as they follow after Christ.

Wages of Jesus Christ

First of all, the reward of grace is “the wages of Jesus Christ.” That the reward may be called “wages” is derived from the meanings of both שָׂכָר and µισθός. The King James Version translates these words as “wages” in some instances. For example, Exodus 2:9: “Pharoah’s daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages [שָׂכָר].” Also John 4:36: “He that reapeth receiveth wages (µισθός), and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.”

That the reward of grace is the wages of Jesus Christ means that the reward belongs to him. The reward is his reward. He says, “Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be” (Rev. 22:12). My reward. “Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him” (Isa. 40:10; cf. 62:11). His reward. That the reward of grace is Christ’s wages is also evident by what the lord speaks to his faithful servants in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. To each of them he says, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant…enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (vv. 21–23). The joy is the joy of the lord. Grammatically, the relationship of lord to joy is that of the subjective genitive.⁶ The joy of the lord is the joy that Christ experiences himself and subsequently shares with his servants.

Moreover, that the reward of grace is the wages of Jesus Christ means that Christ obtained this reward. He testifies in Psalm 18:20–24,

20. The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.

21. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God.

22. For all his judgments were before me, and I did not put away his statutes from me.

23. I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity.

24. Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.

Whose cleanness of hands and whose righteousness did Jehovah God recompense with a reward? Christ Jesus’. He worked, and for his work he was recompensed with the reward.

The work of Christ is summarized marvelously in Philippians 2:6–8:

6. Who [Christ Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The work of Jesus Christ was the wonder of his incarnation and humiliation and his lifelong obedience to God, which culminated in his death on the cross. By this work Christ fulfilled all righteousness, every jot and tittle of the law. By his work Christ conquered death and the grave by taking upon himself the curse due for sin. For his work Jesus Christ was rewarded by God.⁷

That Jesus Christ was able to obtain wages from God is due to his person. He is “one who is a true and sinless man” and “one who is at the same time true God.”⁸ A man cannot earn wages from God. Man is the servant of the Most High. A servant can only ever say when he has done all that is required of him that he is unprofitable and has done his duty (Luke 17:10). But Christ can earn wages from God because he is the Son of God who assumed human flesh in the unity of person. Because the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily, the worthiness and merit of what he accomplished is beyond measure.⁹

That the reward of grace is the wages of Jesus Christ implies that nothing more is needed above the work of Christ to receive the reward. Nothing more is needed, for the reward is freely bestowed by God in grace: “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9).

That the reward of grace is the wages of Jesus Christ implies that believers cannot work for this reward but can only receive it freely by faith. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt” (Rom. 4:4). Those who receive a reward have not worked for it, but Christ freely bestows it upon them. This is why the reward is often spoken of in terms of an inheritance. For example, 1 Peter 1:3–4:

3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4. To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.

“It is characteristic of an inheritance that it is free and freely bestowed.”¹⁰ This truth absolutely precludes all merit by the good works of men.

That the reward of grace is the wages of Jesus Christ is denied by the false church. The false church claims that the basis for the reward in some measure includes the righteousness and good works of the child of God. The false church teaches a reward of merit by the child of God, and the false church curses those who teach otherwise, just as the Council of Trent did:

If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,—if so be, however, that he depart [i.e., dies] in grace,—and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema.¹¹

Rome insisted that good works performed through grace and Christ’s merits must merit more reward. Rome imprecated anyone who taught otherwise.

As with essentially all of Rome’s doctrine, the reward of merit was well developed by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas recognized that the term reward implied merit since “a reward means something given anyone in return for work or toil, as a price for it.”¹² The issue with Aquinas is not that he saw merit in the term reward, but the issue is that he taught that man by his good works can merit with God above and beyond the meritorious work of Jesus Christ.

Aquinas described man’s future reward in terms of happiness.¹³ The basic principle regarding this reward was that happiness can be obtained by deeds of love.¹⁴ Did not the apostle write in John 13:17, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them”? Those who do good works are happy because those works dispose them to enjoy God. Those who do more good works are happier people because their wills are more rightly ordered toward God.¹⁵ When a child of God meets a merrier apostle Peter in heaven and asks why he is so happy, Peter responds, “Because I did more than you.”

Aquinas gave two reasons that good works can merit a reward. First, God ordained that good works should be worthy of a reward. By this ordinance God did not make himself a debtor to man but to himself.¹⁶ Second, God ascribes good works to man because of man’s free will. Man must move his own will and choose to do good. Since man must move his will, a good work becomes man’s act. Of course, God by his grace is the first cause of man’s act and the primary mover of man’s will, yet man must cooperate with grace by his free will. Thus man makes himself worthy of a reward, and God is obligated of himself to recompense man.¹⁷ In other words, man’s good works can merit above and beyond Christ’s merits because God obligated himself to reward man’s actions, which actions are God-wrought and God-worked activities of man that are not God’s acts.

A Reformed believer unconditionally rejects Aquinas’ doctrine of merit, and Rome’s anathema is nothing but the hiss of a cockroach to him. To teach that the righteousness of the believer increases the reward is to teach that Christ’s work was not enough. This doctrine undermines the perfect work of Jesus Christ. It undermines the sufficiency of his obedience and redemption through his blood. Anyone who teaches a reward by the merit of good works speaks like the serpent.

Instead, a Reformed believer approves of what the Heidelberg Catechism teaches: “This reward comes not of merit, but of grace.”¹⁸ The reward is of grace. What does “of grace” actually mean? This is not a stupid question. It is vital. As Martin Luther warned, we must absolutely distinguish between merit and grace. We must not “throw the two into the same pot, nor make merit out of what God gives…in Christ through Baptism and the Gospel.”¹⁹

Luther’s warning is made weighty in light of the “Reward of Grace” sermon. This sermon threw merit and grace into the same pot. On the one hand, the sermon spoke of grace. The word grace was spoken over fifty times. And the sermon said about the reward, “Every part of it from beginning to end is of grace.”²⁰ On the other hand, the sermon implicitly taught merit when the minister asserted, “Not are we rewarded according to perfect obedience but imperfect obedience…God is pleased to display his grace by rewarding imperfect good works.”²¹ The sermon contradicted the truth that God gives this reward on the basis of perfect obedience—the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ.

The matter of whether or not good works can merit the reward ought to be put to rest by the plain and simple testimony of Luke 17:10: “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” Here all claims to a reward based on the believer’s good works are rebuffed as radically as possible.

But I wish to belabor this point.

There is an excellent rebuttal of merit that is found in a rather unexpected source: the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT  ). When treating the word µισθός, the author explained how scripture rejects any notion that the reward is according to man’s achievement. I provide several of his outstanding arguments below.

First, there is Jesus’ parable in Matthew 20:1–16 about the laborers who enter a vineyard at different hours of the day to work. Some commentators have said that the main point of this parable is that there is a reward for all who enter the service of Christ’s kingdom, some from their early childhood and some in their last few years on earth.

22″>But this is not the main point. Rather, the main point of this parable stands in connection with the preceding chapter, where Christ responded to a question asked by Peter. Peter asked Jesus what he would receive for following Jesus: “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” (Matt. 19:27). Christ did not deny that Peter would have a reward, but Jesus did respond by saying, “Many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first” (v. 30). Christ also concluded the parable of the laborers with these same words, adding, “For many be called, but few chosen” (20:16). What Christ taught by this parable was that the reward is not according to man’s reckoning of things.²³

About this parable, the author in TDNT wrote,

Achievement and reward stand in a mutual relation which is incomprehensible to those who think in terms of a correct schema of merit and reward, and who thus regard God’s relation to man as that of a precisely calculated employer to his employees. The parable radically discards all thought of merit…So great is this love of God that those who think in correct human terms, and for whom God is simply King and Judge, cannot understand it, and are confused by the mystery of the glad tidings.²⁴

Those who worked the whole day and complained when they received their penny function as a foil in the parable. Those laborers only serve to emphasize the fact that man cannot understand the grace and gift of God. Or, in the words of the author, “Human righteousness simply cannot understand the divine generosity.”²⁵

Second, the author appealed to the fact that Christ promises the kingdom to children and to the poor. Who are children? They are “those who act in a way which is natural and uncalculating.”²⁶ Those who enter the kingdom do not spend their days scheming about how to get a position of honor. Who are the poor? They are “those in inner need…[and] those who are poor even inwardly in the struggle for the necessities of life.”²⁷ Poor people have nothing to offer in exchange for a reward.

Finally, the author appealed to God’s own being. God alone is good and the overflowing fountain of all good. “There is none good but one, that is, God” (Mark 10:18). And God alone is absolutely sovereign. “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (Isa. 45:7). On the basis of God’s own good and sovereign being, the author asserted that

because God is understood quite absolutely in the greatness of his being and the incomparability of His generous love, because He is in no way dependent on or conditioned by human action, the idea of merit is left behind and in no human action is there any place for counting on divine or human reward.²⁸

Why then, the same author asked, do Christ and the rest of scripture speak of a reward at all if no human achievement can gain it? I like this question. This question is reminiscent of the question that is asked in Lord’s Day 24: “But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?”²⁹ Such a question arises only when merit and the worthiness of man’s works are obliterated. Such a question proves that we are on the right track. The author suggested the following:

There can be no doubt that [Jesus] found the term (i.e., “reward”) in the world around Him, that He retained it, but that He did so only at the same time to transcend it. In fact, Jesus freed Himself radically from the Jewish concept of merit. He also rejected quite unconditionally any speculation concerning our reward with God or men.³⁰

Elsewhere the author also added that scripture uses the term reward in order to emphasize the moral relation that man has to God and the obedience that he owes to his king, excluding all merit, of course.³¹

Here I disagree with the author. Jesus did not merely adopt the term and transcend it. If Jesus were looking for a way to free himself from the concept of merit, he could have very well used the term inheritance or free gift. Nor am I convinced that the term reward stands merely to convey the moral obligation that man has before God.

Rather, the term reward conveys two important truths. First, this term emphasizes the perfect justice according to which the believer receives the reward of grace as the wages of Jesus Christ. What is this justice? Just as an employer is wicked when he withholds wages from the working man (James 5:1–4), so God would be wicked if he were to withhold the reward from his people in Christ. Christ earned every last bit of the reward. If they do not already now have this reward, then God must put Jesus Christ back in the grave. But Christ has earned it, and already now his people possess the reward by faith in God’s promise. Second, the term reward is a stumbling block for those who are proud and enamored of their works. Those who like what they do think that they can contribute to the earning of this reward. They stumble at the term and at the free gift that is in Jesus Christ.

Having established that the wages of Jesus Christ exclude all merit, we will turn next time to the wages themselves. What are the wages of Christ? What did Christ earn for himself and for his people?