John Calvin Commentary Galatians 2:15

"We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles," — Galatians 2:15 (ASV)

We who are Jews by nature. Some, I am aware, think that this is stated in the form of an objection (ἀνθυποφορὰ), anticipating what might be urged on the other side: that the Jews possessed higher privileges; not that they would boast of exemption from the law (for it would have been highly absurd that those to whom the Law was given should make this their boast), but that there was a propriety in retaining some points of distinction between them and the Gentiles. I do not entirely reject this view, and yet, as will afterwards appear, I do not altogether adopt it. Others, again, consider that it is Paul himself who uses this argument: “If you were to lay upon the Jews the burden of the law, it would be more reasonable, because it is theirs by inheritance.” But I do not approve of this view either.

He is now proceeding to the second part of his speech, which begins with an anticipation. The Gentiles differed from them in this respect: that they were “unholy and profane” (1 Timothy 1:9); while the Jews, being holy, insofar as God had chosen them for His people, might contend for this superiority.

Skillfully anticipating the objection, Paul turns it to the opposite conclusion. Since the Jews themselves, with all their advantages, were forced to turn to the faith of Christ, how much more necessary was it that the Gentiles should look for salvation through faith? Paul’s meaning therefore is: “We, who appear to excel others—we, who, by means of the covenant, have always enjoyed the privilege of being nigh to God (Deuteronomy 4:7)—have found no method of obtaining salvation but by believing in Christ. Why, then, should we prescribe another method to the Gentiles?

For, if the law were necessary or advantageous for salvation to those who observed its enactments, it must have been most of all advantageous to us to whom it was given. But if we relinquished it and turned to Christ, much less ought compliance with it to be urged upon the Gentiles.”

The word sinner signifies here, as in many other places, a “profane person” (Hebrews 12:16), or one who is lost and alienated from God. Such were the Gentiles, who had no intercourse with God; while the Jews were, by adoption, the children of God and therefore set apart to holiness. By nature does not mean that they were naturally free from the corruption of the human race; for David, who was a descendant of Abraham, acknowledges:

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalms 51:5),

but the corruption of nature, to which they were liable, had been met by the remedy of sanctifying grace. Now, as the promise made the blessing hereditary, this benefit is called natural, just as, in the Epistle to the Romans, he says that they were sprung from a “holy root” (Romans 11:16).

When he says, we are Jews by nature, his meaning is, “We are born holy—not certainly by our own merit, but because God has chosen us to be His people.”

Well, then, we who were by nature Jews, what have we done? “We have believed in Jesus Christ.” What was the design of our believing? “That we might be justified by the faith of Christ.” For what reason? Because we “know that a man is not justified by the works of the law.” From the nature and effect of faith, he reasons that the Jews are in no degree justified by the law. For, as those who

“go about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God” (Romans 10:3),

so, on the contrary, those who believe in Christ confess that they are sinners and renounce justification by works. This involves the main question; or rather, in this single proposition, nearly the whole controversy is embodied. It is the more necessary to bestow some care on the examination of this passage.

The first thing to be noticed is that we must seek justification by the faith of Christ because we cannot be justified by works. Now, the question is, what is meant by the works of the law? The Papists, misled by Origen and Jerome, are of the opinion, and lay it down as certain, that the dispute relates to shadows; and accordingly, they assert that by “the works of the law” are meant ceremonies.

It is as if Paul were not reasoning about the free justification that is bestowed on us by Christ. For they see no absurdity in maintaining that “no man is justified by the works of the law,” and yet that, by the merit of works, we are accounted righteous in the sight of God.

In short, they hold that no mention is made here of the works of the moral law. But the context clearly proves that the moral law is also included in these words, for almost everything that Paul afterwards advances belongs more properly to the moral than to the ceremonial law. He is continually employed in contrasting the righteousness of the law with the free acceptance that God is pleased to bestow.

It is objected by our opponents that the term “works” must have been employed without any addition if Paul had not intended to limit it to a particular class. But I reply, there is the best of all reasons for this mode of expression; for, though a man were to excel all the angels in holiness, no reward is due to works except on the basis of a Divine promise.

Perfect obedience to the law is righteousness and has a promise of eternal life attached to it; but it derives this character from God, who declares that “they who have fulfilled them shall live” (Leviticus 18:5). On this point, we shall afterwards treat more fully in its own place. Besides, the controversy with the Jews was about the law.

Paul, therefore, preferred to bring the matter to an issue by meeting them at once on their own ground, rather than to adopt a more circuitous route, which might appear as evading the subject or distrusting his cause. Accordingly, he resolves to have a close debate about the law.

Their second objection is that the whole question raised was about ceremonies, which we readily allow. “Why then,” say they, “would the apostle pass suddenly from a particular department to the whole subject?” This was the sole cause of the mistake into which Origen and Jerome were led, for they did not think it natural that, while the false apostles were contending about ceremonies alone, Paul should address a broader scope.

But they did not consider that the very reason for disputing so keenly was that the doctrine led to more serious consequences than initially appeared. It would not have given Paul so much uneasiness that ceremonies should be observed, as that the confident hope and the glory of salvation should be made to rest on works. This is just as, in the dispute about forbidding meat on certain days, we do not look so much to the importance of the prohibition itself as to the snare that is laid for the consciences of men.

Paul, therefore, does not wander from the subject when he enters into a controversy about the whole law, although the arguments of the false apostles were confined entirely to ceremonies. Their object in pressing ceremonies was that men might seek salvation by obedience to the law, which, they falsely maintained, was meritorious; and accordingly, Paul meets them not with the moral law, but with the grace of Christ alone.

And yet this extended discussion does not occupy the whole of the Epistle; he eventually comes to the specific question of ceremonies. But as the most serious difficulty was whether justification is to be obtained by works or by faith, it was proper that this should be first settled. As the Papists of the present day are uneasy when we extort from them the acknowledgment that men are justified by faith alone, they reluctantly admit that “the works of the law” include those of a moral nature. Many of them, however, by quoting Jerome’s gloss, imagine that they have made a good defense; but the context will show that the words relate also to the moral law.