John Calvin Commentary Galatians 2:21

"I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought." — Galatians 2:21 (ASV)

I do not reject. There is great emphasis in this expression; for how dreadful is the ingratitude manifested in despising the grace of God, so invaluable in itself and obtained at such a price! Yet this heinous offense is charged against the false apostles, who were not satisfied with having Christ alone but introduced some other aids toward obtaining salvation. For, if we do not renounce all other hopes and embrace Christ alone, we reject the grace of God. And what resource is left to the man who puts from him the grace of God, and judges himself unworthy of everlasting life? (Acts 13:46)

Christ is dead in vain. There would then have been no value in the death of Christ; or, Christ would have died without any reward; for the reward of his death is that he has reconciled us to the Father by making an atonement for our sins. Hence it follows that we are justified by his grace and, therefore, not by works.

The Papists explain this in reference to the ceremonial law; but who does not see that it applies to the whole law? If we could produce a righteousness of our own, then Christ has suffered in vain; for the intention of his sufferings was to procure it for us, and what need was there that a work we could accomplish for ourselves should be obtained from another?

If the death of Christ is our redemption, then we were captives; if it is satisfaction, we were debtors; if it is atonement, we were guilty; if it is cleansing, we were unclean. On the contrary, he who ascribes to works his sanctification, pardon, atonement, righteousness, or deliverance, makes void the death of Christ.

This argument, we might perhaps be told, carries no weight against those who propose to unite the grace of Christ with works, a practice which, it is universally admitted, was practiced by the false apostles. The two doctrines, it is alleged, stand together: that righteousness is by the law, and that we are redeemed by the death of Christ. True; supposing it were granted that a part of our righteousness is obtained by works and a part comes from grace.

But such theology, it may easily be proved, was unknown to Paul. His argument with his opponents is either conclusive or inconclusive. If any blasphemer shall dare to accuse him of bad reasoning, a powerful defense is at hand; for that justification in the sight of God which he discusses is not what men may imagine to be sufficient, but what is absolutely perfect.

But we are not now called to plead on behalf of Paul against blasphemers who venture to speak reproachfully of the Holy Spirit himself. Our present business is with the Papists. They ridicule us, when we argue with Paul that, if righteousness comes by works, Christ is dead in vain.

They imagine it to be a beautiful reply, one supplied by their sophists, that Christ merited for us the first grace, that is, the opportunity of meriting; and that the merit of his death concurs with the satisfactions of works for the daily pardon of sins. Let them ridicule Paul, whose language we quote. They must refute him before they can refute us. We know that he had to deal with men who did not entirely reject the grace of Christ but ascribed half of salvation to works. In opposition to them he argues that if righteousness is by the law, then Christ is dead in vain; and by so doing, he certainly does not grant to works one drop of righteousness. Between those men and the Papists there is no difference; and therefore, in refuting them, we are at liberty to employ Paul’s argument.