John Calvin Commentary Galatians 3:17

"Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect." — Galatians 3:17 (ASV)

The law which was four hundred and thirty years after. If we listen to Origen and Jerome and all the Papists, there will be little difficulty in refuting this argument. Paul reasons in this way: “A promise was given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the publication of the law; therefore, the law which came later could not annul the promise; and from this, he concludes that ceremonies are not necessary.”

But it may be objected that the sacraments were given to preserve the faith, and why should Paul separate them from the promise? He does separate them and proceeds to argue the point. The ceremonies themselves are not as much his concern as something higher—namely, the effect of justification attributed to them by false apostles, and the obligation placed on the conscience. Accordingly, from ceremonies, he takes the opportunity to discuss the whole subject of faith and works. If the point in dispute had no connection with obtaining righteousness, with the merit of works, or with ensnaring the conscience, ceremonies would be quite consistent with the promise.

What, then, is meant by this annulling of the promise, against which the apostle contends? The impostors denied that salvation is freely promised to men and received by faith; and, as we shall soon see, they urged the necessity of works to merit salvation. I return to Paul’s own language. “The law,” he says, “is later than the promise, and therefore does not revoke it; for a covenant once sanctioned must remain perpetually binding.”

I repeat: if you do not understand that the promise is free, there will be no force in this statement. This is because the law and the promise are not in conflict except on this single point: the law justifies a man by the merit of works, while the promise bestows righteousness freely. This is made abundantly clear when he calls it a covenant founded on Christ.

But here the Papists will oppose us, for they will find a quick method of evading this argument. “We do not require,” they will say, “that the old ceremonies should any longer be binding; let them be set aside. Nevertheless, a man is justified by the moral law. For this law, which is as old as the creation of man, preceded God’s covenant with Abraham; so that Paul’s reasoning is either frivolous, or it applies only against ceremonies.”

I answer that Paul took into account what was certainly true: that apart from a covenant with God, no reward is due to works.

Granting, then, that the law justifies, yet before the law, men could not merit salvation by works, because there was no covenant. All that I am now affirming is granted by the scholastic theologians, for they maintain that works are meritorious of salvation, not by their intrinsic worth, but by God’s acceptance (to use their own phrase) and on the ground of a covenant.

Consequently, where neither a divine covenant nor a declaration of acceptance is found, no works will be available for justification—so Paul’s argument is perfectly conclusive. He tells us that God made two covenants with men: one through Abraham and another through Moses. The former, being founded on Christ, was free. Therefore, the law, which came later, could not enable men to obtain salvation otherwise than by grace, for then, “it would make the promise of none effect.” That this is the meaning appears clearly from what immediately follows.