John Calvin Commentary John 15:22

"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin." — John 15:22 (ASV)

If I had not come. He had said that the Jews regarded the Gospel with hatred because they did not know God. So that no one should think that this tended to alleviate their guilt, he adds that it is through malice that they are blind, just as if one were to shut his eyes so that he might not be compelled to see the light.

For otherwise, it might have been brought as an objection against Christ. “If they do not know your Father, how is it that you do not cure their ignorance? Why did you not at least test whether they were altogether incapable of being taught?” He replies that he has performed the duty of a good and faithful Teacher, but without success, because their malice would not allow them to acquire soundness of mind.

Through those men, he intended to strike terror into all who reject the truth of God when it is offered to them, or intentionally fight against it when it is known. And though a dreadful vengeance awaits them, still Christ, in this passage, looks chiefly to his own disciples, to animate them by the confident and well-grounded expectation of victory, so that they would not yield at any time to the malice of wicked men. For when we learn that such will be the outcome, we may already triumph, as if we were in the midst of the battle.

They would not have sin. It may be thought that Christ intended by these words to say that there is no other sin but unbelief, and some think so. Augustine speaks more soberly, but he approaches that opinion. For, since faith forgives and blots out all sins, he says that the only sin that damns a man is unbelief.

This is true, for unbelief not only hinders men from being delivered from the condemnation of death but is also the source and cause of all evils. However, that entire line of reasoning is inapplicable to the present passage. The word sin is not taken in a general sense here but is related to the subject now under consideration.

It is as if Christ had said that their ignorance is utterly inexcusable because, in his person, they maliciously rejected God. This is just as if we were to pronounce a person innocent, just, and pure when we merely wished to acquit him of a single crime of which he had been accused. Christ’s acquittal of them, therefore, is confined to one kind of sin, because it takes away from the Jews every pretense of ignorance in this sin of despising and hating the Gospel.

But there is still another question that arises: “Was not unbelief sufficient to condemn men before the coming of Christ?” There are fanatics who reason inconclusively from this passage that all who died before the coming of Christ died without faith and remained in a state of doubt and suspense until Christ manifested himself to them. This is as if there were not many passages of Scripture which testify that their conscience alone was sufficient to condemn them. Death, says Paul, reigned in the world even to Moses (Romans 5:14). And again he declares that

they who have sinned without law shall perish without law
(Romans 2:12).

What, then, does Christ mean? There is undoubtedly an admission made in these words, by which he means that the Jews have nothing more to offer to lessen their guilt, since they knowingly and willfully rejected the life that was offered to them. Thus, the excuse which he makes for them does not free them from all blame but only lessens the severity of their crime, according to that saying: The servant, who knoweth the will of his master, and despiseth it, shall be severely punished? For it was not the intention of Christ here to promise pardon to anyone, but to hold his enemies convicted, who had obstinately rejected the grace of God, so that it might be fully evident that they were unworthy of all pardon and mercy.

If I had not come and SPOKEN TO THEM. It ought to be observed that he does not speak of his coming as viewed by itself, but as connected with his doctrine. For they would not have been held guilty of so great a crime on account of his bodily presence alone; it was the contempt of the doctrine that made them utterly inexcusable.