Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2.pdf

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
a miracle, for he who had dominion over the sea and the fishes might have released himself from
earthly government. 578
Doth not your Master pay? Some think that the collectors of the tribute intended to throw blame
on Christ, as if he were claiming exemption from the common law. For my own part, as men of
that class are insolent and abusive, I interpret these words as having been spoken by way of reproach.
It was customary for every man to be enrolled in his own city; but we know that Christ had no fixed
habitation in one place. Those people therefore inquire if he be exempted from the law on the
ground of his frequent removals from place to place. 579
25. He saith, Yes. Peter’s reply contains a modest excuse 580 to satisfy them: “he will pay,” 581
says he; from which we infer that Christ had formerly been accustomed to pay, for Peter promises
it as a thing about which there was no doubt. That they address him rather than the other disciples
was, as I conjecture, because Christ lived with him; for if all had occupied the same habitation, the
demand would have been made on all alike. It is therefore very ridiculous in the Papists, on so
frivolous a pretense, to make Peter a partner in the dignity of Christ. “He chose him (they say) to
be his vicar, and bestowed on him equal honors, by making him equal to himself in the payment
of tribute.” But in this way they will make all swine-herds vicars of Christ, for they paid as much
as he did. And if the primacy of Peter was manifested in the paying of tribute, whence comes that
exemption which they claim for themselves? But this is the necessary result of the shameful trifling
of those who corrupt Scripture according to their own fancy.
What thinkest thou, Simon? In this Christ gave a proof of his Divinity, by showing that nothing
was unknown to him. But what is the object of his discourse? Is it to exempt himself and his
followers from subjection to the laws? Some explain it thus, that Christians have a right to be
exempted, but that they voluntarily subject themselves to the ordinary government, because otherwise
human society cannot be maintained. To me, however, the meaning appears to be more simple; for
there was danger lest the disciples might think that Christ had come in vain, because, by paying
tribute cut off the hope of deliverance; and therefore he simply affirms that he pays tribute, solely
because he voluntarily refrains from exercising his right and power. Hence it is inferred that this
takes nothing from his reign. But why does he not openly claim his right? It is because his kingly
power was unknown to the collectors of the tribute. For, though his kingdom be spiritual, still we
must maintain, that as he is the only Son of God, he is also the heir of the whole world, so that all
things ought to be subject to him, and to acknowledge his authority. The meaning, therefore, is,
that God has not appointed kings, and established governments over mankind, in such a manner as
578 “Pouvoit bien, s’il eust voulu, s’exempter de la suiection des princes terriens;” — “might easily, if he had chosen, have
exempted himself from subjection to earthly princes.”
579 “Si par ce moyen qu’il est maintenant ci, maintenant la, il faudra qu’il eschappe sans rien payer;” — “if, because he is
sometimes here, and sometimes there, he must escape without paying anything.”
580 “Une excuse bien modeste et honneste;” — “a very modest and civil excuse.”
581 “Oui, (dit-il,) il payera;” — “Yes, (says he,) he will pay.”
260
John Calvin