This is one of the more well-known stories in the New Testament, and it is closely followed by the other two Synoptic writers (see Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:19-26). But there is one simple but telling point that was brought up this week by a pastor I heard last week. You can be pardoned for not seeing it since the English translations do not always do full justice to the meaning of the original Greek wording.
There are two key verbs employed in this passage, one by Jesus' questioners in verses 14-15 and another one in His reply in verse 17. Here is how they are rendered in various versions:
The questioners say: Jesus says:
give render KJV
pay render NASB, RSV
pay pay NEB, TEV
pay give NRSV, The Message, Living Bible, JB Philips
pay give back NIV, JB, AB
So what do the word experts have to say regarding the meaning of the two respective words employed in this passage? All of them begin by stating that the opponents of Christ use the word didomi, which is an extremely common word in the New Testament (occurring some 416 times) having the general meaning of “give” in all its nuances. Thus, Vorlander says it may refer to presenting, giving, bestowing, granting, etc. In most of these usages, thus, one gets the idea of something voluntarily bestowed on another.
By contrast, Jesus replies by using a less common derivative of this word, namely, apodidomi, which has a more restricted meaning.
Vine says that it signifies “to give up or back, to restore, return, render what is due, etc.”
Bottger defines it as “to give back, to pay what has been agreed on, to fulfill an agreed obligation, to pay a debt, return, repay.” In general, “The group associated with apodidomi conveys the idea of recompense.”
So, as Swift states, “The whole principle laid down turns on the change of wording from pay (v. 15) to render (v. 17).”
With that linguistic background in mind, here is how several scholarly commentators deal with this passage:
Plummer states that “it was not a question of giving what might lawfully be refused, but of paying what was lawfully claimed. The tribute was not a gift but a debt. Caesar gave them the inestimable benefit of stable government; were they to take it and decline to pay anything towards it maintenance?”
Langley says that “although conceding Caesar his due (like any other person entitled to the return of his property whether acquired justly or not), Jesus is saying that the second statement takes precedence over the first – everything belongs to God, he must be at the center of our concern.”
Grassmick explains that “to use Caesar's coinage was to acknowledge, his authority and the benefits of the civil government it represented and consequently the obligation to pay taxes...This tax was a debt they owed to Caesar for use of his money and the other benefits of his rule. Jesus had made his point but significantly he added, and give back to God what is God's...This could refer to 'paying' God the temple tax due Him (cf. Matt. 17:24-27), but Jesus probably meant it as a protest against the emperor's claim to deity. Indeed the emperor must receive his due, but not more than that, he must not receive the divine honor and worship he claimed.”
“Did he imply that the use of Caesar's coinage was a tacit acknowledgment of Caesar's sovereignty? Perhaps he did...Jesus did not necessarily share this attitude – money of any kind was held in little enough regard by him – but there may have been an implication in his words that the Pharisees among his questioners might have appreciated: such coins were unfit for use by people who were so scrupulous about keeping the law of God, and should go back where they came from. Caesar's coins were best used for paying Caesar's tribute. If that was what Caesar wanted, let him have it.” (Bruce)
I find it interesting that one of Jesus' questioners happened to have such a coin in his possession.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments