Words'nTone

Ask people what they mean by religion and they usually mention God, rules for moral behavior, and whatever happens in their churches, synagogues, or temples.  But behind those beliefs, codes, and forms of worship lie the rituals and values they live by at home: the holiday things that absolutely have to be done; the kinds of success for which no sacrifice or effort would be too much; the sports events that connect with the whole struggle of life; the songs that stand for transcendent love, sadness, and joy; the television shows that express exactly how life is, or should be; the foods and drinks that can yield the last happiness of old age.  This is the realm of domistic religion” ~ Peter Gardella in Domestic Religion: Work, Food, Sex, and Other Commitments, p. 1

There are positive and negative “coveting.” As Genesis 2:9 points out, God caused “every tree that is pleasing [that’s the word for coveting]” to grow, both pleasing “to the sight and good for food.” So, it seems that positive coveting in life is related to enjoyment (aesthetics) and sustenance.  But, it is when we turn that coveting into desiring what is available to others for enjoyment and sustenance (i.e., coveting a neighbor’s house and wife, per se, Ex 20:17) and taking it or deny it, this then brushes up against the 10th Word in the Decalogue: “Thou shall not covet.”

Micah charges Israel with the breaking of this command:

They covet fields and then seize them,
    And houses, and take them away
    They rob a man and his house,
    A man and his inheritance (Mic 2:2).

Now of course, as mentioned before, coveting itself is hard to “judge.” It is one of those commandments you know has been broken when another commandment is realized as broken (i.e, stealing, adultery).  So, with Micah the evidence that the 10th commandment has been broken is the result of multiplying land and houses in such a way as to “rob” others of what they were to enjoy and find the ability to provide their sustenance.

Coveting isn’t just the acquisition of “things,” but is the actual stealing from others—and in particular stealing those “things” that they are to enjoy and to find sustenance.  We usually think of coveting as that which we want because someone else has it—a house, a wife, money, things.  But it seems the biblical idea of coveting is the acquisition of things that rob people and families of their ability to provide economically in order to sustain themselves (sufficient for their means).  This is reinforced in the original word, the 10th commandment.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex 20:17; cf. Dt 5:21).

“House” has the connotation of a “household,” which was probably meant to point to a wider-than-immediate-family, even suggesting the inheritance-land given to the “family.” This is probably what Micah (2:2 above) is referring to, as well as Isaiah before he pronounces judgment against Israel’s idolatry in chapter 6:

Woe to those who add house to house
        and join field to field,
    Until there is no more room,
    So that you have to live alone
        in the midst of the land!
             (Isa 5:8; cf. Jer 22:13-17; Hab 1:9-12; Amos 8:4)

Most of the list in Exodus 20:17 almost certainly points to “things” that are related to one’s ability or a family’s ability to maintain some form of economic stability: house, male servant or his female servant, ox, donkey.  The command against “coveting” is not simply wanting or desiring “a thing” someone else has, but coveting the things that would diminish a neighbor’s ability to maintain enjoyment in life and economic sustenance.

In the next post, I will finalize and summarize and make some…difficult application…

While we’re at it—talking about idolatry and the poor—I take a slight side route and pause in my mini-series of posts on idolatry and coveting to say…

If you’re planning on doing the “Cash for Clunkers” deal and get your $4,500 for trading in your used car for a new one—think twice if you have a concern for the poor. I heard and then did a little study that with all the cars being turned in for the “Cash for Clunkers” program, the price of used vehicles are rising. This hurts the poor directly I thought. I couldn’t be the only one who put these two things together, so I began to browse—and I am not the only one. Hundreds of websites and blogs are making comments and postings that “Cash for Clunkers” hurts the poor. You see, since they—the program goal—is to take the older vehicle off the road, this reduces the number of older cars—i.e., used cars—available in the market, which causes the cost of the used vehicles to rise. It is the pool (i.e., market) of used cars that poorer folks and families rely on for their car-purchase, because its affordable (well, it used to be). (Teens looking for their first car will be hurt too!) I betcha that no one in the current administration or congress even thought about this; it is like raising the taxes on the poor, which it actually does. And if you consider insurance, the cost, too, is higher because of the higher cost to the used vehicle, which hurts the poor as well.  This is a clear display that even those who claim through their impassioned speech and rhetoric that we need to have concern for the poor and shift (redistribute) resources to the poor don’t really care about the poor and how their so-called good-will legislation actually impacts the poor negatively. As one person said, “Progressive policy isn’t always good for the poor.” Like corn-for-cars, which leaves long lines for food in third-world societies, cash for clunkers hurts the poor. Where is the outcry from Jim Wallis and his kind? Nowhere to be heard! Where are the community organizers to boycott and speak on behalf of the poor and against cash for clunkers? Not one bit of action on their part! Since this was a liberal idea, a progressive idea, these groups will be silent—which actually shows everyone where their heart is at. It is power they want--not to actually help the poor. Cash for clunkers hurts the poor—boycott the program if you care about the poor.

“Many evangelical leaders give the appearance of going into battle to maintain a certain morality or a certain standard of living and way of life—even a Kinkadian-like utopian vision of upward mobility and homogeneity…Instead of pointing the finger at the secularists and materialists, we evangelicals need to point it more at ourselves. Jesus did not die to save us from liberals. He died to save us from ourselves.” ~Paul Louis Metzger in Consuming Jesus, pp 33-34

Recalling the commandment, “You shall not covet” …

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17).

Survey: Linked to Idolatry
Moving through texts that refer to “coveting” we note a number of references related to or within the context of clearly articulated idolatry.  In Deuteronomy 5, the command is repeated to the new generation of Israelites who stand on the far side of the Jordon, ready to cross and received the promises of the land.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:21).

As Moses recaps the first exodus and reminds them of the meaning of their journey and of the ten-foundational-Words (Exodus 20), he quickly and clearly links the prohibition against idolatry:

“The graven images of their gods you are to burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, or you will be snared by it, for it is an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 7:25).

Israel was not to adopt the idolatrous ways of the non-Israelite nations living in and around the land of promise.  God’s land management (religious and socio-economic) would be in conflict with the ways of those living in the land; Israel was not to adopt such land management structures and policies.  The idols of the land were the means by which the current land-managers ruled, managed, and controlled the people of the land.  Israel was not to imitate those ways whatsoever.

Later in Israel’s history, when God had had enough of Israel’s idolatrous behavior, we find that coveting is linked to idolatry.  In Isaiah 1-6 we have a large context of judgments against Israel for their idolatry.  Through the prophet Isaiah God points out that eventually—as a result of judgment (i.e., Isaiah 6), Israel will be put to shame for their idolatry:

Surely you will be ashamed of the oaks which
  you have desired [i.e., coveted),
      And you will be embarrassed at the gardens
        which you have chosen (Isaiah 1:29).

And later in the second half of Isaiah, where God promises restoration from judgment captivity, God contrasts His ways over against the idolatrous ways of the nations:

Those who fashion a graven image are all of them futile, and their precious things [i.e., coveted things] are of no profit; even their own witnesses fail to see or know, so that they will be put to shame. (Isaiah 44:9).

The very few times the actual word “covet” is utilized outside of Exodus-Deuteronomy links coveting and idolatry together.  This ties coveting to the material of silver and gold, first related to Idols themselves and second to the material riches and consumption of human beings.  Back in Deuteronomy we heard (above) that silver and gold fashioned to the idols were not to be coveted (Deut 7:25).  Further back, we heard that Israel was not to fashion any “gods of silver or gods of gold” (Ex 20:23).  The Psalmist in one of the clearest passages on God vs. the idols of man we read that “their idols are silver and gold, the work of man’s hands” (Ps 115:4).  And again, in Psalm 135 we are told that “The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, the work of man’s hands” (v 15).

Idols and silver and gold are linked together in numerous passages, tying the concepts of idols and material riches together (Isa 2:7, 20; 13:17; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19; 46:6; Hos 2:8; 8:4; Hab 2:19; 1:18; Zech 6:11; cf. Isa 39:2; 60:9; Jer 10:4, 9; Ezek 7:19; 16:13, 17; 28:4; Zech 9:3; and note Acts 20:33).

I am an idolater. 

Now with that confession out in the open, let me offer some insight on where appropriate repentance and restitution can take place.

The bookends of the ten-commandments, which I prefer to call the ten-words (Exodus 20:1ff), are more parallel than most see at first glance, or most would admit to: Idolatry and covetousness are similar, if not analogous in nature and reference.

“You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:3-4).

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17).

Although verse 3 and 4 are often seen as separate commandments, I have grouped them together and consider them as one for the purpose of this discussion.  The follow-up command ties them together: You shall not worship them or serve them (Exodus 20:5a).

Although much of the laws, stipulations, and codes found in the covenant documents of Israel, namely Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are similar to other Ancient Near Eastern religions and governing bodies (Empires, tribes, etc.), sometimes it is the subtle differences and simple nuances that provide insight into God’s ways in this world.  What is before us here in the ten-words is this final command not to covet.  Strange…very difficult to judge…well at least at first glance, at first read.  It is difficult to make a judgment on the obedience of a command which seems, at first glance, to be a matter of the heart, an internal emotion or inclination.

Over the next few posts, I’d like to take a look at this command, “Thou shall not covet,” and observe its relationship to the commands against idolatry.  And, thus expose why I have to admit I am an idolater—as is, really, everyone else, which means you, my good reader, as well.  I will survey the use of the term “covet” and see how it is applied in the Old Testament and in New Testament.

Survey: First the foundation
We continue to view the Genesis account as foundational, even though it is written contemporaneously with other Pentateuchal material.  As the Genesis creation account and the call of Abraham sets up the foundation and setting for the exodus, so we rely on the account to inform us regarding the nature of the command “Thou shall not covet.” The first time the word for covet is utilized, it is positive and found in the creation account:

“Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing [תַחְמֹד, chamad] to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:9).

The word translated “pleasing” is the word for “covet.” Here we can see that the word “pleasing” sets the idea of covet within the realm of sight and desire, and in this case practical (i.e., “good for food”).  But it doesn’t take long before “pleasing” turns to covetousness, for we soon read:

“When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6).

Here we see that what was pleasing in creation became covetous when restriction accompanies independence and self-sufficiency.  For we read in the Genesis creation account that one particular tree was set aside as untouchable, that is, “the tree of life” (Gen 2:9b).  God sets a limit on which trees Adam and Eve may eat of and which tree (singular) they cannot.  Although the restriction is there for many reasons, one in particular implies that God’s management of the land (i.e, in this case “the garden”) had regulations that set limits and boundaries.  Freedom isn’t the absence of law; but understanding one’s place in creation.

The whole realm of creation was “pleasing” to Adam and Eve; however the boundary set by God was not to be crossed.  The law (that one law to not eat of the tree of life) reinforced the separation between God and His creation—more to the point that Adam and Eve, and eventually all of humankind, are not God.  Nonetheless, the law came in which provoked coveting (Romans 7), that is the one thing God restricted now becomes the center of focus, the ultimate “pleasing” which leads to sin.  Many have noted that the desire to make oneself wise is, indeed idolatry, namely claiming what does not belong to oneself and exchanging the Word of God for self-actualization—exchanging God’s knowledge for one’s own knowledge.

Did you know: there are twice as many Malls in American than there are High Schools?

I have a confession to make: I actually like Malls.

Yes, of course for the One Stop Shopping convenience, but so many others as well, especially, I like the Mall because of its entertainment value: people-watching. But, when I run into a statistic like this—more Malls than High Schools—I become troubled and on the verge of repentance. My mind wanders to 1 John 2:15 and I update the verse in my mind:

Do not love the mall, nor the things in the mall. If anyone loves the mall, the love of the Father is not in him.

Now, the real verse you all know: “Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” So, please, my rewording isn’t even a paraphrase, just a musing on a troubling sociological phenomenon. It is incredible that it is even possible that there are more Malls than High Schools. Here’s where my thoughts continue to wander: both have economic value, both have an instructional factor built-in, both create habits of mind and heart, both are an investment in the community. But I don’t like the implications that the trends and emphasis our culture is giving to Malls over High Schools. Malls are a reflection of our cultural values—and although I enjoy my Mall experiences—I also recognize that not all of the reflection is a good one. One twist or turn in the social fabric of a community, one bad bear market (like the one we’re in), another terrorist attack (heaven forbid on a Mall) can empty a Mall and bring its economic value to a halt. After such, I am sure we’d had wished with committed more in schools than Malls. High Schools are also a reflection of our future cultural values. Each one needs an investment of our capital for not only are High Schools important for the education and social experience of our teens, but they are the places where much of our future workforce is developed. We’d better be wise now, or there might not be future adults with the spending power to buy the goods of the Mall, nor future workers to work (well) at the Mall, nor future entrepreneurs to start businesses at the Mall.

The previous posts on Vain Spirituality and Justice might leave the impression that I am against capitalism.  Well, don’t misunderstand me.  I am not against capitalism; what I am for is making sure everyone in a capitalistic, upperly mobile society has access to the benefits of its resources and that everyone is given or has the means to make oneself and family self-sufficient.  As a Christian who takes the Bible seriously, I don’t care what type of socio-economic system we live under—whether it be socialism, communism, aristocracy, oligarchy, tribal, or monarchy.  Every socio-economic system has its weaknesses, inclinations, outcomes and unintended consequences.  Economic systems that utilize a central planning model, whether it be forms of communism, fascism, or socialism, have been and continue to be disastrous, most notably in the darkest corners of our planet.  Capitalism, on the other hand, although definitely a prosperous economic system, breeds a strange acceptance of greed and consumerism that is proving unhealthy, and equally dangerous to culture.

And we should note, every system still has winners and losers—and I believe it is the Christian community who should act as a prophetic voice in whatever system to ensure that the losers, that is those who do not have access to power are spoken for and given a voice in order to have access to what is necessary to enjoy the benefits of the land and ameliorate both personal poverty and the causes of poverty.  It seems foolish and shortsighted to me that much of the Christian (and mostly evangelical) community is so aligned with the present system of capitalism that we confuse it with the Kingdom of God.  We preach against individualism and then defend a system built on the premise of individualism; we scorn commercialism and its damage to our culture and churches and then defend the very system that promotes it.  We want it both ways.  But we cannot have it both ways.

I am not against capitalism, but I am for the Christian community to live in such a way that all of Scripture is taken seriously, not that which protects our place and status in this upward mobile socio-economic system and not that which puts at risk the economically poor (right here in America) that do not have access to power and the means to provide what is necessary for self-sufficiency.  Don’t get me wrong—I find that the capitalistic system is best to ensure expanded economic growth; but it does have its weaknesses and such prosperity blinds the Christian community to its responsibility toward the poor, which is both private as well as public.

We come to the end of this short and brief commentary (really just an observation) on Zechariah 7.  There is an obvious juxtaposition of idolatry and the poor in this text, as well as the issue of vain or superficial worship.

The prosperity of their city

The prophet reaches back to a more prosperous time in Israel’s history to remind them of when they had the opportunity to listen and hear the word of the LORD:

“Are not these the words which the LORD proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous along with its cities around it, and the Negev and the foothills were inhabited?” (Zech 7:7).

When we think of prosperity we, as Americans, have a habit of mind to think wealth, wealth creation, two-cars and a nice house, and plenty of play-things.  We attach the concept of prosperity to capitalism and upward mobility.  However, in biblical terms prosperity has more the range of national security and peace, safety from one’s neighbors, health, and everyone has the means for self-sufficiency.  We read in Zechariah 3 of a day when everyone will experience this prosperity, this peace:

“‘In that day,’ declares the LORD of hosts, ‘every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree’” (v 10).

This concept of each neighbor sitting under “his vine and under his fig tree” is related to, not wealth creation, but security, enjoyment of life in safety, and that everyone has the means for self-sufficiency.  Examples from the Old Testament point in this direction:

So Judah and Israel lived in safety, every man under his vine and his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon (I Kings 4:25; cf. Isaiah 36:16).

Each of them will sit under his vine
   And under his fig tree,
   With no one to make them afraid,
   For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken (Micah 4:4).

We think bigger and better, richer and wealthier when we think of prosperity; but, Israel thought security and peace and stability and self-sufficiency.  But like Israel, when things are good, we tend not to listen.  The God called them in their prosperity to “dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother” for it must be all their neighbors, their brothers who participate and have access to this prosperity.  But yet, during this time of prosperity that neglected the widow, the orphan, the stranger/foreigner, and all the economically vulnerable (i.e., the poor, v 10).  The people devised evil in their hearts against one another (v 10) and “they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing” (v 11), making “their hearts like flint” (v 12).  Their concept of wealth and prosperity had turned from security and peace and self-sufficiency to wealth creation and gold and silver which is idolatry (cf. Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 5:5).

The problem with prosperity is that it makes us deaf and redefines what it means to be biblically prosperous.  No wonder idolatry and the issue of poverty is juxtaposed in Scripture.  Unless everyone is experiencing such security, safety, and has access to the means for self-sufficiency biblical prosperity does not exist.  We are an idolatrous people when (1) we redefine or skew the definition of prosperity, turning it from peace and safety for all to wealth and riches, bigger and better for some and/or (2) when we have not provided the means for everyone, even the economically vulnerable, to participate and have access in prosperity.  The worship we offer or the spirituality we display, then, is vain no matter how it looks, no matter how grand or emotional, no matter how pious we present ourselves.