Words'nTone

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.

---

See previous posts below… 1 of 4, 2 of 4.

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

Chip, I just started reading this post and immediately thought of the time I told you that I don’t believe the government has the right to seize the homes of elderly people simply because they aren’t able to pay property taxes, and you seemed to think it was just fine to confiscate the homes of people who can’t afford to pay a tax for the “privilege” of living in their home. In fact, you accused me of “advocating for the wealthy,” even though I made it clear that I was talking about people like my ailing father (recently diagnosed with cancer) who is living on a fixed income. Isn’t this type of government theft a form of coveting? In fact, I believe I may have used the very Scripture verses in Micah that you used in your own post to point out that it is NOT justice to rob the elderly of their homes.

Just so you know, my 77-year-old father has taken in an 11-year-old orphan who was abused by her legal guardians, so it’s not as if he is some “fat cat” who is just out for himself (sorry, but based on your previous posts, I figured you’d assume that anyone who owns a home or any kind of property couldn’t care less about the unfortunate).

I’d be interested in your perspective of how “coveting” is related to government confication of private property.

Ah, I was wondering where you might have gone, Julie.  Now I haven’t made any conclusions yet (still waiting to writedown 4 of 4—soon I hope), but I wasn’t actually even thinking about “government” as the culprit of “acquiring” homes (really land and economic resources are a better application here), I was thinking more along the lines of zoning laws, the old fashion red-lining, mortgage policies, and other policies that move (and have moved) resources away from the city and out into the suburbs, as well as present suburban sprawl, et al.  As for your elderly who lose their homes because they can’t afford to be in them for any reason (you choose one--illness), I don’t recall saying the Government should take that person’s home; but in response to your comment-question here, I don’t know the circumstances, but if a person can’t afford to be in their home, there needs to be some solution.  I am sorry your relative couldn’t afford the property taxes.  I am sorry the end result for your family member was that she lost her home.  And on the last--it is great that your elderly grandfather would take in an orphaned children into his own.  Now why would I think just because someone owns a home would not care about the unfortunate?  And, of course if government confiscates private property, I’d say that is wrong, since you use the word “confiscate,” but also any policy or zoning law that “steals” a person’s privately own property (even eminent domain) as well might be “coveting.” But let’s wait till I finally finish this thread before we cast too many stones at me… I am slow right now because of work (my regular 9 to 5) and doing research on a paper on the topic of “Idolatry and Poverty.” But it was nice to hear from you.

Sorry for the premature stone casting, Chip--my bad! It looks like we are on the same page after all, because I also have a major problem with zoning laws as well as the whole concept of eminent domain. I supposed it’s possible that I misunderstood your response to my comments about government seizing people’s homes; it’s been a while since we’ve discussed this issue. In any case, I am glad that we can agree on both of these issues.

I’ve actually commented on quite a few of your posts in recent months, but I did so through the C&MA e-community forum and not over here (I totally forgot that I could come to this site to comment).

I realize I didn’t make this clear, but my dad didn’t actually lose his home; I was using him as an example of the kind of person (someone living on a fixed income) who is at risk for such a thing happening; unfortunately, it happens all too frequently. Interestingly, when my dad owned his previous home, he was told that he couldn’t build on part of the property because it suddenly had become designated as a “wet land,” well after he purchased it. I think environmental laws that are used to seize people’s homes also come under the issue of coveting.

Thanks for your gracious reply and for clarifying our perspective on these issues.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.