Our pastor recently gave a series of sermons on covetousness, and he made the interesting observation that its opposite was gratitude. Similarly, Harrison says, “Negatively it precludes unlawful desire for others' possessions; positively it inculcates contentment and faith (Heb. 13:5-6).” This opened up a series of questions in my mind such as:
What is the definition of coveting?
Is it just an attitude or does it include action as well?
What is the relationship between the tenth commandment and the other nine?
The problem in trying to summarize the situation is that all three of the above questions are intertwined. But let me start with a few comments by others geared toward mainly addressing the last question. It is interesting to see the range of opinions among scholars on the subject.
Craigie: “...it is an effective summary of the spirit of commandments 6-9.”
J.W. Marshall: “Covetous thoughts motivate and inspire, frequently producing action that will violate one of the previous nine commandments.”
H.R. Jones: “This [tenth commandment] lies at the root of the five commandments that precede.”
Kaiser: “Desire, then in and of itself, can be sinful for it makes us liable to move from a first step involving actions of the heart to those acts prohibited in the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments.”
Ellul states that commandments 2-9 are “rooted in covetousness.”
Harman: “It may well be that this final commandment is a summarizing one, pointing to the fact that desire is the root of all other sins, as all coveting comes from the heart (Prov. 6:35).”
Durham: The final commandment is “by choice a reference to an obsessive covetousness that could be the gateway to the violation of every other principle in the Decalogue.”
Thus, depending upon whom you listen to, the following combinations of the other commandments are felt to be violated or led to by the final one: 1-9, 2-9, 5-9, 6-9, or 6-8.
But does action necessarily have to follow in order for the tenth commandment itself to be violated? Here again there are differing opinions:
Harman says, “The final word [i.e. command] is different from the others in that it is directed against inward motives rather than outward actions.” Craigie agrees: “It is likely that this tenth and final commandment should be interpreted simply as a probition (sic) of desire or coveting, without there being any suggestion of an act.”
However, Kaiser states, “In spite of the fact that most interpreters find in this tenth commandment a reference to an offense of the mind and impulses of the heart, a significant number of scholars have recently challenged that conclusion since all the other commandments referred to actions and not to motives or interior promptings to those actions.” For example, Childs points out that “the term 'covet' in [Exodus] v. 17 seems to have an original connotation of action and not simply intention.” And Cole adds, “It is sometimes claimed that this is the only one of the ten commandments which prohibits an attitude of mind rather than an outward act: but to make this distinction is probably to misunderstand Hebrew thought.”
And then there are those such as Mayes who criticizes the interpretation that “covet includes a concrete act in addition to the desire itself. But he admits that “the case is by no means so clear as might at first appear.”
Finally, there is another attractive interpretive possibility. Kaiser, in an extensive study of the subject, cites the Sermon on the Mount as well as several OT texts to demonstrate “the internal nature of all God's law.” In the same vein, Melick concludes that Paul writing in Colossians 3:5 has the ten commandments in mind and that “none is to be perceived as a purely physical act toward another person. They are all spiritual.”
So one has the option of believing that the first nine commandments are physical and the tenth is internal, all are physical, or all are internal. The last possibility seems to be the one that Jesus is teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.
But there is another aspect to consider: the relationship between the first and last commandments. And I personally think that it summarizes the situation in the best manner by far:
J.W. Marshall: “The Decalogue begins with a command that insists there be no God before Yahweh. Like coveting, one's loyalty to God also begins as an internal posture that only secondarily becomes evident in external practice. Thus two commandments that are essentially rooted in the heart and mind of the covenant people encircle a set of principles that properly order worship and community relationships.”
Seifrid: “[C]oveting, and therefore all disobedience to the law, constitutes the rejection of God. It is the will that God not be God.”
Durham: “Just as the first commandment provides the foundation for covenantal relationship, so this tenth commandment...describes the foundation for the severance of covenantal relationship.”
Melick quotes Colossians 3:5 where Paul says that greed (covetousness) is idolatry. “If [commandment] number ten, covetousness, is actually a violation of number one, idolatry, they are all of the same character.”
The last issue to cover is the exact definition of “coveting.” As one concrete example, look at Jesus' parable of the man who wanted to tear down his old barns and build larger ones so that he could house more of his crops (Luke 12:13-21). Since he didn't actually have time to carry out his plans before he died, some of the commentators quoted above would say, incorrectly in my view, that he didn't really violate the tenth commandment at all.
Similarly, since the story doesn't even hint that the farmer is stealing grain from his neighbors, he didn't violate the commandment of coveting since he wasn't desiring anything that belonged to someone else. But whereas the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments seems to express the prohibition against coveting in terms of someone else's property, it is not as clear in the wording found in Deuteronomy. As Weinfeld states, “The last commandment, according to Deuteronomy, connotes, then, not only a wish for appropriation of somebody's property, but also lust and inner desire for wealth.”
In addition, the setting of this parable involves a man coming to Jesus and asking him to make his brother share the property with him. It is not made clear whether the man is wanting more than his fair share or whether his brother has refused to give him even the share due to him. But since the latter case would be more of a matter for the courts to decide, it is likely that the man just wants more than he was already given. If so, that would indicate that the strict definition of coveting as desiring something that belongs to someone else applies.
On the other hand, Jesus' concluding words in Luke 12:21 indicates clearly that the man's sin in the parable was that his desire for hoarding his own possessions had become an idol to worship in place of God. Thus, the first commandment was being broken, which as Paul says is equivalent to covetousness.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments