[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
No. Some things you cannot sell. You cannot sell your driver’s license. You cannot sell your law degree. You cannot sell your right to free speech in the USA.
Zev Steinhardt
jmullaney
I had another thought on this matter.
Why would God give us a commandment that, by it’s very nature, is impossible to keep? The obvious answer is, of course, He wouldn’t.
The more I think about it, the more I’m sure your position, as stated in the OP, is wrong.
Zev Steinhardt
I agree, Chaim. I think, too, that it also is wrong to say, “Boy, he’s got a nicer car than I have. I’m gonna swipe his car!”
Zev, to attempt to answer your question on the Christian take and it’s practicality, Jesus makes it clear in The Sermon on the Mount that not only is murder wrong, for instance, but just thinking poisonous thoughts about your neighbor means you have murder in your heart. Not only is adultery wrong, but to have lustful thoughts about a woman means you have adultery in your heart. By extension, coveting, which takes place in the heart, and is a precurser to stealing, is also sinful.
My understanding of Jesus’ reason for making such statements was to point out that God judges man’s heart, as well as man’s actions. Our nature is sinful, and therefore no one is pure before God. As one preacher put it when speaking on the S on the M, sin is not a wall that divides you from your neighber (in that he’s more sinful than you). Sin is like a roof that divides all of us from God (in that God is above us, perfect and sinless, and we have all offended Him by our sin). I hope this image is clear. It was when the pastor used it, and I fear I haven’t presented it as well as he did at the time.
I’d like to add, Zev, on a personal note, that I greatly admire your scholarship and straightforward dissertations on such subjects on this board. The more I read your posts, the more respect I have for your fine mind. Press on, sir!
::blushing::
Thank you very much, Dave. Your kind words mean alot.
Zev Steinhardt
I think this has already been said, and I’m working from memory here, but I think rabbinic/talmudic interpretation is useful here.
The word “covet”, IIRC, applied to your neighbour’s situation, means that you shouldn’t want to take it from him, nor to be jealous over what he has that you don’t. It does NOT mean that you shouldn’t desire to have them TOO.
For instance, my neighbour has just married an intelligent and beautiful woman who can cook and who has a rich father. It would not violate the commandment for me to want a similar wife. The violation would be if I wanted HIS wife, or if I think things like: “I wish I had married her instead of him” or “If only I’d sucked up to her father more, I could have married her first.”
That help make it clearer?
The Jewish interpretation of the rules is that God does not give us laws that we cannot follow. They may be hard to follow, but they’re not impossible. (The ones that have since become impossible, like sacrifice at the Temple, are no longer obligatory.)
The Christian interpretation of the rules is that they ARE impossible, and that God just gave them as some sort of test, to prove that they are impossible, so that faith in Jesus can replace all the rules.
Perhaps it would be wiser if I did a little checking before posting this, but…but…well, but I won’t anyway.
It is my recollection that the commandment does not apply unless it is accompanied by scheming (in one’s mind) to pry the possession loose from the neighbor. This “prying loose” that I refer to does not necessarily include stealing however. If one plans on hassling the neighbor until he finally relents and sells it against his true desires, one is also in violation of this commandment.
I shall correct this tomorrow if I am in error.
One other aside point on this topic jmullaney,
If someone did this, they would probably want to do it for way more than 20 dollars.
The reason is that (according to Jewish law) a man is not allowed to remarry his ex-wife if she was married to someone else in the interim.
Thus, if someone does do what you described above, he’d better be pretty sure that he no longer wants his wife.
Zev Steinhardt
I agree with what many have stated in this thread.
And I hold Zev, CMK, CKDex, and others in the highest regard for their Knowledge of God and of what I call the OT.
However, I would like to address a statment by CKDex where he said:
I do not know that the interpretation is that all of the rules are impossible to follow. We generally do believe that it is impossible to be sinless, which I guess would be completely following all of the laws of God, but most of the time I can follow the rules given. I usually honor my father and mother (except when they tell me to do something I do not want to do ;)) I have never killed anyone and I try to honor God and generally do the other things.
But you are right that Christians generally believe that Christ is the ultimate atonement for sins and that following him superceeds the laws given. If I break one of these laws I should feel sorry and ask for forgiveness, but breaking one does not cut me off completely from God, it just harms my relationship with him.
Have I muddied the waters enough?
Jeffery
<< If I break one of these laws I should feel sorry and ask for forgiveness, but breaking one does not cut me off completely from God, it just harms my relationship with him. >>
Judaism says about the same thing, and provides mechanisms for seeking forgiveness.
[Edited by CKDextHavn on 08-02-2000 at 12:31 PM]
Well, we would hate to put words in God’s mouth. I believe any method of aquiring your neighbor’s property would have to involve some sort of scheme.
JimB – I fail to see want the difference is ultimately between desiring and wanting. The translators choice of the archaic “covet” – whose meaning in the dictionary probably post-dates the translation of the Bible into English rather than the other way around – seems to be wishful thinking. Do you covet fries with that?
cmkeller – I don’t know either about interpreting this command as “you should not covet property with is like the property your neighbor has.” That was what I was taught that it meant, but it seems like a stretch. I also don’t know how Jews interpret the word “neighbor” these days – but Jesus explained this didn’t just mean the guy next door. So ultimately, at least in my perspective, everything that belongs to someone belongs to your neighbor somewhere.
DAVEW0071 – desiring something is not only a precusor to stealing, it is also a precursor to buying, selling, and trading. Jesus’s teachings seem only to allow for giving and recieving things which are given to you by God.
CKDextHavn – again, nearly everything belongs to someone, (although thankfully there are still some unmarried women out there of course.) So I’m not sure how the “situational” idea wants. If you neighbor has 100 oxen, even one of them is still something which is your neighbors, and thus this commandment still forbids desiring it. (Theoretically, the teachings of Christ, as a fulfillment of the commandments, are not impossible if what Jesus said is true, although I can agree with you that many Christians twist the words of Paul and Jesus in this way or throw out certain teachings and give true Christians, what few there are, a bad name.)
This commandment may not be impossible for an ascetic, or someone who is filthy rich, as neither of these two would want for anything. Jesus teaches the second approach isn’t what God had in mind, though.
jmullaney:
Obviously I wasn’t clear.
What I meant was that it means a person shouldn’t let the fact that someone else owns something cause him to desire it. Let’s go back to my Lexus example. If a guy has a Yugo, and he’s always wishing, “I wish I had something faster and more luxurious,” and then he discovers his neighbor has a Lexus and decides a Lexis is the thing he had been hoping for - fine. However, if the guy was happy with his Yugo, the mere fact that his neighbor has a Lexus should not change his mind re: happiness with his Yugo. He should want things only because it’s an independent desire…not because he feels jealous of someone else, the “keeping up with the Joneses” thing.
And, in fact, the word usually translated as “neighbor” in that verse actually (in the original Hebrew) means “friend.” It’s pretty much intended to mean anyone, though.
Chaim Mattis Keller
jmullaney:
The difference is that goods made and provided for buying and selling are an entirely different matter, and such an enterprise is mere business. An example:
Since we moved into our new house, we’ve wanted a glider for the front porch. Not because someone else has one and we want what they have, but because we know such things exist, and we think it would be a nice addition to the porch. We saw one at a craft show last weekend, realized that it was affordable, and purchased it on the spot. The man selling these things did not tempt us, and his products were made for the express purpose of him selling them to folks like us.
Our desire to have his product was not prompted by jealousy or desire to have something that someone else possessed (I do not count the tradesman, since the only reason he had it was to sell it).
You seem to be confusing gaining a material possession with sinfulness, somehow, and I don’t see the connection. If you want to only receive things from God, then I’d have to forage for food, wouldn’t I? As far as that goes, consider this: God provides for me and my family by giving us jobs we can go to, health to continue working and brains to budget efficiently. Because we use money as a mode of exchange for goods and services is secondary.
Chaim – if that is what God meant, that was not what he said: Don’t want anything anyone else has. I don’t see how that can become “Don’t want anything anyone else has just because they have it” because if they do not have it, of course you can not want it. And then what is the permissable reason for wanting anything?
Ugh, my brain hurts.
You’re chasing your tail, jmullaney, and your circular reasoning shows it.
Wanting something is not sinful. But coveting is different. It is (as has been explained) the desire to possess something that does not and cannot rightly belong to you.
It’s not unlike Paul writing that “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” Paul does not say that money is evil. He does say, though, that desiring money, probably to an unusual degree, perhaps even worshiping it, can lead to all sorts of sinful things. But money is useful, necessary, and not inherently bad.
Wanting to possess something is not bad. It may even encourage someone to work hard, budget intelligently and save money in ingenious ways in order to earn the ability to purchase that thing.
Wanting to possess someone else’s property is wrong, mostly because it’s someone else’s and they may have worked hard, budgeted intelligently and saved money in ingenious ways in order to earn the ability to purchase it.
At the very least, this commandment says “Don’t begrudge someone their possessions”. Other implications (and they are many) follow, some of which are covered in this thread.
I am pleased to report that my comment of yesterday stands, as the standard ruling of Jewish law. I would therefore like to ask jmullaney to explain the following
What is meant by this?
<< if that is what God meant, that was not what he said >>
Jewish tradition holds that what God SAID that Moses wrote down (Torah or Pentateuch or first five books of Bible) is only part of the law. There is an accompanying oral law (according to Jewish tradition) that has equal authority as the written law. The oral law was written down as the Talmud, about 1200 or so years after the Revelation at Mount Sinai.
Easy example, there’s a commandment that says, “Don’t murder” (KJV is “Thou shalt not kill.”) The Bible doesn’t say anything about self defense… nor about defense of a community (war)… nor about defense of property? That’s all covered in the Oral Law.
There’s a commandment that says, “Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy” and talks about resting, but doesn’t define what that means. If I’m reading a work-related report, am I resting? If I’m writing a letter to a friend, am I resting? How about if I’m cooking? How about if I go to a restaurant? The Torah commandment is quite vague; it’s the oral law and interpretation that give take the commandment from the arena of “vague” to the arena of legalisms, clear definitions, and application.
So, when you assert that it’s impossible to obey “Thou shalt not covet,” the answer is that it depends on how you define “covet.” You want to use the definition “desire”, that’s fine, you will then conclude that the commandment can’t be followed. But you asked how Judaism addresses the issue, and the response has been, Judaism defines the Hebrew word that the KJV translates as “covet” to mean more than simply “desire”: it means to desire enviously or inordinately. And under that definition, and the examples already given, it may be hard to follow but it is not impossible.
To address your cow example: If your neighbour has 100 cows and you offer to buy one, that’s a business transaction. If you are jealous of your neighbour because of his cows, you wish that you had them all instead of him, you never really liked cows but you want HIS cows… that’s covetousness.
Now, jm, if you’re trying to get the answer to how does Judaism deal with what looks like a difficult commandment, we’ve given you that answer. If you have the hidden agenda of trying to convince us that the Law is impossible and must be replaced with faith in Christ Jesus, then take it to Great Debates and grant us the courtesy of making your intention clear.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Punoqllads *
**
This is not simply a Biblical application. Steve and Wendy were married for quite a few years. Wendy had a lot of VERY serious issues revolving around fear of pregnancy. Basically, while she did give in to sex a few times in the first year of their marriage, they went for more than 6 years with zero sexual contact.
Steve divorced Wendy. In New York State, there was actually a legal term for witholding intimacy in a marriage,and I am darned if I can figure out WHERE to look for the proper cite. I’m sorry, I hate a lame-assed answer lacking a cite. All I can tell you is that he did indeed sue for divorce and was granted it based on that legal requirement. Lawyers out there? Help?
Cartooniversejmullaney:
According to Jewish tradition, that’s what he did say. Jewish tradition believes that every choice of word that G-d used in the Torah (and we’re dealing with the original Hebrew wording here) is significant. The fact that, in the commandment in question, it emphasizes the issue of possession by one’s neighbor in prohibiting desire for it is significant in explaining what the actual prohibition is.
The permissible reason is that it’s something you want anyway because it’s a good thing to have. I’m trying to think of a better example than the car one I’d stated in previous posts, but all I’m bringing up in my mind are variations on that theme. If there’s something you want, and you notice your neighbor has that, you’re perfectly allowed to approach him regarding purchasing it (except, of course, in the case of the wife, as others here have stated). If your desire for such a thing does not exist until you see that your neighbor has it, that’s not allowed.
Punoqllads:
Yes, the issue is covered in the Talmud, Tractate Kesuboth, based on the verse Exodus (I think it’s chapter 20, verse 10). Although probably the modern version of that would be “non-support.”
Chaim Mattis Keller
I simply fail to see where God made an exception here.
Fine. Nothing wrong with that that I can see.
Now on the surface this seems blameless. However, you say the man made these things because he desired someone’s money. And he knew this money had to belong to someone, as were he to merely find it on the ground he would not then have had to make the glider. You are in fact, tempting him. Furthermore, there is the matter of where you got the money. Persumably, you desired this money which belonged to someone else at sometime – although I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have merely stumbled upon it.
Spirtual blindness can be a problem, but who are we to argue with the Lord our God? Now I think I can argue his position – but that isn’t the context of this thread.
Um… Well, far be it from me to judge again, but my own job is provided by capitalism. I work for money, money which I use to buy things I want. I do not have faith in God – I have faith in capitalism. But it has not always been so with me, though my past performance has no impact on my future salvation which is sadly nullified by my current lack of faith. So you seem to be confused as to who your God is.
I fail to see how my reasoning has been diabolical.
My neighbors ox does not belong to me. But it certaintly can rightly belong to me. For example, my neighbor could certaintly give me his ox. And this goes for anything my neighbor has. Not that this is what the commandment says – it does not say anything your neighbor has that he is not willing to give you. Did the Lord God develop writers cramp there towards the end? (I was under the impression God wrote the commandment’s himself, but I may have gotten this from a Mel Brooks movie.)
Of course money isn’t the root of all kinds of evil. Money is only stone (or paper, or even virtual these days). There is nothing inherently even about little round pieces of rock. However, it is man’s love for it which gives these stones a value as a means of exchange. But feel free to twist Paul’s word however you would like.
I just fail to see why God would be so misleading. If He meant envy he should have said envy, etc.