Exodus 20:17

20:17 “You shall not covet ¹  your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.” ² 

Exodus 20:1

The Decalogue

20:1 ³ God spoke all these words: ⁴ 

Exodus 21:1-4

The Decisions

21:1 ⁵ “These are the decisions that you will set before them:

Hebrew Servants

21:2 ⁶ “If you buy ⁷  a Hebrew servant, ⁸  he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free ⁹  without paying anything. ¹⁰  21:3 If he came ¹¹  in by himself ¹²  he will go out by himself; if he had ¹³  a wife when he came in, then his wife will go out with him. 21:4 If his master gave ¹⁴  him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will belong to her master, and he will go out by himself.

Micah 2:2

2:2 They confiscate the fields they desire,

and seize the houses they want. ¹⁵ 

They defraud people of their homes, ¹⁶ 

and deprive people of the land they have inherited. ¹⁷ 

Habakkuk 2:9

2:9 The one who builds his house by unjust gain is as good as dead. ¹⁸ 

He does this so he can build his nest way up high

and escape the clutches of disaster. ¹⁹ 

Luke 12:15

12:15 Then ²⁰  he said to them, “Watch out and guard yourself from ²¹  all types of greed, ²²  because one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Romans 7:7-8

7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I ²³  would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else ²⁴  if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” ²⁵  7:8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires. ²⁶  For apart from the law, sin is dead.

Romans 13:9

13:9 For the commandments, ²⁷  “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” ²⁸  (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ²⁹ 

Romans 13:1

Submission to Civil Government

13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, ³⁰  and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God.

Romans 6:9-10

6:9 We know ³¹  that since Christ has been raised from the dead, he is never going to die ³²  again; death no longer has mastery over him. 6:10 For the death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Hebrews 13:5

13:5 Your conduct must be free from the love of money and you must be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you and I will never abandon you.” ³³ 

[20:17]  ¹ tn The verb חָמַד (khamad) focuses not on an external act but on an internal mental activity behind the act, the motivation for it. The word can be used in a very good sense (Ps 19:10; 68:16), but it has a bad connotation in contexts where the object desired is off limits. This command is aimed at curtailing the greedy desire for something belonging to a neighbor, a desire that leads to the taking of it or the attempt to take it. It was used in the story of the Garden of Eden for the tree that was desired.

[20:17]  ² sn See further G. Wittenburg, “The Tenth Commandment in the Old Testament,” Journal for Theology in South Africa 21 (1978): 3-17: and E. W. Nicholson, “The Decalogue as the Direct Address of God,” VT 27 (1977): 422-33.

[20:1]  ³ sn This chapter is the heart of the Law of Israel, and as such is well known throughout the world. There is so much literature on it that it is almost impossible to say anything briefly and do justice to the subject. But the exposition of the book must point out that this is the charter of the new nation of Israel. These ten commands (words) form the preamble; they will be followed by the decisions (judgments). And then in chap. 24 the covenant will be inaugurated. So when Israel entered into covenant with God, they entered into a theocracy by expressing their willingness to submit to his authority. The Law was the binding constitution for the nation of Israel under Yahweh their God. It was specifically given to them at a certain time and in a certain place. The Law legislated how Israel was to live in order to be blessed by God and used by him as a kingdom of priests. In the process of legislating their conduct and their ritual for worship, the Law revealed God. It revealed the holiness of Yahweh as the standard for all worship and service, and in revealing that it revealed or uncovered sin. But what the Law condemned, the Law (Leviticus) also made provision for in the laws of the sacrifice and the feasts intended for atonement. The NT teaches that the Law was good, and perfect, and holy. But it also teaches that Christ was the end (goal) of the Law, that it ultimately led to him. It was a pedagogue, Paul said, to bring people to Christ. And when the fulfillment of the promise came in him, believers were not to go back under the Law. What this means for Christians is that what the Law of Israel revealed about God and his will is timeless and still authoritative over faith and conduct, but what the Law regulated for Israel in their existence as the people of God has been done away with in Christ. The Ten Commandments reveal the essence of the Law; the ten for the most part are reiterated in the NT because they reflect the holy and righteous nature of God. The NT often raises them to a higher standard, to guard the spirit of the Law as well as the letter.

[20:1]  ⁴ sn The Bible makes it clear that the Law was the revelation of God at Mount Sinai. And yet study has shown that the law code’s form follows the literary pattern of covenant codes in the Late Bronze Age, notably the Hittite codes. The point of such codes is that all the covenant stipulations are appropriate because of the wonderful things that the sovereign has done for the people. God, in using a well-known literary form, was both drawing on the people’s knowledge of such to impress their duties on them, as well as putting new wine into old wineskins. The whole nature of God’s code was on a much higher level. For this general structure, see M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King. For the Ten Commandments specifically, see J. J. Stamm and M. E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research (SBT). See also some of the general articles: M. Barrett, “God’s Moral Standard: An Examination of the Decalogue,” BV 12 (1978): 34-40; C. J. H. Wright, “The Israelite Household and the Decalogue: The Social Background and Significance of Some Commandments,” TynBul 30 (1979): 101-24; J. D. Levenson, “The Theologies of Commandment in Biblical Israel,” HTR 73 (1980): 17-33; M. B. Cohen and D. B. Friedman, “The Dual Accentuation of the Ten Commandments,” Masoretic Studies 1 (1974): 7-190; D. Skinner, “Some Major Themes of Exodus,” Mid-America Theological Journal 1 (1977): 31-42; M. Tate, “The Legal Traditions of the Book of Exodus,” RevExp 74 (1977): 483-509; E. C. Smith, “The Ten Commandments in Today’s Permissive Society: A Principleist Approach,” SwJT 20 (1977): 42-58; and D. W. Buck, “Exodus 20:1-17,” Lutheran Theological Journal 16 (1982): 65-75.

[21:1]  ⁵ sn There follows now a series of rulings called “the decisions” or “the judgments” (הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, hammishpatim). A precept is stated, and then various cases in which the law is applicable are examined. These rulings are all in harmony with the Decalogue that has just been given and can be grouped into three categories: civil or criminal laws, religious or cultic laws, and moral or humanitarian laws. The civil and criminal laws make up most of chap. 21; the next two chapters mix the other kinds of laws. Among the many studies of this section of the book are F. C. Fensham, “The Role of the Lord in the Legal Sections of the Covenant Code,” VT 26 (1976): 262-74; S. Paul, “Unrecognized Biblical Legal Idioms in Light of Comparative Akkadian Expressions,” RB 86 (1979): 231-39; M. Galston, “The Purpose of the Law According to Maimonides,” JQR 69 (1978): 27-51.

[21:2]  ⁶ sn See H. L. Elleson, “The Hebrew Slave: A Study in Early Israelite Society,” EvQ 45 (1973): 30-35; N. P. Lemche, “The Manumission of Slaves – The Fallow Year – The Sabbatical Year – The Jobel Year,” VT 26 (1976): 38-59, and “The ‘Hebrew Slave,’ Comments on the Slave Law – Ex. 21:2-11,” VT 25 (1975): 129-44.

[21:2]  ⁷ tn The verbs in both the conditional clause and the following ruling are imperfect tense: “If you buy…then he will serve.” The second imperfect tense (the ruling) could be taken either as a specific future or an obligatory imperfect. Gesenius explains how the verb works in the conditional clauses here (see GKC 497 §159.bb).

[21:2]  ⁸ sn The interpretation of “Hebrew” in this verse is uncertain: (l) a gentilic ending, (2) a fellow Israelite, (3) or a class of mercenaries of the population (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:431). It seems likely that the term describes someone born a Hebrew, as opposed to a foreigner (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 210). The literature on this includes: M. P. Gray, “The Habiru-Hebrew Problem,” HUCA 29 (1958): 135-202.

[21:2]  ⁹ sn The word חָפְשִׁי (khofshi) means “free.” It is possible that there is some connection between this word and a technical term used in other cultures for a social class of emancipated slaves who were freemen again (see I. Mendelsohn, “New Light on the Hupsu,” BASOR 139 [1955]: 9-11).

[21:2]  ¹⁰ tn The adverb חִנָּם (hinnam) means “gratis, free”; it is related to the verb “to be gracious, show favor” and the noun “grace.”

[21:3]  ¹¹ tn The tense is imperfect, but in the conditional clause it clearly refers to action that is anterior to the action in the next clause. Heb “if he comes in single, he goes out single,” that is, “if he came in single, he will go out single.”

[21:3]  ¹² tn Heb “with his back” meaning “alone.”

[21:3]  ¹³ tn The phrase says, “if he was the possessor of a wife”; the noun בַּעַל (ba’al) can mean “possessor” or “husband.” If there was a wife, she shared his fortunes or his servitude; if he entered with her, she would accompany him when he left.

[21:4]  ¹⁴ sn The slave would not have the right or the means to acquire a wife. Thus, the idea of the master’s “giving” him a wife is clear – the master would have to pay the bride price and make the provision. In this case, the wife and the children are actually the possession of the master unless the slave were to pay the bride price – but he is a slave because he got into debt. The law assumes that the master was better able to provide for this woman than the freed slave and that it was most important to keep the children with the mother.

[2:2]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “they desire fields and rob [them], and houses and take [them] away.”

[2:2]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “and they oppress a man and his home.”

[2:2]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and a man and his inheritance.” The verb עָשַׁק (’ashaq, “to oppress”; “to wrong”) does double duty in the parallel structure and is understood by ellipsis in the second line.

[2:9]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “Woe [to] the one who profits unjustly by evil unjust gain for his house.” On the term הוֹי (hoy) see the note on the word “dead” in v. 6.

[2:9]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “to place his nest in the heights in order to escape from the hand of disaster.”

[12:15]  ²⁰ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

[12:15]  ²¹ tn See L&N 13.154 for this use of the middle voice of φυλάσσω (fulassw) in this verse.

[12:15]  ²² tn Or “avarice,” “covetousness.” Note the warning covers more than money and gets at the root attitude – the strong desire to acquire more and more possessions and experiences.

[7:7]  ²³ sn Romans 7:7-25. There has been an enormous debate over the significance of the first person singular pronouns (“I”) in this passage and how to understand their referent. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians too; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience as a Jew, struggling with the law and sin (and thus addressing his fellow countrymen as Jews); or (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam, reflecting the experience of Adam that is shared by both Jews and Gentiles alike (i.e., all people everywhere)? Good arguments can be assembled for each of these views, and each has problems dealing with specific statements in the passage. The classic argument against an autobiographical interpretation was made by W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. A good case for seeing at least an autobiographical element in the chapter has been made by G. Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie [FRLANT], 181-268. One major point that seems to favor some sort of an autobiographical reading of these verses is the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in the struggle described in Rom 7:7-25. The Spirit is mentioned beginning in 8:1 as the solution to the problem of the struggle with sin (8:4-6, 9).

[7:7]  ²⁴ tn Grk “I would not have known covetousness.”

[7:7]  ²⁵ sn A quotation from Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21.

[7:8]  ²⁶ tn Or “covetousness.”

[13:9]  ²⁷ tn Grk “For the…” (with the word “commandments” supplied for clarity). The Greek article (“the”) is used here as a substantiver to introduce the commands that are quoted from the second half of the Decalogue (ExSyn 238).

[13:9]  ²⁸ sn A quotation from Exod 20:13-15, 17; Deut 5:17-19, 21.

[13:9]  ²⁹ sn A quotation from Lev 19:18.

[13:1]  ³⁰ tn Grk “by God.”

[6:9]  ³¹ tn Grk “knowing.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[6:9]  ³² tn The present tense here has been translated as a futuristic present (see ExSyn 536, where this verse is listed as an example).

[13:5]  ³³ sn A quotation from Deut 31:6, 8.