Re: Adultery and Sin
- From: Simon Robinson <email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:27:27 -0700
Ian wrote:
Says I am not to covet my neighbours house, apparently. That cannot be
good news for estate agents - and I still think it a tad offensive to
treat wives as property when it comes to non-coveting.
Well, strictly speaking, the text (NIV version) can be read in a way that doesn't imply a wife is a husbands property:
> You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
> neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey,
> or anything that belongs to your neighbor
That could easily be a list that includes the neighbour's wife AND things that belong to the neighbour. However I realise that may be an artifact of translation. (Anyone know whether manservants and maidservants were viewed as a person's property? That could be relevent in this regard).
Another issue: I don't think 'belong to' necessarily implies 'is the property of'. If I ever get married, I'm pretty sure I would regard myself as 'belonging to' my wife in some sense (I guess in the sense of rightfully being with her and being there for her as needed/as appropriate), but I'm equally sure I wouldn't regard myself as my wife's property.
Simon
http://www.simonrobinson.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Adultery and Sin
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Adultery and Sin
- References:
- Adultery and Sin
- From: Jonathan
- Re: Adultery and Sin
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Adultery and Sin
- From: Ian
- Re: Adultery and Sin
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Adultery and Sin
- From: Ian
- Adultery and Sin
- Prev by Date: Re: Dyslexic Signers was Re: All time favourite songs
- Next by Date: Re: Deconversion
- Previous by thread: Re: Adultery and Sin
- Next by thread: Re: Adultery and Sin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|