Abstract
The biblical tradition contains a coherent, structurally integrated, and theologically rigorous land ethic that stands in direct and irreconcilable contradiction to the logic of enclosure. This paper develops that ethic from its foundations in the Torah’s account of land tenure, through the Jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25, to the prophetic indictment of accumulation in Isaiah, Amos, and Micah, arguing that the biblical critique of enclosure is not peripheral or incidental to the tradition but structural to its understanding of creation, covenant, and justice. The paper undertakes a lexical and theological analysis of the three key categories—dominion, stewardship, and ownership—and demonstrates that the modern ideology of unrestricted private ownership is not only unsupported by the biblical tradition but actively contradicted by it. The Jubilee provision is examined not as utopian legislation or cultic curiosity but as a structural mechanism for the periodic correction of enclosure dynamics that secular commons theory has approached but not surpassed in coherence or scope. The prophetic material is read as the application of this structural framework to specific historical instances of accumulation and enclosure, constituting not merely moral exhortation but covenant indictment. The paper concludes that the biblical tradition identifies enclosure not as inefficiency or injustice in an ordinary sense but as covenant violation—a fundamental distortion of the human relationship to creation that calls down the judgment of the Creator—and that this identification carries implications for how contemporary enclosure is understood and addressed that secular commons theory cannot generate from its own resources.
Keywords: land theology, Jubilee, Leviticus 25, enclosure, dominion, stewardship, prophetic critique, covenant, Torah, commons
I. Introduction: Scripture as a Source for Commons Theory
The claim of this paper is neither modest nor familiar within the mainstream literature on commons governance. It is that the biblical tradition offers not merely a supplementary moral perspective on the enclosure of shared resources but a theoretically coherent, empirically grounded, and institutionally specific account of why enclosure happens, why it is a fundamental disorder rather than merely an inefficiency, and what structural provision is required for its correction—an account that engages the best of secular commons theory without being reducible to it and that exceeds it at precisely the points where secular theory is weakest.
This claim requires some preliminary clarification about method. The paper engages the biblical text as a primary source for social and institutional theory—not because the text is being forced into a social scientific framework for which it was not designed, but because the biblical tradition itself addresses, with sustained and systematic attention, precisely the questions that commons governance theory asks: who may use shared resources, on what terms, with what accountability, and with what consequences when those terms are violated. The Torah legislates on these questions in specific and enforceable terms; the prophetic tradition applies that legislation diagnostically to specific historical situations; and the wisdom literature reflects on the underlying understanding of creation and human relationship to it that the legislation and prophecy both presuppose.
The paper treats the biblical text in accordance with what might be termed a biblicist hermeneutic: reading the text as a coherent and authoritative witness to the character and purposes of the Creator, attending carefully to the literary and historical context of specific passages while reading them within the canonical whole, and resisting both the reductionism that treats the text as merely a historical artifact and the privatization that treats it as relevant only to individual piety rather than to the ordering of shared social and institutional life. This hermeneutic is not an imposition on the text; it is, as the paper will demonstrate, demanded by the text itself, which addresses the ordering of land tenure, resource use, and shared governance as matters of the first theological importance.
The paper proceeds through six principal movements. Section II examines the foundational claim of the Torah regarding land: that the land belongs to YHWH and that all human tenure is therefore stewardship rather than ownership in the modern sense. Section III analyzes the Jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25 as a structural anti-enclosure mechanism—the most sophisticated institutional response to commons failure in the ancient world and one that secular commons theory has not yet equaled. Section IV examines the prophetic indictment of enclosure in Isaiah, Amos, and Micah as the application of the Jubilee framework to specific historical instances of accumulation, reading the prophetic material as covenant jurisprudence rather than merely moral exhortation. Section V undertakes the lexical and theological analysis of dominion, stewardship, and ownership that the paper’s constructive argument requires. Section VI addresses the judgment on accumulation and its civilizational implications. Section VII applies the biblical framework diagnostically to contemporary enclosure dynamics and assesses what the biblical tradition contributes to commons theory that secular frameworks cannot provide from their own resources.
II. Land in Torah: Use Without Ultimate Ownership
The foundational claim of the biblical tradition regarding land is stated with lapidary precision in Leviticus 25:23: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.” This single verse contains the entire theological architecture of the biblical land ethic, and every subsequent development—in Torah, prophecy, wisdom, and the later tradition—is an elaboration of what it establishes.
The claim has three interlocking components. First, a prohibition: land shall not be sold in perpetuity. Second, a rationale: the land belongs to YHWH. Third, a definition of the human condition before that ownership: the Israelites are gerim and toshavim—strangers and sojourners, resident aliens—even in the land that has been given to them. The syntax of the verse makes explicit that these three components are not independent claims but a single integrated argument: the prohibition follows from the rationale, and the rationale establishes the human condition that defines what legitimate tenure looks like.
The implications of this foundational claim are far-reaching and have been insufficiently appreciated in the commons governance literature that has occasionally drawn on biblical materials. The claim is not that private use of land is forbidden or that common ownership in the modern sense is mandated; it is that ultimate ownership—the kind of ownership that includes the right to alienate permanently, to exclude absolutely, and to use without accountability—belongs to YHWH alone, and that all human relationship to land is therefore constitutively relational and accountable rather than sovereign and absolute.
This theological claim is embedded in a legal and institutional framework that makes it operative rather than merely declaratory. The Torah’s land legislation—the provisions governing inheritance (Numbers 27:1–11; 36:1–12), the prohibition of permanent alienation (Leviticus 25:23–28), the redemption provisions (Leviticus 25:25–34), the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8–55), and the sabbatical year for the land (Leviticus 25:1–7; Exodus 23:10–11)—constitutes an integrated system of land governance designed to prevent the progressive concentration of land in the hands of a few and the reduction of the many to landlessness and dependency.
Wright (1990) identified the distinctive structure of this system as a triangular relationship between YHWH, Israel, and the land, in which YHWH’s ultimate ownership defines the terms on which Israel holds the land, and Israel’s covenant faithfulness is expressed concretely in the maintenance of those terms across generations. This is not merely a religious overlay on what would otherwise be a secular property system; it is a different ontology of land tenure—a different account of what land is, what human beings are in relation to it, and what legitimate use looks like—from which the specific legal provisions of the Torah follow as natural consequences.
The sabbatical year provision is particularly instructive as a concrete expression of this ontology. Every seventh year, the land is to lie fallow: it is not to be plowed, sown, pruned, or harvested in the usual way. What grows of itself is available to the poor, the sojourner, and the wild animals—but the landowner’s claim to exclusive use is suspended for the year (Leviticus 25:1–7; Exodus 23:10–11). This provision is not merely an agricultural practice, though it has agronomic wisdom; it is a structural reminder, built into the annual rhythm of agricultural life, that the land’s productivity is a gift held in trust rather than a product of sovereign ownership. The landowner who cannot harvest the seventh year’s produce is being formed—through the practice of the sabbatical year, year after year, generation after generation—in the fundamental truth that YHWH’s ownership is not theoretical but operative.
The sociological implications of this system are equally significant. Brueggemann (2002) argued that the biblical vision of land is inseparable from a vision of social solidarity: land is the material condition of community life, and the maintenance of distributed land tenure across generations is the material precondition of a society in which all members have the resources necessary for dignified participation in shared life. The progressive concentration of land in the hands of a few is therefore not merely an economic problem or an equity problem; it is a social catastrophe that destroys the material foundation of community and, by the logic of the covenant, calls down the judgment that covenant violation always calls down.
The concept of nachalah—inheritance, ancestral portion, patrimony—is the vehicle through which this theological and sociological vision is given legal form. Each Israelite family’s ancestral portion of land is not a commodity to be traded but a nachalah: a divinely allocated share of the covenant people’s territory that is meant to remain within the family across generations as the material basis of their participation in the life of the covenant community (Num. 27:1–11; 36:7–9). The prohibition on permanent alienation is the legal expression of this concept: because the land is YHWH’s gift to the family as a nachalah, it cannot be permanently disposed of by any individual member of the family, whose tenure is stewardship of what belongs ultimately to YHWH and representatively to the family across generations.
This framework has a direct relationship to the commons governance analysis developed in the preceding papers of this series. The biblical account of land tenure is not a commons system in the technical sense of common pool resource governance, but it instantiates the same fundamental distinction that Paper 1 of this series identified as foundational: the distinction between shared use—use governed by accountability to a community, to rules, and ultimately to the Owner—and unaccountable extraction. The biblical landowner is not an absolute proprietor; he is an accountable steward whose use of his allocation is governed by the covenant terms under which it was given. And the covenant terms prohibit precisely the behaviors that commons governance theory identifies as the drivers of commons failure: unlimited extraction, externalization of costs onto others, and the progressive appropriation of others’ legitimate entitlements.
III. Jubilee as Structural Anti-Enclosure Legislation
If the sabbatical year provision is the annual embodiment of the biblical land ontology, the Jubilee of Leviticus 25 is its civilizational expression: the provision through which the progressive accumulation of land and the progressive reduction of families to landlessness and debt slavery are not merely moralized but structurally reversed, every fifty years, by the return of land to its ancestral holders, the cancellation of debt, and the liberation of those who have sold themselves into debt-bondage.
The Jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25:8–55 is among the most complex and carefully crafted legal texts in the Torah, and its complexity has been the occasion for significant scholarly debate about its historical implementation, its legislative intent, and its theological significance. This paper does not enter all of those debates; what matters for the present argument is the structural logic of the Jubilee provision and what that logic reveals about the biblical tradition’s understanding of enclosure and its correction.
The basic provision is stated clearly: after seven sabbatical cycles of seven years—forty-nine years—the fiftieth year is hallowed as the Jubilee. In the Jubilee year, the deror is proclaimed throughout the land: the release, the liberty (Leviticus 25:10). This release has three specific institutional expressions. Land that has been sold reverts to its ancestral holder—the nachalah returns to the family to which it was originally allocated (25:13, 25–28). Israelites who have sold themselves or their family members into debt servitude are released from that servitude and return with their families (25:39–55). And the economic transactions of the intervening years are recalibrated accordingly: the price of land is to be calculated not as an absolute sale but as a lease of a specified number of harvests until the Jubilee (25:14–17), so that the market value of land is structurally indexed to the remaining years of the Jubilee cycle rather than treated as a permanent alienation.
The structural logic of this provision is, as Ross (1988) noted, fundamentally anti-accumulative: it is designed to interrupt the dynamics by which economic distress leads to progressive land loss, debt accumulation, and eventual enslavement within a single family across a generation, and to ensure that the catastrophic outcomes of those dynamics cannot be consolidated across generations. The Jubilee does not prevent economic distress; it prevents distress from becoming permanent structural dispossession. It is not a utopian provision that assumes the absence of economic inequality; it is a structural mechanism that assumes the presence of economic inequality and provides for its periodic correction.
This structural logic is directly relevant to the commons governance analysis of this series. The Jubilee is not a commons governance system in the technical sense, but it addresses the same fundamental problem that commons theory addresses under the concept of enclosure: the progressive appropriation of shared or allocated resources by powerful actors at the expense of those less able to defend their legitimate entitlements. The Jubilee provision recognizes that market transactions, under conditions of economic asymmetry, will systematically produce the concentration of resources in the hands of the economically powerful and the reduction of the economically vulnerable to dependency—and it provides a structural correction that does not depend on the virtue of the powerful, the efficiency of the market, or the intervention of the state in its ordinary regulatory mode.
Several features of the Jubilee provision deserve particular attention in relation to the suite’s broader argument.
The Jubilee as a theological rather than merely social provision. The Jubilee is not presented in the text as a pragmatic social policy; it is presented as the expression of a theological reality: YHWH’s ownership of the land and YHWH’s redemptive relationship with Israel. The deror proclaimed in the Jubilee year is YHWH’s proclamation; the hallowing of the year is YHWH’s sanctification; and the provision’s ultimate rationale is stated in verse 55: “For it is to me that the people of Israel are servants. They are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” The liberation of the Jubilee is grounded in the prior liberation of the Exodus: the Israelite who sells himself into debt servitude cannot be permanently enslaved because YHWH has already purchased him by redemption from Egypt. This theological grounding is not incidental to the provision’s structural logic; it is what gives that logic its unconditional character. The Jubilee is not a contingent social policy that may be overridden by economic or political necessity; it is a covenant obligation that expresses the character of YHWH as Redeemer and Owner.
The Jubilee as a formation instrument. The provision that land transactions be priced according to the remaining years until Jubilee is not merely a financial regulation; it is a formative instrument that restructures the framework within which economic decisions are made. By requiring that every land transaction be understood as a leasehold arrangement rather than a permanent sale, the Torah shapes the perception and motivation of economic actors: the land is never truly yours to sell, and the price you pay is always indexed to the time remaining until it reverts. This is formation through institutional design—the reshaping of the conceptual and motivational framework within which individual economic decisions are made, in ways that make the enclosure of ancestral holdings structurally more difficult and the return of those holdings structurally guaranteed.
The Jubilee as evidence against the inevitability thesis. From the perspective of Paper 1’s argument, the Jubilee provision is significant as ancient evidence that the problem of progressive enclosure was recognized, analyzed, and addressed with structural sophistication by a pre-modern society. Hardin’s inevitability thesis depends on the assumption that no governance mechanism can effectively prevent the dynamics of accumulation from producing enclosure; the Jubilee demonstrates that this assumption reflects not the natural law of shared governance but the failure of imagination about what governance mechanisms are possible. The Jubilee is not perfect and its historical implementation is debated; but as a structural concept, it represents a more sophisticated response to the enclosure problem than anything in the contemporary secular policy literature.
The sabbatical debt release. The Jubilee is accompanied in the Torah’s legislation by the sabbatical year debt release of Deuteronomy 15:1–11, which provides for the cancellation of debts owed by fellow Israelites every seven years—a provision that directly addresses the debt dynamics through which land loss typically begins. Moses’s instruction in Deuteronomy 15:7–11 is remarkable for its explicit acknowledgment of the psychological resistance that debt cancellation generates in creditors: “Be careful lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9, ESV). The text recognizes that the sovereignty fantasy—the reluctance to relinquish claims over those economically dependent on you—is a real and powerful motivation that the provision must directly address. And it addresses it not by appealing to self-interest or structural incentive but by grounding the obligation of generosity in the covenantal character of the relationship between YHWH and Israel: “You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake” (Deuteronomy 15:10, ESV).
IV. The Prophetic Indictment: Covenant Jurisprudence Against Enclosure
The prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible constitutes the application of the Torah’s land ethic to the specific historical realities of the monarchic period in Israel and Judah—a period in which the commercialization of agriculture, the growth of royal estates, and the development of merchant capital were systematically producing precisely the dynamics of accumulation and dispossession that the Torah’s land legislation was designed to prevent. The prophetic indictment of these dynamics is not primarily moral exhortation in the ordinary sense; it is covenant jurisprudence—the application of the standards of the covenant to specific violations, the identification of those violations as covenant breaches, and the announcement of the judgments that covenant breach calls down.
Isaiah 5:8 and the Woe Oracle Against Enclosure
The first of the seven woe oracles in Isaiah 5 is directed explicitly at those engaged in the progressive acquisition of land:
“Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land.” (Isaiah 5:8, ESV)
The specificity of the indictment is striking. The accusation is not general greed or exploitation but the particular practice of land accumulation: the progressive addition of field to field, house to house, until the accumulator stands alone—the sole possessor of what was meant to sustain a community of families. This is not a description of catastrophic seizure but of incremental enclosure: the slow, transaction-by-transaction process by which ancestral holdings are consolidated into the hands of the powerful through the economic vulnerability of their neighbors.
The judgment announced in verses 9–10 is of corresponding precision:
“The LORD of hosts has sworn in my hearing: ‘Surely many houses shall be desolate, large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant. For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield but an ephah.'”
The judgment is not external catastrophe but the internal collapse of the accumulative enterprise itself: the large and beautiful houses that are the fruit of enclosure stand empty; the consolidated vineyards and fields produce at a fraction of their capacity. The prophetic tradition does not merely threaten punishment for enclosure; it announces the inherent self-destruction of the accumulative logic. Enclosure, by eliminating the distributed community of stewards whose relationship to the land constituted its productive health, destroys the very thing it sought to appropriate.
Brueggemann (1978) identified this oracle as central to Isaiah’s understanding of the covenant community’s failure: the prophetic indictment is not addressed to exceptional wrongdoers but to a social and economic pattern that had become normative in Judah—a pattern in which the Torah’s land ethic had been displaced by a logic of accumulation that the monarchy and merchant class had imported from the surrounding cultures and institutionalized in the economic life of the covenant people.
Amos: Enclosure and the Destruction of the Poor
The book of Amos, addressed to the northern kingdom of Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II—a period of economic prosperity that had produced dramatic inequality alongside its wealth—contains the most sustained and specific prophetic indictment of enclosure and its social consequences in the Hebrew Bible. Amos’s oracles against Israel in chapters 2 through 8 constitute a systematic covenant lawsuit in which the specific practices through which the powerful have appropriated the resources and rights of the poor are identified, indicted, and condemned.
Amos 2:6–8 identifies the specific mechanisms of dispossession with precision that suggests firsthand familiarity with the economic practices being condemned:
“Because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals—those who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth and turn aside the way of the afflicted; a man and his father go in to the same girl, so that my holy name is profaned; they lay themselves down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge, and in the house of their God they drink the wine of those who have been fined.”
The accumulation of specific charges here is forensic rather than merely rhetorical: debt bondage that reduces families to the equivalent of a pair of sandals, the appropriation of pledged garments that the Torah required to be returned before nightfall (Exodus 22:26–27), the use of judicial processes (fines) as a mechanism for resource extraction. These are not crimes of passion or individual excess; they are systematic practices through which the economic and legal institutions of the society have been captured by accumulative interests and redirected toward the dispossession of the poor.
Amos 5:11–12 makes the structural character of the indictment explicit:
“Because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions and how great are your sins—you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate.”
The reference to the gate—the site of judicial proceedings in ancient Israelite cities—indicates that what Amos is indicting is not merely private economic behavior but the corruption of the public institutions that the Torah established to protect the poor from exactly the dynamics of dispossession being described. The elders who adjudicate cases at the city gate have been corrupted by bribes into instruments of enclosure rather than guardians of covenant justice. The structural dimension of the indictment could not be clearer: the problem is not individual wickedness but institutional capture—the redirection of covenant institutions from their proper function of protecting the vulnerable toward the consolidation of power and resources in the hands of the already powerful.
Amos 8:4–6 returns to the specific mechanisms of economic enclosure with the most detailed description in the prophetic literature:
“Hear this, you who trample on the needy and bring the poor of the land to an end, saying, ‘When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, that we may make the ephah small and the shekel great and deal deceitfully with false balances, that we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals and sell the chaff of the wheat?'”
The picture here is of merchant capital operating precisely at the intersection of the Sabbath and market economy: the religious observances that were meant to interrupt the logic of accumulation and provide relief for the poor are experienced by the merchants as frustrating obstacles to commercial activity. The Sabbath, which in the Torah’s framework is both the marker of YHWH’s sovereignty over time and the weekly provision for the rest of servants and strangers (Exodus 20:8–11; Deuteronomy 5:12–15), has become for these merchants merely a day when trade is temporarily suspended. The formative purpose of the Sabbath—to form people in the practice of relinquishing control over time and economic activity, and to constitute a community in which all members have rest—has been lost entirely. What remains is compliance without formation: the merchants observe the Sabbath as a legal constraint while plotting how to maximize extraction the moment the constraint is lifted.
Micah 2: The Anatomy of Enclosure
Micah 2:1–5 provides the most analytically precise description of the enclosure process in the prophetic literature:
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they carry it out, because it is in the power of their hand. They covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them away; they oppress a man and his house, a man and his inheritance. Therefore thus says the LORD: behold, against this family I am devising disaster, from which you cannot remove your necks, and you shall not walk haughtily, for it will be a time of disaster. In that day they shall take up a taunt song against you and moan bitterly, and say, ‘We are utterly ruined; he changes the portion of my people; how he removes it from me! To an apostate he allots our fields.’ Therefore you will have none to cast the line by lot in the assembly of the LORD.”
This oracle deserves careful attention because it describes not merely the fact of enclosure but its psychology and its mechanism with a precision that resonates with the formation-based analysis of Paper 2 in this series. The enclosers devote the night to planning (devise wickedness… on their beds) and the morning to execution (when the morning dawns, they carry it out). The driver is desire (they covet), but what is coveted is not merely resources—it is the nachalah, the ancestral inheritance of others (their inheritance, their portion). This is not merely greed for goods; it is the specific desire to appropriate the divinely allocated share of another family in the covenant community—to remove them from their place in the land that constitutes their membership in the people of YHWH.
The judgment announced is correspondingly specific: those who have deprived others of their ancestral portion will themselves lose their place in the land. The final line of the oracle—“you will have none to cast the line by lot in the assembly of the LORD”—refers to the allocation of land by lot, the mechanism by which the original distribution of the land was accomplished in Joshua. Those who have destroyed others’ ancestral portions will have no share in the restored distribution: they will be excluded from the very community of which the land allocation is the material expression.
Mays (1976) identified this as the most radical element of the prophetic indictment: enclosure is not merely a violation of the rights of individual victims but an assault on the covenant community as a whole, because it destroys the material precondition of distributed community membership that the Torah’s land legislation was designed to maintain. The prophets do not moralize enclosure as a personal sin; they indict it as a covenant crime whose consequences are civilizational.
V. Dominion, Stewardship, and Ownership: A Lexical and Theological Analysis
The argument of the preceding sections has proceeded on the assumption that the biblical tradition maintains a clear and coherent distinction between legitimate human authority over creation and the kind of absolute proprietorial control that the modern ideology of private ownership implies. This section undertakes the lexical and theological analysis required to establish that distinction with precision, examining the three key categories—dominion, stewardship, and ownership—in their biblical context.
Dominion: Radah and Kavash
The foundation text for the concept of dominion is Genesis 1:26–28:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'” (ESV)
The two key terms are radah (rendered “have dominion”) and kavash (rendered “subdue”). The history of interpretation of these terms is complex and contested; both Lynn White’s (1967) influential indictment of the Genesis mandate as the root of ecological destruction and the various responses to that indictment have generated a substantial secondary literature. What matters for the present paper is the lexical and contextual meaning of the terms within the text itself.
Radah in its other biblical occurrences refers to governance or oversight: the oversight of workers (1 Kings 5:16), the rule of a king over a territory (Psalm 110:2), the shepherding of a flock (Ezekiel 34:4). It does not connote unlimited exploitation; in the royal and shepherding contexts, it implies accountable governance on behalf of another. The king who exercises radah over his people is answerable for the quality of his governance; the shepherd who exercises radah over the flock is answerable for its welfare. The commission to exercise radah over creation is given to human beings as image-bearers of YHWH—as representatives of the Creator whose character and purposes define what legitimate radah looks like. The mandate to exercise dominion is therefore not a license for unaccountable exploitation but a commission to represent the Creator’s governance of creation—governance that, in the biblical account, is characterized by wisdom, care, and the maintenance of the creation’s integrity and fruitfulness.
Kavash is stronger in its connotations—it can imply forceful subjugation—but its meaning in context is shaped by the same framework of representative stewardship. The commission to subdue the earth is given to human beings who are themselves under the authority of the Creator; the subduing is in the service of the Creator’s purposes for creation, not in the service of unlimited human appropriation. Middleton (2005) argued that the image of God (imago Dei) in Genesis 1 is a royal-functional image: human beings are commissioned to exercise governance over creation as the Creator’s royal representatives, and the character of that governance is defined by the character of the one they represent. This reading understands the dominion mandate not as license but as vocation: a calling to particular forms of care, cultivation, and governance that serve the Creator’s purposes for creation.
The fall narrative of Genesis 3 is relevant here because it describes precisely the corruption of dominion into domination: the human attempt to grasp sovereign independence from the Creator—to be like God, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:5)—results not in the enhanced dominion that the serpent promised but in the distortion of the human relationship to creation, to labor, and to one another that the curse describes. The toil and frustration of cultivation (3:17–19), the distortion of the male-female relationship (3:16), and the expulsion from the garden (3:22–24) are not arbitrary punishments; they are the structural consequences of the attempt to exercise dominion without accountability to the Creator—to convert stewardship into sovereignty.
Stewardship: Oikonomia and the Parables
The concept of stewardship receives its fullest expression in the New Testament in the Greek term oikonomia and its cognates—the management of a household or estate on behalf of an owner who may be absent but who will return to require an accounting. The parables of the steward in the synoptic gospels—the unjust steward (Luke 16:1–13), the talents (Matthew 25:14–30), the pounds (Luke 19:11–27), the faithful and unfaithful servants (Matthew 24:45–51; Luke 12:42–48)—constitute an extended exploration of what stewardship means, what distinguishes faithful from unfaithful stewardship, and what accountability to the returning owner involves.
Several features of the parabolic material are particularly significant for the paper’s argument. First, the steward’s authority is real but derivative: the steward exercises genuine governance over the master’s household or estate, making real decisions with real consequences—but the authority is entrusted, not owned, and it is accountable rather than sovereign. Second, the evaluation of stewardship is always prospective: the question is not what the steward has preserved but what he has done with what was entrusted—whether the entrustment has been productive, whether the master’s interests have been served, whether the household has flourished under the steward’s management. Third, the return of the master is not a threat to be evaded but the proper context within which stewardship is to be understood: the faithful steward manages as if the master will return, because the master will return, and because the quality of stewardship is defined by what it will look like at the moment of accounting.
This framework has direct implications for how human tenure of land and resources is to be understood. Human beings are stewards of creation on behalf of its Owner; the Owner will return for an accounting; and the quality of stewardship will be evaluated not by what has been preserved in the abstract but by what the creation has produced under human governance—whether it has flourished, whether its fruitfulness has been maintained and extended, whether those who depend on it have been sustained or exploited.
Ownership: What the Biblical Tradition Does Not Support**
Having established what dominion and stewardship mean within the biblical framework, it is possible to specify with precision what the biblical tradition does not support: the modern ideology of private ownership as unrestricted, absolute, and alienable control over land and resources.
The modern concept of property as analyzed by Macpherson (1978) and Schlatter (1951) is a historically specific construction with identifiable roots in early modern European legal and political thought—particularly in the Lockean tradition of natural rights theory, which grounds property rights in labor and treats them as pre-political and therefore as constraints on rather than products of political authority. This concept of property as natural right, absolute within its sphere, and limited only by the equal rights of others has no biblical basis. The biblical tradition does not recognize absolute property rights in land; it recognizes only conditional, accountable, and delegated tenure—tenure that is subject to the prior claim of the Creator-Owner and governed by the covenant terms under which it was granted.
The confusion between the biblical concept of stewardship and the modern concept of property rights has had serious consequences for both theology and politics. Theologically, it has produced a tradition of reading the dominion mandate as a license for extraction rather than a commission for accountable governance—a tradition that White (1967) rightly criticized, even if his attribution of ecological destruction to Christianity per se was too sweeping. Politically, it has allowed the modern ideology of property rights to claim biblical support that the biblical tradition does not provide—to represent enclosure and accumulation as expressions of legitimate dominion when they are, in biblical terms, precisely the violations of covenant stewardship that the Torah prohibits and the prophets indict.
The distinction that matters is between authority and sovereignty. The biblical tradition grants human beings real authority over creation—the authority of governance, cultivation, and care—while denying them the sovereignty that the modern ownership ideology claims—the authority of unlimited appropriation, permanent alienation, and extraction without accountability. Authority is always representative and accountable; sovereignty claims independence that the creation mandate does not grant and that the covenant framework explicitly forecloses.
VI. The Judgment on Accumulation: Civilizational Implications
The prophetic material examined in Section IV identifies enclosure not merely as covenant violation at the individual level but as civilizational catastrophe: the accumulation of land and the reduction of the many to landlessness and dependency is the material expression of a fundamental social disorder that, if uncorrected, produces the collapse of the covenant community and, by extension, the collapse of the civilization that community sustains.
This civilizational claim requires some elaboration. The prophets do not condemn enclosure merely because it harms its immediate victims—though it does. They condemn it because it destroys the social structure that the covenant community is meant to embody and from which its witness to the nations is derived. Israel’s calling, in the prophetic understanding, is to be a community ordered in accordance with YHWH’s character and purposes—a community in which the poor are protected, the vulnerable are sustained, and the land is managed in accordance with the Creator’s intentions for it. When that community abandons its covenant vocation and adopts instead the accumulative logic of the surrounding nations, it not only harms its members but forfeits its reason for existence.
Isaiah 5:8’s observation that the accumulator ends by dwelling alone—“until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land”—is not merely a description of economic monopoly. It is a theological judgment on what accumulation achieves: not the wealth and power it promises but isolation, the destruction of the very community that gives life its human meaning and that constitutes the accumulator’s own humanity. The encloser who devours the nachalah of his neighbors does not thereby become more fully human; he becomes less so, because the relational and communal fabric of covenant life—the life for which human beings were made—is what he has destroyed.
This judgment has civilizational dimensions that the prophetic literature articulates through the theme of exile. The loss of the land—the ultimate judgment announced in the prophets for the covenant people’s failure—is not merely the loss of territory; it is the unraveling of the entire fabric of covenant life that the land provision was designed to sustain. When the people who have been given land as the material basis of covenant community respond by concentrating that land in the hands of a few and reducing the many to landlessness, they have already, in effect, enacted the exile before it occurs politically: the social structure of distributed covenant community has been destroyed by enclosure before any foreign army arrives to complete its destruction.
Brueggemann (1977) characterized this dynamic as the prophets’ central social diagnosis: the prophetic movement arises precisely at the points where the alternative consciousness of the Torah—the vision of a community ordered by covenant justice rather than by accumulative power—is being systematically displaced by the royal consciousness of accumulation, monopoly, and imperial self-aggrandizement. The prophetic indictment of enclosure is therefore not a response to particular injustices within an otherwise sound social order; it is a diagnosis of the collapse of the social order itself, and the announcement of the judgment that that collapse has made inevitable.
The civilizational implications are not limited to ancient Israel. The prophetic framework identifies a structural pattern—the progressive displacement of covenant stewardship by accumulative enclosure, the reduction of the many to dependency, and the social collapse that follows—that is not limited to any particular historical context but is inherent in the dynamics of accumulation wherever they are left uncorrected. Isaiah, Amos, and Micah are not antiquarians; they are analysts of a structural dynamic that has repeated itself, with variations, across every civilization that has abandoned the distributed stewardship ethic for the logic of enclosure.
The implications of this analysis for contemporary commons governance are explored in the following section, but the theological point deserves to be made first on its own terms: the judgment on accumulation in the prophetic tradition is not a contingent sanction that YHWH might choose to impose or withhold depending on circumstances. It is the natural consequence of the distortion of the human relationship to creation—a consequence that is built into the structure of that relationship by its Creator, and that unfolds with the kind of necessity that covenant theology identifies as the inevitable outworking of faithlessness. Enclosure is not merely inefficient or unjust; it is, in the biblical framework, the expression of a fundamental disorder in the human relationship to creation, to community, and to the Creator—a disorder whose consequences are as certain as the character of the One whose purposes for creation it violates.
VII. Applying the Biblical Framework: Contemporary Enclosure and What Scripture Contributes
The biblical framework developed in the preceding sections provides diagnostic resources for contemporary enclosure that are both continuous with and distinct from what secular commons theory offers. This section applies the framework to contemporary enclosure dynamics and identifies what the biblical tradition contributes to commons theory that secular frameworks cannot generate from their own resources.
The Privatization of Common Goods
The most direct contemporary expression of the dynamics that the biblical tradition condemns is the progressive privatization of what have historically functioned as common goods: water, land, seeds, knowledge, and the atmospheric commons. Each of these privatization movements exhibits the structural pattern that the prophets identified: the progressive appropriation by economically and politically powerful actors of resources that the community has historically shared, the reduction of those who formerly had access to dependency on the appropriators, and the moralization of the process as efficiency, development, or progress.
The privatization of water—the conversion of what Leviticus 25’s framework would recognize as a shared resource held under divine provision into a commodity traded on markets and owned by corporations—exhibits the Micah 2 pattern with particular clarity: powerful actors (those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds, because it is in the power of their hand) systematically appropriate access to an essential resource, pricing out those who cannot pay and reducing them to dependency on those who control access. The prophetic framework identifies this not merely as unfair but as a covenant violation—an assertion of sovereignty over what belongs to the Creator and was meant to sustain the community.
The enclosure of the seed commons—the patenting of plant varieties and the legal prohibition of seed-saving by farmers who have cultivated these varieties for generations—is perhaps the most direct contemporary analogue to the nachalah enclosure that Micah condemns. The ancestral genetic heritage of agricultural communities, developed over generations through the accumulated labor and knowledge of farmers across the world, is being appropriated by corporations that assert proprietary ownership over what was previously a shared inheritance of the agricultural community. The prophetic indictment of those who covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them away; they oppress a man and his house, a man and his inheritance requires very little translation to apply to this phenomenon.
What the Biblical Framework Contributes Beyond Secular Theory
The preceding papers in this series have developed an account of commons governance that draws substantially on the secular traditions of institutional economics, virtue ethics, developmental psychology, and political theory. The biblical framework does not replace these contributions; it extends and grounds them in ways that secular theory cannot achieve from its own resources. Several contributions are particularly significant.
The ontological grounding of the accountability claim. Secular commons theory can demonstrate that accountability relationships produce better governance outcomes than unaccountable extraction; it can show that distributed stewardship is more sustainable than enclosure; it can identify the institutional conditions under which commons governance succeeds. What it cannot do is ground the claim that accountability is obligatory rather than merely prudent—that the failure of accountability is not merely inefficient but wrong in a sense that carries genuine normative weight. The biblical framework grounds this claim in the character of the Creator-Owner: accountability is not merely instrumentally useful but structutally required by the nature of human tenure as stewardship. The encloser is not merely making a poor governance choice; he is violating a covenant obligation to the Owner of what he has appropriated.
The prophetic diagnosis of institutional capture. The prophetic literature’s analysis of how covenant institutions—judicial processes, market regulations, religious observances—are captured by accumulative interests and redirected toward the consolidation of power at the expense of the vulnerable provides a diagnostic resource that secular commons theory has only partially developed. Amos’s identification of the corruption of the gate—the judicial institution that should have protected the poor from accumulative dispossession—as a central mechanism of enclosure anticipates the contemporary analysis of regulatory capture and institutional corruption with a precision that the secular literature has not surpassed.
The structural scope of the Jubilee. The Jubilee provision addresses the enclosure problem at a level of structural ambition that contemporary secular policy has not approached: it does not merely regulate the rate of accumulation or provide safety nets for those who have been dispossessed; it provides for the periodic structural reversal of accumulation, returning distributed tenure to the baseline that covenant justice requires. This is not a policy that can be directly transplanted into contemporary institutional contexts, but as a structural concept it raises the standard against which contemporary commons governance must be evaluated: not merely whether the rate of enclosure has been slowed but whether the structural dynamics of accumulation have been genuinely corrected.
The formation of the encloser. The biblical framework is distinctive in its attention to the formation of the encloser as well as to the governance structures that constrain enclosure from outside. The Torah’s sabbatical and Jubilee provisions are not merely external constraints on accumulative behavior; they are formative instruments designed to shape the perception, motivation, and self-understanding of economic actors in ways that make the sovereignty fantasy structurally difficult to sustain. The sabbatical year that requires the landowner to relinquish the produce of the seventh year, the Jubilee that requires the return of acquired land, the debt release that requires the forgiveness of loans, the prohibition on harvesting the corners of fields (Leviticus 19:9–10) that requires the landlord to leave something for the poor and the stranger—these are all formative practices, repeated year after year and generation after generation, designed to form the Israelite landlord in the habit of relinquishment that covenant stewardship requires and that the sovereignty fantasy resists.
This formative dimension is the biblical tradition’s most distinctive contribution to the formation-based account of commons governance that this suite develops. The secular formation analysis of Paper 5 identified the four competencies that shared governance requires and the institutional conditions that support their formation; the biblical tradition provides the theological account of why formation in precisely these competencies—externality awareness, boundary discipline, role containment, and tolerance of imperfect coordination—is not merely practically useful but theologically required. The steward who governs creation faithfully is the human being who most fully realizes the imago Dei as the Torah and the prophets understand it; the encloser who asserts sovereignty over what belongs to the Creator is the human being who has most fully distorted that image in the direction of the false sovereignty that the serpent promised and the fall produced.
VIII. Conclusion: Beyond Secular Theory
This paper has argued that the biblical tradition offers a coherent, structurally integrated, and theologically grounded critique of enclosure that extends from the foundational claim of Leviticus 25:23—“the land is mine”—through the structural mechanism of the Jubilee, through the prophetic application of the covenant land ethic to specific historical instances of accumulation, to an account of the judgment on enclosure that is both individual and civilizational. The paper has also argued that this framework contributes to commons theory resources that secular traditions cannot generate from their own premises: an ontological grounding for the accountability claim, a diagnostic analysis of institutional capture, a structural standard for the correction of enclosure that exceeds contemporary secular policy ambition, and a theological account of formation that gives the practical competencies identified in the preceding paper their deepest rationale.
The concluding claim of the series, stated from the perspective of the biblical tradition, can be put simply: the tragedy of the commons is a theological category before it is a governance category. It is the result of the attempt by human beings to exercise sovereignty over what belongs to the Creator—to convert stewardship into ownership, accountability into autonomy, and the nachalah of their neighbors into the extension of their own domain. The prophets did not moralize this attempt; they indicted it as covenant breach and announced its consequences as covenant judgment. And the Jubilee did not merely moralize its correction; it legislated it structurally, embedding the periodic reversal of enclosure into the institutional fabric of the covenant community’s life.
Secular commons theory has made substantial progress in understanding the governance conditions under which commons succeed and fail. It has not, and by its own terms cannot, address the deepest question that the biblical tradition raises: not how to design governance systems that work despite fallen human nature, but how human beings might be formed into the kind of stewards that the Creator commissioned in the beginning and the covenant requires—stewards who govern creation faithfully, care for their neighbors’ nachalah as well as their own, and hold the boundary between legitimate authority and illegitimate sovereignty with the discipline that comes not from external constraint but from the formation of a character shaped by the knowledge of who the Land ultimately belongs to.
That formation is the subject of the Jubilee, the concern of the prophets, and the deepest practical challenge of commons governance in any age.
Notes
Note 1. The rendering of Leviticus 25:23 throughout this paper follows the ESV; the Hebrew is unambiguous on the key terms. Lo timakher litsmitut—”it shall not be sold in perpetuity”—uses the niphal of makar with the adverb litsmitut (permanently, definitively). The force of the prohibition is absolute alienation of the kind that removes the land permanently from the family’s claim; leasehold arrangements and redemption transactions are explicitly permitted by the surrounding legislation (25:25–34). The theological rationale—ki li ha-arets (“for the land is mine”)—uses the simple first-person possessive with the covenant name, establishing YHWH’s ownership as the direct ground of the prohibition.
Note 2. The debate over the historical implementation of the Jubilee is extensive and cannot be resolved here. Scholars including North (1954), Westbrook (1971), Gnuse (1985), and Wright (1990) have argued for various positions ranging from the view that the Jubilee was never practiced to the view that it functioned as a regulatory framework even if its full provisions were never comprehensively enforced. For the purposes of this paper, the question of historical implementation is secondary to the question of structural logic: the Jubilee provision articulates a coherent and sophisticated response to enclosure dynamics that is theologically grounded and institutionally specific, regardless of the degree to which it was implemented in any given period. The prophetic indictment of enclosure in contexts where the Jubilee was presumably available suggests that its non-implementation was itself a covenant failure, which is a distinct claim from the claim that it was never enacted.
Note 3. Lynn White’s (1967) influential essay “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis” argued that the Genesis dominion mandate was the principal ideological source of the exploitative relationship to nature that produced the ecological crisis of the twentieth century. This argument has been extensively criticized and has generated a substantial theological and historical literature in response. The most effective responses—including those of Santmire (1985), Middleton (2005), and Bauckham (2011)—demonstrate that White’s reading depends on a serious misreading of the Genesis text and of the broader biblical tradition, which does not support the unlimited exploitation he attributed to the dominion mandate. The present paper’s analysis of dominion as accountable governance rather than unlimited extraction is consistent with these responses and provides the conceptual framework within which they should be understood.
Note 4. The concept of nachalah deserves more extensive treatment than this paper can provide. In addition to Wright’s (1990) account, von Rad’s (1966) analysis of the theological significance of the land in the Old Testament is essential background, as is Brueggemann’s (2002) extended development of the land theme across the entire canon. The nachalah concept is important for the present argument because it establishes that the Torah’s land provisions are not merely redistributive mechanisms but expressions of a theology of belonging: each family’s ancestral portion is their place in the covenant community, and the loss of that portion is therefore not merely an economic loss but a loss of communal membership and covenantal standing.
Note 5. The relationship between the sabbatical year debt release of Deuteronomy 15 and the Jubilee of Leviticus 25 involves complex source-critical and redaction-critical questions that this paper does not address. What matters for the present argument is the structural coherence of the two provisions as expressions of the same underlying theology of land and debt: both provisions are designed to interrupt the dynamics of progressive accumulation and dispossession by providing structural mechanisms for their periodic reversal, and both ground these mechanisms in the character of YHWH as Redeemer. The Deuteronomy 15 text’s explicit acknowledgment of the psychological resistance that debt cancellation generates—the grudging eye that looks toward the approaching year of release—is particularly significant for the formation analysis of this series, as it demonstrates that the Torah’s authors were not naive about the motivational obstacles to covenant compliance and built formative provisions into the legislation accordingly.
Note 6. The prophetic books examined in this paper—Isaiah, Amos, and Micah—all address the eighth century BCE context of the northern and southern kingdoms during a period of economic expansion that had produced dramatic social stratification. The historical context is significant because it demonstrates that the prophetic indictment of enclosure was not directed at exceptional or marginal behavior but at practices that had become systematically normative in the covenant community—practices that the economic growth of the period had made profitable and that the legal and judicial institutions of the society had been corrupted to protect. The structural character of the prophetic indictment, directed at social and economic patterns rather than at individual wrongdoers, is a model for the diagnostic approach that this series advocates.
Note 7. The New Testament parables of stewardship receive only brief treatment in this paper because their primary contribution—the elaboration of the oikonomia framework and its eschatological grounding in the expectation of the returning master—extends the Torah’s foundational theology rather than revising it. A full treatment of the New Testament stewardship material would include Luke 12:42–48, which explicitly correlates the degree of accountability with the degree of knowledge (to whom much was given, much will be required), and the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, which evaluates stewardship not by what has been preserved but by what has been produced. Both passages reinforce the argument of this paper that the biblical concept of stewardship is not ascetic (preserving by withholding use) but productive (cultivating what has been entrusted for the purposes of the Owner).
Note 8. The application of the biblical framework to contemporary enclosure dynamics in Section VII necessarily involves a degree of analogical reasoning that requires acknowledgment. The biblical provisions addressed specific historical contexts in ancient Israel, and their direct application to contemporary institutional situations requires attention to both the continuities and the discontinuities between those contexts. The structural logic of the provisions—the theology of accountable stewardship, the prohibition of permanent alienation, the structural reversal of accumulation—translates across contexts because it is grounded in claims about the character of the Creator and the nature of the human relationship to creation that are not limited to any particular historical situation. The specific institutional provisions—the Jubilee, the sabbatical year, the corner-of-the-field provision—require analogical rather than direct application, but the structural logic they express has direct contemporary relevance.
Note 9. Readers interested in the broader development of a biblical theology of creation care and environmental stewardship will find Bauckham (2011) and Bouma-Prediger (2010) useful, though neither engages the commons governance literature directly. The intersection between biblical land theology and contemporary commons theory represents a substantially underdeveloped area of interdisciplinary research, and the present suite of papers is an attempt to begin bridging that gap from the theological side. The invitation is open for commons governance scholars to engage the biblical tradition as a serious theoretical interlocutor rather than a historical curiosity.
References
Bauckham, R. (2011). Bible and ecology: Rediscovering the community of creation. Baylor University Press.
Bouma-Prediger, S. (2010). For the beauty of the earth: A Christian vision for creation care (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.
Brueggemann, W. (1977). The prophetic imagination. Fortress Press.
Brueggemann, W. (1978). The land: Place as gift, promise, and challenge in biblical faith. Fortress Press.
Brueggemann, W. (2002). The land: Place as gift, promise, and challenge in biblical faith (2nd ed.). Fortress Press.
Childs, B. S. (1992). Biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological reflection on the Christian Bible. Fortress Press.
Fager, J. A. (1993). Land tenure and the biblical jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew ethics through the sociology of knowledge. Sheffield Academic Press.
Gnuse, R. (1985). You shall not steal: Community and property in the biblical tradition. Orbis Books.
Hamilton, J. M. (1992). Social justice and Deuteronomy: The case of Deuteronomy 15. Scholars Press.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hartley, J. E. (1992). Leviticus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 4). Word Books.
Houston, W. (2008). Contending for justice: Ideologies and theologies of social justice in the Old Testament. T&T Clark.
Japhet, S. (2000). The relationship between the legal corpora in the Pentateuch in light of manumission laws. In B. M. Levinson (Ed.), Theory and method in biblical and cuneiform law: Revision, interpolation, and development (pp. 131–145). Sheffield Academic Press.
Kaiser, W. C., Jr. (1983). Toward Old Testament ethics. Zondervan.
Levinson, B. M. (1997). Deuteronomy and the hermeneutics of legal innovation. Oxford University Press.
Macpherson, C. B. (Ed.). (1978). Property: Mainstream and critical positions. University of Toronto Press.
Mays, J. L. (1976). Micah: A commentary. Westminster Press.
Middleton, J. R. (2005). The liberating image: The imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.
Milgrom, J. (2001). Leviticus 23–27 (Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 3B). Doubleday.
North, R. (1954). Sociology of the biblical jubilee. Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Rogerson, J. W. (1986). Was early Israel a segmentary society? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 36, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/030908928601103602
Santmire, H. P. (1985). The travail of nature: The ambiguous ecological promise of Christian theology. Fortress Press.
Schlatter, R. (1951). Private property: The history of an idea. Rutgers University Press.
Schwartz, B. J. (1995). Jubilee. In K. D. Sakenfeld (Ed.), The new interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 3, pp. 430–434). Abingdon Press.
Soss, N. M. (1973). Old Testament law and economic society. Journal of the History of Ideas, 34(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708804
von Rad, G. (1966). The problem of the Hexateuch and other essays (E. W. T. Dicken, Trans.). Oliver and Boyd.
Westbrook, R. (1971). Jubilee laws. Israel Law Review, 6(2), 209–226.
White, L., Jr. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203
Wright, C. J. H. (1990). God’s people in God’s land: Family, land, and property in the Old Testament. Eerdmans.
Wright, C. J. H. (2004). Old Testament ethics for the people of God. Inter-Varsity Press.
Wright, C. J. H. (2010). The mission of God’s people: A biblical theology of the church’s mission. Zondervan.
