The Law is Just (Pt. 6): Exodus 22:1-15 - The Restoration of Property

As we begin chapter 22, we find that God provides more laws as it pertains to property. This is where the "general equity" of the Law truly stands out as a strong example and basis for common law. I can't think of any statement in the following passage that one could object to, once it is correctly understood. In fact, I think one can argue that our current justice system would be greatly improved if we stood under the wisdom of this passage. How so? Moses writes:

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double.

“If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed, and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

“If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

“If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor’s goods.

“For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, then an oath of the Lord shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. But if, in fact, it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn.

“And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. If its owner was with it, he shall not make it good; if it was hired, it came for its hire.

The general "gist" of this passage is that thieves are to punished by being forced to make restitution, paying back at least a double portion. As verse 1 says, if he steals in order to make a profit, the thief is to pay four or five times the amount that the animal was worth. If the guilty party is unable to pay, then he was to be sold into slavery, where an arrangement would be made, such that the injured party was repaid through his labors. There is NOTHING in this text about locking the thief up, or mutilating his body, such as is common place in Middle Eastern nations. Even slavery is a last resort, to be enforced only when the individual is unable to pay. Because property was stolen, it is property that must be restored. That is the principle of justice when it comes to property. To deter criminals, the punishment is not only to make restitution, but at least a double restitution (which also grants peace of mind to the affected party). However, in this case the criminal's life is not to be "dissolved" with either death, mutilation, or the purgatory of being "locked up." He is still respected as an image bearer of God with certain rights. In fact, verse 3 limits the term in which a "self-defense" killing can be argued for taking the life of a thief. If the thief is still alive the next day (most theft would happen at night, like today), and presumably off one's property, then one had no right to take his life. How much of the current disdain for our "justice" system could be eliminated if we would listen to the wisdom here? Many libertarians, liberals, and even some conservatives, have expressed disgust at the amount of people who are currently locked up for non-violent offenses, to the detriment of the tax-payer. Indeed, Scripture tells us that murderers and sex-criminals are to be punished with death, but all others are to charged with repayment and/or slavery. In fact, even our 13th amendment still says that slavery is appropriate for criminals. But nowhere does Scripture recommend locking someone up for years on end, where they essentially sit around with other criminals all day, while not engaging in the cultural mandate. Nor does the Bible have a concept of one owing a "debt" to society. That concept, in-and-of-itself is almost socialistic, as it views one's responsibility as being to "the collective" and not to God and one's neighbor. Thieves owe a debt to the one whom they have stolen from, and the God who created both of them. In our day of cheap labor and the ability to electronically "dock pay," this is completely reasonable, and courts could order it. It would save the tax payers a lot of money too...

The rest of the text deals with hypotheticals where property is lost, but not due to theft. In the case of an animal that is torn apart by a beast, the accused party is given the option to bring evidence to plead his case. It appears that restitution as it applies to accidental damage is on a 1 to 1 basis, and not the double restitution commanded with theft. In the case of someone who buys stolen goods, verses 7 and 8 order a judge to be brought in to deliberate whether or not it was out of ignorance or intentional.

Again, the Law is perfectly Just.

The Law is Just (Pt. 3): Does Exodus 21:12-19 Say That One Can Stone Their Own Children for Rebellion?

Yes, actually, it does. Immediately this may seem problematic though, as the punishment does not seem to fit the crime in our ordinary observations of such behavior. In fact, this law is embedded between other laws that do seem to be reasonable in many people's eyes.

“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. (Exodus 21:12-19 NKJV)

As usual I have three principles to keep in mind when reading texts like this.

1) We must recognize that God's covenant to redeem Israel only heightens their moral responsibility. We cannot understand many of the Mosaic laws if we do not recognize that the number one concern of the Torah is how a sinful people can live amidst a holy God. This becomes the primary concern of the text after the Exodus, during the construction of the tabernacle, and in the wilderness wanderings. Redemption, in the case of Israel, makes the law more severe in its stipulations. For example, after the theophany on Mt. Sinai, where God verbally gave his law, stricter penalties can be observed over issues like work during the sabbath. For example, in Exodus 16, the Israelites, probably in large numbers, continued to work on the sabbath and yet God had mercy on them after rebuking them. But after God appears to the congregation, he demands the death penalty for the same crime in Exodus 35, and we see it enforced in Numbers 15. Because of their direct experience of God's mercy previously, and his appearance before them, their rejection of his law became a "high handed sin." This can be observed with other laws as well. We must remember that men are responsible before God, not other men, and justice is primarily about an attribute of God, not about "fairness" or equality before men. Revelation intensifies these realities, especially in light of how God orders his covenant community.

2) Covenant transmission occurs in the Bible primarily through the family unit. Therefore, the parents are entrusted with the covenant and the responsibility to pass it along to their children in the form of signs (IE circumcision/baptism), instructions (Dt. 6:1-4), and example. This also meant that children of the covenant had a heightened responsibility as well; to receive and believe in God as He was given to them in the covenant. In the Old Testament, where church and state were required to be conjoined, this meant that excommunication due to covenant rejection was normally enforced through the death penalty (with some exceptions). The disobedient child subject to the death penalty is not a child who merely displayed regular adolescent foolishness, but one that was particularly wicked and refused to obey God and the parents He placed over them. A rejection of parental authority in the context of the covenant had a heightened severity to it (in line with point 1)). This is why the 5th commandment, to honor one's Father and Mother, is the first commandment pertaining to our duty to man that follows the previous four pertaining to our duty to God. Parents were the horizontal connection to the individual child's vertical relationship with God. Furthermore, to "curse" one's parents is a serious offense, and probably involved a lot more than what us moderners intend when we say "swear words." Deuteronomy 21:20 further describes this child as one who, "will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." This is a child, who at a certain age of maturity (IE he could drink), had rejected his parents authority (and thus rejected God), and committed his life to squander and wickedness.

3) Again, as I have stated in previous posts, the Old Testament laws present us with maximum penalties, not necessarily required penalties. On top of that, the passage in Deuteronomy 21 clearly implies that a child put to death for such offenses had to have their parents as the accuser. Capital offenses in the Old Testament require two or three witnesses, and since the offense was against the parents, the parents had to be the witnesses. In the ancient near-east, just as today, that would be a very difficult thing for a parent to do regardless of the child's behavior. Familial connections often lead to extraordinary instances of mercy and grace. In fact, out of all of the historical books, we do not have one instance of parents bringing such charges against their children. It probably rarely, if ever occurred.

At first, we may hesitate to confidently state that in this instance, the law is indeed just. That is because we often associate justice, with mere human justice, not divine justice. Justice is an attribute of God, one which all fallen men are opposed to and violate. Therefore, in the covenant community, where God was "birthing" salvation for the world, rebellion against God's commands were treated with more severity as we saw in point 1). Because of the covenantal arrangement of Hebrew life, the parent-child relationship was also intensified according to point 2). However, the parental-child relationship was not completely disregarded, as the parents had the final say in this matter given point 3). So with this law we get a sense of both the severity of God's justice, and the implied tenderness and mercy that comes from familial relations. This law is completely fulfilled by Christ, who as the eternal, beloved Son of God, came into this world, under the law of Moses, to redeem us from the curse of the law. He did that by submitting himself to the death penalty for our childish rebellion against the Most High, even though he was without sin. However, because he was the eternal, beloved Son of God, being without sin, when he had completed that work, he was raised again from the dead and ascended into heaven to return to the "lap" of the Father. Therefore, all those who are in him are given the status as the sons of God, and are justified in their relationship to the law. The law is Just, and Jesus is merciful. Amen.

Dr. Donald Barnhouse on the Organic Inspiration of Scripture

I came across this passage in Dr. Barnhouse's The Invisible War which I found insightful in describing the doctrine of Verbal-Plenary inspiration to those who are unfamiliar. He writes:

"It is objected by some that the marks of human personality upon the writings of the various human authors indicate that the Bible is a human book. We would answer this with an analogy. The angel who announced to Mary that she would become the mother of the Messiah, heard the Virgin ask, "How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man?" The answer came: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). So the baby was born. He was the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God. But He was not a Chinese baby, nor a Negro baby, nor a Nordic Aryan; He was a Jewish baby. The greatest glory of Israel was this: "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5).

Just as the Holy Spirit came upon the womb of Mary, so He came upon the brain of a Moses, a David, an Isaiah, a Paul, a John, and the rest of the writers of the divine library. The power of the Highest overshadowed them, therefore that holy thing which was born of their minds is called the Holy Bible, the Word of God. The writings of Luke will, of course, have the vocabulary of Luke, and the works of Paul will bear the stamp of Paul's mind. However, this is only in the same manner that the Lord Jesus Christ might have had eyes like His mother's, or hair that was the same color and texture as hers. He did not inherit her sins, because the Holy Spirit had come upon her. If we ask how this could be, the answer is that God says so. And the writings of the men of the Book did not inherit the errors of their carnal minds, because the writings were conceived by the Holy Spirit and born out of their personalities without partaking of their fallen nature. If we ask how this could be, again the answer is that God says so." (Barnhouse, The Invisible War Pg. 6)

This analogy, while not claiming to give a comprehensive vision of how the Spirit works in inspiration, is helpful in giving us a tangible example that we can relate to. Inspiration is analogous to the incarnation. Just as Jesus took a human nature onto His divine nature, so the Holy Spirit can use finite men in the writing of God's inerrant Word. There is no necessary problem with either of those truths, although our minds cannot completely comprehend either mystery.

The Law is Just (Pt. 2): Does Exodus 21:7-11 Promote Selling One's Daughter into Sex Slavery?

In my previous post I presented a general introduction to the Mosaic institution of slavery. Specifically, I dealt with the issue on whether or not slavery was viewed as more important than marriage, in ancient Israel, and also whether or not Moses advocates for the breaking up of slave marriages. As I demonstrated, if we keep in mind the high view of justice and restitution that revolved around the institution of slavery, and the voluntarism that was implicit in it, most of the claims made about the "horrors" of the Bible, as it pertains to slavery, dissipates. In fact, the Mosaic codes protect against abuses. When we approach our text today, a similar point will be made, but as it pertains to daughters who were sold into slavery/servant hood with the expectation that they will be married into the household. So what does the text say?

“And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money." (Exodus 21:7-11 NKJV)

If one is unfamiliar with ancient near-eastern culture, it is somewhat understandable as to why they would assume that this is talking about "sex slavery." In fact, there are plenty of Facebook memes out there making arguments to that effect. However, this is simply a case of not understanding, or not being willing to understand, time and place. There are three principles through which to view this verse and the culture that it made sense in. The first principle is a repeat from my previous post.

1) Slavery in the Old Testament is a form of civil restitution. It is commonly referred to as "debt-bondage" slavery. If someone had gone into debt, they could pay off their debt by going into slavery for a time (or if they were not able, to sell their son or daughter). In fact, the verses immediately prior to our text state, "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exodus 21:1,2 NKJV). If slaves were injured by their Master they were to be set free, and paid restitution" (Ex. 21:26,27). Slaves were not to be treated as sub-human, however, their rights were somewhat limited. For example, while an injured slave was to be set free, if they were killed, the text says that their master was just to be "punished," without specifying the death penalty which is the normal penalty for murder (Ex. 21:20). Slavery was a regulated institution, and slaves had a certain amount of rights, but it in no way was meant to be a desirable institution. God did not want to make it look like an easy way out. God's people were to avoid debt (Prov. 11:51; 17:18; 22:7; 22:26,27; 27:13)

2) Families who were in debt, where the parents were not able to work, could knock out two birds with one stone by selling their daughter into slavery with the intention that she would marry into that family, who obviously were in a better financial position. This would bind the family who is in debt to a family who is more successful, and thus provide them with obvious social advantage. They would also be assured that their daughter would end up in a better situation. The daughter would first prove herself by being a faithful debt-bondage servant in the household for the time period allotted.

3) Women in the ancient near east do not necessarily have the same expectations of romance and relationships that women in our day do. Initially the principles above may seem harsh, legalistic, and purely economical. However, women back then would not necessarily view it that way. Even in our day where romance and personal choice are everything in relationships, people still pursue spouses for economic and social reasons one way or another. Furthermore, in the biblical worldview, love is not something that "happens," it is something that is developed and grows in the context of a binding social contract. In that, everything from a voluntary choice in marriage to arranged marriages are considered "biblical." The key issue in the biblical scheme is parental approval.

In light of those three principles, the nature of verses 7-11 become clear. This is not a verse about "sex slavery." The word "sex slave" is never used in the text, it is simply read into the context by those who are openly antagonistic to Scripture. A sexual slave would be antithetical to the ethics of the Mosaic law, as only sex within marriage is permitted and encouraged. Furthermore, the wisdom literature of Israel also strongly condemns fornication and prostitution. In light of principle 1) this was a move a family would make to better their situation and their daughter's situation, while also getting out of debt as principle 2) makes clear. If you look back at the law, it actually provides legal and economic protection for such a potential bride. If the the master who was engaged to her did not like her, he could not just sell her to foreigners to become a lifelong slave. She was to be sent back, or "redeemed." If he married her to his sons, and they left her, she was still to be treated as a daughter, not a slave. This verse protects women from abuse in its ancient near-eastern context. The Law is Just.

The Law is Just (Pt. 1): Does Exodus 22:3-6 Condone the Splitting of Slave Families?

This is going to be the first installment in a series of blog posts I am titling "The Law is Just." The title pretty much summarizes my goal. I am going to be examining the case laws of the Old Testament in order to demonstrate that they are 1) completely reasonable in their ancient near-eastern context, and 2) are fully in line with the realities of a sinful people living amidst a holy God.

I am going to kick off this series by examining the first controversial case law one might come across if they are reading through the Torah. That is Exodus 21:3-6:

"If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." (Exodus 21:3-6 NKJV)

In many people's eyes, it is clear enough that the Bible "condones" slavery, which is problematic in light of what happened in this country's first century, and texts like this seem to only make matters worse for the Bible's credibility in our land. Does this text teach that slave families can be broken up, or that the institution is viewed as more important than marriage?

In answering that question we first need to consider three truths about Old Testament case laws, and case laws in general.

1) The purpose of case laws is always to give a real-life example of a principle of justice. Case laws are not rigid. Remember, Hebrew is more a visual language than it is an analytic language. It is great for story telling or writing narratives. Therefore, case laws often give us a "story" or an example of a principle of justice which can then be applied to other situations in a similar context. Remember, most of these laws would have to be memorized by judges, as well as the people, in order to be applied to the various situations of life. Because of that, they often deal with "worst case scenarios," or often give the maximum penalty for a crime, while not necessarily implying that the maximum penalty must be enforced.

2) The Old Testament has a very high view of civil restitution. The "eye for an eye" principle is used when it comes to restitution. This is not the same as the Code of Hammurabi, as the Old Testament does not, for example, prescribe that one should poke out their neighbors eye if he poked out yours. "Eye for an eye" was a euphemism in the time and place of the Old Testament for equity. When it came to property disputes, the principle was "eye for an eye."

3) Slavery in the Old Testament is a form of civil restitution. It is commonly referred to as "debt-bondage" slavery. If someone had gone into debt, they could pay off their debt by going into slavery for a time (or if they were not able, to sell their son or daughter). In fact, the verses immediately prior to our text state, "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exodus 21:1,2 NKJV). If slaves were injured by their Master they were to be set free, and paid restitution (Ex. 21:26,27). Lifelong slavery only occurred with POWs and, as the last verse of our text recounts, with those who volunteered for it. Slaves were not to be treated as sub-human, however, their rights were somewhat limited. For example, while an injured slave was to be set free, if they were killed, the text says that their master was just to be "punished," without specifying the death penalty which is the normal penalty for murder (Ex. 21:20). Slavery was a regulated institution, and slaves had a certain amount of rights, but it in no way was meant to be a desirable institution. God did not want to make it look like an easy way out. God's people were to avoid debt (Prov. 11:51; 17:18; 22:7; 22:26,27; 27:13).

So case laws often give us a narrative of "worst case scenario," the Old Testament is strong on civil restitution, and slaves, while protected, were put in a lower social position. How do these principles help us in interpreting Ex. 22:3-6?

First, we must recognize, that the verse immediately prior to our text specifies that slaves were ordinarily only to serve for 6 years. The assumption is that if someone was a slave for life, they volunteered for it, and our text gives instructions on how a husband might do that if he married a woman who had already done that. Clearly, the implication is that the wife had voluntarily made herself a slave prior to their relationship. Keeping point 3) in mind, this meant that she agreed to that social position because, while it took away some of her rights, she saw it as a position providing security. Notice the hypothetical husband himself says that he "loves his master." This is clearly a master who loves his slaves, and takes good care of them. Keeping in mind point 1), clearly the implication is that if the wife was only a slave for a 6 year period, and he was released early, he had to either stay with her, or wait until she was released. That may sound harsh or cruel, but keeping in mind point 2), usually the slave is in debt to their master, and the Mosaic law has a high view of civil restitution. You must pay what you owe, to the full. However, nowhere in the text does it say the master has to follow these rules. If they desired to be merciful and let them go together, they were at liberty to do so. Compared to other ancient near-east slave codes, the Hebrews Scriptures are far above the norm, and protect from chattel slavery and other inhumane abuses. The law is just.

This text does not condone breaking up of slave families, in fact, the first few verses speak against this. The issue here is a "worst case scenario" where a debt-bondage slave marries a voluntary life-long slave. In that case, he can only stay with her if he becomes one as well, because she belongs to her master. Knowing this case law, the debt-bondage slave would have known what he was getting into marrying her. And the implication in the text is that the master is a kind and just one as well.

But that isn't the whole story. You see Christ not only "married" us in our slavery, he also then elevated us to being sons and daughters of God, as he was the Son of the master over the household.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come— In the volume of the book it is written of Me— To do Your will, O God.’” (Heb. 10:5-7)

The book of Hebrews here is actually quoting Psalm 40:6, which in the hebrew literally says, "ears you have dug for me" where the book of Hebrews says "a body you have prepared for me." The image in the Psalm is of a slave becoming a life-long servant through having his ears dug with an awl, just as Exodus 21 prescribes. Hebrews 10 compares Christ's incarnation to this same voluntary servitude. You see, it's as if Christ said, "I love my Father, I love my bride, and I love my children," just as the husband does in Exodus 21. Therefore, Jesus became like one of us, yet without sin. He entered into our sin and servitude, paid for our sins, and provides the infinite work that we owe to God, in order to be with us and redeem us. Exodus 21 ultimately points to Jesus, who is the husband over the Church.

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." (Gal. 4:4-7 NKJV)

Christ is Risen!

NT Wright, in one of the final chapters of The Resurrection of the Son of God concludes:

"The historical datum now before us is a widely held, consistently shaped and highly influential belief: that Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead. This belief was held by virtually all the early Christians for whom we have evidence. It was at the centre of their characteristic praxis, narrative, symbol and belief; it was the basis of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah and lord, their insistence that the creator god had inaugurated the long-awaited new age, and above all their hope for their future bodily resurrection. The question we now face is obvious: what caused this belief in the resurrection of Jesus?" (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg 685

The answer to that question is obvious. Christ is risen! He is the first-fruits of the final resurrection, the Savior and Lord of all believers, and the inauguration of the New Heavens and the New Earth. He is the risen Messiah. And we know this for certain because 1) The Word of God declares it 2) The Holy Spirit assures us of it 3) General Revelation (in this case, the historical discipline) strongly testifies to point 1 and 2 (as NT Wright thoroughly demonstrates in his work).

As we all celebrate today, let's remember that the special emphasis which we often place on this day, ought to spill over to every Lord's day, and through that, to every day of our lives.

NT Wright on 1 Cor. 15:35-49

I currently am trying to finish N.T Wright's magisterial work The Resurrection of The Son of God in my personal study time. In his chapter on 1 Corinthians 15, I came across a striking connection which I had never seen before. He argues that in 1 Cor. 15:35-49 Paul is drawing an analogy with Genesis 1-2. 1 Cor. 15 is of course one of Paul's most detailed expositions of the doctrine of the resurrection. Wright demonstrates that verses 15-49 firmly roots the doctrine of the resurrection in the doctrine of creation. He writes:

"A glance through Genesis 1-2 reveals how many of its major themes are alluded to in Paul's present argument. The creator God made the heavens and the earth, and filled both with his creatures; Paul mentions these two categories in verse 40, and uses a discussion of them to distinguish the first Adam from the final one. The powerful divine wind, or spirit, moved over the waters, and the divine breath or spirit also animated Adam and Eve; the life-giving activity of both the creator and Jesus is seen by Paul in terms of the pneuma, the spirit, wind of breath (verses 44-6). The creator made the lights in heaven, which Paul mentions in verse 41. He created plants bearing fruit containing seed, so the more plants could be produced; Paul makes this a major theme in verse 36-8, and then draws on the language of 'sowing' in verses 42-4. The creator made every kind of bird, animal and fish; Paul brings them, too, into his argument (verses 39-40). At the climax of Genesis 1, the creator made human beings in his image, to have dominion over the rest of creation, and in Genesis 2 he entrusted Adam in particular with the responsibility for naming the animals; for Paul, too, the climax of the story is the recreation of humankind through the life-giving activity of the final Adam, whose image will be borne by all who belong to him. This is indeed a deliberate and careful theology of new Genesis, of creation renewed." (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg 341)

This sets the context for understanding the Christian teaching of the resurrection in a way that cuts against the grain of several aberrant theologies. Modern theories about gnosticism and the early church are obliterated by Paul's analogy here. 1 Corinthians is recognized by virtually all scholars as one of the earliest extant Christian documents. And here, very early on, we see that Christian theology affirmed the goodness of creation and was rooted organically in the Old Testament. Paul knew he didn't have apologize for using the Old Testament in making his point to the Corinthian Christians. Furthermore, the manner of his argument in verses 35-49 assumes a positive acquaintance with the Old Testament amongst his audience. All of this testifies to the fact that Christian theology, from the very beginning, was firmly rooted in the overarching themes of creation, fall, and redemption. It was not rooted in Gnosticism's worldview of evil matter being created by an evil "lesser" god who they associated with Yahweh.

The theology of the cults is also undermined by Wright's observations. Mormonism bases their eschatology largely on a misreading of this text. They argue, based upon verse 40, that there is a "terrestrial" heaven, a "celestial" heaven and a "telestial" heaven (the "telestial" heaven is admittedly an addition of Mormon "revelation"). Mormons claim that this verse is unintelligible apart from their interpretation of it. However, viewing it as an analogy of Genesis 1-2, and the creation of the heavenly bodies, sufficiently explains the meaning of the text apart from their bizarre innovation. The Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding of Christ's resurrection is also compromised by the creational roots of this text. Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the natural body/spiritual body dichotomy of verse 44-46 argues for a "spiritual," or disembodied, resurrection of Christ. However, if we keep in mind that "spiritual" in the New Testament almost always refers to the Holy Spirit, and we couple that with a recognition of the parallels with Genesis 2, a different conclusion is reached. Just as Adam "became a living being"(vs 45) through the Spirit's work, so did the second Adam become a life giving Spirit (vs. 45) through His work being applied to the church by the Spirit's power.

I can't recommend reading Wright's book enough. He is a man that I strongly disagree with in some areas, and I have even found areas of disagreement with him in this volume. However, rarely do I walk away from the book without feeling edified and challenged in my understanding of the text.