Did Jesus believe in equality, and if so, what would that mean? It obviously means different things to different people in different contexts (we don’t equally mean the same thing…).
Our (the U.S.) declaration of national independence insisted that “all men are created equal,” but it really did mean “men” (not women) and none of the Founders thought that their incomes and possessions should be equal to those of hoi polloi they saw in the streets.
So too, the apostle Paul said that “There is neither New nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor male and female; you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). But he also told women that the head of a “man” was Christ, the head of a “woman” was her husband, and women were therefore to show due deference by wearing a head covering in public (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).
What about Jesus? Did he believe everyone was “equal,” or more important, that they should be? Was it part of his ethical teaching that we should strive for social, political, and economic equality?
Arguments that Jesus believed in economic equality for all are
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Just a minor protest against “hoi polloi” without an English definite article as well. It’s just awkward English because “hoi polloi” reads as a single term. (There are 3 collared peccaries in El Paso zoo. I once met a friend in Los Angeles airport.)
And double definite article are common in Greek, as you obviously know, but that’s just a bit of irony on top.
End of grumble.
Yes, correct English often sounds awkward. But I’m not sure what you mean about a double definite article in Greek. You will never find ο ο ανθρωπος
“Correct English often sounds awkward” – that sounds like something an academic would say, but you don’t write awkwardly even in your scholarly work.
Again, apologies for taking your time with this trivial issue, but: I was thinking of constructions such as τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς βιβλίον ‘the book of the father’ where the articles have different antecedents.
The question is whether “hoi polloi” is a single unit in English, in which case “the” attaches to the whole thing.
I will stop now.
Ah, right! That’s different. As you know, the nominative TO goes with BIBLION and the genitive TOU goes with PATROS. They are two different cases, attached to two different nouns. That’s not like saying “the the many people” “THE OI POLLOI”
I myself found it very awkard to move away from using “the” with OI POLLOI, until one of the brightest graduate students I ever had pointed out that it was both redundant and incorrect. I still feel a tinge when I say OI POLLOI without the English definite article, but I’m getting used to it.
Perhaps Jesus believed that equality would come when Yahweh’s kingdom was established on Earth. Jesus allegedly said, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”. Saying 22: “When you make the two one, and make the inside like the outside, the outside like the inside, the upper like the lower, and male and female into a single one, so that male is not male and female is not female, and when you put eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter the kingdom”. Saying 114: “Simon Peter said, Let Mary go out from among us, for women are not worthy of life. Jesus said, I will lead her so as to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven”.
Assuming a source for the Gospel of Thomas is reliable, combined with Rodney Stark’s observation that women are mostly responsible for Christianity, suggests Jesus supported “feminism”.
It’s hard to be a feminist when feminism doesn’t exist!
Or it wasn’t defined. What I was trying to say is that Jesus may have been ahead of his time in terms of equality and treatment of women. I didn’t want to use the word feminism, so I put it in quotes because my comment reached the 200-word limit. Can we increase the comment limit to 300 words?
Thanks. We can, but won’t. 🙂 (Sorry, but we need to keep to concision as much as possible)
I understand. But sometimes 200 words just isn’t enough. How about a 250-word limit?
Just think of how disciplined a writer you’ll become? (In my nutshell series on the NT for the blog I summarized every book of the NT in precisely 50 words. Nice exercise!)
Will you sweep away the good with the bad? Suppose there are fifty extra words within the comments; will you then sweep away the comment for the fifty extra words in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the comments with the extras, so that the comments fare as the extras. Shall not the Judge of the comments do what is just? Let me take it upon myself to write, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty comments are lacking? Will you destroy the comments for lack of five? Again, I plead, suppose forty extra words are found there? For the sake of the forty will you not do it? Please don’t be angry if I write. Suppose thirty extra words are found there? Will you not slay the comment if you find thirty? Let me take it upon myself to write to you. Suppose twenty are found there? For the sake of twenty will you not destroy the comment? Please don’t be angry if I write just once more. Suppose ten are found there? For the sake of the ten will you not destroy it? 😉
Ha. As long as you keep to 200 or fewer, I will not destroy the comment.
Jesus taught with words and by example. He could have become as rich as a televangelist but He chose to stay poor. So let’s all be equal and be poor like Jesus. Our Earth will thank us.
When you say, “If God provides what people need, why doesn’t he provide more?”, it seems to me that there is an even greater presumption in the “if”. God does not provide what people need – not universally. There are numerous cases of people (including innocent children) starving to death from famine and other causes still today, and certainly throughout ancient history.
Why do you think ancient Christians accepted this statement of Jesus? Would they not have found it hard to accept?
Yes, that’s right, it’s a “contrary to fact condition” — where the “if” is being challenged. I suppose ancient Christians accepted it for the same reason modern ones do. They believe it. The problem is how to reconcile the believe with reality, as you’re suggesting…
“Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also!” What do you treasure? What do you love?
If you love God/goodness, you don’t think in STRICTLY material terms, nor define success as accumulation of personal power or wealth. Jesus cautioned against this, while teaching the path to heaven. In fact, he lived as a hippie. The world and its luxuries are a trap of sorts.
I agree he didn’t teach equality, and he DID focus on the ***individual’s choices***.
And post-resurrection, he brings not peace, but “fire” and “the sword”. What sword? Dividing heaven and earth, in a judgemental sense, is a sword. That’s why the righteous rich man lacked “one thing”…he worshiped possessions too much, and was trapped by the world, even though he will be saved (by the savior of the world). Of course, those who make it to heaven are “saved” by default (although Jesus claims gatekeeper status). But what about the earth? It needs a savior…from its own darkness. The birds, bees, flowers, trees, animals AND PEOPLE, in the darkness (at night), in the manger (world), saved by the manifest angel of The Lord. The king of physical creation/salvation, as assigned by The Father.
I’m not Christian, but I read in Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript that Christianity proclaims eternal life is attainable. So I read the New Testament with special attention to salvation and noticed two distinct voices: Jesus and Paul. Each speaks about salvation, but they seem to describe different paths.
When a young man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus answered: keep the commandments. When the man asked which ones, Jesus listed the Ten Commandments and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:16–19). This appears to present a clear teaching: keeping the moral laws of Moses leads to eternal life.
In contrast, Paul offers a radically different view. He writes that if one confesses Jesus as Lord and believes God raised him from the dead, he will be saved (Romans 10:9). He also says that those who seek justification through the law — who rely on adherence to the Mosaic commandments or moral living — will not be saved and will even be “severed from Christ” (Galatians 5:4).
My question is: Does Christianity present two irreconcilable paths to salvation — one through moral obedience (Jesus) and one through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection (Paul)?
Yes! And very few people notice that. Congrats — you belong to a rare breed! I talk about this in one of my chapters in my most recent book, Love Thy Stranger, and try to explain how the followers of Jesus transitioned away (very soon after his death) from his teachings of ethical behavior (and the forgiveness of sins) for salvation to the view of belief (and the need for atonement for sins).
Well, that is kind of Catholics and Protestant divide in broad strokes, isn’t it? Jesus gospel vs Paul’s gospel again in boad strokes…
I pointed this out to a Baptist pastor I was working with. I made a list with two columns, A and B. A=what the New Testament attributes to Jesus. B=what the New Testament attributes to Paul. My question to the pastor was why are you right if you choose only from column B, and why am I wrong for choosing from column A? Our conversations hit a brick wall; I never got an answer.
I tend to agree with those (such as Sarah Ruden) who maintain that Paul’s insistence that women cover their heads (1 Cor 11:13-15) wasn’t in order that they show deference to the men in the ecclesia, but was rather part of Paul’s effort to establish equality among all women. In this view, if all women are veiled, none is seen as unmarried or marginalized.
As you know, it’s a much debated passage!
Hey Bart,
If Jesus was not a proponent of social and political equality what do you make of phrases like “the first will be last, and the last first” (Matthew 19:30) or passages like the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1) where the workers get paid the same despite working different hours?
From my reading of the Gospels it seems like Jesus did think inequality between people could be fine but that we shouldn’t be thirsting for status or ruthless domination over others. Is that more the idea Jesus was going for or was he trying to say something else? Thanks.
I think first shall be last shows precisely that there will not be equality. Some then, like now, will be (way?) ahead of others.
But yes, I agree Jesus was especially opposed to thos who thrive for status and domination.
I think if you could ask Jesus if he believed in equality that he’d say something like “equal but different.”
He was Jewish, an exclusive club! Jews were God’s chosen people, everyone else was by definition not in the club. He didn’t sound terribly concerned about equality when he spoke down to the Canaanite woman. He said his mission was only to the lost sheep of Israel (leaving out everyone else). He told his disciples to not go to the gentiles.
Did he think everyone should treat everyone else with some kindness? Sure, I won’t argue that. Did he think the rest of humanity would be blessed after(!) God set up his earthly kingdom and utopia for Jews exclusively? Possibly. Is there any hint that part of his mission was directly aimed at gentiles? Not that I’m aware of.
“Equal but different. And Jews are better.” That’s what I think he’d say.
‘The first will be last and the last will be first’. A pretty concise way of saying that inequality should and will continue – just upside down!
Egalitarianism encompasses different forms of equality, as stated in Amartya Sen’s famous 1979 conference “Equality of what?” Jesus likely held broadly egalitarian values, rooted in the Jewish tradition of the Jubilee (*Yovel*) and its anticipated fulfillment in the coming Kingdom of God, including the restoration of Israel’s twelve tribes.
According to Leviticus, the land belonged to Yahweh, while its inhabitants were merely tenants or temporary occupants. Consequently, land could not be permanently alienated. Similarly, Israelites were servants of God rather than of other men, providing the theological justification for the liberation of Israelite slaves during the Jubilee. These principles carried significant egalitarian implications in an overwhelmingly agrarian society.
The landless “hireling” (day laborers) frequently mentioned in the Gospels could be regarded as an anomaly in the anticipated Kingdom of God, where relations of ownership and dependence might be fundamentally transformed.
Although Jesus’ ethical teachings allow informed speculation about his egalitarian expectations, the precise arrangements governing land tenure, property, and social relations that he envisioned remain beyond historical reconstruction. Jesus should be understood as an apocalyptic prophet and ethical teacher within his historical Jewish context, rather than as a political or moral philosopher in the modern sense.
Very interesting post. Lines up with a lot of my thinking about what Jesus was preaching. Sadly, today, too many people are afflicted with Presentism (applying current political/social justice plaitiudes to year 30 CE culture)
Isn’t there a lot of comparisons of early Christian communities to communism? If so, would that imply they took Jesus’ words to mean a sort of economic equality, or at a minimum (which is in line with what you say), sharing enough to ensure all had a what they needed?
I’d agree it shows that the author Acts understood Jesus’ message that way. I doubt if it’s portrayals of the ealry Jerusalem community in Acts 2-5 can be historcal though, or indicative of what Jesus had in mind.