Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Did Jesus believe in equality?
[00:00:03] You might Think so By Bart D. Ehrman Read by John Paul Middlesworth Did Jesus believe in equality? And if so, what would that mean?
[00:00:15] It obviously means different things to different people in different contexts. We don't equally mean the same thing.
[00:00:22] Our the U.S. declaration of National Independence insisted that all 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.
[00:00:40] So too, the Apostle Paul said that there is neither new nor Greek, neither slave, nor free, nor man nor 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.
[00:01:05] First Corinthians 11:3 10 well, what about Jesus? Did he believe everyone was equal or, more important, that they should be?
[00:01:14] Was it part of his ethical teaching that we should strive for social, political, and economic equality?
[00:01:20] Arguments that Jesus believed in economic equality for all are often based on passages not directly connected with Jesus, especially those interesting tales in the early part of Acts, where we are told that the first groups of Jewish converts in Jerusalem on and just after the day of Pentecost, all sold everything they had to share with one another Acts 2:44 77 and 4:32 37.
[00:01:47] No one had private possessions.
[00:01:49] They had everything in common.
[00:01:56] Two things to say about that. First, it seems unlikely that these accounts are historical. Among other things, we are told that many thousands of Jews in Jerusalem converted to become followers of Jesus in just two or three months after his crucifixion. There's no way that could have happened, given all we know about Jerusalem and Judaism at the time.
[00:02:16] This is an exaggerated account in every way. And second, apart from that, the passages do not show us that Jesus urged equality even among his own followers. They don't indicate that these converts were moving to a radically communal existence, because that's what Jesus had taught.
[00:02:33] On the contrary, even in Luke's own gospel, which he wrote along with Acts, Jesus says nothing of the sort, even if we might have expected him to.
[00:02:43] The Gospel of Luke is interesting for myriad reasons, but one is that it, more than any of the other gospels, emphasizes the social aspects of Jesus message, his ethical teachings that focus on how humans ought to relate to one another and especially be concerned for the poor, the marginalized, the outcast, emphasizing, for example, the role of women normally expected to stay in the home as followers of Jesus, as financial supporters of Jesus in Luke 8:1 3, and as his personal students in Luke 10:38, 42.
[00:03:19] But Jesus never argues for economic or any other equality in this or any other gospel.
[00:03:26] On the contrary, even though he repeatedly shows that he is aware of inequality on every level, especially of wealth and sociopolitical power, he never argues against it or urges social changes to bring about political and economic fairness, let alone equality.
[00:03:43] In Luke, as in all the other gospels, Jesus is concerned not with social, political, and economic structures and systems, but with the individual. And he never tells individuals to strive for equality. He instead tells them to serve others and give to those in need.
[00:04:00] You might think that implies equality, but it doesn't.
[00:04:04] Jesus is concerned about those who are poor and outcast, who need help to survive and thrive.
[00:04:10] He is concerned that those with power and resources help them do it.
[00:04:14] But he doesn't argue for or even mention the need for a level playing field.
[00:04:19] For example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, found only In Luke Luke 10:29, 37, Jesus praises the Samaritan foreigner for helping a Jewish man and implied enemy by tending to his wounds, taking him to a place of healing, and giving a bit of money for his recovery.
[00:04:39] He doesn't suggest that the Samaritan should have given the victim half his personal wealth or share all his possessions with him.
[00:04:47] The man saw someone in need, he helped him, and Jesus praised him.
[00:04:52] It is not always noticed that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, also found Only in Luke 16:1931, does not explicitly state that the reason the unnamed rich man is tormented in flames after his death while Lazarus is fated in heaven is because he, the rich man, was greedy and refused to help the poor beggar starving to death outside his gates.
[00:05:16] But clearly the contrast is between grotesque wealth and grotesque need.
[00:05:21] The guy should have helped, and he's severely punished for not doing so. But Jesus says nothing about the need for economic equality.
[00:05:30] That Jesus doesn't think in these terms, even in Luke, is especially the case in the story of the rich tax collector Zacchaeus, again only in this gospel, Luke 19:1:9. He is a chief tax collector, which means he is high up in the corporate structure of the company, collecting Roman taxes, and is making a very fine income off of it.
[00:05:53] Zacchaeus indicates that he gives half of what he has, gets to the poor, and restores fourfold whatever he has fraudulently taken from others.
[00:06:03] Jesus praises him and says, salvation has come to this house.
[00:06:08] It may seem like this is a case of someone striving for equality. He gives away half and keeps half.
[00:06:14] But again, far from it. There may have been dozens of poor folk who shared the half he gave away, and each would get only a tiny slice.
[00:06:23] He alone would get the other half.
[00:06:25] Once more, Jesus does not praise him for seeking social economic equality, but for going above and beyond what was required to help those in need.
[00:06:36] In some ways, the Zacchaeus story illustrates Jesus claim in the preceding chapter of the Rich Ruler, where Jesus tells the wealthy man to give away everything to the poor if he wants treasure in heaven.
[00:06:49] Luke 18:18 30. When the man realizes he can't and walks away, Jesus informs the disciples that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom. It is possible only with God.
[00:07:03] Many readers take that to mean that it is indeed possible for rich folk to get into heaven. It's just unusual. But Jesus is more likely saying that only God can motivate a wealthy person to give away his or her wealth.
[00:07:17] But does that mean rich people have to give away everything?
[00:07:21] It may seem like it on the surface, but if so, the story of Zacchaeus in the very next chapter is especially odd since there this very wealthy tax collector is pronounced to be saved while keeping half of what he has.
[00:07:35] Can these two views be reconciled? It may be important to look more closely at the conversation between Jesus and the rich ruler.
[00:07:44] It is interesting that when the man says to Jesus, what must I do to have eternal life?
[00:07:50] Jesus replies that he needs to keep the commandments, and so salvation comes to those who obey the law of Moses.
[00:07:58] Okay, fair enough. The man already does so. He claims to, and Jesus seems to accept the claim.
[00:08:05] But then the fellow wants to know if there's anything more he could do. And Jesus then says that if he goes further and gives away everything he has, he will have treasures in heaven.
[00:08:16] Maybe Jesus is indicating that salvation comes to those who live as God demands in the Torah, but those who go further will have an even more glorious afterlife.
[00:08:26] The guy is crestfallen. He's apparently used to only buying the best of the best and walks away.
[00:08:33] Is it possible that Jesus, like many later Christians, including many today, thought that the afterlife would entail a differentiated existence, that some would have things gloriously better than others, that there is a kind of tiered system in the world to come, where everyone is ecstatic? But some are far more ecstatic than others, with, say, bigger mansions and perks than others, some of whom, say, just squeaked in.
[00:09:00] If so, Jesus then would see inequality not as something to be overcome, but as something that is more or less divinely ordained.
[00:09:10] If so, it would certainly make sense of other things, including Jesus views of inequalities here on earth in this age.
[00:09:17] He certainly argues for helping those who are in dire straits, who are hungry, thirsty, outcast, abandoned, marginalized, ignored, lonely, etc. But he never argues for some kind of socialist abandonment of private property, possessions, and everyone sharing everything in common.
[00:09:35] And he appears to think that God too focuses on desperate need rather than equality.
[00:09:41] I don't recall seeing it argued like this, but it could be a way to interpret a famous passage in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount where Jesus urges his audience not to worry about what to eat, drink, or wear. God Himself will provide what they need to survive.
[00:09:57] God feeds the birds of the air and clothes the lilies of the field.
[00:10:01] Surely he will do that and more for his own people. God knows they need food and clothing, and he does and will provide it.
[00:10:13] But that's interesting. If God provides what people need, why doesn't he provide more?
[00:10:19] If he provides nourishment, shelter, and other basic necessities, why is it some people have crazily more than they need and others have almost nothing, just enough to survive?
[00:10:30] Is God himself unconcerned with issues of equality? If he was concerned, wouldn't he simply deal with it as he does with the basic needs?
[00:10:40] Neither Jesus himself or the God he proclaims appears to be concerned with social, political, and economic equality.
[00:10:48] They are concerned about those who are suffering and need help.
[00:10:52] Would either of them support complete equality?
[00:10:55] Surprisingly, we have no clear indication.
[00:10:58] Would they oppose it?
[00:11:00] Equally surprising, we have no indication of that either.
[00:11:04] Should we either support or oppose it?
[00:11:07] That one's up to you.
