Jesus was not an egalitarian. A critique of an anachronistic and idealist theory

(2) Jesus' inclusive concern for, and aid to, those on the lower rungs of the social ladder or on the social periphery also has been cited as indication of Jesus' egalitarianism. As is also the case with the pre-Pauline formula of Gal 3:28, however, these are examples only of inclusiveness and not of social levelling or abolishment of social and economic inequity. Inclusion, it apparently needs to be pointed out, is not identical to equalization; on Gal 3:28 see Elliott 2003.

Further Problems with the Egalitarian Theory

Besides the issues of interpretation plaguing every New Testament text marshalled by the egalitarian theorists, a reading of Jesus' teaching and actions along egalitarian lines is beset with additional serious problems.

(1) In none of the texts put forward as evidence for Jesus' egalitarianism is there any explicit mention of equality or use of Greek terms of the iso- family (except in the parable of Matt 20:1-15, where isous in 20:7 entails no affirmation of the kind of equality of which the egalitarian proponents speak).

(2) In regard to each text put forward, an implication of equality is inferred, while at the same time no comprehensive definition of equality is ever provided. The most that is offered is Crossan's brief comment that radical egalitarianism entails "an absolute equality of people that denies the validity of any discrimination between them and negates the necessity of any hierarchy among them" (1994a: 71).

(3) The domain of equality is rarely, if ever, indicated. At most it is claimed that women were made equal to men. But the precise nature of this equality is never clarified.

(4) The egalitarian theory appears to involve a web of arbitrary assumptions and an inferential house of cards. Among these inferences are the following:

(a) Since Jesus opposed domination of every sort, it is inferred that he opposed patriarchy, which was the major form of domination.

(b) Since patriarchy entailed hierarchical structures, and since Jesus spoke of God's reversing of status, it is inferred that all status reversal sayings were rejections of hierarchy and patriarchy and simultaneous affirmations of equality.

(c) Since Jesus was inclusive in his teaching and actions and practiced open commensality, it is inferred that his message and practice of social inclusivity was evidence of his egalitarianism and rejection of patriarchy.

(d) Since patriarchy was rooted in the institution of the family, it is inferred that Jesus, who allegedly opposed patriarchy, was against the family or at least against the family as conventionally structured (i.e. male-dominated and hierarchically ordered). Accordingly, Jesus' calling of persons to leave their families, homes, possessions, occupations and security in order to follow him is inferred to be a critique and rejection of the family per se, and the patriarchy and domination it emboded. Or it is inferred, as by Schussler Fiorenza, that, given Jesus' rejection of patriarchy, this new family cannot have been structured patriarchically and hierarchically as was a conventional family but rather was a community in which all members were equal in some way that is left undefined.