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

(5) The egalitarian theory fails to take into account the fact that underlying Jesus's teaching were presumptions of social and economic disparity: a disciple is not above (or equal to) her/his master (Luke 6:40/Matt 10:24-25/John 13:16, 15:20); male household owners are superior to and control slaves (Mark 13:34-37;Luke 12:42-48; 16:1-8; 19:11-27 etc.); parents are superior to their children and deserve honor (Mark 7:11-13/Matt 15:4-6; Mark 10:19/Matt 19:19/Luke 18:20); husbands are superior to their wives (the former can divorce their spouses, the latter cannot (Matt 5:31-32; 19:9; contrast the secondary version of Mark 10:12); older sons are superior in social rank to younger sons (Luke 15:11-32); certain slaves enjoy higher rank than others (Luke 19:12-27). Jesus also presumed differentiated places of honor and status (Luke 14:7-14, 15-24); economic disparity between the healthy and the infirm (hence his healings "for free") and between the wealthy and the poor (Luke 6:20-26; Mark 14:7/Matt 26:11 etc.). Accordingly, he called for generosity (Matt 20:1-15), almsgiving (Matt 6:1-4) and the sharing (not the equalization) of resources (Luke 6:34-36; cf. also Luke 4:18, 7:22-23 etc.) In the kingdom of heaven (and the new family of faith symbolizing the kingdom), there are "lessers" and "greaters" (Matt 5:1%20;). Jesus' word about care for "the least of these my brothers" (Matt 25:31-46, esp. 25:45) refers to those of his company possessing the least in personal and social resources, the least in food, clothing and shelter. "Least," however, implies "more" and "most" and thus economic gradations within the movement, a point that applies to all his reversal sayings. When Jesus encountered instances of such social and economic disparities, as in the case, for instance, of slaves and owners (Luke 7:1-10) or the widow in the Temple (Luke 21:1-4), there is no indication that he ever objected to the disparities per se. "The poor," he said, "you always have with you" (Mark 14:7).

Jesus's teaching of reversal of status, as already noted, did not constitute an elimination of status differentiation. Rather statuses of first and last, master-slave, rich-poor remained but were inverted. Jesus did not address others as equal to him in status, but as "child," "daughter" (bleeding woman) etc. The issue for Jesus was one of attitude and perception of the relation between self and others. Differences of age, gender, class, and ethnicity were not eliminated but remained as demarcations of identity and status. Within the Jesus movement, children did not in fact become leaders in the movement, though they were favored by Jesus. Slaves were not in fact liberated and made equal to masters. Women were not put on a social parity with men. The disparity between poor and rich did not cease to exist among those in Jesus group.

Jesus knew the economic and social disparities of his time and urged conduct that would relativise but not eliminate such disparities. Suffering and want caused by inequity were to be alleviated by generosity, almsgiving, and compassion toward one's fellow human beings, but Jesus engaged in no program to eradicate altogether the causes of such disparities.