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

The Evangelists, in fact, built on this earlier tradition of authentic Jesus material by increasing the number of instances where houses and households form the setting of Jesus' teaching and ministry and/or its focus; see Elliott 2002, 2003.

(2) In regard to the substance of Jesus' proclamation and teaching two further features require mention. First, as generally recognized, it focused on the nature and imminence of God's reign symbolized as royal monarchical rule, God as "king" and God's rule as "kingdom"--the opposite of a democratic and egalitarian mode of governance. Secondly, when Jesus explained the nature of this reign and the conduct of members of the kingdom, he referred mainly not to political matters but rather employed examples drawn from the household, family, and domestic life and work. That is, he explained a political metaphor with a domestic metaphor and in other instances referred regularly to household scenes and activities and familial relationships. See Mark 3:22-27/Matt 12:24-30/Luke 11:15-23; Mark 4:1-32 par.; Mark 9:33-37/Matt 18:1-6/Luke 9:46-48; Mark 10:13-16/ Matt 19:13-15/ Luke 18:15-17; Mark 10:17-22/Matt 19:16-22/Luke 18:18-23; Mark 10:23-31/Matt 19:23-30/Luke 18:24-30; Mark 10:35-45/Matt 20:20-28/Luke 22:24-27; Mark 12:1-12/Matt 21:33-46/Luke 20:9-19; Mark 13:28-32/ Matt 24:32-36/Luke 29-33; Mark 13:33-37/Matt 25:14-15/Luke 19:12-13; Mark 9:49-50/Luke 14:34-35; Matt 6:24/Luke 16:18; Matt 6:25-34/Luke 12:22-32; Matt 7:7-11/Luke 11:9-13; Matt 7:24-27/Luke 6:47-49; Matt 10:34-36/Luke 12:49-53; Matt 13:33/Luke 13:20-21/Gos.Thom. 96; Matt 18:12-14/Luke 15:1-7; Matt 22:1-14/Luke 14:15-24; Matt 24:37-44/Luke 17:26-36; Matt 24:45-51/Luke 12:41-46; Matt 25:14-30/Luke 19:11-27; Matt 7:7-12, 9:35-38, 13:24-30, 36-50, 51-52; 18:10-35; Matt 20:1-15; 21:28-32; 22:1-14; 25:1-13; 25:45-51; 25:1-13; 25:14-30; 25:31-46; Luke 12:35-48; 13:18-21, 22-30, 24-30; Luke 14:7-14, 28-30,15-24; 15:3-7, 8-10, 11-32; 16:1-13, 19-31; 17:7-10; 19:11-27. In this connection Geza Vermes has aptly observed that

   Perhaps the most paradoxical aspect of the teaching of the Kingdom of
   heaven that can safely be accredited to Jesus is that unlike the God of the
   Bible and of inter-testamental and rabbinic literature, the God of Jesus is
   not a regal figure, but is modelled on a smaller, hence, more accessible,
   scale. He is conceived in the form of a man of influence familiar to Jesus
   and his listeners, the well-to-do landowner and paterfamilias of rural
   Galilee [146; cf. also p. 180].

(3) These domestic scenarios presumed a patriarchal rather than an egalitarian social structure (e.g. a household controlled by a male paterfamilias with higher status than wives, sons and slaves [also different in status]; and older and younger sons [with implied higher status of the former]). Jesus criticised certain aspects of conventional behavior in the household, but did not challenge the family and household as an institution. In fact, he specifically adopted the family as a model for explicating life under the reign of God (Mark 3:31-35/Matt 12:46-50/Luke 8:19-21/GosThom 99).