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

(7) According to the available evidence, Jesus regularly referred to the family and familial-household roles and relationships as a fundamental symbol of human relationships and a primary model for explicating life under the reign of God and a heavenly Father's love. Jesus, however, redefined the identify of the family and the basis of family ties. This new family of God was one in which all humans trusted in and relied upon GOd as their Father and benefactor. It was a family constituted not by ties of blood or marriage but by obedience of the heavenly Father's will. It was a family in which all who trusted in God, as did Jesus, were established and united as brothers and sisters who maintained familial solidarity by a respect for familial order, loyalty, compassion, emotional commitment (love), truthfulness, integrity of word and deed, generosity, hospitality, and mutual aid and support--all qualities typical of the honorable family and kin group. What Jesus encouraged was not a "radical egalitarianism" eradicating the family and its structure of authority. As hallmark of the reign of God he rather proclaimed a "radical inclusivity" that relativized all conventional lines of discrimination and exclusion and a radical familial loyalty to God as Father and to one another as brothers and sisters. The focus of Jesus' social teaching was not the elimination of status but rather the inversion of status; not the condemnation of the family, but rather the redefinition of family. The chief metaphor for human sociality was not a group where all were equal, in whatever sense "equal" might be taken. The chief metaphor for human sociality and for explaining the nature of the reign of God was rather "family," but a family redefined along religious and moral, rather than biological, lines, a new surrogate family entered by repentance, conversion, and voluntary submission to the heavenly Father's will and unswerving trust in that Father's favor and benefaction. The profound impact made by Jesus' formation of a new surrogate family is demonstrated by the eagerness with which that model of communal life was adopted and accentuated in the years after Jesus' death (see Elliott 2002, 2003).

(8) The Jesus faction that constituted the initial phase of this new family of God prior to Jesus' death was not egalitarian in nature or structure, but was marked by various kinds of social and economic disparity. Among the followers of Jesus, the Twelve who were personally called and appointed by Jesus (Mark 3:14-19 par.) outranked others. Status in Jesus's faction was determined by the relation of each follower to Jesus personally (length and degree of assocation). The Twelve were conferred with a power to exorcize demons and heal that other followers did not possess (Mark 6:8, 13 pars; Matt 10:1, 8; Luke 9:1). Among the Twelve, the first called formed an inner core (Peter, James and John of Zebedee, Mark 1:29/Matt 8:14; Mark 5:37, 40; Luke 8:51; Mark 9:2/Matt 17:1/Luke 9:28; 13;13; Mark 14:33/Matt 26:37), with Peter having highest status among all the disciples (as his focal role in the Gospels indicates: Mark 24x; Matt 23x, esp. Matt 16:16-19;; Luke 17x; John 25x). Among the followers, some were wealthier than others (Levi and Zacchaeus as toll collecters [Mark 2:13-14 par.; Luke 19:1-10; wealthy women of Galilee who supported Jesus from their means [Luke 8:1-2]). The rivalry among the Twelve for precedence (Mark 10:35-45 par.) reveals that they had no conception of a "community of equals" and points to disparity rather than parity within the Jesus faction. Women who had immediate personal contact with Jesus had higher status than others (men and women) who had less contact. Both the men and the women praised by Jesus for their trust/faith were superior in status and later presented by evangelists as exemplars for the believers (and hence higher in status). Named persons affiliating with Jesus generally had higher recognition and status than those left anonymous in the Gospels. (On male dominance in the Jesus movement see also Stegemann and Stegemann: 386; contrast Crossan 1991: 261-64).