The Injustice of Equality

            Equality is a term that is often thrown around today from every demographic imaginable. From political pundits to pulpiteers, advocates to homemakers, equality is seen as a virtue. But what is “equality?” The definition of the term “equal,” according to the Oxford dictionary is “being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.” So, if we were to operate upon this definition of equality, we must then examine what this argument means according to Scripture. In other words, does this term “equal” and the definition of “equality” ultimately align with what Scripture teaches? Does equality correctly summarize man’s current state and ultimate goal or does it contradict Scripture at these points? 

            Scripture starts off with God creating the universe and everything within it. On the sixth day, God creates man. We see this beginning in Genesis 1:26-27 and more specifics found in 2:4-25. We know God created man out of the dust of the Earth and then creates a woman out of the side of man. From the beginning, man and woman were created differently, yet both in the image of God. Looking back on our given definition of “equality,” we do see equality of value in man and woman since they both are created in the image of God. We have not yet seen any establishment of equality in the other definitions. In fact, we already see some variance in how man and woman were created. This variance poses a bit of a threat in the modern use of equality which advocates for the idea that there is no statistical difference or variation between two examined demographics or individuals. Since God created woman from the side of man rather than the dust, this poses one of those variations and thus, a distinction, between man and woman. Certainly, some commentators have over-interpreted and allegorized to try to find the meaning of man being from dust and woman being from the side of man; however, what we know for certain is that there is a distinction from the moment each was created. We also know that these two had equal value (in the image of God) regardless of their distinction. It appears that we, as believers, must abandon this idea that “equality” means that there is no difference at all, instead accepting that difference and equality do occur according to Scripture. 

            Further, Jesus provides a number of parables telling us what the Kingdom of God is like. One of these stories is the parable of the Talents. To summarize the story:

·      One man receives five and turns it to ten

·      One man receives three and turns it to six

·      One man receives one and buries it so that it is not lost

When the master returns, the man who buried the talent was chastised. This parable is not trying to communicate that the poor should be chastised. However, it does start off by talking about a statistical economic difference between the men and it does not speak about this in a way that says it is evil. On the contrary, when the man is chastised, the talent was taken from him and given to the man who had turned his five into ten! A further question that must be asked is: Why wasn’t the talent given to the man who was given three and made it into six? If our first thought is to recoil at this, we should pause to re-examine our own beliefs about equality and justice. If our first reaction is to recoil then we’ve accepted the world’s definition of equality and justice, not the Bible’s. The Bible seemingly has no issue with giving this talent to the man who had the most instead of the one who had six. Not only that, the talent in question was taken from a man who only had one. 

             One may reply, “but this is just a parable!” That is certainly true. However, wasn’t Jesus’ teachings through parables to both reveal and hide realities about the Kingdom? (Yes, Jesus did try to hide things by using parables i.e. Luke 8:10).  One thing is for sure—Jesus’ parables were often about the Kingdom of God, and that is also true in this case. In Luke 19:11 the disciples supposed that the Kingdom was near. Jesus gives this parable to bring correction about the disciple’s understanding of the Kingdom. So, while a parable, this is an eschatological reality that Christ is revealing. He is highlighting that there is some sort of inequality that occurs in the eschaton. To put it another way, when Christ returns and all the judgments are given out, there will still be inequality in both hell (as there are degrees of punishment, see Matt 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36-37; Luke 12:47-48; Romans 2:5; and Hebrews 10:29) and inequality in heaven. That last part may cause people to recoil even further—inequality in heaven?! God forbid! Actually, that is God-designed. 

             For further understanding and Scripture verses that teach that there exists some sort of inequality in heaven, let’s begin with 2 Corinthians 5:10. It says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” Each is to receive what is due for what he has done...of good? This suggests that there are degrees of reward. That is precisely what we see in the parable of the Talents: the man who was given five and ended with ten was also given the additional one as a reward. 

            There are many other instances of inequalities that are still seen as moral goods. The giving of spiritual gifts is one example. Not everyone receives the same spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12) though some are often seen as more valuable or important. Also, we see Jesus’ healing of only one person at the pool of Bethesda in John 5. With this said, we must readjust our definition of “justice” in a way that also allows for “inequality.” Inequality may come in various ways such as: possessions, wealth, status, quantity, size, degree, etc. Christians must simultaneously hold to the equality of human value while also understanding that people will experience inequality of all of these other factors. 

            Certainly, there are objections to this idea. I do not have the space to address all of them, but I will address a few. The first major objection may be the year of Jubilee, a major theme throughout much of Scripture. The year of Jubilee can be found in Leviticus 25 where land was returned to previous owners, (who were still alive, not generations down the line) and debts were canceled from the direct debt holder to the direct loan giver. However, there was no equalizing of wealth or property. Half of the loaner’s money was not given to the debt holder to create complete equality between the two. On the contrary, only the debt was cancelled completely. Note too that there was no equalizing of wealth as there was the possibility of an increase in the prices of crops (vrs 16) and purchases from your neighbor (vrs 13).  Also, a man could become very wealthy by the selling of the land and giving back the money to take the property back (vrs 26-28). Lastly, we see that houses are not redeemable by the Jubilee (vrs 29-30), unless you’re a Levite. There is a mixture of economic inequality, inequality of possessions, of purchasing power, and even of tribal status since Levites could redeem property and houses within walled cities by the Jubilee. This chapter goes into detail about who can and cannot be a slave but we will not discuss this here, but to even have the idea that slaves can exist within Jubilee is to demonstrate that the year of Jubilee does not comport to the modern worldly philosophy of “equality.” 

             The second objection is the issue of shared possessions and voluntarism found in Acts 2:44-46 and 2 Cor 8:13-14. In Acts 2, the early believers shared their possessions and even sold their homes to give to those in need. The giving was certainly voluntary and not compulsory, so it doesn’t seem to be some form of early communism or socialism (as some have advocated). On the other hand, these verses do talk about the openness of giving. This should bring us to the conclusion that the early church had no qualms with personal property or personal wealth; rather, their issue was with the hoarding of it to the detriment of others. Also, throughout the New Testament, we see many other Christians still owning a home and not being chastised for the fact. Even the story of Ananias and Sapphira was not so much about withholding private property as it was about lying. Note that Peter himself says, in Acts 5:4, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” The idea of “equality” put forward at the beginning of this article seems to contradict the Biblical idea of equality. Personal possessions differ from person to person, and the community or social gathering at large (i.e. where we get our modern concept of private property). 

            The 2 Corinthians 8 passage isn’t much different in that it states that those who are able should give to those who have less. When we read the chapter in context, we see that there was a severe affliction of those in Macedonia, and it is this specific context of giving that Paul is advocating. He is not stating that the rich Corinthians are obligated to give to the poor Macedonians in all instances. Additionally, the term that is translated as “fairness” is also found in Colossians 4:1 concerning the relationship between master and slave. The relationship they have is said to be similar to the master’s relationship to God. I don’t think we can say that “fairness” means total equality unless we argue that slave masters should be viewed as completely equal with God. We do not see anywhere where the rich are to give up their possessions, rather, to be generous with them. This is what we see in Acts 2 and 5 as well as 2 Corinthians 8, but we see this directly commanded in 1 Tim 6:17-19:   

                  As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes    on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.

            In conclusion, Christians are to derive their understanding of justice based upon God’s law. To contradict God’s law is both an injustice and to be an advocate of injustice. Thus, if we advocate for the modern idea of “equality,” then we are not only committing an objective injustice against God and His law, but we are also committing injustices against people. If we are not advocating for a true sense of legal justice then we are advocating for something that is constantly changing and allowing ourselves to be “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”