The Biblical concept of equality

Introduction

Equality has a defined meaning but without a common standard of comparison it is impossible to measure.   Biblically, equality is not a large theme, but the idea of ‘levelling’ is used in word pictures showing that moral parity is the goal of Biblical equality.  Gender equality as a theme does not exist in the Bible.  Modern hermeneutical approaches show that preconceived notions about social justice can affect the way we interpret the text.  The Old Testament reveals that a rights-based morality was foreign to an Israelites’ understanding where social hierarchies were accepted.  The ethical teachings of Jesus build on this concept showing a preference for motivation-centric morality rather than a rights-based teaching. Human orders of government have an individual-centric approach encouraging the common belief in rights to privileges.  The Bible reveals a God-centred morality with equal access to the greatest privilege – salvation.  In the future, the order of government will be an autocracy, revealing God as the being with ultimate rights: and that these are due to His moral perfection.

Defining Equality

Peter Westen provides some basic parameters that are helpful when considering the concept of equality.  He points out that to call two things ‘equal’ one must at least have 1) two distinct entities, 2) a means of measurement, and 3) a common standard.

He notes that it is crucial to clarify the common standard of comparison, for ‘things that are equal by one standard of comparison are inevitably unequal by other standards.’[1]

Egalitarians and complementarians have agreed that persons or groups of persons can be equal in many ways.  One feminist writer notes that two persons, or groups of persons, can be equal in the following ways:

1. Equal human worth,
2. Equal ability,
3. Equal maturity,
4. Equal rights and opportunities,
5. Equal status,
6. Equal social value,
7. Equal identity (being the same, thus interchangeable in any role)[2]

The point is, without a specified standard of comparison, it is impossible for either party to understand what one might mean by ‘men and women are spiritually equal’.

Equal human worth

The Bible appears to legitimize the concept of equal human worth: at the very least by its moral restrictions on murder, at the very most by its inclusion of every man and woman in the offering of salvation. (Gal 3:28). However, even the restrictions on murder are God-centric: the reason is given as ‘man is made in the image of God’ (Gen 9:6).

Equal ability

Ability is not measured in the Bible because morality is the measure of acceptability before God (2 Cor 5:10). The idea that ability trumps social hierarchy is absent in the pages of the Bible, where social hierarchies are presented as acceptable (1 Cor 11:1-16). Although, when measuring, two parties we may find they have equal ability, it is not a consideration for any of the themes of inclusion, either to tasks within the ecclesia or acceptability to God. Ability is not the measurement by which a person is excluded or included, Biblically speaking.  One body but many members is a Biblical concept used to show differences in abilities working in harmony (1 Cor 12:12-14), yet even here, different roles are given a hierarchy (v. 28).  Again, equality is shown to be a non-existent theme of the NT, where unity is the goal (1 Cor 12:13).

Equal maturity

Spiritual maturity is not measured by age, as the Biblical character of Elihu proves.  Spiritual maturity is measured against Christ (Eph 4:13).  However, defining maturity in themes of equality is irrelevant: the idea of spiritual maturity is not a method of inclusion or exclusion neither does it erase or validate human worth.

Equal rights and privileges

The Bible reveals rights as God-centric.  None is equal to God (Isa 40:25; 46:5). Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped at (Phil 2:6), although the common perception of the Jews was that by calling himself the Son of God he made himself equal to God (John 5:18)  Equal privileges are only in respect to salvation (Gal 3:28). Rights and privileges are based on obedience to God’s laws in the OT.  In the NT, access to salvation is the method by which we are equal.  Liberation is not associated with accessing previously forbidden areas but by understanding Biblical truths surrounding the salvation of man (John 8:31-36). It is the work of Christ that gives equal access to the mercy seat, previously the domain of one individual – the High Priest.  Equality of rights and privileges is not an intrinsic right: we rely on the work of Christ to allow us the privilege of access to God.  This privilege the NT highlights as the ultimate goal of the human condition.

Equal status; Equal social value

Status can be governed by gender or wealth.  The Bible acknowledges inequality in matters of wealth distribution: it states that this is one of the things which Christ will eradicate at his return (Psalm 72, Isaiah 26). With Christ as the yardstick, cornerstone, and standard of measurement we are all levelled (Isa 40:4; Luke 3:6), yet the goal of this levelling is that ‘all people will see it (God’s glory) at the same time’ (Isa 40:5), not social reform.  While this kind of social justice is a theme and intention of Christ’s message (Luke 4:16-21), as well as an identifying factor of Christ’s ministry (Matt 11:5), it reveals the purpose of God: equal access to salvation through Christ.

Gender is not given equal status under the Law of Moses.  Social hierarchies are confirmed in the NT by gender, which trumps ability or other measures in 1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:34, 35.  Therefore while humankind can be considered equal, regardless of gender, men and women should conform to the revealed social hierarchies which involve understanding of the way man and woman were created and God’s purpose with the family. Without God the understanding of Biblical truth can be warped to two extremes: oppression of women or a view of gender parity which is unbiblical.

Equal identity

None is equal in identity to another.  We are individuals and appear as individuals before God (Rom 14:10-12). The concept of equality in conjunction with identity is a paradox. Since identity is a word used to separate and classify someone, equality is impossible to measure because, using Westen’s definition, there is no common standard. Applying Westen’s definition, to have equal identity erases the idea of two separate entities. Therefore the very phrase ‘equal identity’ is impossible to understand.

Standard of measurement

Using Westen’s definition of equality, and taking the Biblical standard of measurement as Christ, we find ourselves levelled.  Both men and women are equalized or levelled by this measurement.   Next to him we all fall short. The common standard is Biblical revelation.  It is through the revelation of God that we understand ourselves in relation to God; this is part of the goal of His revelation. (Isa 40:5)  This was the experience of Job: comparing his life with those around him resulted in self-justification: yet after seeing God he despised himself, and repented in dust and ashes (Job 42:6).

Hermeneutics and Social Justice

Norman Habel seeks to address possible hermeneutical approaches in his essay on social justice research.[3] He identifies at least three distinct ways in which social justice has been and will be investigated in the Hebrew text.

The first approach which he styles Social Injustice/Justice and History involves investigation of the social forces in the historical world behind the text.  It is illustrated by Norman Gottwald and others in a collection of essays entitled ‘The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics’.[4] Essentially, this approach involves reconstruction of historical events to suit current social aims.  For example, seeing the emergence of the nation of Israel as liberation theology: freeing a people oppressed.  Romans 6:18, 22 shows that the freedom God offers is from sin and the purpose is to serve Him (Exodus 3:12; 4:23; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 7, 8, 11, 24, 26 (x2); 12:31).

Habel questions whether it is possible to reconstruct historical social justice issues in Israel’s early history.  He queries the possibility of determining actual concepts or practices of social justice that existed in these social orders.

The second approach he calls Social Injustice/Justice and the Text. Habel identifies this as recognising that Biblical texts represent a range of documents from an alien time and culture.  The aim of this approach is to ascertain the social order and ideals being promoted within the text.  This approach attempts to identify from the text the social order or group being represented.  An example of this form of hermeneutics is ‘This Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies[5] (Habel, 1994).  This study seeks to ascertain the distinctive land ideology being promoted in a given literary complex.

He challenges both approaches: while the first approach attempts to uncover history and has a particular sociological bias, the second is influenced by particular literary theories of textual analysis.  He acknowledges that interpreters today tend to identify their particular bias before proceeding with their analysis, which he notes as desirable for future social justice research where people are likely to hold strong opinions that precede the reading of the text.

The third approach he identifies as Social Injustice/Justice and the Reader.  In this approach, the centrality of the reader is fundamental to the interpretation.  The text is like a mirror reflecting the reader’s own worldview and interests.  An example of this would be the interpretation last century that Genesis 9 referring to the curse of Ham was referring to black people: this interpretation was used to justify slavery of black peoples.

The interpreter is likely to approach the text in light of his/her own social justice beliefs.  The text is either agreeing or negating pre-held beliefs.

Some interpreters openly acknowledge their social bias when interpreting Scripture.  An example of this would be feminists and liberationists. They cite gross injustice in experience as a valid background for interpretation.  The critical stance of the oppressed constitutes valid interpretation.

This, according to Habel, means textual analysis will never be the same.  With this method of interpretation the reader will be forced to look on their situation (as oppressor, oppressed, or someone seeking to identify with one of those groups) as part of the interpretive process.

In summary: the view that interprets the Bible in light of a reader’s understanding of human rights is acting in reverse.  This belief overlays the text with a preconceived understanding of human rights and social justice without examining whether it is Biblical. It must be acknowledged that neutrality in interpretation is an impossible dream. All of us bring our unique backgrounds and viewpoint to the text. However, the postmodern method of interpretation which allows for different interpretations based on a reader’s unique stance does not allow for the belief that God’s revelation and unique message can be understood as it was intended.  Variances in non-fundamental interpretations do not take away from the general message. However, if we bring our preconceived ideas of social justice we will be perplexed and dismayed at the God of the Bible because He does not appear to concern Himself with current ideas of social justice and in particular gender equality.

On examination, the OT is lacking in matters of human rights.  While the biblical text recognizes the relative worth of social groups, there is no concern for the idea of equal worth.  While the biblical laws recognize the relative rights of social groups, including widows, orphans and resident aliens, there is no concept of equal rights.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, rights are not portrayed as intrinsic to the human condition but as coming from God.  These and other perceived injustices in the OT have led many Christians to consider it outdated, or second-class to the NT.  The danger in this hermeneutic approach is that it leads to rejection of a God who does not fit in with our views of justice.

In contrast, others seek to articulate the relevance of the Hebrew Scriptures as a broad witness to the total character, activity and will of God. This approach allows for a diversity of socially unacceptable practices in the biblical text.  While ‘socially unacceptable’ carries the idea of inappropriate behaviour, when we understand that social acceptability is subjective throughout times and eras we see that our views of social acceptability can only come from a present and therefore subjective understanding of social behaviour. An interpreter should prevent his or her own experience or ideology as a modern reader from becoming normative.  The lack of social justice for the Canaanites which involved commands by God to completely annihilate them is justified Biblically by their worship of gods other than YHWH.

On examination of the OT, the Hebrew Scriptures reflect a number of social systems each of which assumes a social hierarchy.  Within these systems particular social groups are regularly located at the lower levels of the social order and are consequently disadvantaged.  Some of those are favoured in various law codes while others are excluded.  Social justice is not really a theme of these laws: social restraint within the hierarchy is the revealed method of justice.

New Testament

The ground-breaking message of Christ was the intrinsically motivated disciple.  Blessings were based on social inversions: the meek would inherit the earth, and the poor had the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5). The qualities sought by Christ for his disciples would result in blessings, not rights.  Developing a godly character was invoked as the highest aim of humanity, not other social aims such as status, wealth or equality.  Despite the consistent failing of the disciples to confuse their needs as practical rather than esoteric (Acts 1:6), the aims of the disciples of Christ are focused on a future kingdom rather than current political ideologies.  The method of government of the future kingdom will be an autocracy with failure to submit to Christ’s rule resulting in direct consequences showing God’s ultimate power over nature: no rain for the nations who do not worship at Jerusalem (Zech 14:18, 19).

Conclusion

Gender equality is a non-existent theme in the Bible.  It would appear that themes of social justice surrounding gender equality are a reflection of the values of society rather than Biblically founded.  Other social justice themes like justice and equal distribution of wealth are readily apparent throughout Scripture. (2 Cor 8:13, 14)

The Bible seems to accept that social inequalities will persist until the end of time.  (Matt 26:11; Mk 14:7) Instead, it exhorts us to do what we can where we are: support the weak, execute justice, and visit the fatherless (Deut 24:17; Isa 1:17).

Our political aims must wait until the Kingdom when Christ is in the earth. This does not mean we should not do good in the meantime where we are able (Gal 6:10;  1 Thess 5:15;  1 Tim 6:18; Heb 10:24; Heb 13:16). Despite this individual and collective good will, our political objectives are focused on the future.  The Bible depicts believers of Christ as a small struggling group who exhibit qualities such as meekness resulting in their lack of social advancement. (1 Cor 1:26, 27).

The song sung in that day will be the levelling of the ‘towering cities’: where the oppressed will at last trample the elevated places, the soles of the poor trampling underfoot those who have ignored or overlooked them for personal advantage. (Isa 26:5, 6).