• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Oikonomia Network

Theology that Works

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Student Outcome Goals
    • Partner Schools
    • Leadership
    • Other Partners
  • Karam Forum
  • Newsletter
  • Resources
    • Economic Wisdom Project
    • Curricular Integration
    • Retreat Speakers
  • Contact
Jonathan Edwards’ Theology of Inequality

Jonathan Edwards’ Theology of Inequality

March 2, 2015 by Oikonomia Network

Uche Anizor, associate professor of biblical and theological studies, Biola University

There are different degrees of glory in heaven. Some saints will there be exalted higher in glory than others. This is a doctrine very fully revealed in the Scriptures.

– Jonathan Edwards, “Degrees of Glory”

We see disparities in income, opportunities, education, skills – you name it – all around us. Public discussion and debate about these disparities often center on the issue of justice or equity. However, inequality is not necessarily inequity. No doubt some inequalities are unjust, even extremely so. But others may be just, and still other inequalities may have little to do with justice or injustice.

As in all matters, it is helpful to get somewhat of a God’s-eye view of this easily misunderstood issue. One strand of biblical teaching that is worth considering in this context is brought into sharp focus by Jonathan Edwards’ eschatology.

In “Degrees of Glory,” Edwards argues that in heaven, after judgment, some people will have more glory than others. We may not know what it would mean to attain more or less “glory,” but that is not the main concern here. The basic point is that in God’s perfected world, there will be inequality. No doubt this will be a just inequality.

Edwards makes the point through a number of biblical texts, including Luke 19’s parable of the pounds. He writes:

This is also a doctrine that we are very plainly and directly taught in the parable, in the nineteenth of Luke, of the nobleman travelling into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and delivering to his ten servants each of them a pound; who when he returned, having received his kingdom, reckoned with the servants; and one told his lord that he had with his pound gained ten pounds, and he rewards him by making of him ruler over ten cities; and another gained five pounds, and he is rewarded by making of him ruler over five cities.

Edwards then concludes:

This evidently respects the different degrees of reward that will be bestowed on Christ’s faithful servants at his coming to judgment, according as they have been more or less profitable. For doubtless by the nobleman that travelled into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom is meant Christ’s ascending to heaven to receive an heavenly kingdom; and by his returning again to call his servants to an account, is meant his coming again to judgment.

A key point for Edwards is that Christ is the one giving out unequal rewards. Therefore, the inequality of the rewards is the Lord’s intent. In fact, in glory inequality is the most equitable (i.e., “just”) outcome.

If Edwards is correct that there will be differing degrees of honor, blessing, or reward in the consummated Kingdom, then one need not be disturbed by the mere existence of inequalities in the present, as if inequality were contrary to God’s will for humanity in and of itself. The fact of inequality doesn’t necessarily prove some kind of funny business going on. In the new creation, according to Edwards, some will have more while others will have less, in the absence of greed and exploitation.

Inequity or injustice obviously requires urgent attention, but not as a knee-jerk response to inequality. Further reflection on the eschatological economy might aid our efforts in fighting for justice, helping to bring Christian clarity to economic and social issues.

Note: This article is adapted from a contribution to Biola’s “Good Book Blog” that the author composed as part of Biola’s faculty reading group on theology and economics.

Follow Us

Archives

  • January 2021 (6)
  • November 2020 (12)
  • October 2020 (6)
  • September 2020 (6)
  • August 2020 (6)
  • July 2020 (6)
  • June 2020 (6)
  • May 2020 (6)
  • April 2020 (6)
  • March 2020 (6)
  • February 2020 (6)
  • January 2020 (6)
  • December 2019 (6)
  • November 2019 (6)
  • October 2019 (6)
  • September 2019 (6)
  • August 2019 (6)
  • July 2019 (6)
  • June 2019 (6)
  • May 2019 (6)
  • April 2019 (6)
  • March 2019 (6)
  • February 2019 (6)
  • January 2019 (6)
  • December 2018 (6)
  • November 2018 (6)
  • October 2018 (6)
  • September 2018 (6)
  • August 2018 (6)
  • July 2018 (6)
  • May 2018 (6)
  • April 2018 (6)
  • March 2018 (6)
  • February 2018 (6)
  • January 2018 (6)
  • December 2017 (6)
  • November 2017 (6)
  • October 2017 (6)
  • September 2017 (6)
  • August 2017 (6)
  • July 2017 (6)
  • June 2017 (6)
  • May 2017 (6)
  • April 2017 (6)
  • March 2017 (6)
  • February 2017 (6)
  • January 2017 (6)
  • December 2016 (6)
  • November 2016 (6)
  • October 2016 (6)
  • September 2016 (6)
  • July 2016 (6)
  • May 2016 (6)
  • April 2016 (6)
  • March 2016 (6)
  • February 2016 (6)
  • December 2015 (6)
  • November 2015 (6)
  • October 2015 (5)
  • September 2015 (6)
  • August 2015 (6)
  • May 2015 (6)
  • April 2015 (6)
  • March 2015 (6)
  • February 2015 (7)
  • December 2014 (5)
  • November 2014 (6)
  • October 2014 (5)
  • September 2014 (7)
  • August 2014 (6)
  • May 2014 (6)
  • April 2014 (6)
  • March 2014 (6)
  • February 2014 (7)
  • December 2013 (5)
  • November 2013 (6)
  • October 2013 (7)
  • September 2013 (6)
  • June 2013 (6)
  • May 2013 (5)
  • April 2013 (6)
  • March 2013 (6)

Copyright © 2021, The Oikonomia Network · Site by Mere Agency.