Jeremy Waldron’s God, Locke, and Equality offers a fresh reading of John Locke’s political philosophy, emphasizing its theological foundations. Waldron argues that equality in Locke’s thought is not merely a legal or political concept but a theological principle, comprehensible only through the lens of humanity’s relationship with God. This paper situates Waldron’s work within ongoing interpretive debates on Locke, showing that his analysis occupies a central position in the long-standing contest between secular and theological readings of Locke. Waldron’s primary concern in revisiting Locke’s political thought is to establish a foundation for the idea of “fundamental equality,” a foundation that, in his view, contemporary secular approaches in political philosophy fail to justify. According to Waldron, Locke could articulate this principle only based on Christian belief and reference to God. The findings of this study indicate that, despite Waldron’s efforts, many enduring puzzles in Locke scholarship remain unresolved. Nonetheless, Waldron’s interpretive insight in highlighting the theological roots of Locke’s thought, and his creative use of this insight to illuminate the problem of fundamental equality, significantly enhances our understanding of the issue. Waldron’s analysis, despite the criticisms that reduce Locke’s liberalism to Protestant theology, underscores a critical point: any comprehensive understanding of Locke’s thought requires simultaneous attention to both its religious and political foundations.
This article offers a critical examination of God, Locke, and Equality, a seminal work by contemporary philosopher and jurist Jeremy Waldron, recently translated into Persian. With an analytical and interpretive approach, the authors seek to present the book’s structure and central arguments while situating Waldron’s position within contemporary Locke scholarship. The principal focus lies in evaluating Waldron’s bold thesis that Locke’s commitment to “basic equality” is not merely compatible with Christian theology but in fact rests upon it, rendering secular accounts insufficient. In the opening sections, the authors outline Waldron’s intellectual background and the significance of his intervention. Unlike his predominantly legal writings, this book demonstrates Waldron’s engagement as a political and theological thinker. Grounded in the analytic tradition of Oxford yet influenced by Dworkinian moral reasoning, Waldron returns to Locke to probe a foundational question of modern political theory: on what basis can the equality of all human beings be morally justified? The structure of the book—divided into seven chapters—is reviewed in detail. Waldron interprets Locke not as a secular Enlightenment thinker, but as a deeply Christian philosopher whose political thought cannot be disentangled from theological commitments. From Locke’s reading of Genesis and the imago Dei, to his views on property, tolerance, slavery, and civil authority, each of these domains, Waldron argues, is intelligible only through the lens of Christian theological anthropology. A significant portion of the article is devoted to examining Waldron’s relation to key figures in Locke studies—John Dunn, Peter Laslett, Michael Zuckert, C.B. Macpherson, and Leo Strauss. Waldron is shown to follow Dunn in emphasizing Locke’s theological roots, while departing from both Laslett’s historicism and Strauss’s esotericism. Rejecting the notion that Locke’s religious claims are mere rhetorical devices, Waldron argues that such claims are substantive, foundational, and indispensable to Locke’s egalitarianism. The article further elaborates on Waldron’s distinction between "natural equality" and "political equality" in Locke’s theory. The former applies to all humans as created beings, while the latter is reserved for those with the rational capacity to understand and respond to divine commands. For Waldron, this is not a limitation, but rather a deepening of the moral structure of Locke’s thought, grounding equality in a theological rather than merely rationalist or utilitarian framework. Nonetheless, the article also surveys key criticisms of Waldron’s thesis. Critics such as Victor Nuovo argue that the book lacks originality, merely reaffirming claims made decades ago. Others accuse Waldron of selective interpretation—forcing all aspects of Locke’s thought into a theological mold, downplaying tensions, and failing to grapple adequately with Locke’s ambivalence on issues such as women, class, and slavery. Furthermore, Waldron’s anti-historicist methodology, though consistent, is seen by some as overly rigid and prone to decontextualization. The article also includes a critique of the Persian translation of the book, noting various terminological ambiguities and questionable equivalencies that may obscure some of Waldron’s philosophical nuances. In conclusion, the authors argue that God, Locke, and Equality are of significant value to contemporary political theory and theology, particularly within Persian intellectual contexts. It revives serious engagement with the theological substratum of liberal equality and challenges prevailing secular assumptions in political philosophy. For Iranian scholars, Waldron’s approach serves as a methodological exemplar of how to read canonical texts non-anachronistically and with theological attentiveness. Moreover, the book resonates with enduring questions within Islamic political thought regarding divine sovereignty, gender roles, political authority, and the foundations of human dignity and rights. Despite its limitations, Waldron’s work represents an essential contribution to both Locke scholarship and the broader discourse on religion and liberalism. It reminds us that foundational concepts such as equality cannot be fully grasped in abstraction from the religious traditions that shaped them. Whether or not one accepts Waldron’s theological commitments, his interpretive project compels a reevaluation of the moral underpinnings of modern liberal thought.