Did Jesus Urge People to Repent?

Below is the third guest post by my colleague David Lambert, connected to his bookHow Repentance
Became Biblical.  For many readers of the blog, this will be the most important and interesting of them all. 
It deals with the historical Jesus.  Did Jesus tell people that they needed to repent?   You might think the
answer is obvious….
******************************************************************

Did Jesus Preach Repentance?

In my past two posts, I argued that the concept of repentance, as we use it today and as it first developed
within Judaism and Christianity, was not originally found in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Now, it’s
possible that you might be tempted by this argument to draw the conclusion that repentance is a
specifically Christian concept. It’s important, however, to keep in mind that, even though repentance
became very important to Christianity, it actually first developed in the context of late Second Temple
Judaism shortly before the advent of Christianity. The concept, for instance, is alive and well in the
writings of Ben Sira (also known as Ecclesiasticus) a text that was written by a Jew in the second century
B.C.E. Nevertheless, in ancient Judaism repentance was not yet a fully established concept. It appeared in
the writings of certain ancient Jews, like Ben Sira and Philo, but was strikingly absent from the writings of
others, particularly those with a commitment to apocalypticism, such as the Dead Sea sect. Apocalyptic-
minded Jews favored instead the notion that, at the end of days, there would be a divinely-orchestrated
transformation of human nature, a concept that differs from repentance by strikingly locating all agency in
the hands of God. In fact, they saw a promise of just such a transformation in Deuteronomy 30:6, which
alludes to God circumcising Israel’s heart at some point in the future. No amount of human repentance
could change human nature or alter the course of history. Humanity was just too rotten to the core, too
overrun by powerful demonic forces, to save itself. Only some radical divine intervention would suffice.

Now, as Bart has made clear in his recent posts, understanding the history of Jewish apocalypticism is
fundamental to understanding the development of the early Jesus movement. In fact, it’s not wrong to see
it, at its earliest stage of development, as a Jewish apocalyptic sect. So, where did the early Jesus
movement fall on the question of repentance?

On the face of it, there is a very simple answer: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee,
proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come
near; repent, and believe in the good news.’” (Mark 1:14-15) However, deeper inspection reveals a number
of problems. First of all, on the basis of this famous passage and its parallels in Matthew, scholars have
often misunderstood the nature of ancient Jewish apocalypticism, claiming that a call to repentance in
connection to the end of time is the norm rather than the exception. But, as I stated, this formulation looks
like a later development that uses traditional apocalyptic language but departs considerably from its
standard formulation that human transformation will only occur at the end of days through direct divine
intervention.
More importantly, this statement, attributed to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry, does not seem to
really fit what Mark goes on to describe elsewhere as Jesus’ main activities: healing, exorcism, and
proclaiming the good news. All of these activities transpire without any allusion to repentance and do not
seem to presuppose repentance. Jesus seems most keen on demonstrating the fact of the impending arrival
of the kingdom of God, not on leveraging its arrival for the purpose of moral renewal or doctrinal change.
In fact, we don’t hear of repentance again until Mark 6:12, when Jesus passes the torch, so to speak, to his
disciples to carry on his mission.

Scholars have dealt with this problem of disconnect in several ways. It is often argued that the need for
repentance is implicit in all of Jesus’ actions and teachings, even when it is not actually mentioned. This
argument would have more weight if, in fact, the absence of repentance wasn’t entirely comprehensible,
indeed, expected, in light of its absence in the apocalypticism of late Second Temple Judaism. Others
assume the latereditorial additions made by the author of Luke when they interpret the passages from
Mark. So Jesus states in Mark 2:17: “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners,” but Luke adds: “I
have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:32) But is it safe to assume that
Jesus’ “calling of sinners” necessarily involved repentance, where other notions of group identity and even
human transformation are available? Maybe, he’s gathering a group of sinners around him to heal them
himself? Luke is clearly very interested in repentance, but were his earlier sources? Luke also, for instance,
 added repentance to the parable of the lost sheep, as we can tell from comparison of the text to the Gospel
of Matthew. (Compare Matthew 18:12-14 with Luke 15:4-7.)
To return to Mark, the passage attributing the preaching of repentance to Jesus at the very beginning of his
ministry (Mark 1:15) could be seen as an attempt to summarize or even interpret his later activity. It
doesn’t necessarily fit the original content of that ministry, and the same can be said for the summary of
the disciples’ mission given in Mark 6:12. That raises the real possibility that a concern for repentance was
introduced later on as the Synoptic traditions grew and the early Jesus movement moved from an
apocalyptic sect to a more established religious group. It needed a method for ensuring discipline within
the community and a method for allowing individuals to join the community with relative ease. However,
the most important point, here, in my view is not whether we can say with certainty that Jesus preached
repentance or not but to point out that we’ve been overlooking some of the underlying diversity or gaps in
the Gospel sources. Some of them privilege the concept of repentance, while others seem to do without it.
In that respect, they would be exactly in keeping with the kind of range of interest in repentance that we
see in late Second Temple Judaism.

For further discussion of relevant passages and, especially, the additional cases of John the Baptist and
Paul, please see my new book!

***************************************************************

David’s book How Repentance Became Biblical can be purchased on Amazon.com, at the following

address:  : http://www.amazon.com/How-Repentance-Became-Biblical-
Interpretation/dp/0190212241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452903064&sr=8-
1&keywords=how+repentance
 

inShare

Q & A about Jesus Before the Gospels, Part 1

Press Release! Jesus Before the Gospels

27
JAN
2016
25
Comments
 25  Comments
 0  Trackbacks

1.
Britt  January 27, 2016
Even though Jesus doesn’t always say explicitly or upfront, “Repent!”, doesn’t he often tell someone after
healing them or showing them mercy, “Go and sin no more.”? Isn’t that Jesus telling someone to repent in
response to His/God’s action toward them?

reply

o
 David Lambert  January 28, 2016
Interesting question. Actually, that formulation appears only in John 8:11 and not elsewhere!
What’s interesting is that we end up “hearing” that formulation in the back of our heads when we
read all the other passages as well.

reply

2.
godspell  January 27, 2016
Is it possible that the increased emphasis on repentance stemmed from feelings of deep guilt and shame
Jesus’ followers experienced after they allowed him to go alone to the cross?

It seems to me that Jesus was less concerned with repentance than with redemption. Did he feel people
were fundamentally rotten? I think it was more that he felt the human world itself was too corrupted, and
therefore had to change, in order for the best in humankind to flower. Not the world of nature, but the
world of man.

He did clearly believe in personal transformation by faith, which for him was the Kingdom of God in
miniature. He did believe you had to humble yourself to be exalted. This doesn’t mean he didn’t believe
the Kingdom was coming soon. He did. But it would be more than just God imposing his will on the
world. People had to want it. That’s why he was so encouraged when Non-Jews and sinners showed signs
of faith. The potential is there, beneath the corrupted surface of humanity–it just needs to be brought out.
People want to be saved, and somebody just has to show them the way. Set an example.

reply

o
David Lambert  January 28, 2016
Actually, repentance doesn’t figure much as a concern among Jesus’ followers after the
crucifixion. It’s directed outward, instead, particularly in Acts. There it is sometimes directed
against the Jews, with the implication that they need to repent of their involvement in the death of
Jesus.

I would agree that the primary concern in the earlier sources about Jesus’ life is much more
consistently on redemption than any sort of moral or religious transformation. With regard to your
last point, it is a matter of perspective, but I would argue that, in general, we moderns tend to
accentuate human agency, the human role, beyond the original sources. What was expected was a
sort of human acknowledgment of the events unfolding around them, but the idea of “wanting to
be saved” may be a way of bringing more agency and freewill into the texts than they support. It’s
certainly worth thinking through this more when we read these texts.

reply

3.
Greg Matthews  January 27, 2016
Fascinating post! Thanks for taking the time to make these posts and answer comments. I’ve added your
book to my Amazon wish list!

reply
4.
Josephsluna  January 27, 2016
I might fly out to see you Bart and check out campus !
I’m A believer so you might feel gods presence around me

reply

o
Pattycake1974  January 29, 2016
I would hold off on flying out to campus if I were you.

reply

5.
Stephen  January 27, 2016
Prof Lambert

Very interesting. If we take the call to repentance in the sayings ascribed to Jesus as secondary in the
tradition wouldn’t it follow that the ethical admonitions, for example the teachings recorded in the so-
called “Sermon of the Mount”, are secondary as well?

thanks

reply

o
David Lambert  January 28, 2016
Yes, potentially, but I think an argument needs to be made for each case. In theory, it would be
possible to imagine a series of ethical admonishments without repentance. But it’s also possible to
understand the Sermon on the Mount in a slightly different direction, not just as admonishment,
but as an actual interpretation and reformulation of the Law.

reply

6.
talmoore  January 27, 2016
Dr. Lambert, if you’re saying that Jesus’ (and John the Baptist’s) notion of repentence was much closer to
that of contemporary Judaism than it was to that of Medieval Christianity — implying that Jesus wasn’t
necessarily proclaiming radically new ideas — then I would say that’s most likely true. If that’s not what
you’re saying, then, I’m afraid, I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying.

I think we need to put a few things into perspective. For one, did Jesus (and John) think God’s Kingdom
was going to arrive within a matter of months, days, years, decades? If we’re talking months versus
decades, then we’re talking about quite different reasons for repentence. I, for one, think Jesus (and John)
believed God’s Kingdom was coming that very year of 30CE. (I have all sorts of circumstanial evidence
that I won’t get into.)

Consequently, the idea that Jesus and his followers alone could bring the message of repentence to the
entire world in that time frame would seem just as ludicrous to them as it does to us. Clearly, Jesus and his
band thought that they were only one of possibly several groups — the so-called Elect — (e.g. John the
Baptist’s followers) who would be saved on Judgment Day. If that’s the case, then Jesus and his early
followers weren’t particularly special in that regard. They were only one of many groups who believed that
they had effectively repented and, therefore, were saved from oblivion. Now, taking that into
consideration, Jesus’ notion of repentence would be pretty far removed from that of not only Medieval
Christianity but from the gospels themselves, which, by the time they were written, assumed that the
saving message of Jesus would, indeed, have enough time to spread throughout the whole world, and the
christian notion of repentence evolved in light of that fact.

reply

o
godspell  January 28, 2016
I don’t agree with this at all. Jesus clearly showed that he thought anyone of good will who had
faith could be saved, including non-Jews. Story after story. His ministry was primarily to the
Jews, but he would hardly be telling the disciples they’d be rulers in the Kingdom if there was no
Kingdom to be ruled OVER. If only a handful would survive, there would be no kings, no
thrones, no nations.

God is coming to reshape the world, not end it. To create a situation where people of good will
and faith can prosper, instead of evil men.

reply


talmoore  January 31, 2016
That’s what the Jesus of the gospels seems to think. But for the Jesus of history, it’s very
unlikely he cared much what the gentiles believed. Jesus probably thought the Jews —
God’s people — were going to rule the world upon the coming Kingdom, and that includes
ruling over whomever gentiles so happened to remain. In fact, I would conjecture that the
only reason men such as Paul were sent out by the Jerusalem church to mission to the
gentiles was because the Jerusalem church came to believe — after years of Jesus failing to
return — that a number of “righteous” gentiles needed to be brought into the church so that
Jesus would have a kingdom to rule over after he returned. In other words, the mission to the
gentiles was merely self-serving on the part of the Jewish-Christians, and it’s highly unlikely
the Jewish-Christians had any feelings beyond ambivalence for Gentile-Christians. And
that’s why the Jesus of the gospels (conveniently) seems to care about the gentiles (under a
pretense).

reply

o
David Lambert  January 28, 2016
 What I suggested is that Jesus may not have preached repentance at all. He emphasized the arrival
of the kingdom of god. Some people saw that too, joined the movement, and would be redeemed.
Others didn’t. Repentance didn’t figure into the language of most of the sources portraying Jesus’
activities, especially the early ones, and doesn’t seem to have been the point. I’m raising this
reading as a counterbalance to the majority of scholars who just assume, without thinking through
it critically, that Jesus was all about the preaching of repentance.

reply


talmoore  January 31, 2016
Ah, okay. I see what you’re saying. I agree somewhat. I think Jesus did preach repentence —
in the Jewish sense, not in the Christian sense — but only to those disciples who came to
him thinking he was a prophet already. That is to say, Jesus’ main pretense was as a prophet,
and when he gained a following as a prophet, he pretended to divulge secret knowledge to
his followers, one bit of which was this notion of “returning” to God — a notion that likely
included proper Torah observance; a continual, earnest appeal to God for salvation (cf.
Krishna’s preaching to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita that Arjuna must continually keep the
Lord Vishnu in mind in order to reach the highest level of Nirvana upon death); and a total
rejection of this corrupt world, including unrepentant friends and family. This is probably
what Jesus meant by repentence in the short term, seeing as how Jesus probably thought the
Kingdom was arriving in months if not weeks or days.

reply

7.
shakespeare66  January 28, 2016
So by the time the gospels were written, the idea of repentance was moving back into the theology of
Christianity because the “end” had not come ( as Jesus preached); therefore, people had to repent for the
sins they committed in order to be saved. Is that right?

reply

o
David Lambert  January 28, 2016
My sense is that when an apocalyptic sect expecting the immanent end of the world needs to
mature into a more established church it runs into a problem with the continued sinful behavior of
its adherents. At that point, a concept like repentance becomes very useful.

reply

8.
fishician  January 28, 2016
My understanding is that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptizer, so he believed the coming of the
kingdom of God was at hand, and therefore people who wanted to be a part of that kingdom needed to start
 behaving correctly. I think you can call this “repentance.” Is this consistent with your understanding of the
situation? (Just signed up for your seminar at UNC in April!)

reply

o
David Lambert  January 28, 2016
The relationship between John and Jesus is a huge, complex topic. Certainly, in the Gospel of
Matthew, there is a complete parity in what they are preaching. But Matthew represents a certain
expansion of what’s found earlier in Mark with regard to repentance and the end time, so the
situation is complex. In short, I think that, at early hypothetical stage, it seems quite likely that the
sense was of simply an end coming. This end was arriving independent of any particular change
of behavior. Furthermore, whether you were in the kingdom or out didn’t necessarily depend on
your transforming yourself morally as much as fate and belonging to the right sect.

reply

9.
Pattycake1974  January 28, 2016
You stated in an earlier post that repentance was more of a physical act than an attitude change but what
about Isaiah 55:7? “Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts.” That seems to
indicate that the return to the Lord begins in the mind.

Also, before Jesus’ ministry begins in Mark, John the Baptist is preaching repentance. After he’s put in
prison, we read that Jesus’ first message is about repenting and believing the good news. If repentance
wasn’t already an accepted concept, what was the point in John baptizing people?

reply

o
David Lambert  January 28, 2016
Good question about Isaiah 55:7! This is another issue of translation. The Hebrew for “thoughts”
here actually means something like “plans,” as in plots to destroy other and wrongfully
appropriate their property. So these are concrete plans that are already out there and present in the
world. It’s not simply an issue of intention or mind.

The baptism question is great too. It turns out that baptism most often, from Qumran to Paul, is
associated not with repentance but with the concept of divine re-creation of human nature that I
discussed. The waters change who you are. It’s only a later rationalistic interpretation that
suggests that it’s really your intention that changes you and the waters are *just* symbolic.

reply

10.
Rick  January 28, 2016
 So if “Apocalyptic-minded Jews favored instead the notion that, at the end of days, there would be a
divinely-orchestrated transformation of human nature, ” to whom did this transformation occur? As I
understood apocalypticism, after the end times there were two sets of people: 1) the faithful enjoying Gods
Kingdom on earth and 2) the rest who are wherever teeth gnash a lot. Were the faithful transformed or was
there to be an in between category?

reply

o
David Lambert  January 28, 2016
I think the members of a sect, like the one we know of from the Dead Sea discoveries, believed
that they alone would participate in this transformation. Indeed, they believed that they would
attain a status close to that of the angels. The rest of Israel and non-Israelites just wouldn’t be a
part of that process. That’s right.

reply

11.
RonaldTaska  January 28, 2016
Another thought-provoking post. Thanks. I assume that your contention would be that when the Jews in
the Old Testament are repeatedly described as straying from God and being punished by God and then
being given another chance that this had nothing to do with repentance. Interesting. It is certainly clear
from Dr. Ehrman’s upcoming book that an author’s or reader’s view of the past is influenced by his/her
present views.

reply

o
David Lambert  January 28, 2016
Exactly. Our reading of the Hebrew Bible and other texts are colored by our own theological and
moral commitments to the concept of repentance.

reply

12.
Kazibwe Edris  January 28, 2016

“22 They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as
the scribes.”

Doctor Ehrman
can you explain the difference between “as one having authority” and “authority from my own
self”
the words i have put in quotations cannot be conflated right? this verse is used as evidence that
jesus = yhwh because jesus is teaching from his own authority, but i don’t see how “as one
having” authority means “his own authority”

in other places , jesus say,

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

that does not mean that our “perfect” is 100% identical to the fathers ” perfect,”
right? so how can “as one having authority” mean “jesus’ authority”