Sanders doubts the tradition’s portrayal of Jesus’ call to public repentance.117 Yet I believe that his helpful approach to Jesus as an eschatological prophet may challenge his own suggestion that Jesus did not emphasize public repentance. Sanders distinguishes this repentance aspect of Jesus’ mission too sharply from that of John the Baptist. But repentance’s occurrence in John’s teaching and that of many of Jesus’ followers provides an argument from continuity, the very sort of argument he elsewhere accepts in the case of restoration eschatology.118
If Mark portrays Jesus as calling Israel to repent (Mk 1:14-15) or sending his disciples to do so (Mk 6:12), Sanders thinks that the evangelists “felt it necessary to remedy” the lack of Jesus’ teaching on the subject, hence concludes that “the sayings were added.”119 By this line of argument, one could account for any evidence in the tradition that conflicts with one’s thesis as proof that one’s thesis is correct! He doubts that Jesus required restitution.120 His case is somewhat stronger at this point; the Gospels do not offer extensive evidence for Jesus demanding restitution. Nevertheless, one can argue against Jesus’ concern for restitution completely only by discounting a story like Zaccheus (Lk 19:8) and by ignoring Matt 5:24 (which he elsewhere seems to accept as authentic).121
While Jesus surely ate with sinners (hence accepted them on a social level), to claim that he accepted them without repentance and moral reformation122 seems to exclude a large amount of the Jesus tradition solely on the grounds of its content (at least, if Jesus’ acceptance is construed as making them his followers without transformation). Not only does Jesus’ message of repentance appear in multiple strata of the tradition (e.g., Mk 1:15; 6:12; Lk 13:3-5; 15:7, 10), but Jesus’ demands for discipleship are radical. Sanders could be right that Jesus did not require sacrifice with repentance123 and perhaps limited restitution; but in a different context Sanders accepts the force of Matt 8:21-22//Lk 9:59-60,124 which necessarily involves radical obedience for converts. As we shall note in ch. 14, many other texts also emphasize radical discipleship (e.g., Mk 1:16-20; 8:34; 10:21-30). Limited use of the term “repentance” need not entail any denial that Jesus demanded radical change.
Part of the conflict here is a matter of definition; “repentance” in first-century Judaism required restitution and sacrifice, which Sanders finds lacking in Jesus’ teaching.125 (He may not hold John the Baptist to the same standard; although he allows that John preached repentance, we find no requirement of restitution or sacrifice in John’s teaching.)126 We should not argue against a practice from silence when ancient hearers may have simply assumed it, but it does seem that Jesus’ interests differed from those of priests and even Pharisees.
Moreover, Sanders does allow that Jesus would have believed in repentance in the general sense, but argues that, unlike other Jewish restoration sources, Jesus did not emphasize national repentance.127 It seems to me more likely, however, that this very context in early Judaism supports the probability that Jesus did call for national repentance, like John. I believe that this call would support rather than detract from Sanders’ larger emphasis on Jesus’ restoration eschatology. Indeed, in “Q” material that is difficult to doubt, Jesus laments entire towns that have not adequately repented (Matt 11:21//Lk 10:13), and perhaps Israel as well (Matt 12:41//Lk 11:32). (In a later work, Sanders also contends that Jesus probably concurred with John’s message of repentance because of coming judgment,128 though he continues to believe that “repentance” was not a prominent theme for Jesus.)129
Just as Jesus should be more in continuity with John’s mission on the matter of repentance, it would not be surprising if his mission led to conflict with Jewish teachers who disagreed with him. While Sanders rightly reacts against Christian scholarship that has traditionally demonized ancient Judaism as a foil for Jesus, I believe that he too often minimizes or eliminates tensions in the tradition between Jesus and the Pharisees.130 Although we must read Jesus within Judaism, we do know that most Jewish groups did in fact have conflicts with others. Of course, Sanders’ emphasis is appropriate: the Pharisees did not go around trying to kill people who differed with their interpretation of the law. Even in the Gospels, where some Pharisees “plotted” against Jesus, it is, as Sanders notes, Jerusalem’s priestly leaders who get Jesus executed, and that within a few days of their decision.131 But interpretive conflict with some Pharisees and/or scribes pervades the tradition, appearing in every level of it.132 We address these issues in ch. 16.
