| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
Did Jesus lead a sinless life?
Bible analysis, conclusions, etc.
Sponsored link.
Methods of determining whether Jesus was sinless
The question whether Jesus was without sin is ultimately impossible to answer. That is because no consensus exists about the precise nature of Jesus:
 | Some Christians -- particularly those who are religious liberals -- consider Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ), to be a 1st
century itinerate rabbi -- perhaps the greatest of the Jewish Prophets --
but still a human. Thus:
However, some do not consider the act of disobeying religious, civil, or military law to be religiously sinful in some circumstances. There are thousands of years of precedents in Judaism and Christianity where individuals have conscientiously objected to what they considered to be improper laws by intentionally disobeying them. They have felt called to respond to a higher law. For example:
Thus, violating a religious, civil, or military law may be considered a sin by some authorities even as it is regarded as a noble act by a perpetrator. | ||||||||||
| Most Christians consider Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and a co-equal,
eternally existing, person within the Trinity -- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
These Christians might define a sin as an action that is
contrary to the will of God. Since Jesus and God are believed to be
omnipotent, they have an infinite choice of actions in every instance.
They would never do anything which was against their own will. Thus they
cannot sin. These Christians believe
that since he created humans, the other life forms on earth, the
earth itself and the rest of the universe, then Jesus Christ can perform
many acts without sin - acts that might be considered criminal if done
by a human. The Hebrew and
Christian Scriptures describe how God initiated many acts
that would be considered crimes against humanity or genocide if they
were done by a human being today. Some examples are:
Some feel that a deity is sinless, even after performing actions that would be considered horrendous and despicable if done by a human being. They believe that God cannot perform a sinful act. Thus, by definition, Jesus led a sinless life. |
The path forward:
If one believes that God is sinless, and that Jesus is one of three persons in the Trinity, then no further discussion of Jesus' sinlessness is necessary or possible. The subject is closed. Jesus did not sin. You can hit the "Back" key at the top of your browser now if you wish.
For those who feel that Jesus' sinfulness or sinless should be evaluated using human standards of sin, we will continue this essay by evaluating Jesus' actions against religious and civil rules of behavior in 1st century Palestine.
Sponsored link:
What does the Bible say about Jesus behavior?
The Bible, if interpreted literally, appears ambiguous about whether Jesus was without sin. Some applicable passages from the King James Version are listed below:
| In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is described as being righteous and
having done nothing wrong -- or at least, not anything that was criminal in
nature:
| ||||||||
| Elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures, Paul and various other authors
state unequivocally that Jesus was without sin:
| ||||||||
| There is an ambiguous reference to Jesus and sin in Hebrews:
| ||||||||
| A remarkable incident occurred during Jesus' ministry when a
follower referred to him as "Good Master" -- a term
that was rarely used to refer to a rabbi or teacher. Jesus replied,
implying that he
was not God, that he was not "good," and that only God is
good:
|
The Jerome Biblical Commentary attempts to harmonize this apparent conflict. It states that the phrase "Good Master" was "a rarely used epithet for a rabbi." Thus, Jesus' response might have implied that "the epithet 'good' being proper to God, should not be used indiscriminately and casually." 1,2 Still, the passages in the three synoptic gospels records Jesus as rejecting the suggestion that he was all good; i.e. without sin.
Actions by Jesus that might be considered sinful if done by an ordinary person:
The following activities might have been considered sinful, if performed by an ordinary person in Palestine during the first century CE:
| Harvesting on the Sabbath: The various versions of the Ten
Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34:12-26, and Deuteronomy
5:6-21) all contain prohibitions against working on
Saturday, the Sabbath day. For example, Exodus
8:8-11 states:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work...For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Deuteronomy 5:21 states that on the sabbath, "in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest." Jews were prohibited from harvesting crops or preparing a meal on the Sabbath; observant Jews still are. Exodus 35:2 states: ...but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Numbers 15:32-36 described a man who was executed because he gathered wood on Saturday -- perhaps to keep his family from freezing from the cold. But Matthew 12:1-6 states: "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day." (The "corn" referred to in the King James Version of the Bible is really referring to a grain crop.) Mark 2:23-28 describes the same incident. In Luke 6:1-5, the disciples' sin was not to pluck and eat the ears of grain; it was the act of rubbing the ears between their hands to extract the kernels which was considered work, and thus sinful. Jesus justified the activities of his disciples, by referring to David obtaining the consecrated shewbread from "Abiathar the high priest" on a sabbath, and eating it. (In reality, there was no high priest during the time of David; that office was created much later. 3 Also, 1 Samuel 21:1-6 identifies Ahimelech as the priest who gave the shewbread to David, not Abiathar). The source of sin in this incident would be "Jesus' violating or condoning violation of the Sabbath law, one of the most sacred and distinctive of all Jewish institutions." 3 |
| Eating without washing one's hands, etc: Pharisees and scribes
observed that some of Jesus' disciples did not wash their hands prior to
eating. Mark 7:2-3 states: "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the
elders." Matthew 15:1-4 also describes this same incident.
The author emphasized the Pharisee's belief that to not wash one's hands before
eating was to dishonor one's parents traditions, a violation of one of the Ten
Commandments. In Matthew 15:11, Jesus states "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."
This is a radical statement. It "implies the setting aside of the
entire dietary and ritual cleansing code, oral and written" of the
Torah. 4 This verse negates much of the Mosaic law. Later in verses 13-14, Jesus is recorded
as stating "...Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
This is a veiled "denunciation of the leaders of Israel as
constituting a group which has no rightful claim to call itself the people
of God. Matthew records Jesus as transforming "a critique of
Jewish institutions into a repudiation of Judaism itself."
5
One source of sin in this incident is Jesus condoning his disciples' eating without washing their hands. A far greater sin was to negate much of the Mosaic law as being without value. Finally, he made a treasonous attack on the legitimacy of the Jewish leadership; this might have been considered a capital crime in those days. |
| Transferring demons into about 2,000 pigs: Mark 5:8-14, Matthew
8:28-34 and Luke 8:27-39 describe an incident in which Jesus
exorcised a man who had been tormented by about 2,000 demons. Jesus sent the
demons into a nearby herd of pigs. Mark 5:13 states:
"...And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine:
and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were
about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
In this case, the sin was to destroy the livelihood of the farmer(s) who owned the pigs. Jesus presumably could have transferred all 2,000 demons into a single pig, and thus minimized the economic hardship to the farmer. He could perhaps have even transferred all of the demons into a rock, bird or mouse, and totally avoided financial loss to the farmer. |
| Verbally attacking the Pharisees:
Luke 11:37-54 describes a meeting over a meal between Jesus and a Pharisee.
Jesus angrily and abusively attacked all Pharisees, saying that their "inward
part is full of ravening and wickedness." He refers to the
Pharisees as "you fools," "hypocrites." In
Matthew 23:13-36, Jesus refers to them as "blind guides,"
"blind fools," extortionists, unclean, serpents, a brood of
vipers, murderers, persecutors, and being full of iniquity, etc.
The sin in this case is to attack another individual for their religious beliefs and practices. To call them fools is particularly serious. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus is recorded as saying: |
"...anyone who says to his brother 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin [the Council]. But anyone who says 'You fool' will be in danger of the hell fire" (NIV)
"Raca" apparently means "I spit on you." That passage seems to imply that a single insult of the type that Jesus made is a sufficiently serious sin that it places a person in danger of going to Hell.
| Personal habits: In Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34, Jesus is called a "gluttonous man and a winebibber" i.e. a glutton and a drunk. If this is an accurate description, then his eating and drinking behavior might be considered sinful. |
| Aggravated physical assaults in the Temple: The Torah outlines the
rituals that
Jews were required to perform in the Temple. These were often ritual sacrifices of animals
such as doves, lambs, sheep, and oxen. Pilgrims came to the Temple from various
lands, and first had to change the currency of their country of origin into temple coinage at
moneychanger tables. Only then were they able to purchase animals to be ritually
killed by the priests. Mark 11:15, Matt 21:12-15,
Luke 19:45-47 and John 2:14-16 describe an incident in which Jesus
entered the temple grounds and attacked the vendors there. He overturned the
tables of the moneychangers, spilling their coins onto the ground. He
overturned the seats of those who sold doves. He made "a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the
temple" by whipping them. The sin in this case is the
aggravated assault with a weapon of individuals engaged in
commerce -- proprietors of various businesses needed by the pilgrims to fulfill their religious
obligations. We received an E-mail from a visitor to this site who suggested
that Jesus only used the scourge to whip the animals and drive them from
the temple; he did not attack the vendors. This is quite unlikely,
because the animals would either have been caged or tied up. Whipping
them would not have driven them from the temple. It seems obvious that
he attacked the people. |
| Conspiracy to steal animals: In Mark 11:2-4, Matt 21:2-3,
and Luke 19:30-31, Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a
village - perhaps Bethany. They were to locate a colt tied up near the entrance, and to return with it. If
someone stopped them they were to explain that the Lord had need of it.
Otherwise, they were simply to steal the colt without paying for it or
obtaining permission. In Matthew's account, they were to steal both an ass and a colt, and Jesus somehow rode into Jerusalem astride both animals. Liberal theologians interpret this strange arrangement as a misunderstanding by the author of Matthew of Zechariah 9:9 "...behold, thy King cometh unto thee... lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." One commentator wrote: "Matthew misunderstood the Hebrew parallelism by which the lines were matched by sense rather than by sound." 6 Hebrew poetry makes almost no use of rhyme and no direct use of meter. Rather, the "units of thought in each line of the poem [are] enhanced compared or emphasized by their relationship to those in a parallel line." 7 Thus, Zechariah is referring to the same animal, twice. The author of Matthew misinterpreted the passage and believed that it referred to two separate animals. The authors of the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John did not make this mistake. In Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:14-15, they describe Jesus as riding on a single animal: a young donkey or colt. The sin in this case was conspiracy to commit theft. |
| Prejudice based on race or nationality: Matthew 15:22-28
describes an incident between Jesus and a Canaanite woman. Mark 7:25-30
describes the same incident, identifying her as Greek/Syrophenician.
One commentary on the Bible explains that "The
inhabitants of this area were racially and linguistically connected
with the ancient Canaanites." 8 She
begged Jesus to cure her daughter who was possessed by a demon.
He first ignored her, but then explained that he was sent only to
bring the Gospel to the Jews, not to the Gentiles such as she. Jesus
cruelly replied to the desperate mother that it was not right for him
"to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs."
i.e. it is not appropriate to take the Gospel, which was intended only
for the Jews, and offer it to Gentiles as well -- here described as
sub-humans, as dogs. Here, Jesus was following the behavior of other observant Jews in the 1st century CE
who would frequently refer to Gentiles contemptuously as "dogs.")
She quipped back to Jesus that even the "dogs eat of the
crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Jesus relented
and, from a distance, cured the daughter of demonic possession because
of the mother's faith. The sin in this case was to treat a person of another race and/or nationality as sub-human, by referring to them as a dog. |
Conclusions:
We may conclude:
| From the perspective of most conservative Christians, Jesus is God and thus, by definition, is incapable of committing a sinful act. Behaviors ranging from cursing, breaking Sabbath laws, theft, assault, crimes against humanity and genocide, which were/are considered criminal acts if done by a human, are moral, ethical and sinless actions when they are carried out by God. Conservatives might criticize religious liberals for judging God by applying contemporary human standards of behavior to the creator of the universe. One might consider Elihu's response when Job criticized God: Job 35:16: "Therefore doth Job open his mouth in vain; he multiplieth words without knowledge." One might consider God's response to Job as well: Job 38:1-41: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?....Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof..." |
| From the perspective of many liberal Christians, Jesus was a man -- a human, not a God. He engaged in some sinful behavior and in at least two recorded criminal acts. He did nothing that could be considered a capital crime by today's standards -- a crime that would result in the death penalty. However, the aggravated assault and the creation of a disturbance in the temple would certainly have been considered treasonous in 1st century Palestine by the occupying army -- a capital crime for which the Roman Army would have sentenced anyone to crucifixion. |
As usual, there is no way to harmonize the beliefs of conservative and liberal Christians. They logically follow from their different interpretations of the Bible.
References:
- G.C. Berkouwer, "The Person of Christ," Out of print. However, the Amazon.com online book store may be able to obtain a copy.
- "Like us in all things but sin: An examination of the question of the impeccability of Jesus Christ," at: http://www.bignerds.com/science/impeccable.txt
- C.M. Laymon, Ed., "The Interpreter's One-volume Commentary on the Bible," Abingdon Press, (1991), Page 623-624
- "Questions and Answers," True Jesus Church, at: http://www.tjc.org//qna/jesus.shtml
- Op cit., Laymon, Page 627.
- Op cit., Laymon, Page 635.
- Op cit., Laymon, Page 1077
- Op cit., Laymon, Page 628.
|
Home page > Christianity > Personalities > Jesus > His sinlessness > here |
|
or Home page> Christianity> Christian history...> Beliefs> Sin> Jesus sinlessness> here |
Copyright © 2000 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2000-APR-17
Latest update: 2008-MAY-07
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
