Could Jesus Sin?

some thoughts on redefining how we view purity, sin, and social order

What do we even mean when we ask whether or not Jesus ever sinned? You might mean something like “Jesus never did anything bad,” which sounds great, but what do you mean by bad? Someone else may get technical and say, “Jesus never transgressed the Law of Moses. He kept all 613 commands perfectly.” I think both of these answers would be acceptable in Sunday school.

But there’s something deeper going on here that, if we sit with it for a bit, could transform how we view sin, purity, and social order.

“Could” not “Did”

Before we ask whether or not Jesus ever sinned, we need to ask a different question, the one in the title: was it possible for Jesus to sin?

I don’t think this answer is obvious, so if you walk away with a different take, I still think we can be friends.

Without defining sin or thinking too deeply about the mystery of the incarnation, my answer is “yes, Jesus could sin.” My reason for this answer is that Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1-11). James defines the process of sin as follows:

But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when desire has conceived, it engenders sin, and sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death. James 1:14–15

So it goes desire > temptation > sin > death.

This is important because it differentiates temptation from sin. One of my friends told me that she used to believe that it was a sin to be tempted, but imagine how anxiety-inducing that would be! Some of us would be asking for forgiveness every time we turned around.

So when the Hebrews writer(s) said that Jesus has been “tempted in all things as we are,” he/ she/ they were not saying that Jesus had sinned; in fact, the anonymous author(s) specifically said that Jesus did not sin despite these temptations.

If it wasn’t possible for Jesus to sin, then was his temptation really even a temptation? Are we saying that he didn’t actually have the desire to turn stones into bread or throw himself from the pinnacle of the temple?

But let’s take a step back and approach the “did” question from another direction.

It Depends on Who You Ask

Did Jesus sin? Well, it depends on who you ask. If you ask Pilate, he might say “no.” If you ask the religious leaders, they would say “yes.” If you asked Judas…well, it would depend on when you asked him.

It turns out that people have different definitions of what sin is.

To one person, putting your elbows on the table or using the wrong fork for the wrong part of the meal could be considered sin. To someone else, curse words are not inherently bad and are based in differences in language among the classes, so there’s nothing wrong with saying them, but to someone else even saying “crap” is bad because it is a euphemism.

Fun fact: we couldn’t say “shoot” growing up because it was a euphemism, but my family’s favorite insult was “dipstick.” Yeah, I laughed pretty hard when I figured that one out.

So if you were to ask Pilate if Jesus sinned, he might say, “Well, Jesus hasn’t done anything worthy of condemnation according to our civil laws.” But the religious leaders might say, “Jesus’s disciples pick grain on the Sabbath, they eat with unwashed hands, and Jesus claims to be able to forgive sins and calls himself the Son of God, which is blasphemy.”

What is sin?

I was taught that there are four definitions of sin in the Bible:

1. To transgress the Law or law (1 John 3:4)

2. Any kind of unrighteousness (1 John 5:17)

3. Anything that offends the conscience (Romans 14:23)

4. Knowing to do good and not doing it (James 4:17)

I’ve heard some try to limit the definition of sin to a “transgression of the Law,” specifically the Law of Moses, but this doesn’t really speak to what I feel we all know to be true. “Unrighteousness,” for instance, could be understood as a violation of justice, which may be similar to what James had in mind in James 4:17 given the emphasis on wealth inequality in his epistle. Certainly any kind of injustice could be considered “missing the mark.”

There’s another passage that actually explains this quite well:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—for sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Romans 5:12–13

Paul’s argument could be worded this way: “Sin came into the world through one man, and since the Law was not in effect yet, there must have been some sort of law that was offended; otherwise, sin would not have counted against them.”

And what was this law?

Sin as a Culpable Disturbance of Shalom

Dr. Cornelius Plantinga defined sin as “a culpable disturbance of shalom.” That is, it is a disruption of the peace that is inherent within creation, and the one who engages in this disturbance is responsible for it.

To me, this best sums anything I’ve ever read on defining sin.

Did Jesus “transgress the Law” according to the strictest interpretations of it in his day? According to the Pharisees, he did:

When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:2

Jesus’s response shocks conventional wisdom:

He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? How he entered the house of God, and they ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:3–8

Jesus argues that (1) sometimes its okay to act unlawfully if the letter of the Law would lead to a disruption of shalom, (2) sometimes the Law has to be broken in order for it to be fulfilled, (3) the work Jesus and his disciples were doing was more important than cultic sacrifice, and (4) the Scriptures emphasize mercy over sacrifice (i.e. the Law).

This is honestly bewildering for someone like me who always tried to follow the rules.

But the Scripture even says that sometimes the rules were arbitrary and not all that good.

For example, Jesus said, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8).

Through Ezekiel, God said, “Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live” (Ezekiel 20:25).

This all makes sense because Paul could be “blameless” according to the righteousness that comes by the Law (Philippians 3:6) and a persecutor of the church.

You see, Jesus is operating according to a truth that is deeper than words etched onto stone; he is living by the law of Love, the original law.

So did Jesus sin? Well, according to many he did, but according to the law of Love, he was blameless.

A Law Deeper than Words Etched onto Stone

Do you see how revolutionary this is? Do you see how it could transform how we read the Bible?

For example, take the writings of Paul. How many people do you know who go to his writings to come up with a list of dos and do nots, a pattern of worship, or a systematized way to be saved?

Probably most Christians, right? At least most Christian those know who are reading this.

Yet, wouldn’t that be creating the same kind of system Jesus came to undermine? Isn’t that precisely what we are to not do?

If we were to ask Jesus if we could follow him, would he ask for a resume, or would he look for something deeper?

In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you who behave lawlessly.’ Matthew 7:21–23

On paper, these people look great, but Jesus was after something more than ceremony or surface-level religious demonstrations. A few passages before this, he gave his criteria of judgment: “You will know them by their fruits. Good fruit can’t come from a bad tree, and bad fruit can’t come from a good tree.”

If we go back just one more passage, we get to the key idea in Jesus’s sermon:

In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

Now, if you aren’t careful, you might miss out on how cool this is.

Back in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says something that makes him seem more legalistic than the Pharisees. Read it for yourself:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17–20

This seems pretty extreme, right? And knowing what we know about Jesus from Matthew 12 and Matthew 15 (and even Matthew 5: “you have heard it’s been said…”), we have to know that there is something else going on here.

Well, Matthew 7:12 is that something else. The golden rule is that something else.

It’s as if Jesus is saying, “Do you want to really fulfill the requirements of the Law? Then do good to your neighbor. Stop weighing spices and beating yourself up over minor infractions. Just love your neighbor as yourself.”

How Does Paul Feel About All This?

So take this principle and apply it to Paul’s writings, which seem to be the most weaponized among New Testament writings.

Based on the law of Love, how could worshipping with an instrument ever be inherently wrong? How could building a kitchen in the church building be a damnable offense? How could God punish someone for being baptized in the “wrong way” under the “wrong formula”?

You see how petty all this becomes?

This is why Paul, the Pharisee, was able to say, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6).

This is why he was able to say, “By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things” (Galatians 5:22–23).

This is what we’re looking for. This is what we want to see in our own lives and churches.

But please don’t even etch this onto a stone or hang it in a classroom at school. Don’t rob it of its power by turning it into a “letter,” for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.

Do you see how flexible this is? How it moves? How it walks through the grain fields on the Sabbath and eats showbread in the tabernacle? But do you also see when it doesn’t? Do you see when it knows when to not take that path? Do you see when it stands by a woman caught in adultery while also telling her to “sin no more”? Do you see how it could say “women keep silent” while also saying “Phoebe is a deacon and Junia is an apostle”?

If you ask me about any issue, regardless of how political or polarizing or controversial, my answer is look at the fruit.

“What are your thoughts on marriage and divorce?” Look at the fruit and tell me what you see.

“What are your thoughts on war?” Look at the fruit and tell me what you see.

“What are your thoughts on celebrating Easter, which we all know is a pagan holiday that we turned into a religious holiday to sell chocolate?” What are you even…Are you…Look at the fruit and tell me what you see.

“What are your thoughts on sexuality and the three passages used to talk about same-sex relationships?” Look at the fruit and tell me what you see.

“What are your thoughts on taking communion on Thursday in addition to Sunday?” Look at the fruit and tell me what you see.

Because if we see the fruit, we see the Spirit. And if we see the Spirit, we see a child of God. And if we see a child of God, we see a brother or sister against whom there is no law, one through whom the Law and Prophets are fulfilled.

So could Jesus sin? Did Jesus sin? If you ask some, yes. But if you ask Love, no.

What fruit are you bearing?