13. Jesus’ Moral Development, Part 1: What Does It Mean That He Was “Made Perfect”?

Introduction

I was taught, as virtually all Christians are, that Jesus never sinned at any point in his life. Growing up as a Christian, I accepted this without question. Eventually, however, several Gospel passages began troubling me—not because I wanted to find fault with Jesus, but because I was trying to apply the moral standards of Scripture consistently.

When I also noticed that Hebrews says Jesus learned obedience and was made perfect through suffering, I began asking whether Scripture might portray Jesus as a genuinely human Messiah who underwent genuine moral development, overcame sin, and became extraordinarily righteous and holy rather than one who possessed complete moral perfection from birth.

Several New Testament passages describe Jesus as “without sin,” as having “committed no sin,” and as one who “knew no sin.” I take those passages seriously, and I examine them carefully in the next article in this series.

But before allowing those verses to determine Jesus’ entire moral biography, I think we should ask a more basic question: What does Scripture as a whole actually say about Jesus’ moral development?

The question is especially important because Scripture tells us that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). Jesus himself teaches that the greatest commandments are to love God and love our neighbor, and he commands his followers to love even their enemies. So when examining Jesus’ moral life, I think one of the most important questions we can ask is not merely: Was Jesus generally righteous?

I think the answer to that is clearly yes. Jesus demonstrated extraordinary courage, compassion, devotion to God, concern for people who were suffering, willingness to confront injustice, dependence upon God, perseverance through suffering, and ultimately willingness to surrender his life.

The harder question is: Did Jesus display perfect love throughout every moment of his life?

Or does Scripture portray a genuinely human Messiah who grew, learned, struggled, suffered, obeyed, overcame what was wrong, and became extraordinarily righteous, holy, and surrendered to God?

That distinction matters.

If Jesus had to grow morally, this does not make him less extraordinary. It means his righteousness was genuinely human righteousness. His obedience was something learned. His maturity was something developed. His victory over sin was something actually achieved.

And if that is true, it also makes Scripture’s promise that Christians will genuinely become like Christ much easier to understand.

So my question in this study is: Was Jesus morally flawless from birth, or did he undergo genuine moral development and ultimately become the extraordinarily righteous and holy Messiah who offered himself to God without blemish?

And if Jesus was “made perfect,” what exactly did that perfection mean? Did it make him morally infallible and exhaust every possible dimension of future human growth? Or can Scripture speak of genuine perfection while a human being still remains capable of further development?

I believe Scripture gives significant insight into these questions.

What Kind of Messiah Did Scripture Promise?

Before examining Jesus’ own life, I think an important assumption needs to be examined. Christians commonly speak as though “Messiah” naturally means “a person who has never sinned at any moment of his existence.”

But is that actually what the Hebrew Scriptures promised?

The Old Testament certainly anticipates a righteous Messiah.

Jeremiah says:

Isaiah similarly describes the coming Davidic ruler:

The promised ruler is righteous, just, wise, faithful, Spirit-empowered, and devoted to God. Those are extraordinary descriptions.

But I do not find the Hebrew Scriptures explicitly saying: The Messiah will never commit a sin at any point in his entire life.

That distinction matters because Scripture itself does not normally use the word righteous to mean a person who has never sinned.

Ecclesiastes says something especially important:

Notice the wording. The verse does not say there are no righteous people. It says that even a righteous person sins.

That means the biblical category of righteousness does not automatically require a completely sinless biography. A person can be genuinely righteous while still having failed morally.

The Old Testament makes the same point elsewhere. Solomon prays:

So when the prophets promise a righteous Messiah, I do not think we should silently insert another proposition into that promise:

Righteous Messiah = a human being who must have been morally flawless from birth.

That additional claim needs evidence.

What About Jewish Expectations Outside the Hebrew Bible?

There is at least one important piece of Second Temple Jewish evidence that should be acknowledged.

The Psalms of Solomon, a Jewish work generally dated before the time of Jesus, contains an extended description of a future Davidic king. It calls him a righteous king who is taught by God and describes him as being “free from sin” as he rules God’s people (Psalms of Solomon 17:32, 36; Wright 639–70).

That is significant evidence that at least some Jews before Christianity could envision the coming Davidic Messiah as free from sin in the state in which he carries out his messianic reign.

But the text does not tell us that this Messiah had been sinless from birth.

It does not describe his childhood. It does not give us his full moral biography. It does not say that he had never previously sinned and later become righteous.

It describes the Messiah who appears to rule as righteous, dependent upon God, and free from sin.

Therefore, I do not think this text establishes a Jewish expectation of lifelong sinlessness from birth onward.

It establishes something narrower: some Jewish expectation could include a Messiah who is righteous and free from sin when fulfilling his messianic role.

That distinction actually fits the question I am asking in this series.

I fully believe Jesus ultimately became extraordinarily righteous, holy, obedient, and deeply surrendered to God.

The question is whether those qualities characterized every moment of his human development from the beginning.

What About Isaiah 53?

Isaiah 53 should also be taken seriously.

The servant is described this way:

If this passage is applied to Jesus, as the New Testament does, it gives important testimony concerning his innocence and character in connection with his suffering. But again, it does not explicitly provide a complete moral biography from childhood onward.

It says the suffering servant had done no violence and that there was no deceit in his mouth. That is powerful testimony.

It is not the same statement as: The Messiah will never commit any sin of any kind at any point from birth onward.

I therefore think we should begin with what Scripture actually establishes.

The Messiah would be righteous. He would be devoted to God. He would rule justly. He would be empowered by God’s Spirit. He would ultimately embody extraordinary righteousness and faithfulness.

But lifelong sinlessness is not simply contained in the word Messiah. It must be demonstrated from the rest of Scripture.

The Bible’s Universal Statements About Human Sin

This background becomes even more significant because Scripture makes several extraordinarily broad statements about human beings and sin.

Ecclesiastes, as we have already seen, says:

That verse is especially important because it explicitly places righteousness and sin within the same human life.

Solomon likewise says:

Paul makes similarly sweeping statements. He says that Jews and Greeks are:

He continues:

And later:

I do not think any one of these verses, by itself, proves that Jesus sinned.

Universal statements can sometimes have contextually understood exceptions.

Traditional Christians understand Jesus to be precisely such an exception because they believe other passages establish his lifelong sinlessness.

I recognize that argument.

But if Jesus is genuinely human rather than God, I think these passages become relevant cumulative evidence.

None of them says: “All human beings have sinned except Jesus.”

Instead, Scripture repeatedly describes sin as universal to the human experience. This creates a natural expectation that a genuinely human Jesus belongs within the humanity these statements describe unless other Scripture gives sufficient reason to exclude him.

Ecclesiastes makes the issue especially sharp.

Even the righteous person sins.

Therefore, saying that Jesus was righteous—even extraordinarily righteous—does not by itself establish that Jesus had never sinned.

That conclusion must come from somewhere else.

Scripture Explicitly Says Jesus Developed

Before examining specific Gospel incidents where I believe Jesus actually sinned, I think we should begin with something less controversial:

Scripture explicitly says Jesus developed.

Christians may disagree about whether this development was moral, but some kind of real development is impossible to deny.

Luke says:

Jesus did not possess all human wisdom from birth.

He increased in it.

Hebrews goes further.

Jesus Was Made Perfect

Scripture repeatedly says that Jesus was made perfect or perfected:

Hebrews later says:

And again:

Jesus also says in Luke:

What does it mean for Jesus to be “made perfect”?

The Greek word family here includes teleios and teleioō. These words can refer to being complete, mature, fully developed, accomplished, or brought to an intended goal (BDAG, s.vv. “τέλειος,” “τελειόω”; Ellingworth; Peterson).

Importantly, they do not always refer specifically to moral perfection.

Hebrews itself uses perfection language in connection with priesthood, access to God, and bringing something to its intended goal.

Luke 13:32 may likewise concern completion of Jesus’ mission.

So I do not believe we can simply argue:

Jesus was perfected → therefore Jesus previously sinned.

The word does not establish that by itself.

But Christians should be equally careful about making the opposite assumption:

Jesus was perfected → but this definitely had nothing to do with moral development.

That conclusion is not contained in the word either.

The teleios word family is repeatedly used elsewhere in the New Testament in connection with moral maturity and character.

Two sayings from Jesus are particularly important.

“Be Perfect as Your Heavenly Father Is Perfect”

Jesus says:

The context here is unmistakably moral.

Jesus has been teaching about anger, lust, truthfulness, retaliation, and finally love for enemies.

He says:

and then concludes:

Perfect in what sense?

The immediate context points especially toward complete love.

God gives sun and rain even to those who oppose Him. Jesus tells his followers to become like God in loving beyond the boundaries of those who love them in return. This is important to my argument because the ultimate moral standard Jesus himself gives is God’s love.

God is love.

And Jesus tells human beings to mature toward the Father’s perfection in love. Therefore, when Scripture says Jesus himself was “made perfect,” I do not think the possibility of development in love and moral character should simply be excluded.

“If You Want to Be Perfect”

Jesus similarly tells the rich young man:

Again, the issue concerns moral and spiritual maturity.

The man has obeyed many commandments, but Jesus identifies something preventing complete surrender to God: his attachment to wealth.

Matthew therefore uses teleios in contexts involving complete love, surrender, and mature Godward character.

Perfection language alone does not prove Jesus previously sinned.

But perfection language combined with growth, suffering, learning, and obedience creates a much stronger case that something genuinely developed in Jesus morally.

Jesus “Learned Obedience”

Hebrews says:

This passage is extremely important.

Hebrews does not merely say Jesus was obedient.

It says he learned obedience.

Learning implies genuine development.

Through suffering, Jesus came to know and embody obedience in ways he had not previously experienced.

Learning obedience does not logically require previous disobedience.

It is possible to understand Hebrews as saying Jesus learned obedience experientially through increasingly difficult trials while successfully obeying throughout.

I recognize that interpretation.

But another reading is also possible: Jesus genuinely grew in obedience—that he was sometimes disobedient and, through suffering, correction, growth, and perseverance, became profoundly obedient to God.

Hebrews 5:8 by itself does not tell us which interpretation is correct. That question must be answered from the cumulative testimony of Scripture.

What makes the passage especially important is the immediate connection between learning obedience and being made perfect.

The thing Jesus learns is not mathematics, carpentry, or geography.

It is obedience to God.

That is a moral category.

For that reason, I do not think Jesus’ perfection can simply be reduced to vocational qualification while moral development is excluded in advance.

Hebrews portrays Jesus undergoing genuine development through suffering and arriving at a perfected state.

I believe the larger biblical evidence suggests that this included genuine moral development.

“Perfected Forever” Does Not Necessarily Mean Development Is Exhausted

A further distinction has become very important to me.

Hebrews says Jesus was:

It would be easy to hear those words and assume: Jesus became perfect; therefore every conceivable dimension of development ended permanently.

But Hebrews itself warns us against making the word perfected carry that much philosophical meaning.

Hebrews 10:14 says:

That sentence is striking.

The same people are simultaneously: “perfected forever” and “being sanctified.”

Whatever precise sacrificial and covenantal meaning “perfected” carries in Hebrews 10, one conceptual point is clear: Being “perfected forever” does not necessarily mean that every developmental process has ended. (Ellingworth; Peterson)

Hebrews can describe someone as perfected while another process continues.

I am not claiming Hebrews 10:14 says the risen Jesus himself continues being sanctified.

It does not.

My point is narrower.

We should not take the word perfected and automatically import into it the additional ideas that Jesus became incapable of any future moral error, incapable of further maturation, fully developed in every conceivable human relationship or circumstance, or finished growing in every possible sense.

Scripture does not define Jesus’ perfection in those terms.

I believe Jesus genuinely reached profound righteousness, holiness, obedience, and maturity through his earthly life and suffering.

But perfection does not necessarily mean impeccability, and perfection does not necessarily mean the exhaustion of every possible kind of future growth.

Jesus remained genuinely human.

Jesus Was Sanctified

In John 10:36, Jesus describes himself as the one:

Later Jesus says:

The Greek word in both passages is hagiazō. It can mean to sanctify, make holy, consecrate, or set apart (BDAG, s.v. “ἁγιάζω”; NET Bible, John 17:19 n.).

John 10:36 does not by itself prove Jesus was previously sinful and later became holy. The Father sanctifying Jesus can legitimately mean that God consecrated or set him apart for his mission.

Likewise, “I sanctify myself” in John 17:19 fits naturally with Jesus consecrating himself for the sacrificial work immediately before him.

So my argument is not: Jesus was sanctified → therefore Jesus definitely sinned.

The Greek does not establish that.

But hagiazō is also repeatedly used of human beings in contexts involving genuine holiness.

Paul reminds the Corinthians:

And he prays:

John 17 itself is interesting because Jesus uses the same sanctification language for himself and his disciples:

Consecration fits the immediate context very well.

But because Scripture elsewhere unquestionably describes Jesus as developing—growing in wisdom, learning obedience, and being perfected—I do not think Christians should dogmatically exclude every holiness dimension from this language when Jesus applies it to himself.

At minimum, these passages belong within a larger biblical portrait of Jesus as a genuinely developing human being increasingly surrendered to God.

Jesus Genuinely Suffered Temptation

Hebrews says:

Jesus did not merely encounter temptation abstractly.

Hebrews says he suffered through it.

He knew human moral struggle intimately.

Temptation by itself does not establish sin. A person can be genuinely tempted and choose what is right.

So Hebrews 2:18 alone does not tell us whether Jesus ever succumbed to temptation.

But it presents a genuinely human Jesus for whom moral struggle was real.

For purposes of this study, my conclusion is therefore narrower: Jesus’ temptation reveals genuine moral struggle; whether he ever sinned during that larger human development must be determined from the cumulative evidence.

And that brings us to the Gospels.

Examining the Gospels: Was Jesus Always Perfect in Love?

Jesus had extraordinary character.

The Gospels portray a man of tremendous courage, compassion, devotion to God, concern for marginalized people, willingness to confront exploitation, and ultimately willingness to suffer terribly rather than abandon his calling.

I want to affirm that clearly.

My question is not: Was Jesus righteous? My question is: Did Jesus display perfect love in every circumstance?

This distinction matters because Scripture tells us:

And Paul describes love this way:

Jesus himself commands:

If God is the ultimate standard of love, and if Jesus himself tells human beings to become perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect, then I think we should be willing to ask whether Jesus always displayed that perfect love throughout his own development. The following narratives lead me to believe he did not.

None of these Gospel writers stops the narrative and explicitly says, “Jesus sinned here.”

My conclusions are moral judgments made by comparing Jesus’ behavior with the standards of love Scripture itself gives.

I recognize that other Christians interpret these passages differently.

But I do not think Jesus should be exempted from the standards of love simply because Christians already assume he could never have failed them.

1. Jesus’ Words Toward His Opponents — Matthew 23:17, 33

In Matthew 23, Jesus repeatedly uses intensely derogatory language toward his opponents.

He calls religious leaders “blind fools,” “serpents,” and “a brood of vipers.”

Within the traditional Christian framework, Jesus’ severe words toward the scribes and Pharisees are understood as righteous prophetic rebuke rather than sinful anger or contempt.

Scripture contains other examples of prophets speaking extremely strongly against injustice and hypocrisy, and Jesus’ defenders can reasonably argue that there is a difference between malicious insult and truthful moral denunciation.

On this reading, Jesus’ words are severe because the religious leaders’ hypocrisy and treatment of other people are severe.

I understand that explanation.

But I do not find it fully persuasive, especially because of Jesus’ own earlier teaching:

The connection is striking.

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus warns against saying “You fool!” The Greek word is mōros. Later, in Matthew 23:17, Jesus calls the religious leaders mōroi—“fools” (BDAG, s.v. “μωρός”).

The traditional response is that context and motive matter: Jesus condemns contemptuous insult in Matthew 5 while delivering righteous judgment in Matthew 23.

That distinction is possible.

But a statement can contain truth and still be expressed sinfully.

The scribes and Pharisees may indeed have been hypocritical, spiritually blind, and profoundly harmful.

My question is not whether Jesus should have confronted them.

I believe he should have.

My question is: Was calling them “fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers” an expression of perfect love toward them?

I do not believe it was.

Jesus himself had taught:

And Scripture tells us:

Sometimes love requires extremely forceful confrontation.

Jesus was right to expose exploitation, hypocrisy, injustice, and religious abuse.

My concern is specifically with the manner in which he sometimes did so.

Truthful correction and contemptuous name-calling are not necessarily the same thing.

I believe Jesus crossed that line in these statements.

Matthew does not stop the narrative and say, “Jesus sinned.”

I recognize that.

This is my moral judgment based upon Scripture’s standards concerning love, speech, patience, kindness, and treatment of enemies.

James’ teaching about the tongue is also relevant:

People bear God’s image.

That causes me to ask: Were Jesus’ descriptions of his opponents consistent with perfect control of the tongue and perfect love for people made in God’s image?

I do not think they were.

If a Christian pastor today repeatedly described theological opponents as “fools,” “snakes,” and “vipers,” I do not think most Christians would automatically regard that speech as evidence of perfected love.

We would reasonably ask whether the same wrong could have been confronted just as truthfully without speaking contemptuously about the people committing it.

I think it is fair to ask Jesus the same moral question.

But this is not where Jesus’ story ends.

Later, during his arrest and crucifixion, Jesus displays remarkable restraint under extreme injustice, humiliation, violence, and suffering.

I believe his life shows genuine development toward profound love, surrender, and faithfulness to God.

So my conclusion is not that Jesus lacked extraordinary character.

My conclusion is narrower: I do not believe these particular words expressed perfect love.

I believe Jesus spoke sinfully toward his opponents here, and I understand this as one piece of the larger biblical evidence that Jesus underwent genuine moral development.

2. The Canaanite Woman — Matthew 15:21–28

Christians have long found this passage difficult.

Jesus initially does not answer a desperate woman whose daughter is suffering severely. When he finally responds, he says his mission is to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and compares giving Israel’s bread to this Gentile woman with throwing the children’s food to dogs.

Only after she persists does Jesus praise her faith and heal her daughter.

Most Christians do not understand Jesus’ behavior here as sinful.

A common interpretation is that Jesus was deliberately testing the woman’s faith and drawing out her remarkable response.

Others emphasize that Jesus’ earthly mission was directed first to Israel.

The Greek word translated “dogs,” kynaria, is a diminutive that can refer to household dogs rather than wild dogs, which some believe softens the statement (BDAG, s.v. “κυνάριον”; NET Bible, Matt. 15:26 n.).

And ultimately Jesus does praise the woman and grant her request.

I recognize those explanations.

I do not find them morally or exegetically persuasive enough to resolve the problem.

Whatever nuance kynaria carries, Jesus places this Gentile woman in the position of a dog while she is desperately pleading for the deliverance of her daughter.

I believe that comparison was demeaning, unloving, and sinful.

Was Jesus Showing Perfect Love Toward This Woman?

God is love.

Scripture says love is patient and kind.

So I think Christians should be willing to ask:

Was Jesus’ treatment of this woman patient and kind?

Her daughter is suffering terribly.

She begs Jesus for mercy.

Jesus initially says nothing.

When he responds, he says his mission is to Israel.

She continues pleading:

Jesus replies:

Technically, Jesus does not directly say, “You are a dog.”

He speaks through an analogy.

But within the analogy, Israel occupies the position of the children while this Gentile woman occupies the position of the dogs.

I therefore do not think we should evade the moral force of the statement.

He compared her to one.

Would we call this perfect love if anyone else did it?

Imagine a desperate mother pleading with a Christian pastor to help her suffering child.

The pastor first ignores her.

Then he tells her that helping people from her ethnicity or nationality would be comparable to throwing children’s food to dogs.

Would Christians normally call that perfect patience, kindness, and love?

I would not.

Nor do I think our moral standard should change simply because the person speaking is Jesus.

The fact that kynaria may describe a household dog does not resolve the problem for me.

A household dog may be treated more affectionately than a wild dog.

It is still a dog.

The fundamental analogy remains between Israelite children and a Gentile woman occupying the position of an animal under their table.

The traditional response that Jesus may have been testing her faith is possible.

But Matthew never explicitly tells us that.

And even if testing her was Jesus’ purpose, I do not think a good purpose automatically makes demeaning speech loving.

Jesus could have challenged or strengthened her faith without comparing her to a dog.

For these reasons, I conclude that Jesus sinned in the way he spoke to this woman.

Again, Matthew does not explicitly label his words “sin.”

This is my moral judgment based upon biblical standards of love, kindness, and treatment of other human beings.

Did This Woman Challenge Jesus?

Something remarkable happens next.

The woman does not retreat.

She accepts Jesus’ metaphor and turns it toward mercy:

Jesus immediately responds:

Her daughter is healed.

I think it is worth considering whether this courageous woman actually challenged Jesus and whether Jesus learned something through the encounter.

Immediately before this, Jesus had said:

Yet the woman pushes against the practical implication of that limitation.

In effect, she argues that blessing Israel does not require excluding her.

There is enough at God’s table for mercy to reach beyond Israel.

I do not think we should overstate what Matthew tells us about Jesus’ internal thought process.

Matthew does not say, “Jesus realized he was wrong.”

Nor does Matthew say, “Jesus repented.”

My conclusion concerning his initial words is firmer than my reconstruction of what happened internally afterward.

There is also evidence within Matthew that Jesus already understood that Gentiles could receive God's blessing. Earlier he healed the servant of a Gentile centurion, praised the centurion’s faith, and spoke of people coming from east and west into the kingdom (Matthew 8:5–13).

So I would not claim that this Canaanite woman taught Jesus for the first time that God cared about Gentiles.

The potential growth may instead involve Jesus’ understanding of his own mission and how God's love should be embodied toward Gentiles during it.

By the end of Matthew, Jesus commissions his followers to make disciples of:

Traditional Christians understand this simply as the intended progression of God’s plan: Israel first, then the nations.

That remains a possible interpretation.

But I think another possibility deserves consideration.

Jesus, as a genuinely human Messiah, may himself have grown in his understanding and embodiment of God’s heart toward the nations.

If so, this woman may have participated in Jesus’ own human development.

She refuses to disappear.

She responds with courage, intelligence, humility, and extraordinary faith.

Jesus listens.

He praises her.

He grants her request.

Her daughter is healed.

Perhaps this story shows us something profound about Jesus’ humanity: not moral flawlessness from birth, but a person capable of listening, learning, changing his response, overcoming what was wrong, and becoming increasingly aligned with God’s love.

That does not diminish Jesus for me.

It makes his humanity real.

3. “How Long Must I Bear With You?” — Matthew 17:17–18

Similar to the account involving the Canaanite woman, I find this passage difficult to reconcile with the claim that every word Jesus spoke necessarily expressed perfect love.

Christians who believe Jesus was always sinless generally understand his words as righteous correction rather than sinful impatience.

On this reading, Jesus is responding appropriately to the disciples’ lack of faith and to the unbelief surrounding him.

His frustration is genuine human emotion but does not cross into sin.

I understand that interpretation.

I do not find it persuasive.

Jesus does heal the boy.

That action is compassionate.

But before doing so he says:

Again, I find myself asking a basic moral question:

Were these words an expression of perfect love?

A desperate father is standing there because his child is suffering terribly.

Luke makes the situation especially poignant: this is the man's only child (Luke 9:38).

Whatever failures of faith existed among the disciples or larger crowd, these people had at least enough faith to seek Jesus’ help.

Yet in the presence of this suffering father, Jesus calls the generation “faithless and perverse” and asks how long he must “bear with” them.

Imagine a parent approaching a pastor because his only child is suffering terribly.

The parent desperately asks for help.

The pastor responds essentially: “How long do I have to put up with you people?”

Would we normally describe that response as perfectly patient, compassionate, and loving?

I would not.

Scripture says:

In this passage, I do not think Jesus’ initial words demonstrate perfect patience or kindness.

They sound frustrated and impatient.

Matthew does not say, “Jesus sinned.”

I recognize that.

But Matthew also does not tell us that Jesus’ frustration was necessarily morally perfect.

That judgment comes from the prior theological conviction that Jesus could not sin.

When I compare his words with Scripture’s own description of love, I conclude that Jesus was not displaying perfect love in the way he spoke in this moment.

Most of Matthew portrays Jesus as extraordinarily loving, courageous, faithful to God, compassionate toward suffering people, and willing ultimately to give his life.

I affirm all of that strongly.

But extraordinary righteousness is not the same claim as exhaustive perfection in love in every moment.

I believe this passage may show another dimension of Jesus’ genuine human development.

He healed the boy compassionately.

But I believe the words preceding that action fell short of perfect love.

That contributes to my larger argument:

Jesus could be extraordinarily righteous while still having genuine areas of moral development.

Those two statements are not contradictory.

Additional Evidence

The Gospel narratives above are the places where I believe we can actually observe moral failure.

Other passages do not establish sin as directly, but they fit the larger picture and deserve consideration.

Jesus’ Baptism

Why was Jesus baptized?

John’s baptism was explicitly a baptism of repentance connected with forgiveness of sins.

Mark says:

Luke similarly says:

Jesus then participates in this baptism.

That deserves serious consideration.

The most straightforward reason people were receiving John’s baptism was repentance from sin.

Jesus participated in the same baptism.

That does not prove Jesus was personally repenting of sin.

Traditional Christians commonly understand his baptism as identification with Israel, inauguration of his ministry, or fulfillment of righteousness.

Matthew records John resisting him:

Jesus responds:

So the baptism alone cannot establish my conclusion.

But if Jesus was a genuinely developing human being, I think his participation in a baptism explicitly associated with repentance remains meaningful evidence.

It may have represented a profound moment of turning, surrender, purification, renewed commitment, or preparation for the life God was calling him to live.

“Why Do You Call Me Good?”

A man addresses Jesus:

Jesus responds:

A common Trinitarian interpretation is that Jesus is inviting the man to recognize that if Jesus is truly good, Jesus must be God.

I do not find that the most natural reading.

Jesus does not say: “You are correct to call me good because I am God.”

He redirects the man's attention:

Throughout the Gospels Jesus prays to God, worships God, obeys God, receives authority from God, serves God, and calls God his Father.

Against that cumulative background, I think the natural reading is that Jesus is distinguishing himself from the One who possesses goodness absolutely.

That distinction has become increasingly important to me.

I believe Jesus became extraordinarily good.

I believe he became deeply righteous, holy, obedient, merciful, courageous, and surrendered to God.

But Jesus himself directs ultimate goodness beyond himself. God alone is good absolutely.

God is not simply one more righteous being.

God is the inexhaustible source and standard of goodness itself.

Therefore, even Jesus’ extraordinary righteousness should not be confused with the absolute goodness that belongs uniquely to God.

This does not require me to deny the extraordinary goodness Jesus ultimately displayed. It simply means that Jesus is not himself the infinite standard of goodness.

He points beyond himself to God.

The Reaction of Jesus’ Family and Hometown

If Jesus had been conspicuously morally flawless throughout his entire childhood and youth, I also find the reactions of his family and hometown interesting.

Matthew says:

Mark records another striking reaction:

The precise wording of Mark 3:21 has been interpreted differently, though the surrounding narrative later clearly introduces Jesus’ mother and brothers (BDAG 756–57, s.v. “παρά”; NET Bible, Mark 3:21 n.).

Still, the broader picture is noteworthy.

Jesus’ hometown is astonished by what he has become, and those closest to him do not immediately understand his ministry.

If Jesus had spent decades never acting selfishly, never speaking wrongly, never showing ordinary moral immaturity, and never committing a single moral failure, I find myself wondering whether those closest to him would really have regarded the adult Jesus as so unexpectedly extraordinary.

Would lifelong, conspicuous moral flawlessness not itself have been astonishing?

This certainly does not prove Jesus sinned.

I do not present it as proof.

But within a cumulative case, I think it is worth noting.

Does 2 Samuel 7:14–15 Potentially Envision the Davidic Son Doing Wrong?

God tells David:

The immediate historical fulfillment clearly involves Solomon.

Chronicles makes that explicit.

David says of Solomon:

God likewise says:

So I do not think every detail of 2 Samuel 7 should simply be treated as a direct prophecy exclusively about Jesus.

Solomon is unquestionably an immediate referent.

But Hebrews does something interesting.

Hebrews 1:5 applies this statement to Jesus:

Scripture itself therefore takes the Davidic father-son promise and applies it in a greater sense to Jesus.

That makes the remainder of the original passage difficult for me simply to ignore.

The same verse had continued:

Jesus was, in fact, later beaten and flogged by human beings.

That creates an intriguing correspondence:

The Davidic son is called God’s son. Hebrews explicitly applies the sonship language to Jesus. The Davidic son in 2 Samuel can do wrong. His discipline involves blows from human beings. Jesus himself was later beaten and flogged by human hands.

I do not think this proves that the second half applies to Jesus exactly as Hebrews explicitly applies the first half.

Solomon remains the immediate historical fulfillment.

I would never build my case primarily upon this passage.

But once lifelong sinlessness is no longer assumed before the text is read, I think the correspondence deserves consideration.

At minimum, the foundational Davidic covenant itself does not establish: God’s Davidic Son must be a human being incapable of wrongdoing.

The Cumulative Picture

I do not think any single argument in this article establishes my conclusion by itself. But taken together, I believe the evidence becomes significant.

The Hebrew Scriptures promise a righteous Messiah, but do not explicitly say that he must possess a completely sinless biography from birth.

Scripture can call a person righteous while explicitly acknowledging that righteous people sin.

Scripture repeatedly makes sweeping statements concerning the universality of human sin.

Jesus is indisputably described as developing.

He grows in wisdom.

He learns obedience.

He is made perfect through suffering.

He is sanctified or consecrated.

He suffers genuinely through temptation.

His baptism occurs within a movement explicitly centered on repentance.

When someone calls him “good,” Jesus points beyond himself toward God as the One who alone is good.

His family and hometown react to the adult Jesus with striking surprise.

And the Davidic covenant itself contains a pattern in which God's royal son can do wrong and nevertheless remain God's beloved son.

Then there are the Gospel narratives.

I believe Jesus sometimes failed to embody the perfect love he himself taught.

His language toward religious enemies could become contemptuous.

He compared a desperate Gentile woman to a dog.

He responded to a suffering situation with words that I believe expressed impatience.

None of these things erases the extraordinary goodness present throughout Jesus’ life.

Human beings do not have to be divided into: perfect or evil.

A person can be extraordinarily righteous while still growing.

And that, increasingly, is how I understand Jesus.

What I Believe Jesus Became

I want to be especially careful about my wording here.

I do not believe Jesus remained characterized by sin.

I believe Scripture portrays an extraordinary human being whose life became profoundly oriented toward God.

He learned obedience.

He endured suffering.

He increasingly surrendered himself to God.

He overcame sin.

He became holy and deeply righteous.

He developed extraordinary love, courage, mercy, faithfulness, and obedience.

And ultimately he willingly gave himself for the world.

Hebrews says that through the eternal Spirit, Christ:

I affirm that.

The Jesus who gives himself is an extraordinarily righteous and holy man who has faithfully endured the path God placed before him.

But I no longer think Scripture requires another conclusion that Christians often attach to that achievement:

Jesus had become morally infallible and exhaustively finished in every conceivable dimension of human development.

Those are different claims.

Scripture says Jesus was perfected.

Scripture says Jesus learned obedience through suffering.

Scripture presents him as holy and describes his offering as without blemish.

But Scripture does not explicitly say: Jesus became metaphysically incapable of ever making another wrong moral choice.

Nor does Scripture say: Jesus had now exhausted every possible dimension of human maturation, relationship, wisdom, experience, or growth.

Hebrews itself gives us the important conceptual category of people who are “perfected forever” while still “being sanctified.”

Therefore, perfection need not mean stagnation.

And it need not mean that a genuinely human being somehow becomes the infinite standard of all possible goodness.

There is only One who occupies that position.

Jesus himself said:

And Jesus himself commanded:

God is the ultimate standard.

God is love.

Jesus is the extraordinary human Messiah who became deeply aligned with that love and who shows humanity the Way toward God.

And because Jesus remains genuinely human, Scripture’s language of his perfection does not require us to conclude that no further human development could ever occur—especially in future circumstances, perhaps upon his return, that he had never previously encountered.

That question matters particularly when thinking about Christ’s future reign and the larger restoration of humanity. I address those implications elsewhere in this project. Here, my narrower point is simply that “made perfect” should not be made to say more than Scripture itself says.

Why This Matters for Christians

This question matters far beyond reconstructing Jesus’ biography. Scripture says believers are being:

And John says:

If Jesus belongs to an entirely different moral category—a uniquely flawless human being who possessed completed perfection from birth and ultimately became the exhaustive ceiling of everything a human can ever become—then those promises become difficult to take literally.

But if Jesus is genuinely our human brother and pioneer, the language becomes much more straightforward.

Jesus grew. Jesus learned. Jesus suffered. Jesus struggled. Jesus became profoundly obedient to God. Jesus overcame.

And God intends to transform other human beings too.

Becoming like Jesus therefore does not mean becoming God.

Nor does it mean reaching a state in which every possible dimension of growth has ended.

It means becoming increasingly like the kind of human Jesus became: deeply God-oriented, righteous, holy, loving, courageous, obedient, merciful, and increasingly conformed to God's character.

And even then, Jesus is not the ultimate destination.

Jesus himself points beyond himself.

Christlikeness is profoundly important because Jesus pioneers the human Way.

But the inexhaustible standard remains God.

This is why Jesus’ genuine humanity matters so much.

His story can reveal not what deity accomplishes while appearing human, but what God can accomplish in and through a genuinely human life.

What About the Passages That Say Jesus Was “Without Sin”?

Those passages are obviously essential.

Hebrews says Jesus was “without sin.”

First Peter says he “committed no sin.”

Paul says Jesus “knew no sin.”

I do not want to evade those texts or minimize them.

The next article in this series is devoted specifically to them.

The question will be: Do those passages require Jesus to have been morally flawless throughout his entire life, or can they truthfully describe the righteous, purified, and perfected Messiah Jesus ultimately became?

That question deserves careful treatment of its own.

For now, my conclusion is narrower.

I believe the evidence examined here creates a substantial cumulative case that Jesus underwent genuine moral development.

I believe he sinned.

I believe he overcame sin.

I believe he became extraordinarily righteous, holy, obedient, and deeply surrendered to God.

I believe he ultimately offered himself to God without blemish.

But I do not believe Scripture establishes that his resulting perfection made him morally infallible or exhausted every conceivable dimension of future human growth.

Jesus remained what Scripture repeatedly presents him to be: God’s extraordinary human Son.

And that makes his achievement, in my view, not smaller but more meaningful.

Jesus really walked the human Way. He really grew. He really learned obedience. He really overcame. He really became extraordinarily righteous.

And through him, God calls the rest of us forward—not merely toward Jesus as though Jesus were the final destination, but toward the God whom Jesus himself loved, obeyed, served, revealed, and followed.

Jesus is the Way.

God is the destination.