14. Jesus’ Moral Development, Part 2: But Doesn’t the Bible Say Jesus Was Sinless?

But doesn’t the Bible explicitly say Jesus was sinless?

Yes.

Several New Testament passages describe Jesus as “without sin,” say that he “committed no sin,” describe him as one who “knew no sin,” or present him as “without blemish.”

I believe these passages.

My question is whether they explicitly establish lifelong moral flawlessness from birth, or whether they can truthfully describe the extraordinarily righteous, holy, and perfected Jesus even if his earlier human development included sin.

That distinction is important.

It is also important because of a second question developed in the previous article: when Scripture says Jesus was “made perfect,” does that mean he became morally infallible and exhaustively finished in every possible dimension of human development?

I do not believe Scripture establishes that either.

So there are really three different claims that should not be collapsed into one another:

Jesus is described as righteous, holy, without sin, and without blemish. Jesus had never sinned at any prior point in his entire existence. Jesus eventually became morally infallible and incapable of any further meaningful moral development.

The New Testament clearly makes the first kind of statement.

The question is whether those statements necessarily establish the second and third.

Before examining the major passages, I think one biblical distinction is especially important.

A Biblical Understanding of Righteousness and Blamelessness

There is a difference between saying a person has never sinned and describing a person as righteous, purified, clean, or blameless.

The first is a statement about an entire biography.

The second can describe a person’s character, present orientation, conduct, standing before God, or relationship with God.

A person who has sinned cannot later acquire a history in which those sins never occurred.

But Scripture can describe someone with a sinful history as righteous, clean, blameless, purified, restored, and no longer characterized by former wrongdoing.

David provides a striking example.

He says:

Is David claiming he had never sinned?

Clearly not.

Scripture itself records severe sin in David’s life, including his actions involving Bathsheba and Uriah.

Yet David can truthfully speak of his righteousness, clean hands, and blamelessness before God.

Similarly, Psalm 26 says:

Again, Scripture records occasions when David very clearly did falter.

This shows that biblical language of righteousness and blamelessness does not automatically mean: “This person has never committed a sin at any prior point in life.”

Such language can describe who someone has become, that person’s present orientation toward God, or the character of the life being described.

Ezekiel 18 makes this principle especially clear.

God describes a righteous person who does what is just and right and concludes:

But Scripture elsewhere makes universal statements about human sin.

“Righteous,” therefore, does not simply mean: “A human being who has never committed any sin.”

More significantly, Ezekiel says of someone who has previously lived wickedly:

This is extremely important.

A person can have a genuinely sinful past, turn toward righteousness, and subsequently be regarded by God according to the righteous person he has become rather than being permanently defined by his former wrongdoing.

God says his former offenses will not be remembered against him.

God’s grace therefore does not require pretending that the past never happened.

Transformation is real.

A human being is not eternally trapped in the moral identity of his worst actions.

That principle is central to how I understand Jesus.

If Jesus sinned during his earlier human development but genuinely overcame sin and became extraordinarily righteous, holy, obedient, and God-centered, then later statements describing him as blameless, righteous, pure, or “without sin” would not necessarily be false.

They could truthfully describe the person Jesus had become and the condition in which he carried out his climactic work.

This biblical framework should be kept in mind as we examine the New Testament passages traditionally used to establish Jesus’ lifelong sinlessness.

Was Jesus Sinless His Whole Life?

The following passages are commonly used to establish that Jesus never sinned at any point.

Several of them are very strong statements.

I do not want to explain them away.

The question is whether they require us to make a chronological claim about every earlier stage of Jesus’ human life, and whether they establish something even stronger: that once Jesus was perfected, he became metaphysically incapable of any future wrong choice or further moral development.

I do not believe they establish either conclusion.

A. Hebrews 4:15 — “Without Sin”

Hebrews says:

The Greek text does not contain the English word “yet.” The important phrase is chōris hamartias—“without sin” or “apart from sin” (NA28, Heb. 4:15; BDAG, s.v. “χωρίς”).

Hebrews unquestionably describes Jesus as without sin.

I affirm that.

The important question is what chronology the phrase establishes.

Does Hebrews 4:15 necessarily mean: Jesus never committed any sin at any previous point in his entire human development?

Or is Hebrews describing the condition of the great High Priest Christians now have?

The immediate context makes the second possibility important because Hebrews itself presents Jesus’ high-priestly development as a process.

Only a few verses later we read:

Notice the progression:

Jesus suffered. Jesus learned obedience. Jesus was made perfect. Jesus became the source of eternal salvation. Jesus was designated by God as High Priest.

That sequence matters.

Hebrews 4:15 does not merely make an abstract statement about Jesus.

It says:

and describes that High Priest as one who has experienced human testing and is “without sin.”

Hebrews 5 then explicitly describes Jesus learning obedience through suffering, being made perfect, and being designated High Priest.

Therefore, I do not think Hebrews 4:15 requires us automatically to read the condition of the perfected High Priest backward into every prior stage of Jesus’ human development.

Instead, Hebrews gives us an unmistakably developmental portrait.

Jesus experienced genuine human temptation and suffering. Jesus learned obedience. Jesus was made perfect through suffering. Jesus became the source of salvation. Jesus was designated High Priest. And the great High Priest Christians now have is described as without sin.

Some scholars have likewise argued that chōris hamartias need not function as a complete biography of Jesus’ conduct from childhood onward, but can describe the condition of the High Priest Hebrews presents (Williamson 4–8; Buchanan 130–31; see Peterson 188–90 for a critique).

I believe that possibility deserves serious consideration because it fits Hebrews’ larger argument remarkably well.

Hebrews does not portray Jesus’ human experience as static.

He: suffered when tempted (Hebrews 2:18), learned obedience through suffering (Hebrews 5:8), was made perfect (Hebrews 5:9), was designated High Priest (Hebrews 5:10), and was ultimately “made perfect forever” (Hebrews 7:28).

In that context, I understand Hebrews 4:15 as describing the extraordinary result of Jesus’ human journey.

The man who experienced genuine temptation, struggle, suffering, and moral development became an extraordinarily righteous and holy High Priest who stands before God without sin.

This also gives the passage profound meaning for struggling Christians.

Jesus does not sympathize with human weakness from a distance.

He genuinely knows human testing and suffering.

His righteousness was developed through costly obedience.

His life demonstrates that human beings can genuinely become increasingly free from the domination of sin through dependence upon God, obedience, suffering, and perseverance.

That does not require us to conclude that Jesus became a metaphysically infallible human being incapable of all future moral development.

It means that Hebrews presents the High Priest Christians have as deeply righteous, holy, tested, and without sin.

That is an extraordinary statement.

It does not have to be expanded beyond what the text itself says.

B. Romans 5:19 — Christ’s Obedience

Paul writes:

This passage compares Adam’s disobedience with Christ’s obedience.

It unquestionably portrays Jesus as obedient.

But it does not explicitly say that Jesus was perfectly obedient throughout every moment of his existence.

The context centers especially on the representative acts of Adam and Christ. Romans 5:18 says:

Paul’s contrast can therefore naturally focus especially upon Jesus’ climactic obedience—his willingness to give himself in faithfulness to God even when obedience required death.

Jesus’ obedience in giving himself resulted in righteousness and life for others.

That is remarkable.

But Romans 5:19 does not say: “Jesus had never previously been disobedient in any circumstance.” Nor does it say: “Because Jesus obeyed in this climactic way, he is now incapable of every future moral error.”

Those conclusions must come from somewhere else.

Romans 5 itself celebrates Jesus’ extraordinary act of obedience.

I fully affirm that.

C. 1 Peter 2:21–22 — “He Committed No Sin”

Peter writes:

This is an important passage and should be taken seriously.

Peter quotes Isaiah 53 and applies its language directly to Jesus:

The traditional reading understands this as a statement about Jesus’ entire life. That is certainly understandable.

But the immediate context focuses specifically on how Christ behaved during his unjust suffering.

Peter immediately explains:

and:

This describes something extraordinary about Jesus near the culmination of his first earthly ministry.

Whatever we make of his earlier harsh words toward opponents, when Jesus himself becomes the victim of terrible injustice, his response is striking.

He is mocked. He is beaten. He is treated unjustly. He suffers profoundly.

And rather than retaliating with threats, he entrusts himself to God.

This is exactly the kind of human transformation I am arguing Scripture reveals.

I believe Jesus had become an extraordinarily righteous, God-centered, and loving man.

When perhaps the greatest test of his life came, he responded with tremendous faithfulness.

Therefore, I fully affirm Peter’s description of Jesus in the suffering Peter is discussing.

He did not sin in response to his persecutors. He did not answer their abuse with deceit or threats. He entrusted himself to God.

Peter does not explicitly say:

Traditional Christianity reads the statement that broadly, and I understand why.

But in light of the developmental evidence considered in the previous article, I believe it is reasonable to understand Peter as emphasizing the extraordinary righteousness of the suffering Christ whom believers are called to imitate.

Far from diminishing Jesus, this passage displays how profoundly he had matured.

When severe suffering came, Jesus responded with extraordinary faithfulness and love.

D. John 8:46 — “Which of You Convicts Me of Sin?”

Jesus asks:

This is another important passage.

Jesus is defending the truthfulness of his ministry against opponents who accuse and reject him.

He challenges them to establish wrongdoing on his part.

But I do not think the statement explicitly means: “I have never committed any sin at any point in my entire life.”

It can naturally function as a challenge concerning Jesus’ integrity and the truthfulness of the ministry they are presently rejecting.

His opponents are attacking him.

Jesus challenges them:

If I am lying or acting wrongly, demonstrate it.

If you cannot, why do you reject what I am saying?

Within my larger reading, Jesus by this point had become extraordinarily righteous and deeply oriented toward God.

I therefore do not think John 8:46 requires lifelong sinlessness from birth.

It certainly testifies strongly to the confidence and integrity of the Jesus speaking in this scene.

E. 2 Corinthians 5:21 — “Who Knew No Sin”

Paul writes:

This is one of the strongest passages that must be considered.

Paul describes Christ in the context of God reconciling the world through him as one who:

I do not want to weaken that language.

Jesus is presented as free from sin in connection with the redemptive work God accomplishes through him.

The question is whether Paul is explicitly making a chronological statement about every moment of Jesus’ previous human development, or describing the Christ through whom God is accomplishing reconciliation.

The verse itself does not say:

Nor does it explicitly say:

It says of Christ:

Within the larger developmental framework, I understand Paul as describing the extraordinarily righteous and purified Christ who gives himself for humanity. This fits the Old Testament pattern considered earlier, in which Scripture can speak truly and powerfully of a person’s righteousness or blamelessness without necessarily making a statement about every earlier moment of that person’s biography. I therefore affirm Paul’s statement.

Jesus “knew no sin” in connection with the reconciling work Paul describes.

The question is whether that statement must automatically be expanded into a doctrine of lifelong sinlessness despite the other biblical evidence of genuine moral development.

I do not think it must.

F. 1 John 3:5 — “In Him Is No Sin”

John writes:

Again, I affirm this statement.

In Christ is no sin.

This is strong language.

John presents the Christ who appears to take away sins as someone who is not characterized by sin.

I think this statement is stronger than merely saying Jesus avoided sin on one isolated occasion.

John is describing who Christ is in the theological portrait he is giving his readers.

But again, that statement is not grammatically identical to saying:

One describes Christ as John presents him.

The other makes an explicit chronological claim about his entire previous biography. Those are related questions, but they are not identical statements.

Likewise, “in him is no sin” does not itself answer a different philosophical question:

John does not say that.

Nor does he say Jesus has exhausted every conceivable dimension of human growth.

I therefore take the verse at full strength.

The Jesus John proclaims is extraordinarily righteous, holy, and opposed to sin.

Sin does not characterize him.

He came to take sins away.

But I do not think this requires me to turn Jesus’ righteousness into an ontological impeccability that Scripture never explicitly defines.

G. 1 Peter 1:18–19 — The Lamb Without Blemish

Peter describes believers as redeemed:

This sacrificial language is extremely important (BDAG, s.v. “ἄμωμος”).

Jesus offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice.

I believe that.

The question is whether being an unblemished sacrifice requires that Jesus had never sinned at any point in his previous human development, or whether it requires that the Jesus who offered himself was righteous, holy, and without blemish.

Hebrews repeatedly tells us Jesus underwent a process culminating in perfection. He learned obedience. He suffered. He was perfected. He became the source of salvation.

Hebrews 9:14 then says that through the eternal Spirit Christ:

That is exactly what I believe.

When Jesus gave himself, he gave himself as an extraordinarily righteous, holy, obedient, God-centered human being.

Peter’s sacrificial description therefore fits naturally within the developmental picture.

Jesus genuinely became the kind of man who could give himself faithfully and without blemish.

But once again, I do not think “without blemish” requires us to add two further claims Scripture does not explicitly make: Jesus had never sinned at any prior stage of human development. or: Jesus was now metaphysically incapable of further moral development or of making a wrong choice, including when encountering genuinely new circumstances.

Those are additional conclusions.

What Do These “Sinless” Passages Actually Establish?

Taken together, I believe these passages establish something extremely important.

By the culmination of his first earthly ministry, Jesus had become an extraordinarily righteous, holy, obedient, and God-centered human being.

He endured severe testing. He learned obedience. He became deeply surrendered to God. He stood firm through terrible suffering.

When abused, he did not retaliate.

He offered himself to God without blemish.

Scripture can therefore describe him as: without sin, without blemish, righteous, holy, and as one in whom: “there is no sin.”

I affirm all of those descriptions.

What I do not think these passages clearly establish is that this moral condition characterized every moment of Jesus’ life from birth.

And I also do not think they establish that Jesus’ perfection turned him into a morally infallible human being whose capacity for further development had ended forever, as Scripture does not say that.

That is especially important because Hebrews itself tells us:

The same people can be described as “perfected forever” while still “being sanctified.”

That verse does not say Jesus himself continued being sanctified.

But it does establish an important conceptual point: Biblical perfection does not necessarily mean developmental exhaustion. (Peterson; Ellingworth)

Therefore, Hebrews 7:28 saying Jesus was “made perfect forever” need not mean:

It can mean that Jesus was permanently perfected with respect to the priestly and saving work Hebrews is describing. His perfection should therefore be read in context.

That achievement is real.

It is extraordinary.

But we should not make the word perfect say more than Scripture itself says.

A Brief Note About Jesus’ Own Atonement

If Jesus’ human history included sin, an important question naturally follows: How was Jesus’ own prior sin ultimately addressed?

I do not believe Scripture leaves that question unanswered.

However, my fuller understanding of that question depends upon additional conclusions about Jesus’ larger history that go substantially beyond the argument of this public blog. I have therefore chosen not to develop that reconstruction here.

The argument of these two articles is narrower.

Before deciding how Jesus’ own prior sin could have been addressed, we first need to ask what Scripture actually says about his moral history.

I do not think a difficult downstream theological question should determine the answer before the biblical evidence itself is considered.

For purposes of this public argument, I affirm what Scripture states clearly about Jesus’ climactic offering:

Whatever Jesus’ earlier moral history was, the man who ultimately gave himself to God did so in extraordinary righteousness, obedience, and faithfulness.

That is the point necessary for the present study.

Why Jesus’ Priesthood Still Matters Profoundly

This understanding makes Jesus’ priesthood profoundly meaningful to me.

He does not save humanity from a distance. He knows what it is to struggle. He knows what it is to be tempted. He knows what it is to suffer. He knows what it is to learn obedience at tremendous personal cost. He knows what it means to depend upon God.

And when the greatest tests came, Jesus repeatedly chose faithfulness.

He surrendered himself to God out of tremendous love for God and humanity. He offered himself. That does not make him a lesser Savior than the traditional God-man. It makes his humanity far more consequential. If Jesus is genuinely human, then his courage, surrender, obedience, and growth are not the inevitable expression of deity inhabiting a human body. They are genuine human achievements made possible through dependence upon God, the power of the Spirit, suffering, learning, perseverance, and Jesus’ own faithful response.

That makes me deeply grateful for Jesus.

But it does not require turning Jesus himself into the ultimate source or endpoint of goodness.

Jesus himself points beyond himself:

Jesus is extraordinarily good.

God is goodness absolutely.

Jesus is extraordinarily loving.

God is love.

Jesus becomes the pioneer whom human beings can genuinely follow.

And the direction in which Jesus leads is ultimately toward God.

Conclusion

No single text considered in these two studies is the basis of my conclusion.

I would not conclude from teleioō alone that Jesus previously sinned. I would not conclude from his baptism alone that he was repenting of personal sin. I would not reach this conclusion from one difficult Gospel saying.

Nor would I build the case primarily upon 2 Samuel 7.

My conclusion arises from the cumulative biblical pattern.

I see a Jesus who genuinely grew. He increased in wisdom and favor with God. He genuinely suffered through temptation. He learned obedience through what he suffered. He was sanctified and consecrated. He was made perfect through suffering.

I also see Gospel narratives in which I believe Jesus’ conduct fell short of the perfect love Scripture itself describes. I see him speak harshly toward enemies. I see him compare a desperate Gentile mother to a dog. I see him respond impatiently in the presence of a father whose only child was suffering. I see him enter a baptism explicitly associated with repentance. I hear him redirect the word “good” away from himself and toward God. I see his family and hometown respond to his ministry with striking surprise. I see a Davidic covenant in which God’s royal son can do wrong and still remain God’s beloved son. And I see Scripture make extraordinarily broad statements about the universality of human sin.

Then I see something equally important: Jesus grows.

He becomes increasingly surrendered to God. He learns increasingly costly obedience. His love deepens. His faithfulness becomes extraordinary. When Jesus himself becomes the victim of abuse, Peter describes him responding without retaliation or threats.

When facing death, he prays:

And ultimately: he gives himself.

Hebrews says he offered himself:

That is the Jesus I see emerging from these passages.

He is not extraordinary because Scripture requires us to imagine a flawless God-man who possessed exhaustive moral perfection from birth.

He is extraordinary because he is genuinely human and because of what God accomplished in and through him.

He experienced weakness, temptation, suffering, learning, growth, obedience, and tremendous cost.

Through dependence upon God, the work of the Spirit, and his own faithful response, Jesus became extraordinarily righteous, holy, loving, courageous, obedient, and God-centered.

But I now think an additional distinction is essential. That does not mean Jesus became God.

It does not mean Jesus became the absolute embodiment of goodness.

It does not mean he became morally infallible.

And it does not mean every possible dimension of his human development was exhausted forever.

Scripture tells us Jesus was made perfect.

I believe that.

But biblical perfection need not mean infinite completion.

It need not mean metaphysical impeccability.

It need not mean the end of every conceivable kind of future human growth.

Jesus remains human.

God remains God.

That distinction matters enormously for understanding what it means for Christians to become like Christ.

Scripture does not merely tell us to admire Jesus.

It tells us to follow him.

John writes:

Paul says God intends believers to become conformed to the image of His Son. John says:

If Jesus’ righteousness arose through a genuinely human process of suffering, obedience, surrender, correction, growth, and overcoming, then becoming like Christ is not an invitation to imitate something no genuine human being could ever become.

Jesus went first.

He walked the human Way. He learned obedience. He became extraordinarily righteous. He became deeply surrendered to God. He gave himself for others.

And Christians are called to follow.

But even Christlikeness is not the final horizon. Jesus himself points beyond himself to God. He tells us that God alone is good. He tells us to become perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. He defines eternal life in terms of knowing the Father, the only true God, and Jesus whom God sent.

And Paul ultimately describes the final horizon as:

That is why Jesus’ genuine humanity now matters to me more than ever.

Jesus reveals what God can accomplish in a human being. He becomes our pioneer. He shows us the Way. We can genuinely become like him.

And becoming like Jesus means becoming increasingly what Jesus himself became: God-oriented, righteous, loving, holy, obedient, courageous, merciful, and open to everything God still has to teach us.

Jesus is not diminished by remaining human.

His humanity is precisely what makes following him possible.

And his greatness does not require making him the final standard beyond which no growth exists.

There is an inexhaustible standard greater than Jesus.

Jesus himself directs us there.

God is love.

Jesus is the Way.

And God is the destination.

A Last Note Concerning Jesus’ Identity

Even if someone ultimately disagrees with my conclusion that Jesus previously sinned, I believe the developmental language examined throughout these studies raises a separate and important question concerning whether Jesus is God.

God does not grow in wisdom. God does not learn obedience to another. God does not progress toward perfection. God does not need to be perfected through suffering.

Yet Scripture attributes genuine growth, learning, suffering, obedience, and perfection to Jesus.

Traditional Christianity explains this through the doctrine that Jesus possesses both a divine nature and a human nature, with these developmental statements applying to his humanity rather than his divinity.

I address that explanation elsewhere.

But when I read these passages straightforwardly, I see the person Jesus growing, learning, suffering, obeying God, depending upon God, and being perfected by God.

I therefore believe that even apart from the question of whether Jesus ever sinned, this developmental portrait provides substantial evidence that Jesus is the genuinely human Son of God rather than God Himself.

And if Jesus is genuinely human, then his humanity should be allowed to remain genuinely human all the way through.

His perfection need not turn him into a different category of being.

His extraordinary righteousness need not make him the infinite standard of goodness.

His resurrection need not make him God.

Jesus can remain the extraordinary human Messiah whom God perfected for his calling, through whom God brings humanity toward Himself.

That, increasingly, is the Jesus I believe Scripture reveals.