Wed 5 Oct 2011
During this evening’s Internet wanderings, I came across the following comments by Cathy Cooper, proprietress of an atheist blog, on a post titled “The Abundant Evidence for Christian Theism” at The Lord God Exists blog:
Jesus DID sin. He picked corn on the Sabbath (a sin) He told the crowd not to stone the woman for adultery, when stoning was the law (he told the crowd to break one of Yahweh’s laws–which is a sin)
If the Romans did not think him a sinner, they would not have hung him on the cross. Please give a reference to your claim that the Romans were in agreement with Jesus not being a sinner. You won’t have one, because there isn’t one, as the Romans kept no records of him. The claims you make are ad hoc nonsense.
Let’s take a moment to analyze these comments.
First, we should notice how the two claims made in her first paragraph are factually incorrect. She states that Jesus “picked corn on the Sabbath.” This is false; the relevant texts (Matthew 12:1, Mark 2:23, Luke 6:1) specify that it was the disciples who picked and ate the grains, not Jesus. Next, in regards to the stoning of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) again a factually incorrect statement is made. Notwithstanding that for several hundred years it’s been common knowledge among scholars that those verses are likely a later addition to the text (and are noted as such in any modern translation) nowhere does Jesus tell “the crowd not to stone the woman for adultery.” So unlike what is claimed, he never tells them to “break one of Yahweh’s laws.”
Second, in regards to the Romans being in agreement that Jesus was sinless, in addition to the reference given by The Lord God Exists website author (to Pilate’s declaration in John 18:38 that “I find no basis for a charge against him”) we also could consider the centurion’s declaration recorded in Luke 23:47 after Jesus’ death when he said “Surely this was a righteous man” (or “Certainly this man was innocent” in ESV). But is what is being requested here actual “Roman records” stating that Jesus was sinless? Does it sound at all plausible that the Romans would keep records of crucifying an innocent man?
Finally, the greater problem I see with this general approach is the following: It’s totally arbitrary. The accusation above that Jesus committed sins is argued for from the biblical texts. But if a person considers those biblical text accurate -and they must, because why would a person use texts that they think are inaccurate as the sole basis to build a rational case for anything- then why ignore the many references to Jesus’ sinlessness in the Bible? (Ex, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 3:5, 1 Peter 2:22, et al.)
This cherry-picking approach, that grasps hold of certain verses while arbitrarily ignoring others, is misguided at best. Why treat certain passages as authentic and others as inauthentic? It doesn’t seem to be for any reason stemming from textual criticism; it’s a capricious method to conveniently ignore whatever doesn’t fit into the person’s paradigm. This method is in entirely “ad hoc” … the exact thing the commenter claims about the original post!
January 9th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Yes Jesus did sin in fact he sinned a lot which makes me a pretty useless sacrifice!!
January 9th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
sorry duh – I need to correct that Jesus did sin in fact he sinned a lot which makes HIM a pretty useless sacrifice ….
January 12th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Yvonne, how do you claim to know that Jesus sinned? The biblical records, our oldest and most reliable witnesses about Jesus, claim repeatedly that Jesus did not sin.
May 4th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
1. He called Gentiles “dogs”
2. He started a violent incident with a whip in the temple.
3. He called his mother ‘woman’ and disowned her ‘woman, what is there between me and you?’
4. He taught parents to ‘hate’ their children.
5. He lied and said ‘I go not up to the feast’ and then went in secret.
6. He hung out in the temple knowing his parents would be worried about him, and didn’t care.
He sinned at least 6 times. Its not ‘orthodox’ to admit it. But I guess what’s ‘wrong’ with these Christian who admit it is they are more HONEST than the ‘orthodox’.
May 4th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
“The biblical records…claim repeatedly that Jesus did not sin.”
I am only aware of one verse that say he didn’t sin. 1 PETER 2:22 “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” — that is not ‘repeatedly’.
Even so, the 6 sins I listed above certainly were committed according to the gospels.
And I will add another: He said he was God (according to John only) which if it is true is also a sin. We know he was not God because of the first 6, and therefore saying he was God adds a 7th sin.
May 5th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
rey, thank you for taking the time to comment!
First, regarding verses that claim Jesus was sinless, in addition to 1 Peter 2:22 (which for some reason you interpret as meaning Jesus did not sin “repeatedly” when the verse does not specify that?) there is also 1 John 3:5, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, etc. (Another example is when Jesus asks people to convict him of sin, but no one does in John 8:46.)
So it seems as though it’s important to affirm that Jesus did not sin. Regarding the six times you listed, I don’t know why 1 & 3 would be considered sin; at worst they would be considered being a bit harsh but harshness is not the same as sin, and when we study the background of why Jesus spoke as he did (via any in-depth commentary) we can better understand the language he used and why he did so.
Re 2, I don’t understand why this is sin either? It’s not like he went around whipping *people*, and it was because of the sin and defilement of the temple that he acted as he did; sometimes forceful action is necessary to correct sinful behavior. (How many of today’s churches sadly operate like the temple back in Jesus’ time?) Re 4, this is clearly hyperbole and not intended to be taken literally (ex, Jesus made sure his mother was taken care of before his death, John 19:25-27). Re 5, Jesus didn’t go up to the feast right away (John 7:9), nor did he attend the feast in the way the disciples wanted him to, so it was not a lie. Re 6, I don’t see how this was sinful either. Jesus did what he knew he needed to do, despite the fact that his parents were (unnecessarily, as it turns out) worried about him. It may be the case that a person must defy their parents to do what they think is right (almost like a obligatory action vs a supererogatory action) and to do so is not sinful.
But let’s just say for the sake of argument that none of those explanations are persuasive (and we ignore the fact that Jesus, being fully God, a priori could not sin). Here’s the better question: If the Bible, God’s Word, tells us that Jesus did not sin (as I think it clearly does) who are we to say that he actually did sin? The question is this: Is God the judge of what is sin, or are we? Clearly, God is the judge of what is sinful. So if God claims Jesus did not sin I will take his word for it.
In conclusion, I don’t think that any of the six “sins” you’ve listed qualify as sin for the reasons I’ve listed, and even if we thought they did, we should trust what God considers to be sin more than our own personal preferences or culturally shaped perceptions.
May 7th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
About Jesus staying behind at the temple, while his parents travelled home. Scripture tells us he was 12 years lod. According to Hebrew custom of the time, 12 was the age of adulthood. They could marry, etc. In other words, He was entitled to go off on his own. Compare facts with facts and you will realise He was indeed the sinnless offer for you and me.
May 29th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
The bible is clear that he did sin.
To steal or destroy another man’s property is a sin (think 10 commandments)
In Mark 5:8-14, Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:27-39 it is clear that Jesus destroyed 2,000 pigs of a local farmer. Jesus could have found an alternative that did not destroy the livelyhood of the farmer.
June 14th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
theo1689, thank you for adding your comments. First, if you are going to trust those passage of the Bible you cite (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) which you say suggest that Jesus committed sin, why would you ignore the passages I cited above which unambiguously state that Jesus did not sin? Why trust one set of passages and ignore another … unless of course you’ve already decided that Jesus did sin and are merely looking for prooftexts? So even if your analysis of those texts is correct, I see no reason to prefer them to the other passages cited above which state Jesus is sinless.
Second, all property is ultimately God’s, not ours. See for example Psalm 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it,” and later Psalm 50:10: “every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.” So if Jesus (being God incarnate) decides to take the life of the pigs (to demonstrate how important human life is to Him) then it is not sinful in the least because it is ultimately His property.
September 10th, 2012 at 2:51 am
Really helpful article Darren, thank you. And thanks all of you others for helping to flesh out what the Bible says.
But also, I would say to you Rey, if you are a Christian, why would you want a sinful Saviour? He would be no help to you before God and you will die in your sin.
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
(2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV)
October 10th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
In response to Darren,
You yourself have claimed that there is no evidence suggesting Jesus did not sin:
– I see no reason to prefer them to the other passages (June 14th) –
Does that not mean there is no reason to prefer the passages you stated to those that Theo did, and therefore what evidence do you have to claim that Jesus did not sin. However there is evidence to say that Jesus did sin, according to you there is anyway:
- I don’t know why 1 & 3 would be considered sin; at worst they would be considered being a bit harsh but harshness is not the same as sin (May 5th) -
This reply implies that you agree these points are from relevant, and therefore trustworthy texts (as you skip to the point and don’t bother pointing out these might be from unreliable passgaes, agreeing that points 1 & 3 are not /false/ (in the sense they are from untrustworthy passages) but rather false in the sense that Theo has misinterpreted them.)
So we can agree that you thought these points were from a good source, however were taken the wrong way. So now i make my point:
In the ten commandments – the word of God himself – does it not say ///Honour your father and mother/// and calling ones mother: woman, I agree is harsh; however I do not consider it honouring ones mother, but quite the contrary. This is similar to disowning ones mother, implying you are ashamed of them or do not want to be connected with them: which is not honouring ones mother at all
October 10th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
P.S.
So there is no evidence suggesting Jesus did not sin.
But there is evidence suggesting he did sin
(of course this is according to your perspective – even if you don’t realise it)
November 1st, 2012 at 12:44 am
Billy, what we have are passages of the Bible that clearly state that Jesus did not sin, as I listed above. Then there are the passages that you refer to, which you interpret to mean that Jesus did sin. If the best example you can come up with is that Jesus was a bit harsh to his mother (note that some scholars believe he wasn’t being harsh at all but using language appropriate for the time & situation) then your case is very shaky indeed.
You say that there is no evidence that Jesus did not sin. That is plainly a false claim; see 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, etc. All clearly state that Jesus did not sin. There are no passages that clearly state that Jesus did sin. The only way to possibly get around these verses (note that they are all by different writers writing at different times and places!) is to suggest that all of these verses were corrupted but the rest of the Bible (such as the passage you cite) is not corrupted. But surely this is special pleading and there is no evidence to say those passages are corrupt but the other is not. So, sorry, I can’t see any possible way that your argument could work. Jesus is and was and will always be sinless.
January 20th, 2013 at 5:05 pm
The book is flawed. Here is a condradiction in the bible. “Cherry picking” has nothing to do with it. There are two opposing arguements all found in the bible. 1. Passages suggesting jesus sinned. 2. The passages that claim jesus never sinned. They contradict each other, therefore the book is flawed. There is no rule saying that a book is either uncorrupt or completely corrupt. However, there are historically accurate parts of the bible as well as many places that bible contradicts itself. That being said, can a flawed book be inspired by god? Maybe. Maybe not. We generally claim that it could not, but it is possible. Furthermore, Darren’s argument that if you take parts of the bible as true then you must also recognize other parts as true as well, is inaccurate. For example, if a book were to say “Jesus never sinned” and later it says “Jesus did sin”, most rational people would say the book is inaccurate or flawed, not “if you take one as true you must take the other as true”. Those who choose not to believe the passages Daren provided do so because they have found the book to contradict itself. I believe most would reason that a condradictory source is an unreliable one. I am less concerned with whether Jesus sinned or not but rather a proclaimed divinely inspired book is flawed and inaccurate.
January 20th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Two articles depicting conradictions and inaccuracies in the bible:
http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/bible-errors-and-contradictions/
http://www.coppit.org/god/contradictions.php
January 25th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
You were born in sin. Everythings sin. Did god not say jesus would be born after adam and eve ate of the forbidden fruit
?
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel
Before the tree of knowledge, did we know about sex?
Jesus is gods son, before he even created man and woman
If adam and eve ate from the tree of life, they would be “as the angels” there would be no need for sex
January 26th, 2013 at 5:35 pm
John, a few remarks on your comment,
“Darren’s argument that if you take parts of the bible as true then you must also recognize other parts as true as well, is inaccurate.”
This is not my argument. I only pointed out that if a person takes portion A from the Bible as being accurate, but rejects B, they would need to provide non-arbitrary reasons for accepting one but rejecting the other. In the discussion in the comments here, I don’t see any good reasons given for a person to accept some (those that they say support the Jesus sinned theory) and reject others (any that contradict their theory).
“There are two opposing arguements all found in the bible. 1. Passages suggesting jesus sinned. 2. The passages that claim jesus never sinned. They contradict each other, therefore the book is flawed.”
I would disagree with these statements. What we find in the New Testament are 1. Passages explicitly and clearly stating that Jesus never sinned. 2. Passages that implicitly are suggested by some to mean that Jesus did sin. Thus your book example is flawed since we simply have no biblical statement that “Jesus did sin.” IMHO regarding the unclear passages that some use to suggest Jesus sinned (which I don’t think are unclear at all, and have argued against those interpretations here), I think we should use the clear and explicit statements in the New Testament to interpret those.
With regard to contradictions in the Bible, although I hold to infallibility (not necessarily inerrancy) of the biblical text, I don’t think, even if we were to say that there are contradictions in the texts, that this disproves that Jesus was who he said he was and that he rose from the dead. This is the whole basis of Habermas’ Minimal Facts Argument. With a text as long and complicated as the Bible I’m not surprised that there would be certain unanswered questions. But as I’m sure you’re aware there are extensive replies to those kind of contradiction lists, in book form (such as Geiser & Howe’s “When Skeptics Ask”) or on the web, for example
http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/apologetic/contrads/
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/packham02.html
So I don’t find these kinds of lists particularly convincing.
March 13th, 2013 at 11:10 pm
I think the problem here is how we define “sin” and how we define Jesus’ “perfection” we consider sin to be different “actions” ..things “we do”. I believe that Jesus did something that would be considered sin by the very religious. He healed someone on the sabbath…he proclaimed to be a priest even though he was from the tribe of Judah…NOT a Levite(another law broken) he was known as a drunkard and a glutton…and I’m sure much more..my point is this…the bible does say he was without sin and it does say he was a perfect spotless lamb…therefore I have to conclude that sin is something much deeper than our actions its whats in our heart! I think Jesus perfectly believed in God and that is where he is sinless. And his perfect unwavering belief in God covers our wavering, doubting, sinful human minds
disclaimer: typed from a phone srry for errors
May 19th, 2013 at 1:37 am
You are making a very eternal mistake! Jesus was sinless and perfect! EVERY PERSON YOU MISLEAD, YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO THAT PERSON, TO JESUS AND FINALLY TO GOD-
May 19th, 2013 at 1:38 am
TAKE THIS SITE DOWN AND RESTUDY SCRIPTURE WITH A PASTOR-