Did Jesus sin before he was baptised

Did Jesus sin before he was baptised?

While almost all of Christianity believes that Jesus was a sinless man who never sinned, there are some, although likely very few in number, that asserts that Jesus actually sinned but was forgiven of his sin at his baptism and that he did not sin after this point.

This is a very unusual assertion and may be something that most people have never heard of.

While the argument that Jesus was forgiven of sin is not going to be very convincing to most, I am going to address it in this study as I wish personally to give a rebuttal against those that may use it or be convinced by it.

Most Chistians will be able to cite numerous verses that state that Jesus was sinless. We shall look at them individually in this writing.

However, those that claim Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism and that he then remained sinless after he was forgiven also use verses to support their claims.

We shall also look at these verses and address how they are used to support their position.

So before we look at the verses in support for the position that Jesus was without sin, let’s look at the verses used to show that Jesus did sin but was forgiven.

Jesus was made perfect

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

This verse is used to show that Jesus was not perfect throughout his life but rather he was made perfect at his baptism when he was forgiven of sin. It is argued that Jesus was forgiven of his sins and was declared the son of God. (Some may argue that Jesus was declared the begotten son of God at this point.

Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

There are a lot of incorrect statement in the usage of these two passages.

Firstly, at no point does the Bible ever say what sin Jesus was supposed to have had. Nor does it ever state that Jesus had sin. Importantly it never once says that Jesus was forgiven of sin at his baptism. These are all assertions based upon the presupposition that Jesus did have sin. I would suggest reading my writing against the argument that Jesus was declared the son of God at the baptism.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

At first, this verse may not seem like it supports a claim that Jesus had sinned, however, this verse is a quotation of Psalm 40:6

Psalm 45:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

It is argued that this Psalm is about King David. In its original context the Psalm refers to David’s iniquities.

Psalm 40:12 For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me.

It is asserted that as the writer of Hebrews quotes the Psalm and applies it to Jesus that he must also be referencing this verse and so stating that Jesus also had iniquities just like David.

This is simply an incorrect understanding of New Testament quotations of old Testament verses and applications.

When the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament they are not quoting a chapter and verse like we have today. There was no chapter and verse at that time. Thus they simply quote portions of scripture. They utilise the parts of scripture that they wish to use to make their point.

When they quote a “verse” or a part of the text, it does not by necessity mean that they are referring to the context of the entire scripture. If a NT writer quotes a line or 2 of a Psalm, he is not by necessity referring to the entire Psalm, but rather he is taking that one line or 2 as a distinct part of the text that he wishes to utilise, this is done throughout the NT.

Also, when a New Testament writer utlises a part of the old Testament he is not by necessity applying the context or the original meaning of the passage from the old Testament into the New Testament meaning. We must look at scripture as a whole, and what else scripture says.

When the writer of Hebrews is applying Psalm 45:6 to Jesus in Hebrews 10:5 he is not by necessity applying the entire Psalm or the original context and application of the verse into the statement regarding Jesus.

The writer of Hebrews quotes the portion of text that he wishes to utilise and applies it to Jesus with a new testament meaning. This does not mean that we have to apply the same meaning that it had in the Old testament. The writer of Hebrews does not quote Psalm 40:12 and so while David may well have been stated as having iniquities this does not mean that the writer of Hebrews was saying that Jesus had them also.

The Hebrew Avon, doesnt really mean sins, sin is a different Hebrew word. It refers more really to a failing.

Just because David had iniquity would not mean that Jesus had iniquity.

New Testament writers often took a part of the old Testament and reapplied it with new testatemnt understanding.

(Out of Egypt I have called my son).

This had its original meaning and context in relation to Israel’s exodus from slavery in Egypt under the Pharaoh. God freed Israel from their physical bondage in Egypt God calling Israel his son.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

When this is applied to Jesus in the New Testament, this has a totally new context and meaning.

Jesus was not in slavery in Egypt but rather he had been taken there as a child in order to escape the persecution of Herod. Matthew takes the Old testament statement in reference to Jesus and applies a new testament application and fulfillment in Jesus coming out of Egypt being called back by God.

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

The context and original meaning of the passage or not relevant to the New Testament application, only the specific meaning of the verse itself. Jesus, the son of God being called out of Egypt, just like Israel. While the statement is applied to both the context of both is not the same.

I shall give another example

Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:17-18

Old Testament Context (Jeremiah 31:15)
“This is what the Lord says: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.’”

Original Context: Refers to the Babylonian exile, when Rachel (representing Israel’s mothers) mourned the loss of her children taken into captivity.

New Testament Application (Matthew 2:17-18)

“Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.’”

Matthew applies this verse to Herod’s massacre of infants in Bethlehem, seeing a typological connection between the mourning of Israel’s exile and the tragedy surrounding Jesus’ early life.

We now need to look at the verse in Hebrews closer.

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

It very clearly states that Jesus became the author of eternal salvation after being made perfect.  Jesus became the author of eternal salvation after his death burial and resurrection. The verse tells us that he became this after being made perfect. Jesus was made perfect at the resurrection from death.

The Greek τελειόω teleioó does not mean sinless. It means to be complete, bring to completion or perfected.

This happens at his resurrection not during the life of Jesus.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

His perfection is in the resurrected state. He is now perfect complete because of his obedience.

In order to fully understand this we need to look also at Hebrews 2:10

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

This verse doesn’t mean that he was made sinless through his sufferings but rather he was made complete through his sufferings. . The Greek here translated as perfect is the same Greek as used in Hebrews 5:9

This is specifically the sufferings of the cross, death,  not the sufferings in life.

This is when he was made complete, in his resurrected state which is when he was made the captain of salvation by completing his messianic role which required the sufferings upon the cross that he would die and then be resurrected again. Jesus taught that the messiah must be put to death. Had Jesus not died upon the cross he would not have completed his messianic role and would not have been the captain of anyones salvation It is now that Jesus has been made perfect  This isn’t a reference to Jesus having been made perfect or sinless on earth through forgiveness of sins.

Jesus was crowned with Glory because of his sufferings of death.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

It is through his death that he is glorified and became the author of salvation having been made perfect or complete through the resurrection.

Now let’s look at the verses that clearly state that Jesus was sinless and show how any alternative interpretation is not correct.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The Greek here translated as “knew no sin” μὴ γνόντα mē gnonta, is not referring to the present state of Jesus after the resurrection. The Greek γνόντα Gnonta is in the aoirist tense which indicates this was a completed action that happened in the past. This cannot then be a reference to Jesus in his present state but a prior one that was completed in the past, While Jesus is of course sinless in heaven after the resurrection, he was sinless prior to the resurrection, the Greek here is in reference to a completed action not one that is in continuation. 

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

While the portion of the verse referring to Jesus as High priest, which he is now, must be taken as a time after his resurrection, the rest of the verse cannot be referring to this time period as Jesus was not tempted after the resurrection. The tempting had already been done while Jesus was on earth prior to the death, burial , resurrection and then ultimate asscension where Jesus becomes the high priest. The statement “yet without sin” is in connection to him being tempted at all points, which is when he was on the earth. but having not snnned and thus being without sin.

The contrast is that Jesus was tempted of sin but was without sin, not because he was forgiven of this sin but he was without it.

1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Other translations render this commited no sin.

In this verse we see that Peter states Jesus did not sin. Here it does not refer to Jesus as having no sin, but doing no sin. There is simply no reference to Jesus having been forgiven of sin. Or that Jesus did not sin after being baptised. It does not even say who knew not sin, which could be construed as saying the sin of Jesus was forgotten once he was forgiven.

The statetment is straight forward. Jesus did not sin. This is an encompassing statement, not simply referring to having committed no sin after he was forgiven of sin or indeed that he was at anytime forgiven of sins he had commited

It is a quotation from Isaiah 53:9

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Violence is the Hebrew חָמָ֣ס ḥā-mās Chawmawse, which means violence, but can mean injustice or unrighteousness.

Peter takes the verse from Isaiah and applies it to Jesus and asserts its meaning in relation to Jesus as to his not having committed any sin, not having any unrighteousness

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Join our Patreon membership here or you can buy me a coffee through paypal