Biblical Sin: Not as Behavior but as Ultimate Transgression
By Author Eli Kittim
I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in this particular context the phrase “no sin” (2 Cor. 5.21) is referring to Jesus’ action or behavior, it contradicts many New Testament (NT) passages. One that immediately comes to mind is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness by Satan. If Jesus is sinless in the sense that he is born without a sin-nature——and therefore incapable of committing a sin, as the church proclaims——then the so-called temptation of Jesus becomes absolutely meaningless because how can you “tempt” someone who, by definition, cannot be tempted? And would Jesus “be like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he was unable to be tempted? The answer is a resounding no! Edward Irving famously argued that if Jesus did not take on our fallen nature, he could neither be truly tempted nor capable of atoning for human sin. If by “sin,” the NT is referring to behavior, it would also contradict aspects of human nature and common knowledge. It would imply that in his human development, from childhood to adulthood, Jesus never made a mistake and was without error, which is patently ridiculous (cf. Luke 2.52; 18.19). Hebrews 5.8-9 says that Jesus "learned obedience from what he suffered," while Luke 2.52 tells us that he "grew in wisdom and stature," indicating that there was a time when he did not obey and did not know the things of the Spirit. Second Corinthians 5.21 informs us that Jesus became "sin" through the incarnation----that is, when he took on a sin-nature----and "in our behalf He did make sin" (ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν; YLT)!
So, what does the NT imply when it refers to Jesus being “without sin”? I would like to suggest that this reference has nothing to do with Jesus’ actions or behavior but rather with the nature of his being. According to Robert Mulholland, a NT scholar, “sins” (in the plural) are behavioral symptoms whereas “sin” (in the singular), out of which these symptomatic behaviors and attitudes arise, is a question of being. In this sense, it is a throwback to the garden of eden and the “sin” of Adam and Eve. There’s no particular “action “ or “behavior” that is associated with their transgression except that they accepted the serpent’s advice and partook of the idiomatic apple. Similarly, although It would have been utterly impossible for Jesus to avoid sin as an activity or behavior, nevertheless he did not sin in his being because, during his temptation by Satan, he ultimately did not transgress the law of God as Adam and Eve had done! He kept it!
Just as “Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, … [so] Christ’s one act of righteousness brings [salvation] … for everyone” (Rom. 5.18).
