Jesus and Unintentional Sin

Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2006 by Charlie Trimm

I am teaching a Sunday School class on Christology and I got a question that stumped me, so I thought I would pass it along. The question has to do with whether Jesus sinned an unintentional sin. An example would breaking a law he did not know about, or doing something his mother did not want him to do but he did not know that yet. Now, in some cases, this should not be considered sin, so he could displease his mother but not sin. But then what about laws? Was he just more astute than the rest of us in making sure he knew all the laws? Or did he have extra help from the Holy Spirit in this area? But this latter idea causes me to wince a little, because that does not seem to be how the Holy Spirit works today. Perhaps becaue he was God he just knew he shouldn't do something? But that seems to mix the natures. Any ideas from the gallery?

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:06 PM

Brian wrote: Mixing the natures?

Is knowing something a function of nature or of person?

I think that it is a function of person, and Jesus was one person. He could have knowledge from either one of his natures (i.e. being hungry was knowledge gleaned from his human nature), but this knowledge was known by Jesus, the one person.

In this question there is confusion about sin because doing something his mother didn't want should not be classified as sin. Consider Jesus staying behind in the temple while the whole family left for home when he was twelve.

As far as keeping the Law is concerned, Jesus was perfect in love for both his father and his neighbors, and the law and the prophets all depend on these. So Jesus would not have violated the Law unintentionally because he intentionally loved and did that perfectly.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:25 AM

Charlie wrote: But then if the person is the one knowing, how did Jesus not know something? It seems better to me to make the mind part of the nature, which would mean that Jesus had two minds. And how would you differentiate your view from Apollonarius' view? He said that Jesus did not have a human mind, and his view was condemned by the early church, and yoru view seems close to that.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:22 PM

Brian wrote: Split personality?

Harrumph!
Well YOU sound Nestorian, but so much for labels.

I am concerned that having two minds borders on having two identities which, like Nestorianism, would mean that the human and Divine were two different persons rather than two natures. Suggesting that Jesus has two minds can also lead to absurd questions like, "do his minds argue?"

Sin is the choice of a person. It is not the choice of a nature.

Appolonarius said that Jesus only had a spiritual human body, but his mind and spirit were only Divine.

Friday, September 29, 2006 10:47 AM

Charlie wrote:

Oh yeah! Well, you sound like a Eutychian! Maybe even a crypto docetist!

Well, all name-calling aside, I do find myself leaning heavily towards Antioch in the ancient Antioch-Alexandria debate. For those of you who don't remember, Antioch emphasized the humanity of Christ and a literal interpretation of Scripture (human side of Scripture), while Alexandria focused on the divinity of Christ and the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Both of those areas I find myself leaning towards Antioch. The only thing that scares me is that Antioch was a place where Pelagious found a warm welcome. Does my Antioch-leanings push me towards an Arminian viewpoint? Or even further? Consistancy should dictate yes, I suppose, but I sure do like my Calvinism. And they are only leanings, not fallings, toward Antioch.

But to get back to the issue at hand with my Alexandrian friend. How do you account for Jesus not knowing something? That seems to be the issue that is driving the difficulty of the issue. I would have no problem with your view except that Jesus said himself he does not know something. If knowing is of the person, then how can the god-man person not know something?