James (1979) on Jn 8:1-11 and the Death Penalty

[Nazaroo]

The Meaning of αναμαρτητος
The "sinless one"

(B)   S. A. James' Interpretation (continued)


James leaves little doubt as to how he wants us to interpret Jesus' famous pronouncement:

'The actual and basic meaning of the word αναμαρτητος is "without fault". ...
"without sin" goes beyond the original intent of the word, which is basically secular. 15
In effect, Jesus is asking the witnesses if they are truly eligible before the law to testify. ...
It is unfortunate that the term is translated "without sin"... It would have been better translated, in context, as "competent to testify".
________________________________________________
15. TDNT, s.v. "anamartetos". [i.e. Theological Dictionary of the NT, entry: "anamartetos"]
- S. A. James, p.48
​

Once again however, his claim is nonsense, and his authority is dubious.

The word "sinless one" αναμαρτητος ('anhamartetos') means exactly what it says, "sinless one" or "one without sin".

It is based plainly on the root-word αμαρτια ('hamartia'), - "sin", "wrongful deed", "crime", "offence", "trespass".

The verb form αμαρτανω ('hamartano') is also consistent and firm in its meaning: - "to sin", "to offend", "to trespass".

The root words are used in just this way consistently throughout the Greek Old Testament (the LXX) as well, not just the New Testament.



The REAL word James is seeking

The error of S. A. James is even more striking, when we note that there actually is a Greek word already available in the vocabulary of the New Testament that carries the meaning that James wants to insert here:

αμεμπτος ('amemptos'), derived from μεμφομαι ('memfomai', - "to find fault"), means - "without fault", "blameless", "worthy", "with clear reputation": Precisely what James had claimed that αναμαρτητος ('anhamartetos') meant.

This word is used in the NT in exactly the way we would expect, to refer to ordinary but Godly people in obediance to the Torah and of an upright heart. (see Luke 1:6, Phili. 2:15, 3:6, 1st Thess. 5:23 etc.).



O.T. Usage of αναμαρτητος ("Sinless One")

This rare variation of the word does seem to appear once in the Greek (LXX) translation of Deut. 29:19-20, in the context of the curse for disobedience to the Covenant:

'And it shall be that if one of you were to hear the words of this oath,
and should imagine in his heart, saying,
  "Blessings to me will happen,
though following my own (wayward) heart I will go.",
in order that they should not be destroyed together,
the sinner, (ο αμαρτωλος) with the sinless (τον αναμαρτητον),
[The Heb. has here: "...to prevent disaster on the watered lands as well as the desert"]
in no way does God wish to forgive him,
but then the anger of the LORD shall burn,
and His zeal will fall upon that man (only);
and all the curses of this Covenant will cleave to him,
those written in this Scroll of the Law;
and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.'
(Deut. 29:19, LXX)
​

Here in this one passage the context does suggest 'guiltless' in the humanly possible sense, that is, it speaks of a hypothetical innocent bystander, who is to be protected from the wrath to fall upon the Covenant breaker. Yet even here, the plain topic and sense is sin and actual guilt, not 'fitness to testify' or merely fulfilling legal requirements to qualify for status in the community.


What the Pharisees Meant by αμαρτια ("sin")

"Sin" is precisely the meaning in John 9:34:

"In sins you were wholly born, and you (dare to) teach us?!?"
εν αμαρτιαις συ εγεννηθης ολος, και συ διδασκεις ημας ?!?
(Jn 9:34)
​

The complimentary word αμαρτωλος ('hamartolos') - "sinner" (of opposite meaning) is also consistently used in John's Gospel to refer to sin, i.e., the fact of guiltiness and culpability:

"We know that this man is a sinner!"
ημεις οιδαμεν οτι ο ανθρωπος ουτος αμαρτωλος εστιν!
(Jn 9:24,25 etc.)
​

These heated arguments (e.g. Jn 9:13-34) are not mere debates about suitability as a witness or status as a responsible member of the Jewish community.

Clearly the Pharisees as well as Jesus and the blind man are focussed on the question of SIN, even if the 'context' and standard for testing is the Law of Moses and/or the Israelite Covenant.


What Jesus Meant by αμαρτια ("sin")

Similarly, in the discussion immediately following the incident, Jesus plainly turns the focus away from 'legal status' (e.g. Abraham's descendants) to the question of SIN and personal culpability, using the very same vocabulary:

"We are the seed of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. How do you mean 'You will become free.'... ?"
Jesus answered them:
"Amen amen I say to you,
Everyone doing sin (ποιων την αμαρτιαν) is a slave to sin (αμαρτιας).
(Jn 8:33-34 etc.)
​

In the Gospel of John, the focus is on SIN throughout, starting from the very first page and the testimony of John the Baptist (Jn 1:29), and the vocabulary too is equally consistent:

"Behold the Lamb of God, Who takes away the SINS (αμαρτιαν) of the world!"
(Jn 1:29)
​

That Jesus in John 8:7 means something entirely different (from James' idea) and quite extraordinary is shown by the fact that this exact word, αναμαρτητος ('anhamartetos') only appears this ONCE in the entire New Testament (it is NT hapax legomenon). Nowhere else is there an αναμαρτητος, a "sinless one" or "one without sin" to be found in the entire Bible, especially with the meaning of merely an 'honest man' or 'competant to testify'.

Yet the idea actually does appear in slightly different wording elsewhere in the NT:

'And you know that this One [Jesus] appeared so that our sins He might remove; and in Him there is no sin.
(και αμαρτια εν αυτω ουκ εστιν).
'For we do not have a High Priest [Jesus] unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but rather One having been tested in all similar respects, yet without sin (χωρις αμαρτιας).
(1st Jn 3:5, Heb. 4:15)
​

Again the usage of the vocabulary indicates the topic is real sin and guilt, not legal status or suitability for any office participating in carrying out law enforcement. The concern and focus of the NT writers is consistently on real sin, not legality or appearances.

And the only person who qualifies as "without sin" using this vocabulary is Jesus the Christ. The NT writers are careful to reserve this status, not for mere honest men, holy men, or obedient God-fearers, but only for Jesus Himself.

The conclusion is inescapable that Jesus has here in John 8:7 said something extraordinary, and has obliquely referred to Himself!

peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

The "Moral" Element
According to James

Evil intent?

James offers one more remarkable, if not comical "observation" regarding the passage. He has already admitted that there is a significant moral element in Jesus' saying in Jn 8:7:

'Jesus' statement, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7), raises a question concerning the moral qualifications of witnesses, judges and executioners.'
- S. A. James, p.48
​

James feels compelled to extend this moral question to judges and executioners, as well as witnesses, because the very statement of Jesus is annoyingly ambiguous.

James would like to limit the statement to witnesses (and reduce it to a mere reminder of Deut. 17:7,* "the Hands of the Witnesses").

But Jesus' choice of words extend themselves to the entire group about to engage in a judgment and execution. So James must be satisfied with attempting to limit Jesus' words to the party of scribes and Pharisees, and their alleged witnesses (who remain unidentified nameless faces hiding in the party).


The Most Public Event Possible

But Jesus' words go even further than this, in spite of James' attempts to control them. For Jesus plainly calls upon the entire crowd gathered to also be witnesses, as to the honesty and fairness of the group of judges and executioners. Now it is they who are under observation, by an international body of Israelites gathered to the Temple for the Festival. In fact, Jesus is practically compelled to appeal to the whole crowd standing there as witnesses to this "court process".

There can be no "private" debate or secret execution of an adulteress. All Israel is watching, because the party of scribes and Pharisees have themselves chosen the venue: the public courts of the Temple on a high feast day.



Now James sums up the purpose and meaning of Jesus' words as a two-pronged requirement:

'Jesus must be understood as commanding the scribes and Pharisees to be without evil motive in bringing the woman before him - which means, in part, that they must be obeying completely the Biblical commandments relative to trying a case of adultery.
If there is any application beyond the immediate incident, it can only be to require:

(a) innocence of motive and
(b) conformity to legal procedure,
​

by persons engaged in the prosecution of criminals.
- S. A. James, p.49
​

Nobody would deny that if a trial based on an offence under the Law of Moses were to be conducted, it ought to be conducted by the legal rules of procedure laid down by the same authority, the Torah. Were a trial to proceed, this should be taken for granted.

But if this were Jesus' main point, then the trial should by all means proceed, and the woman if guilty be stoned. Yet Jesus' words are plainly intended to halt the proceedings, and He does so quite successfully and dramatically.


Motive and Intent

What then is the moral element in Jesus' saying?

James would have us believe that it is a question of motive, intent.

But the O.T. Law shows little concern for internal motives, and makes little provision for intent (other than for witnesses who actually lie).

Presuming the witnesses tell the truth, whatever their motive or attitude toward the accused, they can and should (must) testify. This amounts to a rubber-stamping of the guilty verdict irrespective of the heart and motive of the witnesses.

This should be in favour of James' Nomist position, but it undermines it: because Jesus very obviously IS concerned with the internal heart and the guilt of any accusers, judges, witnesses, and executioners. This is plainly inconvenient, and hardly allows a simple interpretation that only expects the application of O.T. Law.

Jesus plainly calls for something above and beyond the Law of Moses here, and James' "solution" to the difficulty that the text presents is wholly inadequate.

______________________________________
* Holy Scripture reference above corrected from Deut. 29:19 (incorrect) to 17:7 with apologies for error

peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

James'
Hermeneutical Conclusions

Case Overview
James' Hermeneutical case consists of this:

(1) It was a (mere) legal dispute: " - That ...is clear from the legal terminology of the passage." (p.47 note 13).

(2) There is no religious or moral meaning, no "allegory, simile, or symbolic language" in the passage, and "without sin" goes beyond the original intent of αναμαρτητος, "which is basically secular" in meaning.

(3) The meaning of αναμαρτητος is "without fault", and "would have been better translated...as 'competent to testify' (p. 48).
(4) Jesus is specifically asking the witnesses "if they are eligible before the law to testify in this case." (p. 48).

(5) The pronouncement in 8:7 is part of a private "dialogue between Jesus and the accusers.. not ...directed...to the crowd in general that overheard, ... but to a small select group" (p.47-48).

(6) Jesus is asking (in 8:7) that the trial party be (a) "without evil motive" and (b) conform to legal procedure.

(7) We should agree with Calvin that "none must let his own sins stop him correcting the sins of others and even punishing them when necessary..."

- S. A. James, p.48-49
​

But as we've seen, James is seriously wrong on every point.

(1) The Pharisees may have begun it as a "legal" dispute, but Jesus turned it into a moral one.

(2) The passage is rife with symbolic language and allegory.

(3) The subject is essentially religious, not secular, because Jesus focuses the discussion on SIN. The Johannine context also re-enforces the question of SIN as opposed to "legalities" or appearances.

(4) Jesus deliberately ignores the Accusing party itself, and sidesteps the "witnesses", while focussing on the guilt and consciences of the Accusing party before the whole crowd.

(5) Jesus presents the case in turn before the international crowd, shrinking the authority of the scribes and Pharisees further.

(6) Jesus in 8:7 confronts the sinful past and present of those seeking to condemn the woman, and successfully vanquishes them.

(7) Calvin is the least reliable interpreter of the passage, since he ignores its content entirely in favour of his preconceived views on law and order, and the legitimacy of earthly secular authority.

​

James completely strikes out in his analysis of John 8:1-11, because he:

(1) Dismisses entirely 1,500 years of open discussion, debate, and interpretation of the passage in favour of one Jewish researcher and one Nomist commentator.

(2) Embraces Calvin's Nomist agenda, and has already utterly made up his own mind on the Death Penalty issue.

(3) Ignores the plain meaning of Jesus' statements in the passage in favour of a "wish list" of ideas that don't appear there.

(4) Distorts the lexical and linguistic evidence to impose his own implausible 'interpretation'.

(5) Ignores the symbolic and allegorical language and nature of the passage, its context, and the whole genre of Christian Gospel literature, in favour of a "secular", "Jewish", "Legalist" reading of the passage.

(6) Refuses to acknowledge his own debt to previous "misinterpreters" and the plagarized ideas he has adopted from them.

(7) Holds an inferior, "legalist", 'Jewish Rabbi' view of Jesus, and so has no real Christian interpretation at all to offer readers who seek the Christian meaning of the passage.

​

James' failure to properly assess and understand the passage is complete, because it represents the most narrow, unscientific, and prejudiced treatment of John 8:1-11 ever penned.

His own methodological dishonesty ensures a total disaster.

peace
Nazaroo