John 9:3

[Littlejoe]

I'm preparing a month long study for a class. I have a question about this verse. One of the authors of my resource material contends that the original Greek reads differently. He asserts that Jesus does not say ..."he was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him." that the translators insert that for clarification. He contends the passage if translated literally would be more akin to"...let the works of God be revealed in him." Can anyone here confirm or deny his assertion? I greatly respect this author, but I just do not have the ability to confirm or deny.

thanks!

[One Bad Pig]

I don't know what translation you're using. I find The Blue Letter Bible a useful interlinear source (search for the verse, select "Interlinear" under tools), and Bible Gateway is useful for looking at passages in parallel in a multitude of translations.

[KingsGambit]

Can we bring John Reece out of retirement for one thread?

[Littlejoe]

I don't know what translation you're using. I find The Blue Letter Bible a useful interlinear source (search for the verse, select "Interlinear" under tools), and Bible Gateway is useful for looking at passages in parallel in a multitude of translations.

I have the Blue Letter Bible App on my phone...it doesn't seem clear there...and it always uses Strong's. Jaltus has always contended that if it was Strong's it was probably wrong....

[Just Passing Through]

[Rushing Jaws]

I'm preparing a month long study for a class. I have a question about this verse. One of the authors of my resource material contends that the original Greek reads differently. He asserts that Jesus does not say ..."he was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him." that the translators insert that for clarification. He contends the passage if translated literally would be more akin to"...let the works of God be revealed in him." Can anyone here confirm or deny his assertion? I greatly respect this author, but I just do not have the ability to confirm or deny.thanks!

permissivelot going on in the theology of that verse. The theology of the NT is as valuable and important a guide to the meaning of the NT text as the purely linguistic features of it are.

[Littlejoe]

First of all...Thanks for you detailed analysis! Some follow up...if you will?

Is it the case that this verse has hina with a subjunctive verb? And is it true that when hina with a subjunctive verb communicates purpose it is called a purpose clause, but when the same form expresses a command it is called a command clause. And, it is up to the reader to determine from the context whether purpose or a command is meant. If so, could this also be a command to "Let God's works be revealed in him"? We see these two examples in Matt 19:13 (purpose) vs Mark 5:23 (command)

But this is only true if you assume the view that God makes people ill or deformed just to be kind and heal them later...That doesn't seem to fit with the Mission of Christ. (Acts 10:38 and 1 John 3:8.) Isn't it more likely from the context that Jesus was attributing the blindness to the works of the Devil and commanding he be healed to demonstrate his authority over sickness and works of the enemy?

But to your point, he explains WHY he's going to heal him. He continues to talk about the works of the Father...telling them that they need to do the works of the Father while it's still day. Is the context not conducive to a command?

[Littlejoe]

permissivelot going on in the theology of that verse. The theology of the NT is as valuable and important a guide to the meaning of the NT text as the purely linguistic features of it are.

Thanks! see my post above. Is it true that the hina + subjunctive can be purpose or command?

[Rushing Jaws]

Thanks! see my post above. Is it true that the hina + subjunctive can be purpose or command?

The jury seems to be out on that one: http://www.academia.edu/749524/The_u...Gospel_of_John[Edit]
Maximilian Zerwick (S. J.), Biblical Greek illustrated by Examples (Pontificio Istituto Biblico 1990), section 294 AKA 415, quotes Eph.5.33 and other places in NT as showing *hina* can be used imperatively.

[Just Passing Through]

Is it the case that this verse has hina with a subjunctive verb? And is it true that when hina with a subjunctive verb communicates purpose it is called a purpose clause, but when the same form expresses a command it is called a command clause. And, it is up to the reader to determine from the context whether purpose or a command is meant. If so, could this also be a command to "Let God's works be revealed in him"? We see these two examples in Matt 19:13 (purpose) vs Mark 5:23 (command)

But this is only true if you assume the view that God makes people ill or deformed just to be kind and heal them later...That doesn't seem to fit with the Mission of Christ. (Acts 10:38 and 1 John 3:8.) Isn't it more likely from the context that Jesus was attributing the blindness to the works of the Devil and commanding he be healed to demonstrate his authority over sickness and works of the enemy?

Of course there's no punctuation in the original, that was all added later...right?

correct

But to your point, he explains WHY he's going to heal him. He continues to talk about the works of the Father...telling them that they need to do the works of the Father while it's still day. Is the context not conducive to a command?

[One Bad Pig]

I have the Blue Letter Bible App on my phone...it doesn't seem clear there...and it always uses Strong's. Jaltus has always contended that if it was Strong's it was probably wrong....

What I was sorta trying to get you do to was identify the translation you were using, since the couple I looked at didn't seem to have the phrase you wanted in there. BLB uses the Strong's reference system, but it also includes Thayer's Greek Lexicon (click on the Strong's reference number to see that).

[Littlejoe]

What I was sorta trying to get you do to was identify the translation you were using, since the couple I looked at didn't seem to have the phrase you wanted in there. BLB uses the Strong's reference system, but it also includes Thayer's Greek Lexicon (click on the Strong's reference number to see that).

Thanks! I got that, and have already done that...but none of them render the verse without the underlying bias that God made him blind so that he could heal him later.

To give you a clue to where I'm coming from, my subject for this Bible study is "The Problem of Evil"

The version that has that exact wording is the NRSV. However, the wording in the translations I have the most confidence in (ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV) all render it similar to "...but (it was so) that the works of God...".

[Littlejoe]

We're getting into the theology of the verse here...and I was trying to avoid that in this thread. I would be happy to take this up with you in another thread...but it's apparent you are reading your own (quite normal and understandable) theology into the verse.

For instance, you say "Im not saying God made him deformed for that purpose, but that his infirmity was destined to serve that purpose from the very beginning."

Now, from where I sit, both of these statements are the same...on the one hand God did not make him deformed for this purpose...Ok what's the purpose? Your answer is he was destined to from the beginning...I can't see how those two statements are different. I think I understand your saying "all infirmity is the result of sin" meaning we live in a fallen world controlled by the enemy. If this is a discussion you would like to continue, I will be glad to open a thread for that.

[Just Passing Through]

[One Bad Pig]

Thanks! I got that, and have already done that...but none of them render the verse without the underlying bias that God made him blind so that he could heal him later.

To give you a clue to where I'm coming from, my subject for this Bible study is "The Problem of Evil"

The version that has that exact wording is the NRSV. However, the wording in the translations I have the most confidence in (ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV) all render it similar to "...but (it was so) that the works of God...".

I don't think any of the renderings necessarily imply that God made him blind from birth, but that God allowed him to be born blind (effects of the Fall) that a greater good (the blind man's testimony of being healed) would result. I don't see this as any different than God not removing Paul's thorn in the flesh that his strength might be made perfect in weakness.

Does that help?