Greek scholars needed ... John 9 ...

[MikeBigg]

Greek scholars needed ... or at least someone a whole lot more knowledgeable than me ....

John 9 is the account of the blind man that Jesus heals. Here is the account from the NRSV:

9 As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ 3 Jesus answered, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.​

Jesus goes on to spit in the mud and the guy gets healed.

The suggestion in the passage is that God deliberately made the guy blind from birth so that .... That is certainly the traditional understanding of the passage.

To my mind, this would not be the act of a good, loving father - so either God isn't a good, loving father or maybe we are reading the text wrongly or there has been a mis-understanding in translation.

I read the following in a book recently:

In John 9:3, when the Greek word, “hina” is stated as an imperative
clause rather than a purposive clause, the result is a very different
reading than the one we have been handed by the majority of Bible
translators over the years. In the purposive it reads, ‘”Neither this man
nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the work
of God might be displayed in his life’”, which, as we know, attributes
to the origin of the blindness to God, that He would be glorified
through it. Yet, in the imperative it reads, “’Neither this man nor his
parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but nonetheless, let the work of God be
displayed in his life’”. The latter translation of the Greek is just as valid
and plausible as the former, yet in addition, consistent with the nature
of God. God does not make His kids sick so that He gets more glory,
thus, the latter translation is correct.​

I'm not a Greek scholar - I don't know what imperative and purposive clauses are in English let alone Greek - but this makes sense to me. It helps to reduce the mental gymnastics I need to do when reconciling a God of love, compassion and justice and a God who would make someone blind so He could look good later on.

My question is this: is the Greek translation to use the word "nonetheless" valid?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[Biblicist]

Sorry that my reply is non-technical, but I would lean to the view that Jesus was saying that the man was born the way that he was so that God's power could be revealed - I know that this seems to be a bit tough but so is life I suppose.

 

[MikeBigg]

Thanks.

Hmm. What do you base that on, if it is not a technical view of the text?

Regards,

mike

 

[Yitzchak]

I took a look at this , but my Greek is not advanced enough to answer your question.

It did cross my mind though that the chapters and verses were added later and is it possible that what Jesus said went with the next verse ?

I edited this passage to show what I mean. So in this theory the first part is a complete thought that stands on it's own as an answer to the question , and the second part stands on it's own. I have no idea if this makes sense in the Greek.

Joh 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: nevertheless, in order that the works of God should be made manifest in him ,
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

 

[MikeBigg]

Thanks Yitzchak. Food for thought.

 

[all2Jesus]

An internet search reveals there was no punctuation in the original manuscripts. It was added later by editors according to their own understanding. Yitzchak makes a valid point, changing the punctuation changes the meaning. His punctuation is more in line with Yahweh's character.

John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents. Nevertheless, in order that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of him that sent me while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
​

 

[Biblicist]

Thanks.

Hmm. What do you base that on, if it is not a technical view of the text?
Regards,

Pardon my late reply, but as my only commentary on John (by Tenney) does not address the Greek, I had hoped to drop into the library of a Bible college to check a few books on John before I responded but I have been unable to do so at the moment. With my Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV) it shows the Greek as:

ἀλλ̓ ἵνα θανερωθῆ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ φεοῦ ὲν αὐτῶ

GK247-2671-3836-2240-3836-2536-5746-3836-2536-1877-247

To follow the Greek word order, we have “but [so that] [might be displayed] the works of God in him”. The NIV has faithfully followed the Greek syntax (along with NA27), “but it happened so that the works of God might be displayed” which follows the Greek syntax.

So, it seems that Jesus was saying that he was been born this way simply due to the long term purposes of God.

 

[MikeBigg]

So, it seems that Jesus was saying that he was been born this way simply due to the long term purposes of God.

Thanks for your post Biblicist - even though it wasn't what I wanted to hear

Regards,

Mike

 

[Biblicist]

Thanks for your post Biblicist - even though it wasn't what I wanted to hear

Even so, I'm not all that certain that this is giving us the whole picture. At first glance John 9 is telling us that the man was born this way so that he would eventually serve Gods purposes; this is what the Greek text tells us as well.

What I am not all that sure about, was Jesus saying that the Father decided before the man was born that he would be born as a cripple?

As many people are born with some form of deformity and without any apparent reason, was Jesus simply saying that as sickness is a normal part of everyday life that he was a candidate for the healing power of God.

We could easily say that if it wasn't going to be him then it would have been someone else; but was Jesus maybe indicating that as God knew about this mans condition from birth, as such, the Father eventually arranged for this man to have an encounter with the healing power of his Son.

This would mean that from birth, God chose him to evidence the power of God at a later date, not that God necessarily decided that he would be born deformed.

I hope that this bit of philosophical theorizing helps.

 

[MikeBigg]

It does, thanks.

 

[K2K]

Deut. 29:4 Yet to this day the Lord hs not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.


Of course the above verse was talking in a spiritual sense, but God teaches us in parables and dark saying (Ps 78). So God had a man that He intended to made famous for men of all times to know of, as a sign to us that Jesus gives us eyes to see. The troubling part is that some only can understand in a physical sense, so have they spiritually speaking been given, "a heart to know, eyes to see, nor ears to hear? Perhaps many are still spiritually blind because God has not yet given them eyes to see? Who might they be, and how would that write?

 

[K2K]

Can we trust the Bible as we have it?

I'm absolutely not against new insight and other possible understandings being discussed, but it sometimes seems like we want to make God into what we want Him to be, instead of understanding why He is the way He is. A one method of doing this is to try to rewrite the Bible.

The problem with taking that approach is that it means we can not trust the Bible to be accurate. If God inspired it's writing, and if God as the Great I Am and Lord of lords, brought it to us as we have it today, then the way we have it must at the very least be good enough to lead us to Him.

That does not mean that we don't need to revise it at times. Languages change with time. What I am talking about it the seeming need for some people to go to extreme's to find another way to rewrite a verse to get a meaning they prefer.

This very tendacy denies the nature of God. If we are going to tell people God is with us, and He is an all powerful God, who is Lord of lords, then we can't start presuming the Bible is wrong. Yet it seems that we often work harder at trying to find out a different way to interprete the Bible than we do seeking Him for understanding as to why it is written the way it is.

 

[Biblicist]

Can we trust the Bible as we have it?

I'm absolutely not against new insight and other possible understandings being discussed, but it sometimes seems like we want to make God into what we want Him to be, instead of understanding why He is the way He is. A one method of doing this is to try to rewrite the Bible.

The problem with taking that approach is that it means we can not trust the Bible to be accurate. If God inspired it's writing, and if God as the Great I Am and Lord of lords, brought it to us as we have it today, then the way we have it must at the very least be good enough to lead us to Him. . .

It seems that you may be commenting on my post from the wrong angle. What my post stated was that the NIV and probably most other versions have correctly followed the Greek. What is open to question is about the intentions of God, did he allow the man to be born infirm or as the Father knew that he was born this way from his birth, did he simply plan to have him encounter the healing power of his Son at some later time. My comments had nothing to do with any form of “new insight” as they were simply addressing the text in question.

As to how my comments were in someway “trying to rewrite the Bible”, this has me at a complete loss.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I wonder what the laws are if a potential father injected his unborn child with a sickness so he could give it medicine when it was born to show how much of a good father he was?
Would you let this man baby sit your children?

 

[MikeBigg]

I wonder what the laws are if a potential father injected his unborn child with a sickness so he could give it medicine when it was born to show how much of a good father he was?
Would you let this man baby sit your children?

This is exactly where I'm coming from with this.

Many believe that God actually made the guy blind deliberately. When it is suggested that that doesn't fit in with Him being good, the normal response is His way are not our ways and we can't fathom the depth and breadth of God.

How difficult is the concept of goodness!?

 

[MikeBigg]

Can we trust the Bible as we have it?

I'm absolutely not against new insight and other possible understandings being discussed, but it sometimes seems like we want to make God into what we want Him to be, instead of understanding why He is the way He is. A one method of doing this is to try to rewrite the Bible.

I'm not convinced we can fully trust the Bible in the language and form we have it today. Translation is such a complex process affected by commercial, philosophical and theological issues. Whilst very good - and I wouldn't want to be without it - it is not a perfectly translated (if perfect translation were even possible) and, in my view, some translation should be reconsidered.

Which is why this thread was started - trying to reconcile the nature and character of God (eg the Bible tells us He is good) with accounts of Him appearing to behave in a way that seems contrary.

Regards,

Mike

 

[Lollerskates]

John 9:3 in English:

Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

John 9:3 in Greek (with corresponding color code):

oυτε ουτος αμαρτανω ουτε αυτος γονευς: αλλα ινα ο εργον θεος φανεροω εν αυτος.

The Greek word "ινα" is "hina," which is "that" in English, and it means "in order that" as a purpose of demonstrative purpose. It also means "albeit," which can be seen from the Greek phrase "ινα μη," which means "in order that not," "albeit not," or "that no." "Hina" can also mean "because, so that, for to, lest, to the intent." So, the root part "ινα/hina" is a demonstrative show of purpose. Moreover, the Greek word for "but" is αλλα/alla," and this word means "and, but (even,) nevertheless, no, howbeit, save, indeed, nevertheless, etc..." So, these two words "alla hina" translate to "nevertheless, in order that (the works of God...)" It can also translate to "...nor his parents: howbeit so that the works of God..."

This shouldn't insinuate God was being cheap by making someone born blind live his life blind so that He could perform miracles. God allows His children to receive a slew of trials - even though He causes both good and calamity. He causes the calamity as a consequence of His omnipotent and omniscient nature: nothing that happens in the entire creation happens without God's permission, or knowledge of the event. Who is to say some arrogant angel came to God in the same way satan did to Him when speaking about Job. What if God entertained the idea of letting that calamity befall the man - from birth - because 1) it was a test of faith in God by the man (similar to Job,) and 2) God, of course, knew that His Son would bring multiple glory to God by healing the blind man, and thus having the man's faith rewarded. Moreover, it was a metaphor for Christ bringing illumination - literally allowing the [spiritually] blind to see if they have faith in Him. The man said the first time Christ wiped the spit in his eyes that he saw the likeness of trees. This is actually what happens when people transition from sight to blindness, and vice versa - a literal medical confirmation. Moreover, those trees were Christ and the men with Him. This was to highlight how trees are symbols of bodies, humanoids, people. It should give perspective on who the Tree of Life (unity) was in the garden, and who the Tree of knowledge of good and evil (duality) was. And, it should give insight on what fruits Adam and Eve ate from each tree (Hint: the parable of good trees, bad trees, and their production of good, bad, or no fruit. In relation to the message of life and unity with God (good fruit) - or the message of carnal lusts, enchantment, self indulgence and self-elevation/ego (bad/no fruit.)

Overall, it was a powerful symbol of trust and relationship - not some weird case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy from an not-good God. It even taught whatever principality that brought about the ailment that in the presence of God, nothing against Him or His people will prevail. Everyone learns something, and everyone/everything receives its justly due rewards.

Since humans right now have the designation of "son of man," since we lost the designation of "Son of God," we are subject to an imperfect status, in an imperfect world that was once our God-given perfect planet in which we had full dominion. Now, satan has dominion: whatever God allows him to do satan will do it. And, if that means blinding a person from birth - he will do it if God allows it.

My $0.02.

 

[Yitzchak]

I'm not convinced we can fully trust the Bible in the language and form we have it today. Translation is such a complex process affected by commercial, philosophical and theological issues. Whilst very good - and I wouldn't want to be without it - it is not a perfectly translated (if perfect translation were even possible) and, in my view, some translation should be reconsidered.

Which is why this thread was started - trying to reconcile the nature and character of God (eg the Bible tells us He is good) with accounts of Him appearing to behave in a way that seems contrary.

Regards,

Mike

As I mentioned earlier , the punctuation is an interpretation by the translators. Not only that , as we have seen , some of these words can take on several meanings. Hina is such a word. It does not have a fixed dictionary meaning which is evidenced by the list of several options when one pulls up the word in the concordance. The meaning is subject to context and subject to the inferences of the reader or listener. In other words it is determined by what makes sense according to the immediate context and also according to the interpretation and preconceptions of the listener / translator. This is not just my opinion, but is a general principle in translation and interpretation of any language including the Bible. In short , what does the speaker really mean ?

The Greek word alla , which is translated as but is translated differently in other passages , in the Bible.

In 17 places , the Greek word alla is translated as Yea.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Joh 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

In 10 places , alla is translated as nevertheless

Mar 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The Greek word hina , is also translated in several different ways. 42 times, hina is translated as lest.

Mat 17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

In this verse , if we were to translate this as in order that , it would cause the opposite meaning which context tells us is not the case. It would read this way instead...

Mat 17:27 Notwithstanding, in order that we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Mat 26:5 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

The same thing is true about this verse. The same Greek word hina is used and translated as lest. If we would translate it as in order that , then it would read this way... which gives the completely opposite meaning. I may not be a Greek scholar , but it seems likely that translators decide both the punctuation and which meaning to select , by their understanding of the context. Which takes us back to square one. The translators translated the verse in John 9:3 based upon their interpretation of the context and meaning. I am not saying that it is wrong to translate it as but in order that. I am simply saying that is likely not the only option. Likewise , the punctuation has more than one option.

Mat 26:5 But they said, Not on the feast day, in order that there be an uproar among the people.

If one looks at all of the options for translating this passage , including the punctuation and which part goes with which , one comes up with the possibility of interpreting it differently.

This well known passage in Isaiah has this issue. Does the phrase , like a flood apply to the enemy or to the Lord ?

King James

Isa 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

Until someone can show me compelling evidence as to why the choices were made to translate John 9:3 , with the punctuation , they way it is , then I am sticking with the possibility that it is open to interpretation.

My edited version which changes the comma...

Isa 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in , like a flood the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

I am doing some reading on the word hina and it makes a very interesting word study.

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1395/1/Sim_thesis.pdf


In the Septuagint , hina is used in this verse and takes on the meaning because. More properly , it is because of this referring to the previous clause.

(YLT) and Abraham calleth the name of that place `Jehovah-Jireh,' because it is said this day in the mount, `Jehovah doth provide.'

(LITV) And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah Will See; so that it is said until this day, In the mount of Jehovah it will be seen.

If we take this use of the word hina and substitute it into our John passage , we get. Which can be taken as , because of the fact that the sickness is not for the cause of sin , therefore the healing should come. In other words because sin does not prevent the healing , he will heal him.

Joh 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: because of this, the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Potential paraphrase...

Joh 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: so because sin is not the cause and does not stand in the way of his healing, then the works of God should be made manifest in him.

 

[Biblicist]

I'm not convinced we can fully trust the Bible in the language and form we have it today. Translation is such a complex process affected by commercial, philosophical and theological issues. Whilst very good - and I wouldn't want to be without it - it is not a perfectly translated (if perfect translation were even possible) and, in my view, some translation should be reconsidered.

Even though complications can arise when any document is translated from a donor language to a receptor language; with regard to John 9:3,we can be confident that the translators have correctly translated Johns record with the words of Jesus in this passage. As this passage is linguistically uncomplicated, we can forgo any perceived uncertainties regarding the tense of the Greek words as the text means what it means.

We need to avoid the common trap where people apply too much emphasis with the linguistic structure of a passage. With John 9:3, we need to consider what Jesus meant, did he mean to imply that the man was made this way before he was born or that God knew that even though he was born infirm, by no choice of the Father, that the Father simply chose to have this man restored by Jesus at a later date. This absolutely cannot be decided by the passage itself, as it does not contain enough information. We need the entire counsel of God's Word to make a decision on this.

When you first raised your question, my initial reply was that it seemed to indicate that he was born this way. With some more thought, I realised that this was not the case and when I checked out my Greek grammars, this also allowed me to understand that the Greek does not indicate either way and that the NIV and most other translations have correctly translated the Greek into English. To summarise, we cannot say from the passage, if God chose to make the man infirm while in the womb or that as He knew of the mans plight from birth, that he chose to have him meet with Jesus so that he could be restored.

I'm not convinced we can fully trust the Bible in the language and form we have it today.

When you begin to study the history of the development of the New Testament and with the state of current Greek New Testament, this allows us to have full and complete confidence with the text of the Greek New Testament (NA27/GNT4).

Unlike the standard Greek Text, which is the fore mentioned NA27/GNT4, when it comes to the unreliable Greek texts of the old Textus Receptus or with the “Majority” text, then you would be more than justified in feeling uncomfortable with their reliability, but these relics thankfully belong to a past age.

 

[Yitzchak]

We need to avoid the common trap where people apply too much emphasis with the linguistic structure of a passage. With John 9:3, we need to consider what Jesus meant, did he mean to imply that the man was made this way before he was born or that God knew that even though he was born infirm, by no choice of the Father, that the Father simply chose to have this man restored by Jesus at a later date. This absolutely cannot be decided by the passage itself, as it does not contain enough information. We need the entire counsel of God's Word to make a decision on this.

I agree that we need several factors to make a proper interpretation and there is not enough information to be dogmatic, either one way or the other , based upon the Greek text alone.

The translators seem to have made their best guess out of several options based upon the context , their understanding of Greek and their overall understanding of scripture and what would make the most sense. I am confident that they were sincere in that.

But in answer to your original question , it is as least possible to translate and interpret the verse in another way. The verse does not say that God made the person sick.

Ironically , I find myself making the argument for dynamic equivalence rather than word for word.