at all...
No darkness
John 9
John 9 - The man born blind
Most of us will agree that the Bible is inspired but are the translations? Chapter and verse headings, Italicized words and punctuation were not supplied in the original Greek, these were put in at the translator’s discretion. To presume that there are no errors in translations would simply be ignorant. Another important thing to remember is all translations (without exception) are affected by the existing beliefs of the translators. With these things in mind let’s look at the story.
John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. KJV
If we read these verses trusting that the King James translators were perfect in placing all punctuation exactly as God wanted, we could come to the conclusion that God made this man blind for the sole purpose of healing him later. Does that sound like something Jesus would do? Let’s look at this verse again but this time we will change the punctuation. We will not change any words, just one period and one capital letter.
John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents. But 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.
Jesus simply said, “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents". Period, end of sentence. Then He goes on to say that He must work the (works of God). What are the works of God?
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Jesus never gave blindness, He gave sight. Jesus never gave sickness, He healed. Jesus is God and was going about doing God's work, healing everyone oppressed by the (devil). In addition to this, we have many respected theologians and scholars that have valid alternatives to the King James version. Lets look at a couple.
The verse should not be interpreted as suggesting that God's will is behind this man's blindness in the first place, and this is my third point. The original verse does not say that "he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed." The Greek simply has hina with the aorist subjunctive passive of phaneroo ("to manifest") and can readily be translated as, "But let the works of God be manifested." As is certainly the case in Mark 5:23, Ephesians 5:33,2 Corinthians 8:7; as is likely the case in Mark 2:10, 5:12, 10:51 and a host of other passages; and as is frequently the case in the Septuagint and later postapostolic writings, the hina here should be taken as forming an imperative, not a purposive, clause.
In this light, Jesus is simply saying that, in contrast to the misguided moralistic speculations of the disciples, the only thing that matters concerning this man's blindness is that God can overcome it and thus be glorified through it. In the satanically ruled world in which he and his disciples ministered, and in which we ourselves still live, there is no discernible particular reason why this man was born blind. The disciples' questions, like the many assertions of Job's "friends," were based on the false assumption that God is behind all things, and thus that there must be a good reason for such things as blindness and the demonic torturing of a little girl-punishing sin, building character or glorifying God, for example.
In this reading, however, Jesus is simply refuting (not modifying) this assumption. He is, in effect, saying that the only response to this man's sorry condition is, "Let the works of God be manifested!" This obviously has monumental theological implications. [1] Dr. Greg Boyd
To further drive his point home, Dr. Boyd references another scholar of the Greek languages named Nigel Turner. Turner's remarks are well worth quoting here:
The hypothesis of the imperatival hina ... releases the text from the fatalism which had obsessed it, and dissolves the picture which had become familiar through all our English versions, a man destined from birth to suffer for the sole purpose of glorifying God when he was healed.[2]
We can further add to the scholarship previously referenced that the Greek texts contain no punctuation so translators had to place them where they felt would be the proper place in the sentences. George Ricker Berry, in his introduction in the The Interlinear KJV Bible says this:
There is no authority anywhere for the punctuation. There are few or no points in the ancient copies, and editors natu-rally differ in their system of pointing. We have been obliged to punctuate for ourselves as we judged best.[3]
A.S. Worrell makes a similar observation in his translation of the New Testament:
It should be understood by the reader that the division of the different books of the New Testament into chapters and verses was the work of men; and it must be confessed, with deep regret, that the work, as a whole, was very poorly done; a chapter sometimes ending where perhaps a semicolon or even a comma should have been used; and a verse often ending where the slightest division was required. Such errors tend to obscure the sense.[4]
Dr. Worrell has made an interesting observation that can be applied to John 9:3 and 4. If we removed the period from the end of verse three, and replaced it with a comma or semicolon, and if we had not divided these two verses, we would have a better understanding of this text that is consistent with the rest of Scripture.
Gordon Lindsay, founder of the Christ For The Nations Bible Institute made this statement in volume 3 of his series of books, The Life and Teachings of Christ:
There is no punctuation in the original Greek and the sentence could be punctuated as follows: "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents, but 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."[5]
Further in his book, Gordon Lindsay makes it clear that he does not claim to have the correct punctua-tion. Nevertheless, he does present another alternative that the majority of English translations do not provide. One of the few that do offer this alternative is Robert Young's Literal translation of the Bible:
Jesus answered, `Neither did this one sin nor his parents, but that the works of God may be manifested in him; it behoveth me to be working the works of Him who sent me while it is day; night doth come, when no one is able to work: -- when I am in the world, I am
a light of the world.' -John 9:3-5; Young's Literal Translation of the Bible
Notice that Young places a semicolon where most other translations use a period. According to the Webster's dictionary, a semicolon is used to indicate, "a degree of separation greater than that marked by the comma and less than that marked by the period." It is also used "...to separate closely related clauses."[6]
It seems that Dr. Young did not see the man's blindness as the "providence of God" or "for the Glory of God." We should not read this man's blindness as "divine providence" but rather as DIVINE OPPORTUNITY!!! If we read the passage carefully in the KJV, we will see that Jesus was not saying that God ensured that this man was born blind so that God could later heal him. What he was saying was that because this man was born blind, this provides a great opportunity to work the works of God. The Contemporary English version makes this distinction clearer:
As Jesus walked along, he saw a man who had been born blind since birth. Jesus' disciples asked, "Teacher, why was this man born blind? Was it because he or his parents sinned?" "No, it wasn't!" Jesus answered. "But because of his blindness, you will see God work a miracle for him. As long as it is day, we must do what the one who sent me wants me to do. When night comes, no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (John 9:1-5; Contemporary English Version)
A controversial paraphrase of the New Testament by Eugene Peterson called "The Message" also brings the thought of divine opportunity rather than divine providence in this case:
Walking down the street, Jesus saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked, "Rabbi, who sinned: this man or his parents, causing him to be born blind?" Jesus said, "You're asking the wrong question. You're looking for someone to blame. There is no such cause-effect here. Look instead for what God can do. We need to be energetically at work for the One who sent me here, working while the sun shines. When night falls, the workday is over. For as long as I am in the world, there is plenty of light. I am the world's Light." (John 9:1-5; The Message by Eugene Peterson)
The conclusion is; technically or literally the story of the man born blind can read either way. Because the original Greek did not supply what is needed you will have to ask God yourself. Did God blind this man from birth for the sole purpose of healing him later? Is that your Father? Does that sound like Jesus? Or, does the alternative reading which is just as valid as the traditional sound more like your Father?
By Tim Cooper
