Leandro J. Velardo
The disciples’ question in John 9:2 reflects an explanatory framework widely attested in Second Temple Judaism: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (RSV).1[1] Jesus’ response in John 9:3, however, raises an interpretive problem of considerable interest: “. . . but that the works of God might be made manifest in him” (RSV; see also Jer 31:29–30; Ezek 18). The dominant interpretation has understood this clause as expressing purpose, thereby establishing a teleological relationship between the man’s congenital blindness and the subsequent manifestation of divine activity. On such a reading, for example, James Bartley concludes that God providentially prepared the man born blind so that Jesus might later reveal His identity as the Son of God through the healing miracle.2[2]
Whatever the theological merits of this interpretation, the primary issue is linguistic.3[3] The question turns on both the structure of the discourse and the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the hina clause in John 9:3—that is, what the clause conveys and how it functions within the discourse.
Although modern English translations exhibit remarkable uniformity in their rendering of the verse, the Greek text allows for alternative construals. These readings arise from both differences in discourse segmentation and the range of discourse functions associated with hina clauses in Hellenistic Greek.
Two major lines of interpretation deserve brief attention.
Reading 1: Alternative Segmentation
On the basis of certain features of the earliest manuscript tradition—notably the absence of punctuation and the practice of scriptio continua—together with considerations related to Johannine discourse structure, several scholars have proposed an alternative segmentation of John 9:3–4.4[4]
According to this proposal, the final clause of verse 3 should be construed with the material that follows: “But in order that the works of God might be made manifest in him, we must work the works of him who sent me while it is yet day; night comes in which no one can work” (John 9:3b–4).5[5]
Under this interpretation, the hina clause does not provide an explanation for the origin of the man’s blindness. It establishes the pragmatic frame within which Jesus’ subsequent action is to be interpreted; the hina clause functions prospectively, orienting the reader toward the action that follows rather than retrospectively explaining the man’s condition. The discourse thus shifts attention from the cause of the affliction to the manifestation of God’s works through Jesus’ ministry.
Reading 2: Alternative Functions of the hina Clause
If the traditional segmentation is retained, the interpretation of the verse depends primarily on the semantic function and pragmatic force of the hina clause.
Option 1: Telic hina
The most common interpretation understands hina as marking purpose: “(He was born blind) so that the works of God might be manifested in him.”6[6] On this analysis, the clause carries a final force, thereby establishing a purposive relationship between the man’s blindness and the manifestation of God’s works.
Option 2: Volitive (or Imperatival) hina
A number of scholars have argued that hina may occasionally assume a volitive or imperatival function.7[7] On this basis, the clause may be understood as: “(He was born blind), but let the works of God be manifested in him.” Here hinadoes not indicate purpose but exhortation. Accordingly, the clause ceases to function as an explanation of the blindness and instead directs the reader’s attention to Jesus’ response to the blind man’s plight.
Option 3: Ecbatic hina
A third possibility is to interpret hina as expressing result, a usage that is attested in post-Classical and New Testament Greek.8[8] The clause may then be paraphrased as: “(He was born blind), but the outcome of this situation is that the works of God will be manifested in him.” Under this analysis, the semantic relationship is one of consequence, not purpose. The revelation of God’s works is therefore understood as the outcome of Jesus’ restorative activity and not as the intended purpose of the man’s congenital condition.9[9]
Conclusion
From a linguistic perspective, a non-teleological reading offers a more coherent account of the hina clause in John 9:3. The discourse unfolds from the description of the man’s condition to Jesus’ response, His restorative action, and finally to the manifestation of God’s works. Within this progression, the manifestation of God’s works emerges as the consequence of Jesus’ action rather than as the intended purpose of the man’s blindness.10[10]
Whether one adopts the alternative punctuation suggested in Reading 1 or one of the non-purposive interpretations discussed under Reading 2, the exegetical implications are broadly similar. In either case, the man’s congenital blindness is not to be understood as a condition brought about for the specific purpose of revealing God’s works. By contrast, the narrative places its emphasis on the manifestation of God’s works through the restorative activity of Jesus, whose role as the “light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5) provides the theological framework for interpreting the narrative (see John 9:1, 6–7, 11, 35–38).
For Jewish perspectives on the relationship between sin, suffering, and divine judgment reflected in this question, see Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 5 vols. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1924), 2:527–529. For further discussion, see David C. Kraemer, Responses to Suffering in Classical Rabbinic Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
Back to referenceJames Bartley, Juan B. Patterson, and Joyce Cope Wyatt, Juan, Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano 17 (El Paso, TX: Editorial Mundo Hispano, 2005), 210.
Back to referenceFor alternative interpretations, see, among others, John H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary (New York: T&T Clark, 1929), 2:324–326; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 2 vols., Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 1:371–372, 376–378; Charles K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1978), 356–357; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, 3 vols. (London: Burns & Oates, 1980), 2:240–242; Donald A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pelican New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 361–363; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 476–480; George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2nd ed., Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1999), 154–155; and Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 776–777.
Back to referenceSee, e.g., John C. Poirier, “‘Day and Night’ and the Punctuation of John 9:3,” New Testament Studies 42 (1996): 288–294; and John C. Poirier, “‘Day and Night’ and the Sabbath Controversy of John 9,” Filología Neotestamentaria 19 (2006): 113–120.
Back to referenceFollowing the discourse segmentation proposed by Poirier, “‘Day and Night’ and the Punctuation of John 9:3,” 294.
Back to referenceCf. Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1961), 186–188.
Back to referenceCf. Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 94–95; Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965), 145–148, esp. 145–147; and Charles F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 144–145.
Back to referenceCf. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Greek Grammar, 198. It should be noted that hina may be used “to convey a sense of result or consequence” (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Biblical Languages: Greek, 2nd ed. [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 235). Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 114 (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963), 122, observes that “constructions used classically in final sense only are now used in consecutive sense. . . . The very conjunctions ἵνα and ὥστε can be interchanged at times, so that ὥστε may have an obviously final sense or ἵνα an obviously consecutive one.” Similarly, Edwin Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften, vol. 2, bk. 3 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1934), 51, classifies certain hina constructions as “Substantivsätze der Wirkung” (“clauses of effect or result”). See further Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek (London: Macmillan, 1897), 455; and Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 167 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 224–225.
Back to referenceThe disciples themselves employ hina in a clause that may plausibly be understood as expressing a perceived consequence of sin (“Who sinned . . . so that he was born blind?”). This immediate discourse context therefore renders a resultative understanding of hina in Jesus’ response linguistically plausible, even if not required.
Back to referenceEllen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1898), 471, likewise observes that when Christ “corrected their error, He did not explain the cause of the man’s affliction, but told them what would be the result.” This observation reflects the same interpretive movement from cause to manifestation that underlies the ecbatic interpretation of the passage.
Back to reference