From John 9

Sin didn't cause the man to be born blind. But sin does cause blindness.

It's like putting on glasses with someone else's prescription and paint stains on them. The information coming in via photons of light is correct, but it gets distorted on its way in. 'The Jews' didn't reject Jesus because of poor education or lack of information. Their sinful heart distorted how they saw things. In their sin they decided they were good.

No thanks Jesus, I can see quite fine without you. I don't need your light. I don't need anyone to teach me.

Yet the man born blind...

Do you believe in the Son of Man?

I don't know Jesus. No idea. But you've opened my eyes. You tell me what to believe, and I'll believe it. What should I believe? Who do I believe in?

I want the faith of a man born blind.

Anything you ask for...

Now, perhaps like many of you, I've heard a lot of defences for why "ask for anything and you'll get it" doesn't mean "ask for anything and you'll get it". Perhaps, like me, you've always thought that they sounded weak as a skinny white guy drinking diet-caffeine-free coke on a weekday.

Especially that whole smug "Well, what does 'in my name' mean then, hey?" comment. Pffft....

Well, today I was priveleged to have a crack at translating John 15, and get a bit of an insight into what is going on under the hood. It comes up a couple of times, but in particular vv16-17 are one which seem different in Greek than in English.

ESV:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
(Joh 15:16-17)

Now this is a good translation, I'm not complaining about it. What I had missed previously was 2 things.

1: The links between the sentences: the 'that's and the 'so that's.
2: That everything in the sentence after the first 'should' is in what is called the subjunctive mood. That means, it's a more hypothetical way of speaking. This is what the 'should' is trying to achieve.

Putting these together, you could outline the verse like so:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and have placed you
- so that
- - - - you might go
- - - - and you might bear fruit
- - - - and your fruit might remain
- so that
- - - - whatever you might ask the father in my name
- - - - he might give to you

When placed in this context, and so understood as a purpose statement (ie, it is the goal of the choosing, not a universal promise) it starts to look a little different to my eyes.

However, I don't think this gets completely gets Jesus off the hook for me not being in Spain playing professional roller hockey. More to come tomorrow. (some hints in the bolding)

He walked on the water, and swam on the land...

Just in translating John 6 today, have you ever wondered what it was like watching Jesus walk on the water? The waves were really big, so how did it work? I mean, was he just sortof floating, and as the waves went up and down he did too? Or did he kind of just pass through the waves? Or did he just happen to chart a path where the waves always manage to kindof move around him so he just kept walking straight?

This is probably the deepest post on John from me yet, so take a deep breath before responding.

What did a faithful Israelite believe?

My favourite 2-hour period of the week is the 2 hours on a Tuesday when I translate a chapter or so of John's gospel. Not least because it means I feel good about my ability to translate when it's really because John is the easiest thing in the world to translate!

Now, on to another cool discovery.

John 5:46(ESV)
For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.

However, the word 'believe' is both times in the imperfect tense. (ἐπιστεύετε) This means it is talking about a continuous action that happened in the past. The following translation would bring this out more:

For if you were believing Moses, then you were believing in me.

I reckon this is a fascinating little saying of Jesus. Is he essentially saying here that a faithful Israelite who was trusting in the testimony of the OT that pointed to Christ was in effect trusting in Him?

Very cool.