This lets me know you don't have a general working knowledge of the greek, its pretty well established the hina clause casts a different light with the subjunctive and denotes purpose and result
Let’s examine what was said, in part, in the article:
“What you have bumped into here is what’s called a “hina” clause in Greek grammar.
Essentially, that is a “purpose” clause that follows a subjunctive participle.”
I agree with this completely. It is exactly what I said to you, that X happened in order that Z might occur.
“The “purpose” clause changes the subjunctive mood (which we think of as possibility or probability) to a statement of definite result.”
No, it indicates a purposed result, not an actual result. X happens so that, or in order that (hina) Z may be able (subjective mood) to happen.
“It’s the difference between saying “I might come over later if the feeling strikes me” and “I brought food to the hungry that they might eat.” The first statement is a possibility. But, the second statement contains a purpose, so in Greek grammar that changes the mood, letting the reader know that the participle (in this case “might” or “may”) has a more definite force.”
The statement “I brought food to the hungry that they might eat.” Does not mean they actually ate. It only means that ‘bringing food to the hungry’ is done with the intent and purpose to make eating possible! It doesn’t definitively mean that those to whom food was brought ate. The result was that they “might eat”, but not that they did eat.
“Each of the verses you’ve cited above contains a “purpose” clause. Consequently, the weight of the participle shifts from probable to definite.”
The only thing ‘definite’, is that the potential of being saved is now definitely a real potential because “we have been bound over to disobedience by God.
“ For instance, in Romans 15:4 the purpose for “everything written in the past” was “to teach us, so that … we might have hope.” The purpose of the writing was to produce hope in the reader. So, in Greek grammar, that “hina” clause gives the impression of definite result”
Here I find a curious choice of words; “So, in Greek grammar, that “hina” clause gives the impression of definite result”
Why does he use “impression of definite result”?; how oxymoronic! Are we actually saved because we are bound over to disobedience? What then of the need of belief? Belief is the missing link in this equation. We are bound over to disobedience in order that he might be merciful if and when we believe.
Taking his Rom 15:4 example, “everything written in the past” was “to teach us, so that … we might have hope.”
That we might have hope is not to say we have entrusted ourselves to that hope. The purpose of “everything written in the past” was so that the possibility of us having hope might be realized.
Doug
