Light and Logic in St. John

The Gospel of John is, among other things, a manual on how to think rationally. This is one reason for the persistent motif of "light" and "darkness." Plato had already spoken of a cave where slaves were held until one returned to announce a bright world outside: partly a metaphor for how we know things, and our limits on knowing. Now John would introduce the person who entered the cave and brought those willing to leave up into the light.

Chapters 9 and 10 are particularly pointed. Jesus heals a man "born blind." Everyone knows him. Or was it merely someone who looked like him? There is some debate. After all, there are scammers about, tricksters who plant the audience with fakes to part desperate people from their cash.

So religious leaders call the man in to testify. Were you born blind? Yes, I was. How did that happen? This man spit on a lump of clay, smeared my eyes, then told me to go wash. But it's the Sabbath! We know this man, he is a sinner. Our conclusion follows logically: God instituted the Sabbath, this man fails to follow it, so he opposes God. I don't know about that. I concede the limits to my knowledge. I only know (and this is first-hand testimony, backed up by all those people who knew me) I was blind, and now I see.

So they call in his parents. Is this your son? Last we checked, yes. Was he born blind? He certainly was. And now he sees? Evidently. How did that happen? Objection, your honor, hearsay. Sustained. Ask the witness who "saw" what happened, not these second-hand lions.

Formerly blind man, we know this fellow is a sinner. Really? Since when does God listen to sinners? I have some Logos on my side, too, your honors: God's kindly act, in agreement with his creation of light itself soon after the Big Bang -- He is the light-giver -- shows his will more directly than your interpretation of His general and culturally-conditioned rather than universal commands.

Formerly blind man kicked out. Finds Jesus. Believes because of the evidence of his counter-entropic experience.

Next chapter, Jesus compares himself to a good shepherd, and to the door of the sheep, and warns against wolves. Categories differentiate: one should not be so naive as to believe every sharp-toothed guru who comes down the pike. I came into the world so that the blind would see, and that those who reject the evidence before them will make themselves blind. My sheep not only see, but hear my voice, and recognize it. So the great actions and the authoritative teachings complement one another, like metals bonding in a strong epistemic alloy.

How can you tell between shepherd and wolf or hired hand? When danger threatens, the hired hand runs away. The wolf fattens itself on the flock -- his doctrines confirm his economic biases, justify his harem and palace, at great cost to his disciples. But a religious leader who acts contrary to his interests, tends to demonstrate sincerity. Giving one's life for one's followers -- not hoarding girls and treasure, grasping political power, or slipping away when things go south -- demonstrates sincerity, at least.

And if you don't believe me because of my words, because something says "Yes, yes!" when you hear my voice, or even because I'm about to give my life up, believe because of the miracles I have done. Doubt your own heart. Suppose I am sincere but deluded. Then what do you do with the miracles? They confirm my claims, and my calling, begging for an explanation beyond mere social dynamics. The fact that no one has spoken as I have, or with the authority I show, ought to give you some clue. But for those who do not make themselves blind with bad and self-serving logic -- Nicodemus came at night, because being "born again" really would make a leader politically helpless as a newborn babe -- the miracles which you have just confirmed from eyewitness testimony ought to clinch the deal.

But you're claiming too much! You, being a man, make yourself out to be divine! We have an epistemic right to stone you for blasphemy! And that might save our power base, too!

Begin your syllogism, then, with clear definitions. Think about your own tradition, and how the word "divine" is interpreted. The Old Testament already hints at a measure of divinity available to mortals. And doesn't your Bible also suggest that God will send a man who is divine in a fuller sense? Have you been reading these texts for hundreds of years, only to ignore them when they are fulfilled before your eyes? You have seen the signs, or at least taken testimony about cases such as that presently before the docket. Now look at the sky and reason about the time of day it is, and the stormy weather that is heading our way. Even if you fail to believe, you will not preserve your kingdom. For only he who gives his life up, will save it. That is what I meant when I told Nicodemus that he must be born again.

Stones? Sorry you have left the path of divine reason. My time has not yet come, so I'll be on my way.