And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God. John 3:19-21
In almost every facet of life, people follow the law of rationality which demands we gather all available evidence about any given subject, reason about that evidence, and draw only such conclusions as are demanded by the evidence. We naturally do so as we are created in the image of a rational God, and we received this trait as part of our general makeup. It is imperative that we apply this God-given trait in our daily affairs because it is the only way we may perceive the many cause-and-effect relationships within the events of our lives. Such recognition keeps us from harming ourselves in various ways, be they physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual.
Sadly, when it comes to the evidence surrounding Christ and His divine nature, people are often blinded by the light He came to shed on our world (John 1:4-10). As the atheistic philosopher David Hume once wrote, “When reason is against a man, he will soon turn against reason.” The point he was making is that no one shirks the law of rationality unless the truth in view threatens his/her preconceptions or predisposition to act in certain ways. Sadly, Mr. Hume did just this with the evidence for the Christ. This was also the case with Jesus’ enemies in His day. Several examples of this are easily identified in Scripture. We will consider a sampling of these passages to avoid making the same mistakes and being blinded by the light of Christ.
In Matthew 12:22-32 Jesus cast a demon out of a man thereby healing the man of blindness and muteness. Any rational person would see this awesome display as the work of God. No human possesses such power, and no one can reasonably deny that what Jesus did was truly a gracious, benevolent, and upright action. A great many in the crowd made the proper assessment of the evidence and identified Jesus as the Son of David (Messiah) who was to come (vs. 23). They reasoned properly about the evidence. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were affected in the opposite way and accused Jesus of being possessed by Satan and casting out the demon by his power. They turned against reason.
Another example of such blindness is in Mark 3:1-6 when the Pharisees sought to accuse Jesus of Sabbath breaking for healing a man with a withered hand. Knowing their thoughts, He called the man to Himself and asked them if it was lawful to do good and save life on the Sabbath, or if it were better to be indifferent and cause harm (vs. 4). They refused to answer the question because the reasonable answer would have indicted them for their hardness. Such callousness angered the Lord, so He immediately healed the man in their presence. Rather than praise God for this display of His power and kindness, they plotted with the Herodians to destroy Jesus.
After He raised Lazarus in John 11, they plotted how to kill Him to stop the growth of His following (John 11:45-53). In John 12:9-11, the chief priests set their sights on Lazarus to destroy him for being raised by Jesus because he was walking, talking proof of Jesus’ deity. For this, many of the Jews were leaving the Jewish elites and believing in Jesus (vs. 11). This is where the truth of their motives is revealed. John 3:19-21 tells us that people reject His light (turn against reason) because their deeds are evil, they prefer darkness to light, and they do not wish to have their evil exposed. This is precisely why the scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests hated Jesus. He threatened their power and prestige. He unmasked their hypocrisy (cf. Matthew 23). Pomp, pride, position, and power were their primary concerns (John 11:47-48). So, they turned against reason because it was against their selfish desires. Your selfish desires and mine are likely different, but we still face the same question they did. Will we accept the evidence or turn against reason?