118 John C. Poirier Undoubtedly, the reason “day” and “night” are so regularly interpreted in a grander fashion — viz., as metaphorical for Christ’s bodily presence and absence from this world — is that vv. 3-4 have been read in close connection with v. 5: “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world”. This verse is almost always taken as an explanation of Jesus’ preceding reference to a day and an approaching night. But a closer look raises doubts as to whether v. 5 was intended to be read that way. More likely, Jesus’ reference to being “the light of the world” was intended as an introduction to the miracle he was about to perform, that of bringing sight to a blind man. In the words of Leon Morris, the language of v. 5 “initiates the story of the miracle in which Jesus (...) brings light into [a man’s] life”13. In other words, the reference to “light” in v. 5 was perhaps not intended to be linked with the reference to “day” in v. 4. A moment’s reflection on the logic of Jesus’ words supports this interpretation: if Jesus equated “night” with his approaching departure from this world, then he essentially tells his disciples that “we” must work the works of God before he (Jesus) departs from this world. While that is certainly possible, it makes his use of “we” rather strange, for why would Jesus include himself in a group that he says will soon be experiencing nightfall if in fact his own departure is what constituted that nightfall? The problem is greater than that of “an anomalous mixture of pronouns” (Fortna)14—the “we” is made inappropriate, on this reading, by the way this reading construes the symbol of nightfall. (And on this construal of “night”, would not the “greater works” promised in Jn 14,12 be worked after “nightfall”?) Substituting “I” (ἐμέ) for “we” (as in a1 A C Θ Ψ et al) is hardly an improvement, as the reference to “no man” then becomes nonsense15. It makes more sense, in my opinion, to treat v. 5 as the beginning of a new paragraph, whose symbolism does not answer to the language of the preceding verses. It might be objected that associating “day” and “night” with a Sabbath setting works perfectly well with the text as traditionally punctuated, and therefore does not constitute a support for my suggested repunctuation. But if this heightened understanding of Jesus’ breaking of the Sabbath corresponds at all with the intention of the narrative, then correlating Jesus’ claim that the works of God must be worked “while it is day” with guaranteeing the visibility of those works lines up with Jesus’ intention L. Morris “The Relation of the Signs and the Discourses in John”, in W. C. Weinrich 13 (ed.), The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke (Macon 1984) 363-72, esp. 368. R. T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to 14 Present Gospel (Philadelphia 1988) 111. It goes without saying that substituting “us” (ἡμᾶς) for “me” (as in P66, 75 L W et al) 15 bursts the bounds of Johannine theology.