I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life—from Jesus’ Perspective

Don: Jesus’ statement:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6)

was a mission statement. It is an overarching affirmation of the Trinitarian God: God the Father, who is embodied by the Truth; God the Holy Spirit, which is the Way; and God the Son—Jesus—who is the Life. It encompasses the creator, the sustainer, and the redeemer. It also reveals the beginning, the end, and the way in between—the alpha, the omega, and the path between them.

Jesus did not say that he knew the Way, but that he is the Way. He is the way back to the Father, back to the Garden of Eden, back to the Truth, back to the Life.

And yet, the statement sounds exclusive, limiting, and prejudicial. The Crusaders and other missionaries have used it as justification for imposing their views on others. Other scriptural statements such as that in Acts 4—that there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved, and that in Ephesians 4—that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism—seem to support that justification. Many people still hold firm to this belief.

On the other hand, Isaiah said:

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from His people.” Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord, “To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.

“Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath And holds fast My covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”


The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, “Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.” (Isaiah 56:3-8)

And Revelation reveals a future kingdom encompassing all the nations and people:

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Revelation 7:9-10)

And this is not to mention the many passages we have discussed in this class, such as:

I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. (John 10:16)

These statements speak of a resolve that is clearly inclusive, open, all-encompassing. In seeming contrast, there is the issue of the narrow way:

For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:14)

It seems we are expected to get on the path to Jesus so that through him we can get to the Father. We are expected to believe in Jesus, whatever that may mean. We are expected to become baptized in some way of the water and of the spirit, and somehow embrace Christianity. That is our job, our mission; through which we shall be saved.

It does not explain what happens to others, including God-fearing folks who lived before Jesus was born or those who have never heard of him to this day. It might be argued that this is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to get behind Jesus so that when the opportunity arises—or, better yet, when we create the opportunity—we can tell others about him so that they may be saved as well. This is the basis for Christian missionary work.

But read from the perspective of Jesus himself, his “No-one comes to the Father but through me” statement might present a very different meaning, one more consonant with the story of Zaccheus, the rich tax collector who offered to give half of his wealth to the poor and to make amends to those he had defrauded, of whom Jesus then said:

…“Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:9-10)

Jesus specifically sought out Zaccheus:

“Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” (Luke 19:5)

This is the same story as the shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, the homeowner who seeks the lost coin, the father who seeks his lost prodigal son.

Michael made this profound observation in a post on our website on Christmas Day:

There was a question in the class: If Truth seeks us, as exemplified in many stories in the Bible, then do we need to do something about it?

I think the answer can be gleaned from the same stories referred to. Yes, we do need to do something about it. We need to get lost.

We need to get lost in order that we might be found. Given our fallen nature, getting lost is not difficult for us—it is our natural tendency. The good news—the gospel—is that Jesus is the way to the Father and that we do not have to find our way to Jesus but that he will find his way to us. Thus, the statement “No one comes to the Father but through Me” becomes a description of Jesus’ work. “It is my job and nobody else’s,” Jesus seems to be saying, “to get you to the Father.” Jesus is like a Sherpa guide on Mount Everest in that he can lead you to the top of the mountain, but he doesn’t just know the way—he is the way.

What this means is that wherever Jesus leads is the path back home. He is the narrow way, the only way, whether we know it or not or whether we even know Jesus or not. The way is narrow because it is singular. It is not uniform. We seek to define and follow a uniform way back home, but there isn’t one. For every individual in every place at every time there is a way, but it is not anybody else’s way. It is the specific, individual, personal way to capital T Truth. It is just what you and you alone need. That is why it is singular, that is why it is narrow.

In my field of medicine we are learning that it is harmful to treat everyone the same way. The new trend towards personalized medicine treats us all as unique individuals as defined and expressed by our individual genomes and by epigenetics—the effects of environment on our individual genomes. If the cure for the ailing body is unique and individual, why not the cure for the lost soul? Your personalized way is known only to God, your creator. You were made in his image and share, as it were, his genetics. He knows you thoroughly. The narrow way for you is the work of divinity. It is not the work of humanity. It is the way in which a camel can get through the eye of a needle, which is exactly what Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler who basically asked Jesus the way and was dismayed that it involved giving up his wealth:

But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:22-26)

The finding of the narrow way for each of us, from the beginning of time, is known only to God, who will prepare it for us and help us along it:

Your ears will hear a word behind you, “This is the way, walk in it,” whenever you turn to the right or to the left. (Isaiah 30:21)

It is the job of the divine Jesus to help us along the narrow path. The alternative—the broad path—is our mortal way, and it leads nowhere.

Robin: Perhaps Jesus was saying that to be the way was the whole reason why God became flesh.

David: If it is a personal issue then is religion redundant? Religion is a group activity, a community activity. Or is there a balance between the ways of individual and the community? Do most of our problems stem from their imbalance? A focus on the individual becomes selfish; a focus on the community fosters exclusivity and lack of caring for outsiders.

Perhaps it is a difference between the personal God—the inner light in each of us—and the public, communal God of the Bible? The spiritual dissonance that leads to doubt is perhaps the result of contradictions between what the inner God tells us and what the God of the Bible is reported to have said.

Michael: Perhaps there is something communal in the aggregation of our individual ways.

Robin: There weren’t many people in the Bible who went off by themselves. Perhaps John the Baptist did to some degree, but when he was calling people to be baptized and to repent he was in community with them even though he didn’t live in the village or city. Salvation is individual, but most of us need community for comfort, for the exchange of ideas, and for the use of different talents for different things. So we can’t say that any one aspect [individual or communal] is more important than another. In saying he would “dwell in the house of the Lord forever,” David was implying a communal experience.

Don: We’ve talked about “radical individualism” as something that accepts a strong responsibility for community and that was perhaps best exemplified in the life of Jesus. He was a rugged individualist radically inclined to the support and nurture of community.

David: Spiritually, Job seems to have been very much an individual who chose his own way with God, yet he did not reject his friends—only their views. Job listened to his inner God, not the communal God of his friends, but he clearly cared for his friends and therefore for community. Job’s way was his and his alone, but it came to him—he did not have to search for it.

Jay: When we talk about individuals and the community, sometimes we flip-flop between what we might call “pseudo” community and “true” community. True community acts as a safe place for individualism. Religion, or church, is typically not a very true community in terms of accepting the individual. They require the opposite: Uniformity. There may be less dissonance in true community; the problem is that true community is difficult to achieve.

I loved trigonometry when I was a student, but as a teacher I found it hard to get my students interested in it—there was no one way that appealed to all. I had to approach each of them differently. Their responses were drastically different, depending on their skill sets, what type of learner they were, and so on. My point is: If everybody has to follow the same way, many will fail.

Robin: Jesus encouraged us to use our individual abilities for community—to visit the sick and the imprisoned, to feed the poor, and so on. One person does not have all that is needed to be a self-sufficient individual. We have farmers, doctors, technologists, and so on. If we all functioned only as individuals, life would be hard!

David: In the long term technology supports individualism. It helps us grow our own food while medicating ourselves and so on. We grow less dependent on others as we grow more dependent on technology. If the nature of the individual is changing, what about the nature of community? Twitter and Facebook communities are not the same as the face-to-face communities that surround us physically, in the neighborhood, workplace, or church. Our own little community of Don’s class consists of people living in Finland, India, Hawaii and other places and meeting via Skype technology. In that sense, the nature of Don’s class has changed from what it once was. I believe the end result is more enrichment; but to many, the loss of local community and of the ability to reach out and physically touch is impoverishment.

Robin: It’s so much easier to be disrespectful or rude when not physically present. You miss seeing the hurt feelings in a pure text dialog. It’s a balancing act.

Charles: I see the issue of Jesus statement that he is the way, the truth and the life not as an either/or proposition (i.e. either faith in Jesus (Christianity) is the only way to the God or the way is purely the work of divinity and we have no specific choices to make with respect to faith) but rather as a both/and proposition (i.e. Jesus is the only way back to the father and we do have choices to make to the extent those choices become manifest). Yes, Salvation is the business of divinity—it is the business of Jesus—to bring fallen Man to the Trinitarian God. However, it was man that made the choice to separate from God and it is man who must make the choice to be reconciled to God. It is not mutually exclusive in my opinion to say that fallen man both has a choice and that the prerogative of salvation resides ultimately in God’s mercy manifested through, with and in Jesus Christ. The story of all of scripture from eternity past to eternity future is the story of Salvation (Jesus). Jesus Christ comes out of eternity past, existed in the flesh, and carries on to eternity future. The Judaeo-Christian canon of scripture is the story of Jesus Christ despite the temptation to limit our perspective to his manifestation in the flesh. John did not say “In the beginning, God spoke the word”, rather “In the beginning WAS the word.” Jesus (The Word) pre-existed the story of creation and when Jesus says that he is the Way and the Truth and the Life, Jesus was reiterating that fact. That all people and nations will come to that realization is a part of the story of Salvation that will play out according to God’s terms and in God’s time. That each individual which face a choice between accepting Jesus and permanent separation from the Trinitarian God is a reality because God is reality. He was and is the Word, he was and is with God, he was and is God. So I find it easier not to distinguish between the temporal aspects and the physical presence of God in the flesh and the story of reconciliation of fallen man with the community of the trinity. Jesus sits at that interface and has already paid the price for our sins, so the issue of acceptance has already been settled in God’s love of and mercy for every man. But just as every man has a fallen nature on the basis of Adam’s choice of separation from God through the deliberate violation of God’s will, so also will every man have a choice about reconciliation and acceptance of Jesus. Only God knows when that choice occurs for every man; but the judgment scene in Revelation suggests that every man will face that choice when he/she sits before the Judgement Seat of Christ and gives an account for his/her life. To the extent that technology and communication and modern community offer man a chance to consider whether to accept Jesus as redeemer and savior and accept or reject him during their life in the flesh it is possible that they may be judged on that choice but this still leaves plenty of room for Christ to grant access to the kingdom of God, the community of the Trinity, according to his way and at his time. Even so this declarative “I am” statement places Jesus Christ at the nexus of reconciliation/salvation for every man. Thus scripture suggests it is impossible e to avoid the question of whether to accept or reject Jesus, because all things were created through him. The church, his body of believers in the spirit, is just a small fraction of the story of Salvation. The Christian Church on earth began at Pentecost and proceeds on through to the Rapture before the Great Tribulation begins. As I read scripture, Jesus is manifest throughout the continuum of the Creation, the Fall and the Salvation of Man, an integral aspect of the Trinitarian God throughout eternity.

David: I do not see why it is impossible to avoid the question of accepting Jesus as the way. It is inevitable that those who never hear of Jesus will never face the question. Yet they may still face the question of “Which way?” and choose the Way—the Daoist Way, or Jesus. The name doesn’t matter.

Charles: I’m not sure religious definitions are as important as making a clear distinction between those who may have lived out their earthly lives and never been exposed to the Gospel of Jesus and those who have been exposed to it and make a conscious decision to reject it/him. As I mentioned, I don’t see breaks in Jesus throughout the Judaeo-Christian canon of scripture. In other words, he comes from eternity past, exists through creation, and proceeds on to eternity future. He is the alpha and the omega. He is God. The entire Bible—old and new testaments—is that story. I do, however, make a distinction between those who have been exposed to the choice as to whether they accept God’s revelation through Jesus Christ and those who never have been exposed to Jesus. Even so, the ultimate consequence of choosing to reject him is the business of God and I find it easier to frame that the choice for those who have never had an opportunity to make that decision in the flesh, in this earthly life, will ultimately have the opportunity when he sits in judgment of our earthly lives. That it is ultimately Jesus who will determine reconciliation with the Trinitarian God for every man. God’s ways are not our ways and I don’t pretend to have answers, but I do believe that scripture suggests there is a difference if someone has never been exposed to the Gospel of Jesus and someone who has been exposed to it and willfully chooses to reject it. For me this does not imply that it is impossible that Jesus Christ in the role of mediator of Salvation could not grant it to whomever he chooses, but I think scripture is clear that we are not saved through our works but rather that we are saved by “Grace through Faith.” So I struggle with it myself, even though I am not going to make the judgment for anyone else as to whether or not there is a consequence to rejecting the reality of God and specifically the reality of Jesus Christ. I do think scripture suggests there is a consequence to that choice, but I have no clue whether it occurs during earthly life or at the end of the great tribulation.

Jay: I too struggle with the concept of the reality of God and the reality of Jesus Christ. My biggest struggle with the making of the choice is that access to that reality—how meaningful it is, how prominent the reality of Jesus Christ is in an individual’s life—seems so bound by time and geography. If it were such a critical component of the plan of salvation, how could it be so bound? It seems that time and place of birth confer a fair or unfair advantage and I can’t believe God is unfair.

Charles: I would agree that would be true, to the extent we see Jesus as a time-bound figure occupying a specific time-slot within the story of eternity. But if we see all of eternity as a manifestation of Christ (for which I think there is some support in scripture, and though like everyone else I struggle with the concept of infinity, it suggests an everlasting-ness, an alpha/omega, to Jesus) then in that sense then it becomes “Do you accept God, do you worship God, do you worship the creator or the creature”? I think almost everybody has that choice presented during earthly life, irrespective of whether or not they are exposed to the Gospel of Jesus. It gets back to our discussion of morality. My point is that the issue of the decision about how something comes from nothing, about whether there is a creator or not, is tied up in that question. It’s only when you limit Jesus to the period of time he spent in the flesh that you get to struggle with all the religious overtones. That’s not to say that the Church is not important or not helpful or not part of God’s divine plan, rather that the Christian church on earth has temporal story. The Church wasn’t there forever and it doesn’t apparently exist throughout the entire story of salvation. The Church has a temporal-ness to it, being from Pentecost to the rapture. It’s real enough, but there was plenty before and will be plenty after. I find it easier to see Jesus Christ as from everlasting to everlasting, because then it comes down to a question of faith, to what you worship: The creator, the everlasting God, or the creature. It allows everybody to give account of themselves.

Jay: The name “Jesus” has a time-bound sense to it. We don’t think of Jesus before Bethlehem. What you call the everlasting Jesus is what I would call Love. Instead of saying that “Jesus is timeless” I would say that goodness, love and grace are timeless. So the choice we face is whether to believe in goodness, love, and grace, or not.

Charles: The concept of Jesus as the alpha and the omega. As an eternal manifestation of the community of eternal Trinitarian God is not an easy concept, but framing Jesus in that manner makes some of the things we are talking about easier. It doesn’t exclude the reality of Emmanuel—God with us, Jesus in the flesh—it just doesn’t limit God’s revelation to that period in the scope of eternity. Jesus was a real person. Jesus/Emmanuel was and is the face of God’s mercy. The heart of man could not reconcile with God by his own will. Man’s heart, apart from God, “is desperately wicked”. God provided the answer out of his Grace and his Mercy. Jesus is that answer for those who choose to accept him, but whether you choose to accept him or not, scripture says you will ultimately face him and that interface with him will determine your fate. So why not accept him? Everything sounds like a nice philosophical construct, but what do you do with the guy who rejects it? Is there a consequence? My Judaeo-Christian roots and the Judaeo-Christian cannon suggest there is, but I don’t profess to know there is or if there is when it occurs—today, at the moment of death, at the second coming. It is precisely the point that I don’t know anything, instead I choose to believe in faith.

Chris: The words “ritual” versus “real” keep springing to mind. I think through many points in history people have become ritualistic. They’ve set up their own terms, their own ways, their own ideas of God and how to reach him; to the point where God became flesh so he could show by example what the real thing, the real way, the real God, looks like and is about and thus help us to relate to God, interact with him, and ultimately get to the prize. Jesus showed us what was real in contrast to what was man-made ritual. He showed us what real community was about. It was not ritual-based communities set up by the Pharisees and churches and so on, but about grace and love and respect. I think Jesus was there at the Beginning and will be there at the End and was chosen to become the example to show us what God was about so that we can have a better understanding so that we can strive for true community with him instead of defining him and putting him in a box.

Michael: If the way is narrow because it is for one person and Jesus is both the way and the shepherd, where does the judgment scene fit? It seems that judgment is converted into grace.

Don: We will be discussing this question shortly.

David: Once you define and name a God—which is what scripture is all about—then you have set up something to be accepted or rejected. If you never set it up to begin with, then people still face the same choice in life: Good or evil. That is the way. Those who know him may believe that Jesus is the right way but it is not necessary to know that, because every person on Earth knows goodness from evil and knows that goodness is the way—whether they accept it or not. So scriptural naming and description and definition only serves to muddy the waters. It hurts.

Charles: Objective evil assumes objective good. The assumption of objective good assumes an ultimate moral authority upon which to make that distinction. If there is no ultimate morality authority, then the distinction between good and evil ultimately becomes a matter of individual and by proxy to societal preference and morality becomes relative. I believe that ultimately both individual and societal preference are prone to error, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

* * *