Way, Truth and Life

I had a conversation today where the typical question presented to people who hold to a non-foundational approach - "Wasn't Jesus' statement 'I am the way, the truth and the life' a foundationalist presupposition"?

I can't count the number of times that people have used this statement to suggest an exclusivist view or foundationalist view (there may well be an argument made for these positions but this passage is not it). (one could try to say that Jesus is making and exclusivist statement, but it is not built on the notion that it is Truthness that makes him so. Whatever it is that makes the Torah the way to God - this is, in my opinion, what Jesus is suggesting).

It is so maddening sometimes, not in the case of this conversation today, but it drives me mad.

It would be like taking the other seven "I Am" statements in John and thinking of them as literal statements - Jesus is really bread, really a vine, really a shepherd, or a door.

All of those are much better than that. Jesus was likening himself to Torah in the Way, Truth and Life. That was how the Torah was referred to, so Jesus was saying that he was as Torah.
There is great significance to this, all of which, in my opinion, are lost by the foundationalist perspective.

So the next time I hear someone say there must be absolute truth because Jesus said he was truth I am going to invite them to my house to hang a Jesus door, or prune the Jesus vines.

Comments

[arongahagan]

In John 5:39-40 Jesus isn't saying he's "as Torah," or "like Torah;" he's saying that he's the very goal and purpose of Torah. He was saying, in effect, if you're not "doing Torah" and getting me, you're not "doing Torah" rightly: I'm the point of it. The map isn't the destination; come to me, and find the life you're looking for...

And, fwiw, there is absolute truth because there is absolute reality; truth is speaking or thinking accurately about what is. Imagine if you stepped in front of a bus and just decided it "wasn't really there." Buses are, and they hurt.

My 2 cents.

[robbie]

word, truedat, amen, whatever the kids are sayin these days, anyway, I agree. If it starts raining while your friends trim the Jesus vine, ask them if they would rather take shelter under God's wings, or go inside.

[T0V]

Okay, I am usually up on stuff, but have been so engaged in earning a living lately that I seem to have missed something...

What is this post about?

How do you define the terms being used (I need a point of reference to grasp the context)?

Someone once gave me this simplified cheat sheet for a Bible Study and it has proven to be right on the money more times than not, concerning Jesus actually being more important as an actual character in the Torah (works only in a KJV or ESV, or Hebrew -- if you know the Hebrew spellings):

LORD God: Jesus in the Old Testament
Lord GOD: The Father in the Old Testament

[TRO]

Okay, I am usually up on stuff, but have been so engaged in earning a living lately that I seem to have missed something...

What is this post about?

How do you define the terms being used (I need a point of reference to grasp the context)?

Someone once gave me this simplified cheat sheet for a Bible Study and it has proven to be right on the money more times than not, concerning Jesus actually being more important as an actual character in the Torah (works only in a KJV or ESV, or Hebrew -- if you know the Hebrew spellings):

LORD God: Jesus in the Old Testament
Lord GOD: The Father in the Old Testament

[TRO]

Okay, I am usually up on stuff, but have been so engaged in earning a living lately that I seem to have missed something...

What is this post about?

How do you define the terms being used (I need a point of reference to grasp the context)?

Someone once gave me this simplified cheat sheet for a Bible Study and it has proven to be right on the money more times than not, concerning Jesus actually being more important as an actual character in the Torah (works only in a KJV or ESV, or Hebrew -- if you know the Hebrew spellings):

LORD God: Jesus in the Old Testament
Lord GOD: The Father in the Old Testament

[~mike]

Well, I won't pretend that I am familiar with the terms you use, but I will comment on the context of which you speak. You make an excellent argument, and it stands to reason that you are correct.

However, it also stands to reason that John 1 - "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was/is God..." would lead one to think that regardless of the argument you make, the verse is saying the same thing.

[FatHat]

i think one of the problems with "post-protestants," "post-evangelicals," "post-foundationalists" (whatever you want to call them) is that 90% of them throw aournd words like "relationanl" and "foundational" etc. etc. and they don't know what they mean. They heard it said at some emergent church, or read it in some mcclaren book. What is relational foundationalism? How do establish a criterion to either accept or reject any foundation beit relational or evangelicial. If one is to reject foundationalism, then my question is on what foundation do you presume to do that? Make sense? It really is just the law of non-contradiciton.

If we expect others to take serioursly our claims of non-foundationalism, then don't we have to take seriours their claim of foundationalism. no matter how ridiculous it may sound, we need to take serirous the claims of an evangelical exclusivists christology because it is from that background that we all emerge from (fundamentalist protestantism).

by rejecting their foundationalsim based on our relationial foundationalsim we become no differnent than them...the only difference is that we see it from a different context...where one stands determines what she or he sees.

[Eric Kieb]

Hey Doug nice piece of writing. Far too often I think we just look at the ink on the page instead of doing the harder work of digging for the contextual significance of Jesus' sayings. We build our theologies on misappropriated terminologies and then package them nicely and sell them as the only real thing. What Jesus was getting at here was so much more than simply a propositional truth statement. I beleive he was challenging the human race, specifically first and foremost his first century Jewish audience, and later, through the canon of Scritpure the rest of us, to become truly human by embracing the way of life and the relationship with the Father and the neighbor that he lived out.

Thanks!

[Neil]

Leslie Newbigin says 'When Christians affirm, as they do, that Jesus is the way, the true and livng way by whom we come to the Father, they are not claiming to know everything. They are claiming to be on the way, and inviting others to join them as they press forward toward the fulness of truth, toward the day when we shall know as we have been known.'
Gospel in a Pluralist Society p.12

[Neil]

Yes, they love to use this verse and many others to try and disprove any post-foundationalist epistemology, it is post-foundationalism they despise, as if God only worked in the last 400 years of foundationalism! As an evangelical I have often used this verse as an argument for the exclusivity of the gospel and the need to 'accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.' But this verse doesn't say that, it says that Jesus is the truth, the way and that he is life, it states that Jesus is the way to the Father, but there is no methodology for how that works in the text.

[Jimmy]

There are theologians who are not foundationalists and whose project has been to show the "narrative character" of the biblical texts vs. it being a bunch of propositions. . . who themselves also do not deny that there are some "propositions" in the bible.

I wonder if when some people today argue about "absolute truth" they are using such words as synonyms for some of the "propositions" that clearly are in the scripture?

People do need help trying to figure out the role of "propositions" that sometimes dot the text here and there, even if they do not hold to a foundationalist view.

[Emil]

So what would you say this means? Are you saying that Jesus is not the way to the Father? Is there another way to become a Christian and live in a relationship with God? I am just wondering because it kinda seems that we want to say that Jesus is not the way and that there are other ways to God. Can you help me out here?

Thanks,
Emil

[the holly]

amen and amean.

akin to using the passage about building one's house on the rock or sand as a proof text for foundationalism. akkkk!!!

peace!

[J@mes]

So, can you post a link to the Christian book store that has a Jesus door and a Jesus vine available?

I assume it's next to the Jabez door and the Jabez vine?

[Josh]

I totally agree with you, but isn't the next verse, "No one comes to the Father but through me," more the favorite of foundationalists?

[Clint Walker]

By the way, I think the relational "foundationalism"(there must be a better word to communicate my idea here) applies to the other I am statements as well.

[Clint Walker]

Kind of agree with you, especially after my experience last weekend.

I guess I would say Jesus establishes a relational foundation here, but not necessarily a philisophical one.

[Justin Taylor]

Hey Doug:

How would you define the term "foundationalist" as you're using it?

Thanks,
Justin