Why did Jesus introduce Himself to Thomas as 'THE WAY'? In Jn. 14:1-4, Jesus had just stated that He was going to prepare a place for them. The tenor of Thomas' question indicates that he could not quite understand what Jesus was saying. We who live on this side of the resurrection cannot afford to be clueless as the disciples.
The word 'place' cannot and should not be understood in purely three-dimensional 'space' - terms in the light of the characteristics of the resurrection-body. The body of Jesus at and after His resurrection was able to pass through the grave-clothes and the rocky sepulchre. (By the way, the angel moved the stone away from the mouth of Jesus' grave not to let Him out but to let us in! In the Matthaean account of the first Easter [28:2,3], the rolling away of the stone was not followed by Jesus walking out!) The narrative of His ascension states (Acts 1:9) that a 'cloud' received Him out of the sight of the disciples. If Jesus was moving in 3-dimensional space, He would have appeared progressively smaller to the spectators till He was too small to be seen. Quite obviously, the Bible wants us to conclude that He has gone into a mode of existence whose dimensions we are not familiar with. When He comes again, He is expected to come in 'clouds' (I Thess. 4:17; Rev. 1:7).
With this knowledge of the resurrection we need to rightly interpret the idea of 'place' and 'mansions (rooms)' that Jesus referred to in this discourse to His disciples, which prompted Thomas' question and the reply that is the subject matter of our study. If these terms are to be understood in more than three-dimensional terms, where shall we look for the solution to this riddle?
One way is to take the side of our liberal Christian friends, "Do not struggle to understand the Bible literally", they would condescendingly tell us, "what Jesus meant was that His presence with us and our fellowship with Him in the 'place' and 'the rooms' He has gone to prepare are meant to be understood purely in 'spiritual' terms". But there is another alternative. We need to look at the Bible's total teaching on the glorified body and draw the right conclusions about the dimensionality of our heavenly inheritance. Paul tells us (I Cor. 15:35-55) that the citizens of the kingdom of God will have a new constitution of the body. I suppose that the glorified redeemed humanity will inherit a glorified space-time creation which God has promised to bring about (Rev. 22:1,5). There will be a continuity between the present and the future while there will be a crisis of transformation and glorification initiated by the coming of Christ. It is only within this framework that we can work out the right hermeneutic of apocalyptic Scripture.

The context of John 14 however makes it clear that the Lord was introducing Himself as the only way to the Father in more than that one sense. I remember talking to an octogenarian Roman Catholic nun, a deeply committed believer in Jesus Christ. She posed this question to me - Would I not be an anonymous believer among the millions in heaven? The only authentic answer that I could giver her was to refer to this passage where Jesus had assured each one of His followers of a 'place' (not 'space') that He was going to prepare for them. Each one of us would have an identity and a significance which would be the very antithesis of anonymity. Note the superabundance of names in the reward to the Church in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:12). There will be no identity crisis in heaven! It is in this context alone that we are able to fully unravel the mystery of this claim of Jesus. In stating that He was the only way to GOD, Jesus made it clear that the ultimate frame of reference had to be theistic. We had already seen (in TFT 5) that the truth is infinite and Personal. Jesus drives home the same message from another perspective. Man, in his quest as an incurable seeker after meaning is looking for significance in three broad areas: existence, epistemology and morality. It is to this search that Jesus' statement can legitimately be seen to be addressed.
Cries for relevance well up within the breast of the human race regardless of age, education or social status. History is marked by the tragic deaths of existentialist philosophers who have attempted to live their lives consciously rejecting an inward urge for a frame of reference. While these questions are not always articulated, they basically assume the following format: 'Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?' These are existential, metaphysical questions which clamour for a satisfactory resolution. The reason why these questions assume desperate proportions is because they presuppose the unsavoury reality that man is not the master of his own destiny. He is gnawingly aware that he is only a creature and he is at the disposal of Someone or Something of Whose identity he is ignorant. One way out is to believe in fatalism or the inexorable laws of planetary movements which are supposed to determine the course of his life. In this way, he can immerse himself in the unfortunate illusion that ultimate reality is impersonal and questions relating to meaning are themselves meaningless. He could dabble in astrology and palmistry hoping for temporary cures but distance himself from any ideas of relationship with and accountability to a possible Infinite-Personal God. When he cannot escape the reality of this God, he could turn his ire against Him and accuse Him of being brutal and cruel - see Indian Express, 26/2/97, Chennai edition, p.15. (In an earlier generation, Nietzche vented his wrath on God by pronouncing Him dead). In this way, man recognises the reality of the Creator but does not want to transact any business with Him and would constantly seek justification (even on moral [!] grounds as in the above cases) for refusing to do so.

Against the backdrop of these ravings and ratings the conversation between Jesus and Thomas comes across as a cool and refreshing breeze. In averring that He is the way, Jesus offers Himself as the Answer to this basic puzzle of the human mind - He is claiming for Himself the mediatorial role between the Creator and His human creation. John, in the opening chapter of his Gospel, describes Jesus as the Word of God who was with God and who was God Himself from all eternity even before space-time came into existence (1:1). He goes on to tell us that all created things without exception owe their existence to Jesus Christ (1:3). But in order to be the way to man's existential enigma, He has to participate in the predicament of human creation - He has to become flesh (1:14). No Being who is not part of the Infiniteness of God can ultimately answer my existential questions - at the same time, that Being has to be part of my constitution in order that His answer is intelligible to me. So we find that our total purpose in existence stands unravelled in the person of Christ. As we reach outward from our finiteness, we find the infinite hand of God reaching out to us in finite space and time in the Person of Jesus Christ. His infinite deity clothed in finite manhood guarantees that His existential answer is not only understandable (because it emanates from the Infinite-Divine).
From the perspective of apologetics, this issue is relevant in the context of the identity of Jesus Christ. Very often the question on the lips of our friends is, 'Did Jesus actually claim to be God?' while there are several instances of Jesus' direct claim to His Deity, we must admit of a general reluctance on His part to do so. When Peter stated His Deity in unequivocal terms, Jesus directed His disciples to desist from proclaiming it (Matt. 16:20). When demons loudly proclaimed His divinity, He commanded them to be quiet (Mk. 1:24,25). When some among the Jews wanted to make Him king possibly because they recognised His Messiahship, He withdrew from their company (Jn. 6:15). While others insisted on calling Him 'the Son of God' (Matt. 16:16), He preferred to call Himself 'the Son of Man' (Matt. 20:28). On the other hand, He acted like God in accepting worship (Matt. 9:18; 14:33; 18:26 - the significance of quotations from this gospel to the Jews is because of their avowed monotheism), forgiving sins (Mk. 2:7) and claiming pre-existence (Jn. 8:58). Even in querying the rich young man about the use of the adjective 'good' with reference to Him, Jesus was indirectly inquiring whether he had actually recognised His deity (Mk. 10:17,18). It is obvious that Jesus was particular that His deity should be known not by His own direct proclamation, but rather through the cross (Jn. 12: 23-25, 32,33).

In coming into a personal relationship with the Father through His Son, Jesus Christ, a believer is set at rest in his existential quest. In terms of Rev. 3:12, he has a three-fold identity - a child of the Father, a member of the Body, the Church and the betrothed of the Bridegroom. The second question which humankind has to settle is that of an epistemological base. All intellectual progress made thus far in human civilisation assumes the existence of certain fundamental characteristics of the universe with which we have to do:
(i) The world in which we live has to be a real entity and not an illusion;
(ii) This reality has to have certain distinctions in order to explain the diversity in nature. Basic to these distinctions is that between cause and effect which when extrapolated requires an ultimate distinction between the creature and the Creator (First Cause);
(iii) Reality is rationally intelligible;
(iv) We are rational enough to understand reality truly if not exhaustively. Assumptions (iii) and (iv) imply that rationality is the characteristic of the First Cause.
Do you see a coherent picture emerging from the above characteristics? Is it not the Logos (Reason) Who is the First Cause behind all creation (Jn. 1:3; Prov. 8:22-31)? Is it not inescapable that creation can be expected to be reasonable? Paul could therefore title Christ as the Wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:24,30) and ascribe to Him the capacity to hold all things together (Col. 1:17; also Heb. 1:3). Further humans, made in the image of God reflect the same rationality and therefore are worthy of the delegation of authority to care for God's world (Gen. 1:28). As in the case of our existential quest, Christ plays the mediatorial role in communicating the wisdom of god to us in understandable terms. When God gave the stewardship of creation to man, it was through Christ that wisdom was mediated to man. The four characteristics (among many others) mentioned above are none other than the qualities of Christ. This is why contemplation of God's general revelation (Rom. 1:20) brings us one step closer to receiving the special revelation of the Gospel. Conversely, he who rejects general revelation is not in a position to appreciate the uniqueness of Christ. Is it not a fact that all non-theistic religions (and even a theistic religion like Islam) are not able to appreciate God's world rightly only because at some point they have done injustice to the character of God seen in creation?

We may confidently conclude that without Jesus Christ man cannot find his intellectual moorings. Indeed, it is only in Christ that all branches of knowledge are rightly interpreted as pointing in the direction of God. The fond belief of atheistic philosophers (made popular in recent times through ignorance of the history of natural and social sciences) that belief in Christ is inimical to the progress of knowledge is a myth which stands in need of urgent demolition. As a transition to my third and last point, I may also state the corollary that where knowledge breaks free from this framework, it becomes an unmanageable Frankenstein because of mankind's moral incapacity. Is it any wonder that the tree of the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Mankind's cry of despair reaches a shrill crescendo when confronted by the great moral dilemma. Francis Schaeffer used to call this the 'mannishness of man'. How is it that the same human race is capable of scaling the heights of nobility but is equally adept in descending the abyss of bestiality? Till the beginning of this century secular philosophers, fed by theological liberalism and 'scientific' evolutionism, were certain that mankind was poised for the last great leap in utopia. Two World Wars have changed all that. In today's post-modernist intellectual climate, man is persuading himself not to ask any 'meaningful' questions about anything including morality, secretly fearing that the outcome of such an enterprise will be embarrassing if not outrightly damning. In our part of the world, we pride ourselves on the brand of export-quality gurus who soothe us into moral insensitivity by claiming that ultimate reality is beyond good and evil. Our politicians on the other hand, never tire of advising us to return to values without giving us a hint as to where those precious commodities come from. Amid this cacophony of conflicting voices, we stop to listen to the clarion call of Jesus - as the only moral way to God. He revealed ('exegeted' in Jn. 1:18) the character of God more fully than any other human being before or since. He lived every moment of His life in perfect obedience to the plan of His heavenly Father. He obeyed every Jewish law outwardly and inwardly but went far beyond it in that His behaviour and His attitudes were in perfect accord with the character of God. He gave a body of moral precepts whose lofty standards have stunned and stupefied humanity for 20 centuries.
Not that mankind was totally without any help in this regard till the arrival of Jesus on the human scene. This same Jesus was the 'Light that [gave] light to every man who [came] into the world' (Jn. 1:9). Jesus is the architect of the human conscience which has, throughout human history, proved to a powerful argument for the moral nature of God. Due to the disfigurement of the moral image of God in man, conscience can never be an absolutely reliable guide. It is only a pointer of man's moral accountability to his Maker (Rom. 2:14,15). It also indirectly posits an Absolute Standard which exists outside of all human consciences and by Whom they are evaluated. Also, the conscience is an impersonal entity incapable of offering forgiveness and is known to have driven sensitive humans to suicide.

What about religions? It should be admitted that they are laudable efforts to get society moving in a moral direction but their success has been limited if not questionable. To that same extent, the aphorism we Indians are familiar with - 'All religions are the same' - can be held to be true. Some of them have scaled the peaks of philosophical speculation such as our Advaita Vedanta. But what exactly is the moral predicament of humankind? Is it a lack of the knowledge of what is right, or the lack of a moral capacity to do what we know is right? Unless this basic question is addressed, no amount of knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is going to be of any help.
It is at this point that Jesus steps in. although He gave us the highest standards of morality ever known, the bases of His being the only moral way to God are His unique death by crucifixion and subsequent resurrection (which incidentally are dealt with in the next issue of TFT). Suffice it to say at this point that Jesus by His unique all-round ministry on planet earth offers to His followers the moral resources (and not just the knowledge) for a life acceptable to God.
Let me conclude. Jesus the Incarnate God has fully and finally represented God to us at the existential, epistemological and moral levels. He could therefore chide Philip for asking Him to show the Father (Jn. 14:8-11). He is thus eminently qualified to be the unique way for us to have a meaningful relationship with Almighty God, Whom we can now gratefully claim to be our Heavenly Father.