Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). His statement is profound, and bold. He did not say to Thomas, “I am a truth,” or even “I am truth,” but “I am the truth” – the definite article narrowing the field. Webster defines truth as “(a)(1): the body of real things, events, and facts; (2) the state of being the case.” Truth is a broad term that can refer to anything that is real, or “the case.” If something exists, it is the case; it is true. However, what sets Jesus apart from all else is His eternal nature. He rightfully said, “I am the truth,” because He was not only the case when He said it, but also well before creation, and will continue to be the case even after all things cease to be. It would be preposterous for any other being to make such an assertion because a time existed when that one was not. Yet Jesus is the great I AM (cf. John 8:58), the Alpha and the Omega (cf. Revelation 1:8), the eternal God (cf. John 1:1).

This statement of Jesus is key to our understanding of all matters, especially as those who seek the spiritual and eternal. This makes it all the more unsettling when some of the household of God show themselves to be influenced by notions of relativity. More of society is accepting the idea of relative truth, and while doing so they frown upon any who maintain objectivity. The former are thought to be more noble than the latter who are labeled as closed minded and unloving. Some in the church have bought into this view, and as a result are becoming less defined in their faith. Distinctiveness is a mark of the Lord’s church and is to be embraced by the Christian, but distinctiveness is a foreign quality in the paradigm of relative truth.

Relativity results in ambiguity, but Jesus was far from ambiguous when He said, “I am the truth.” He was being as specific and clear as He could have been. He proceeded to use the exclusive word, “except” – “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Some suggest Jesus’ words were inclusive; that He is one of many ways to the Father. Such a thought is irreconcilable with His very words, and the entirety of His teaching in the New Testament. But while Jesus spoke with certainty and clarity the pulpits across the landscape of the church are emitting strange sounds of obscurity. It is maintained that Jesus is the only way to the Father, but specificity regarding doctrine and morality is cautiously avoided. This is done behind a façade of humility, as if knowing the truth with absolute certainty is arrogant. We should remember Jesus, who having assumed the greatest role of humility in the annals of human existence (cf. Philippians 2:5-11), quoted scripture with utmost confidence in His spoken convictions with those who were against Him. And yes, it is valid to point out that Jesus is perfect, but we are called to walk as He walked (cf. 1 John 2:6). It was He who said, “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Some seek to qualify their views of relativity by slight semantic alterations. Instead of saying, “Truth is relative,” they may say, “Truth is objective, but our understanding of truth is relative.” This cunning revision will not pass the tests of sound logic. Understanding in itself is objective. Understanding something means to comprehend or grasp it intellectually. But if that matter is objective in nature, as truth is, there is only one accurate comprehension. For example, one may claim an understanding of the mathematical principle of addition, but if their understanding of 1+1 is 3 can we say they really understand? Does the person who claims to understand Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 to mean He is one of many ways to the Father really understand His statement? Who has the temerity to say so? If we can understand God’s word – and the Spirit commands that we do (cf. Ephesians 5:17) – then we can understand it alike. This is not the concept of relative truth, nor relative understanding, but revelation.

Moses proclaimed to the Israelites, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29). These inspired words describe the “need-to-know” basis of our relationship with God. If we need to know something God is going to reveal it to us. If it has not been disclosed to us in the Holy Scriptures, it is not necessary for us to fulfill our created task. In the Bible this process is called “revelation.” God reveals that we might know. And His revelation is not a matter of private interpretation (cf. 2 Peter 1:19-21). It bears the meaning which God intended, and none other. It is the communication of His mind through the Spirit – “which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words” (1 Corinthians 2:13). I.e. the ideas God intended to convey were displayed in language known and understood by man to the very letter. Scripture is God-breathed (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16), thus, infallible (cf. Psalm 19:7). God did not reveal a message which yields several conflicting meanings. He revealed His unified will and did so in a manner that we could objectively understand.

The assertion that God’s revelation is relative comes with difficulty. Jesus maintained that there were ultimately two paths of life to travel (cf. Matthew 7:13-14). The narrow path directs people to heaven, but it is singular. God’s word is that which guides us on the narrow path (cf. Psalm 119:105). However, if that guiding word is relative then multiple differing paths are produced by it. This contradicts the sound logic used by God Himself in His word – “Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Thus no spring yields both salt water and fresh” (James 3:11-12). Two opposing ideas cannot come from the same words. One may be correct, and the other incorrect, but both cannot be. God does not speak out of both sides of His mouth. To suggest God’s revelation is relative is to place blame on Him. His word is designed to affect sanctification and unity (cf. John 17:17, 20-21), not division.

This logical inconsistency in the idea of a relative revelation of God is likely what leads some to turn rather to the sense of our understanding being the relative matter. Yet, this too comes with difficulty. Placing blame on God is not avoided by simply saying that His word is objective, but our understanding of it is relative. This is another way of suggesting that we can understand the Bible, but we cannot understand it alike. Yet, the Bible clearly requires a unified understanding of God’s people (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13). And if God requires us to be unified in our understanding of Scripture, but we are incapable of such then He is to be blamed! His word may be perfect, but His creation of man to understand His word objectively is faulty? How absurd! Solomon saw the true problem, and so should we – “Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

Contrary to ideas sounding forth from some, the Bible is clear about the objective nature of truth, and about our obligation to uphold it as God’s people. In the beginning God created light and separated it from the darkness (cf. Genesis 1:3-5). It was created to be understood the same by all – light is Day, and the darkness is Night. This figure is woven through God’s revelation, and it shows the objective nature of God and His truth. He is light, and in Him is no darkness (cf. 1 John 1:5). His gospel is likened to His separation of light and darkness at the beginning (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:6). It manifests the darkness so all can turn to the light (cf. John 3:18-21; Ephesians 5:8-14). Those who do not come to the light are not handicapped by relativity, neither of truth nor of understanding, but by their own longing for the darkness of sin (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4). God has revealed in such a way that can be understood and created man in such a way that we can understand. His children are charged with the solemn responsibility of walking as those who are of the light and upholding the truth (cf. Ephesians 5:8; 1 Timothy 3:15). This includes maintaining the objective nature of truth and understanding, and the distinctiveness with which it characterizes us.