Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Commission of the Evangelical Theological Seminary of Indonesia (No. 00417/KEP-STTII Sby/EC/XII/2025).

Within the Aluk To Dolo belief system, Puang Matua is understood as the Supreme Creator God who brings the entire cosmic reality into existence along with the normative order that regulates human life (Zijlstra 1927:166–168). In Torajan cosmogonic belief, human beings are regarded as creations of Puang Matua, formed from pure gold together with seven other primordial beings. Of these creations, only one takes on human form – Datu Laukku’ (or Datu Baine) – who is viewed as the ancestor of humankind. The other seven primordial beings became the origins of various elements of nature: Allau Tiranda [the ipuh tree], Laungku [cotton], Pong Pirikpirik [rain], Menturiri [chicken], Menturini [water buffalo], Riako’ [iron] and Takkebuku [rice] (Liku-Ada’ 2014:81–83).

Puang Matua is not only positioned as the source of all that exists, but also as the giver of aluk [religious law], which encompasses ritual order [lettenan aluk] and various religious prohibitions [pemali] that function as ethical and spiritual guidelines for humanity (Liku-Ada’ 2014:14). Humans are believed to have been originally created in the heavens, after heaven and earth were first created and united as a single cosmic structure (Van deer Veen 1976:132).

The descent of humans from heaven to earth took place through the Era di Langi’, which, in Aluk To Dolo mythology, is portrayed as a stone ladder stretching from earth to heaven. Through this heavenly ladder, humans descended into the world while carrying with them the religious laws and pemali entrusted directly by Puang Matua (Salombe’ 1972:53). In a highly revered myth, the first human to descend is claimed as the common ancestor of the Torajan people (Tolan 2016:29). In this primordial phase, the relationship between Puang Matua and His creation – especially humanity – is described as direct, harmonious and unbroken (Saleda et al. 2024:115).

In several oral traditions, Era di Langi’ functions as a vertical medium of communication between the human world and the divine realm. Through this ladder, humans could ascend to consult Puang Matua regarding ritual procedures, the interpretation of aluk and various existential issues. In other mythic variants, Era di Langi’ is even described as the channel by which humans obtained fire from the presence of Puang Matua (Saleda et al. 2024:115). Thus, Era di Langi’ is not merely a spatial connector between heaven and earth but also a symbol of the ontological and communicative relationship between the divine and the human.

A rupture in this relationship occurred because of a major transgression of the aluk pemali (Haryono & Attilovita 2021:70). The myth of Londong di Rura tells of a wealthy nobleman who sought to marry his two biological children in order to preserve his wealth within the family (Allolayuk 2021:65). To obtain religious legitimacy, he sent his servant, Mangngi’, to ascend through the Era di Langi’ and consult Puang Matua. However, Mangngi’ never actually reached Puang Matua and instead fabricated a divine message, claiming that incestuous marriage was permissible. Based on this falsehood, the marriage was carried out in grand ceremony (Saleda et al. 2024:115).

This act is understood as a fundamental violation of pemali, provoking the wrath of Puang Matua upon humanity. As divine judgement, the Era di Langi’ was destroyed, accompanied by calamities and cosmic curses. From that moment on, humans no longer had direct access to Puang Matua. A relationship once characterised by openness and harmony became radically severed. With the collapse of the Era di Langi’, vertical communication between humanity and the Creator ceased to exist. Nevertheless, Puang Matua continued to love humanity (Darius & Zaluchu 2023:6).

The destruction of the Era di Langi’ produced deep existential anxiety among adherents of Aluk To Dolo, as it was believed to block access to Puya, the realm of spirits located at the former foothold of the heavenly ladder. The only path for spirits to enter Puya again would be the re-establishment of Era di Langi’, an act impossible for humans to accomplish. Restoration could only be initiated by Puang Matua through the sending of Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’, a divine emissary tasked with religious restoration and the re-establishment of cosmic harmony between the divine and the human (Kristanto & Mangolo 2018:3). Human response, on the other hand, requires the proper performance of death rituals, believed to be essential for the soul’s entry into Puya, as mediated by Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ (Haryono & Attilovita 2021:68).

Accordingly, Era di Langi’ occupies a central place in the theology and cosmology of Aluk To Dolo. It functions as a symbol of primordial relationship with Puang Matua, a marker of relational rupture because of moral transgression, and a signifier of eschatological hope for cosmic restoration. Its significance demonstrates that Era di Langi’ is not a mere mythological motif but a fundamental theological category shaping Aluk To Dolo’s understanding of origins, sin, separation and salvation.

The term Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’, often shortened to To Manurun Tamboro Langi’ or simply Tamboro Langi’, consists of several elements: (1) Puang, meaning ‘lord’ or ‘noble’, an honorific for divine beings [deata]; (2) To Manurun, meaning ‘the one who descends from heaven’ (Nooy-Palm 2014:110–111); and (3) Tamboro Langi’, meaning ‘Sky-Drum’ (Waterson 2009:141). The suffix -Langi’ [heaven] indicates the involvement of a supernatural being who descends to earth (Nooy-Palm 2014:24).

Kristanto and Mangolo (2018:1) note that Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ is regarded as the first human born in the heavens, the offspring of divine beings, and therefore possessing a semi-divine nature. He was later sent from heaven to dwell on earth (Darius & Zaluchu 2023:6), and many Torajans claim descent from him (Nooy-Palm 2014:18). Nonetheless, his narrative varies across regions (Lebang 2010:162).

In Torajan oral tradition – particularly in the Ma’kale version and in western and southern Toraja – Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ is understood as a cosmological, religious and political ancestor who plays a fundamental role in shaping ritual, social and genealogical order. He is portrayed as the heavenly being who descends to restore humanity’s broken relationship with the divine by renewing and revealing aluk [sacred customary law]. Within this framework, Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ brings the sukaran aluk sanda saratu’ [7777 customary decrees], which comprehensively regulate death rituals, social regulations, agriculture and societal structure – thereby positioning him as the supreme normative source within Torajan religio-social life (Kristanto & Mangolo 2018:1–2).

Spatially and cosmologically, he is said to have first built a hanging house atop a tree before constructing the first tongkonan at Mount Ullin, which functions as the archetypal origin-house and as the centre of Torajan cosmology, genealogy and authority. Through his marriage to Sanda Bilik, a being who emerged from water, Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ serves as a cosmic connector between heaven, water and earth, reinforcing the sacred nature of marriage in Torajan cosmology. In the Ma’kale version, he is also seen as the pioneer of sacred arts and rituals, with his appearance accompanied by bell-adorned dances and horn ornaments associated with the ma’bua’ ritual and manganda’ dance (Waterson 2009:142–144).

Socially and politically, his lineage forms the basis of noble status [puang], expressed concretely through ritual privileges such as taa Ullin in the distribution of meat during funerary ceremonies (Waterson 2009:144). His genealogical line, extending to figures such as Laki Padada who forged alliances with the Kingdom of Gowa, establishes him as a genealogical bridge linking Toraja to major South Sulawesi kingdoms such as Gowa, Luwu’ and Sangalla’ (Waterson 2009:469).

Beyond these cosmological and political dimensions, he also fulfils a specific religious function as the promulgator of Aluk Sanda Saratu’, whose implementation is limited to the Tallu Lembangna region, and is considered the second major teaching after Aluk Sanda Pitunna, associated with Tangdilino’ (Tangdilintin 1983:67). His highest ritual responsibility is realised in the dirapai ceremony, the most elevated funerary rite, which is theologically understood to guarantee the salvation of the souls of those within his lineage who concretely perform it – indicating that not all the dead automatically reside in Puya (Darius & Zaluchu 2023:6).

Within the soteriological framework of Aluk To Dolo, Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ is also understood as a figure sent by Puang Matua to repair the human-divine relationship; however, his salvific mission is limited in both subject and scope, applying only to his own descendants. Consequently, the deceased continue to inhabit Puya, although they retain an ontological longing for the upper world as the place of human origin (Novianti, Nainggolan & Tumba 2023:34).

Thus, Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ represents a pivotal figure in Aluk To Dolo who integrates cosmological, ritual, genealogical and sociopolitical dimensions, and serves as the religious legitimiser for customary order, power structures and the community’s soteriological orientation.

In the Ma’kale version, he is also seen as the pioneer of sacred arts and rituals, with his appearance accompanied by bell-adorned dances and horn ornaments associated with the ma’bua’ ritual and the manganda’ dance. His genealogical line, extending to figures such as Laki Padada who forged alliances with the Kingdom of Gowa, establishes him as a genealogical bridge linking Toraja to major South Sulawesi kingdoms such as Gowa, Luwu’ and Sangalla’ (Waterson 2009:142–144, 469).

Thus, Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ represents a pivotal figure in Aluk To Dolo who integrates cosmological, ritual, genealogical and sociopolitical dimensions, and serves as the religious legitimiser for customary order, power structures and the community’s soteriological orientation.

The concepts of Era di Langi’ and Puang To Manurun Tamboro Langi’ within Aluk To Dolo present a theological structure that is functionally parallel to the christological declaration in John 14:6. Nevertheless, both traditions arise from fundamentally different ontological, cosmological and soteriological horizons.

John 14:6 is one of the most explicit and exclusive christological declarations in the Fourth Gospel. Set within Jesus’ farewell discourse (Jn 13–17), this statement responds to Thomas’s question concerning ‘the way’ to the place where Jesus is going (v. 5). Jesus’ reply – ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life’ – begins with the formula ἐγώ εἰµι [‘I am …’], a self-identification also used to present Him as the Messiah (4:26), the bread of life (6:35, 48, 51), the light of the world (8:12; 9:5), the one ‘from above’ (8:23), the door of the sheepfold (10:7, 9), the good shepherd (10:11, 14), the resurrection and the life (11:25) and the true vine (15:1) (Borchert 2002). The triad ‘way–truth–life’ is prefigured in the prologue, albeit in reverse order: the Logos is described as ‘life’ (1:4), ‘the true light’ (1:9), who grants access to the Father through His incarnation (1:14) and the fullness of grace He bestows (1:16), enabling humanity to believe in Him (1:12) (Köstenberger 2013:142). Within this narrative framework, Jesus is presented as the divinely sent mediator who embodies a unique relationship with God (cf. 1:1; 3:16).

The phrase ‘the way, and the truth, and the life’ should not be understood as a Semitism in which ‘the way’ [ὁδός] functions as the overarching category. Carson (1990:491) emphasises that the three terms are syntactically coordinate rather than subordinate. The prominence of ‘the way’ arises not from semantic dominance but because it directly answers Thomas’s question, reinforced by the following explanatory statement: ‘no one comes to the Father except through Me’. Kruse (2017:293) adds that ‘the way’ forms the core of Jesus’ response, while ‘truth’ and ‘life’ function as explanatory predicates: Jesus is the way to the Father because He is the truth and the life; or alternatively, Jesus is the way who leads to truth and life (Thompson 2015:308–309).

In other traditions, ‘the way’ bears different connotations. In Hellenistic religions, it refers to ‘the process by which an initiate becomes divine’. In the Old Testament, it signifies the path established by the Torah (Ps 119:30, 34). In Qumran and Acts, it denotes a community and its distinctive lifestyle (1QS IX 17–18, 21; Ac 9:2) (Brodie 1993:462). In contrast, the Johannine text presents Jesus Himself as the locus of access to divine reality, rather than a system, ritual or moral pathway. The ‘way’ is not a literal route, as Thomas imagines, but Jesus Himself (Michaels 2010:569). Thus, Jesus defines who He is for the disciples: He is the way to the Father (Kieffer 2001:987), through His person, life, teaching, works, death and resurrection (Bruner 2012:811–812).

The explanatory clause – ‘no one comes to the Father except through Me’ – must be understood within the polemical context between Jewish communities who accepted Jesus as Messiah and those who rejected Him, including experiences of synagogue expulsion (9:22). In this context, the saying functions as an assurance within the Johannine community that access to the Father is mediated through Jesus and not through alternative religious authorities (Smith 1999:269). Michaels (2010:569–570) identifies two key principles in this verse. Firstly, the exclusivity of salvation: Jesus is the only way to the Father (cf. 6:44, 65) (Ridderbos 1997:493). Secondly, the universality of invitation: all people may come to Him (cf. 10:9). This claim, therefore, may be understood not primarily as restrictive, but as articulating a particular theological perspective on access to divine freedom (8:36) (Klink 2016:616–617). Keener (2003:943) further interprets this exclusivist formulation within the broader Johannine depiction of human alienated from God (3:18–19; 1:10; 1 Jn 5:19), suggesting that Jesus is presented as opening a way that was previously inaccessible.

Similarly, Anderson (2011:184) warns against reducing the text to a divine rule that sets the boundaries of salvation or implies that only adherents of a particular religion will be saved. Within this interpretation, the Johannine text is not understood as proposing a legalistic schema. The issue, Anderson argues, lies in the human condition, rather in divine regulation. Because humanity is portrayed as finite and incapable of fully knowing God, salvation is understood as dependent upon divine self-revelation. Within this framework, God is presented as revealing Himself definitively through the Son. Jesus is thus portrayed as the definitive means of access to God, not as a religious construct but as the expression of divine self-revelation addressing the human inability to know God. The incarnation is interpreted as manifesting divine initiative and love in a manner that is contrasted with law, ritual or religious system understood human constructs. Thus, the emphasis lies on divine initiative as the basis for the possibility of human encounter with God through Christ (Anderson 2011:184).

Within the Johannine theological framework, the claim that Jesus is ‘the way’ is interpreted as indicating that access to the Father, as well as redemptive truth and eternal life, is mediated through Him (cf. Ac 4:12) (Hendriksen 2002:268–269). This perspective is often associated with the view that access to this ‘way’ involves a personal response of faith towards Jesus as the mediator (Oliver 2024:5). Within the Johannine narrative, the absence of such faith is depicted as resulting in continued separation from God (Jn 3:18) (Juanda, Binar & Laia 2025:1). Human efforts – whether expressed through religious practices, ritual performance or belief systems – are portrayed as insufficient to establish access to the Father, reflecting the limitations of the human condition (1:10; 8:24). Accordingly, Johannine soteriology presents salvation as grounded in divine initiative in Christ with faith functioning as the appropriate human response, through which the restoration of the human–divine relationship is understood to take place (10:10; 17:3).

A comparative analysis between Era di Langi’ and Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ with Christ in John 14:6 is presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4.

This comparative analysis does not equate Era di Langi’ or Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ with Christ ontologically. Instead, it highlights functional parallels at the phenomenological level concerning the motif of mediating between the divine and human realms. These similarities are limited to symbolic functions, cosmological structures and religious motifs, whereas their fundamental differences lie in theological dimensions – particularly ontology, soteriology and the epistemology of revelation.

Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 serve as the analytical basis for the following interpretive synthesis, which evaluates the theological implications of the identified similarities and differences. Therefore, identifying Era di Langi’ or Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’ as equivalents to Christ as Mediator or Saviour cannot be fully justified, as proposed by Novianti, Nainggolan and Tumba (2023:32–33).

The concept of ‘the way’ in John 14:6 is not directly comparable to a cosmic pathway or intermediary figure within the cosmology of Aluk To Dolo, as Johannine Christology, presents ‘the way’ as a personal and incarnational reality through which access to the Father is mediated. Thus, the comparison ultimately highlights the distinctive theological claims attributed to Christ within the Johannine tradition in contrast to semi-divine figures or cosmic structures such as Era di Langi’ and Puang Tomanurun Tamboro Langi’, whose functions are primarily associated with customary and cosmological harmony, reflecting a different soteriological orientation.

The narratives of Era di Langi’ and the figure of Tamboro Langi’ provide a symbolic framework that may function as a hermeneutical bridge for understanding the meaning of Jesus as ‘the way’ (Jn 14:6) (Haryono & Attilovita 2021:76) without equating them ontologically. Within the Torajan cosmology, a heavenly being or structure that ‘descends’ serves to connect humans with the divine order and to restore the harmony of adat, offering a phenomenological picture of humanity’s longing for access to the upper world.

This contextualisation recognises that the need for a mediator between the upper world and human beings may be understood as a widespread religious intuition, while, within Christian theological interpretation, Christ is presented as transcending such categories. If Era di Langi’ and Tamboro Langi’ represent a cosmic-adat pathway that regulates the harmony of the world, Christ is understood, within the Christian theological framework, as presenting a path of salvation that is personal, final and universal through His incarnation, work and resurrection. Thus, this approach allows the Gospel to be interpreted through local symbolic categories without collapsing the distinct theological identity attributed to Christ, while also demonstrating that the Torajan cosmological longing for a ‘way to the upper world’ is interpreted, within the Christian theological framework, as finding its fulfilment in Christ as the definitive expression of divine revelation. As Kristanto, Purnomo and Laia (2025:6) emphasise, ‘Nevertheless, contextualisation must remain critical: enriching the Gospel without diminishing its meaning, and honoring culture without neglecting the uniqueness of Christ as the centre of God’s revelation’. This principle may be applied to broader efforts of Gospel contextualisation across diverse belief traditions in Indonesia as a multicultural nation in terms of religion, language, culture, ethnicity and race (Laia 2024:3).

Several soteriological implications arise for contextual theology in Toraja: (1) The possibility of constructive dialogue. The concepts of a ‘way to the upper world’ and the figure of ‘the one who descends from heaven’ provide functional analogies that facilitate more accessible communication of the Gospel within the Torajan cosmological framework; (2) The danger of syncretism. Functional similarity should not be interpreted as implying ontological sameness. Identifying Era di Langi’ or Tamboro Langi’ with Christ risks conflating distinct ontological categories and obscuring the exclusivist claims associated with John 14:6; (3) Christology as a theological point of reorientation. Jesus is not part of the local cosmological structure; He is understood, within Christian theology, as the definitive and universal self-revelation of God. Thus, the concept of Tamboro Langi’ may be approached as an ‘analogical prefiguration’, rather than as a theologically equivalent counterpart; and (4) Within the Christian theological framework, salvation is understood as personal rather than genealogical. The Torajan emphasis on genealogical dimensions of salvation may be reinterpreted in dialogue with the view that salvation involves a personal response of faith, rather than an inherited status or a product of ritual-social position.