1 

CHRISTOLOGY OF RAJA RAMMOHAN ROY

It is always a matter of great honour to be asked to felicitate a scholar at attaining a mile’s stone
in life; in honoring him, we honour ourselves. Fr. Aleaz is such scholar that one may feel so. I
am sure, if my father was alive, he would have blessed him at this juncture in life and would
definitely have contributed an article. The onus has fallen upon me to offer my personal tribute
to him as a scholar, teacher and exponent of advaitic interpretation of Christ-experience. In
doing so, I am reflecting upon Christology of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, a contemporary of
Serampore Trio, and a frequent visitor to Serampore, a place of residence of his maternal uncle.
This rudimentary article is in the process of my working towards a Christology of the reformers
of the great Indian renaissance.
Raja Rammohan Roy (1772-1833) is considered to be the Father of Modern Religious
Movements in India as well as a prophet of Indian nationalism and the pioneer of liberal reforms
in Hindu religion and society. A liberal to the core, he initiated relentless fight against the
practice of Sati and child infanticide, supported English and modern education, advocated
education for women and founded Brahmo Samaj to reform Hindu social and religious structures
from within. He served as revenue officer in the East India Company and retired in 1814 to
devote full time in his passion to reform his religion and society. In 1833, he was conferred the
title of Raja by the titular Moghul Emperor and was appointed his envoy to England. He died
soon after his arrival at Bristol in 1833.
He was a keen student of religions and sought to satisfy his thirst for truth in taking other
religions seriously. At the young age of fifteen, he wandered off to different places within the
country and went as far as Tibet. He studied Islam, along with learning Arabic and Persian
languages, which had a great influence upon his life and works. His insistence upon the unity of
God and the meaninglessness of idol worship can be traced to his studies of this great religious
tradition of the Asian continent.
Dr. Robin Boyd who is the first serious scholar making us aware of Indian Christian Theology,
considers Raja Ram Mohan Roy to be the first Indian to have written seriously and extensively
on Christian theological themes.1 Roy himself confessed and wrote: 'The consequence of long
and interrupted researches into religious truth has been that I have found the doctrines of Christ
more conducive to moral principles and more adapted for the use of rational beings than any
other which have come to my knowledge'2. Like many other reformers of the nineteenth century,
he was attracted towards the simple teachings of Christ as found in the Gospels, and not to the
Christian doctrines and dogmas.

                                                            
1
 R.H.S.Boyd, An Introduction To Indian Christian Theology, Dehli: ISPCK, 1989, p.19 
2
 J.N.Farquhar, Modern Religious movements in India, p. 32 
 2 
 

Understanding Ram Mohan Roy

We may do great injustice to the Father of Modern India, if we judge him from the standpoint of
our 'theological circle' without understanding his own. He developed his own religious and
theological circle out of his experience and studies of great religious traditions of his time in
India, Hinduism and Islam, and tried to understand the new entrant, Christianity, as well. He
was a learned and enlightened Bengali Brahmin, deeply rooted in his own tradition with a
crusading spirit to reform his society in the light of the modern knowledge that was dawn upon it
through the introduction of new education by the then emerging rulers from England. The 'other
religious traditions' provided him a common theological ground in the form of 'unitary principle',
which he zealously held and protected from the attacks of his adversaries from within and
without.
Dr. M.M. Thomas3 had noted three fundamental ideas in his theological thinking: first, a
monistic faith in the unity of God inspired fundamentally perhaps by Islam, (and may I add, by
Vedic and Upanishadic vision); secondly, the conviction that morality is the essence of true
religion; and thirdly, rationalism demands that religion should hold only to beliefs which are
reasonable, and that reason should serve to purify religion of superstition and unnecessary
mysteries and miracles. He adhered to these ideas when he formed the 'Brahmo Samaj' and
applied them to his religion as well.
In his introduction to the translation of Ishopanishad, his critical, analytical and rational mind is
quite evident: 'I have never ceased to contemplate with the strongest feelings of regret the
obstinate adherence of my countrymen to their fatal system of idolatry, inducing for the sake of
propitiating their supposed Deities, the violation of every humane and social feeling, and to view
in (this system) the moral debasement of a race… I pray that (Hindus may come to) a conviction
of the rationality believing and adoring the Supreme only; together with a complete perception
and practice of that grand and comprehensive moral principle: Do unto others as ye would be
done by.'4
The sources of his theology and ethics were primarily derived from his own Religion and
religious scriptures; he only wished to supplement them from other religions. He was a reformer
with the concern for reforming Hindu religion and society from within, hence 'the appeal of
Jesus Christ to him was primarily to his protestant Hindu soul'5. He was neither a Christian nor
pretended to be a Christian theologian like Joshua Marshman of Serampore. Hence he was
rather surprised by the attack and was forced to engage into a controversy of not his liking.6 He
can be classed as an ethicist or moralist, interested in the moral conduct of his society. He held
the doctrine of Sufficiency of Law to justify, and sanctify, men as a criterion for his selection of
Precepts of Jesus, and therefore left the historical and doctrinal passages of the Gospels. He
                                                            
3
 M.M.Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance, Madras: C.L.S, 1977, p.3 
4
 quoted from MMThomas, ibid. p.3‐4 
5
 ibid, p.8 
6
 Three appeals consumed about 330 pages. 
 3 
 

himself was not so sceptical about the miracle stories but found no spiritual and theological
significance in them except as mythologies helpful to preserve the precepts of Jesus.7
His concern was for a religion, which answers the moral and spiritual problems of human than
the incomprehensible theology and metaphysics. Hence he was a hesitant entrant into the
controversy, which was forced upon him by one of the Serampore trio, Joshua Marshman: 'I
regret only that the followers of Jesus, in general, should have paid much greater attention to
enquiries after his nature than to the observance of his commandments, when we are well aware
that no human acquirements can ever discover the nature even of the most common and visible
things and moreover that such enquiries are not enjoined by the divine revelation'.8

Two Pillars of Human Life

With his personal studies of major religions and involvement in the social and religious turmoil
of his time, he came to the conclusion that the foundation of a noble human life rests on two
pillars: love of God and love of one's fellow humankind. He found his religion not lacking in the
first but devoid of the other. He found the second abounding in the teachings of Christ and
acknowledged, as noted above, that fact.
The denominational Christianity, historical and dogmatic questions, he found, were the
stumbling block in seeing the simplicity and beauty of the teachings of Christ, and he side
tracked them to glean that beauty for the benefit of the true seekers. He selected some of the
moral teachings of Christ from the New Testament and published them as a separate booklet
entitled, 'The Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace and Happiness'. With the publication of these
precepts, and the heat it generated thereafter, the concept of seva, service, slowly gain acceptance
in the Karma-dominated Indian society and the service to fellow humans almost became the
creed of the reformers after Roy.

The person of Christ

The personhood of Jesus Christ, as well as his teachings, as found in the Gospels often finds
appreciation and acceptance to any reader; it is the theology that repulses the serious adherent of
other faiths. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was not an exception. His attitude to Christ is one of
reverence as due to a great teacher and messenger of God, but he could not accept the title 'Son
of God' if it implies an attribute to divinity. He quotes many scriptural passages to prove the
'natural inferiority of the Son to the Father' and holds that Jesus is merely delegated with power
from God; he did not possess this power intrinsically. The unity with Father implied in certain
Johannine texts is merely 'a subsisting concord of will and design, such as existing among his
apostles and not identity of being'. He, indeed, accepts the title 'Son of God' and other scriptural
titles of Christ, but always in a qualified sense, implying that each one is special gift conferred
by God, rather than his by right. Jesus, to him is 'the son of God, a term synonymous with that of
                                                            
7
 M.M. Thomas op. cit. p.9 
8
 collect, op. cit., p. 41 
 4 
 

messiah, the highest of all the prophets; and his life declares him to have been, as represented in
the scriptures, pure as light, innocent as a lamb, necessary for eternal life as bread for temporal
one, and great as the angels of God, or rather greater than they'.
It is not difficult for Roy to accept the doctrine of the Virgin birth, but he would not like the idea
to associate it with the personality of the Holy Spirit. He will not deny the miracles of Jesus,
including resurrection. Both these points are unimportant for the religious minds of the Indian
people.
It may be helpful if we take a closer look at Jesus as understood by Raja Ram Mohan Roy:

i. The dependent Son

Roy seriously read the Gospels and derived his Christology on the basis of his own readings and
the reasons that satisfied his mind: 'Have we not his own express and often repeated avowal that
all the powers he manifested were committed to him as the son by the father of the Universe?
And does not reason force us to infer that a being who owes to another all his power and
authority, however extensive and high, should be in reality considered inferior to that other?
Surely therefore, those who believe God to be supreme, possessing the perfection of all
attributes, independently of all other beings, must necessarily deny the identity of Christ with
God'.9
And he takes the passages from the Gospel of St. John to substantiate his views. He quotes I
Corinthians 15: 24-28 to indicate the dependency of the son to the Father. Jesus is the Messiah-
yes; he is anointed Son of God- yes, he is God himself-NO.

ii. Unity of Will, not identity of Being

There is no problem for Roy to accept the unity of God and Jesus, but he interprets this unity as
the unity of will and design, and not an identity of being. Applying the hermeneutical principle
of interpreting scriptures from the internal evidence, he reads 'I and my father are one' (John
10:30) in the light of 'that they may be one as we are one' (John 17:20-23), and concludes the
unity of God and Jesus is of the same character as Jesus and his disciples and offers three
choices:
'First as conveying the doctrine that the Supreme Being, the Son and the Apostles were to be
absorbed mutually as drops of water into one whole; which is comfortable to the doctrine of that
sect of Hindu metaphysics who maintain that in the end the human soul is absorbed into the God-
head, but is quite inconsistent with the faith of all denominations of Christians.
Secondly, as proving an identity of nature, with distinction of person, between the Father, the
Son and the Apostles, a doctrine equally inconsistent with the belief of every Christian, as
multiplying the number of persons of the Godhead far beyond what has ever been proposed by
any sect.

                                                            
9
 quted from MMThomas, op. cit., pg. 19 
 5 
 

Thirdly, as expressing that unity which is said to exist wherever there are found perfect concord,
harmony, love and obedience such as the Son evinced towards the Father, and taught the
disciples in display towards the Divine will. That the language of the Saviour can be understood
in this last sense solely, will I trust, be readily be acknowledged by every candid expounder of
the sacred writing, as being the only one alike warranted by the common use of words, and
capable of apprehension by human understanding.'10

iii. First Born of Creation

Roy, however, has no difficulty in accepting the pre-existence of Jesus with God and being the
first born of creatures, and supreme above all creatures including the angels: The Scriptures
indeed in several places declare that the Son was superior even to the angels in heaven living
from the beginning of the world to eternity, and that the Father created all things by him and for
him. At the same time, I must, in conformity to those very authorities, believe him as produced
by the Supreme Deity among created Beings (John 5:26; Col.1:5).11
He will go as far as to accept Jesus as Messiah, in the sense of the supreme messenger of God, a
creature but not Creator as he says: He like Adam lived with God before his coming into his
world… and afterwards was sent to the world in the body of Jesus, for effecting humah
salvation….. this does not preclude us from rejecting the idea of a two-fold nature of god and
man.12
One can see here the traces of Pauline doctrine of 'unfallen Adam' incarnate to save the
humankind. He is not willing to accept eternal generation, coexistence with the father. He has no
difficulty in admitting that the Son of god is god in the same way as the son of man is a man, if it
does not coupled with the assertion of the coeval existence of the son.

The Work of Christ

Christ accomplished his saving act through his teaching and his death was simply the supreme
illustration of those precepts whose communication was the sole object of his mission. Roy
rejected the ideas of vicarious suffering and sacrificial death; God is impassable and is untouched
by the misery and suffering, and if Jesus suffered in his divine nature this would be highly
inconsistent with the nature of God. Death of God is the dogma, which cannot be accepted by
Roy. Vicarious suffering of an innocent for the guilt of others, too does not find favour in his
sight; it is inconsistent with the justice of God. He has no hesitation to accept the suffering of the
innocent Jesus as a lamb, taking it just a 'symbol of innocent subjected to persecution', but he did
not find scriptural support for the attempt 'to represent human blood, or that of God in human
form, as an indispensable atonement for sin'.

                                                            
10
 English Works. Pp. 577f. 
11
 English works, pp. 583f 
12
 ibid p.815 
 6 
 

The plan of salvation for Roy is very simple: 'this do and thou shalt live' said Jesus, and
following his precepts is the 'best and only means of obtaining the forgiveness of our sins, the
favour of God, and strength to overcome our passions and to keep his commandments'. If we
repent, we receive forgiveness and there is no need for an atoning death, though we are greatly
helped by the supreme example of the Cross. If we fail to follow Jesus' teachings, the solution,
for Roy, lies in repentance, which is the most acceptable atonement on our part to the All-
merciful, when we have fallen short of that duty. This is the nearest, as Boyd notes, that Roy
approaches to a doctrine of repentance, faith, grace and forgiveness.13

The God-head
Jesus Christ has not been a problem for many religiously minded people in this continent, but he
is with the intellectuals and theologians. Where to place him within their own 'theological and
religious circle' is the serious quest of the religious intellectuals influenced by Jesus Christ and
his teachings. Raja Ram Mohan Roy devoted much of his time to a polemic against Hindu
polytheism and idolatry, and he was aware that inclusion of Christ, as well as Holy Spirit, in
Godhead, would be a reversion, amounting to yielding to something primitive and polytheistic.
He would stick to the unitary principle in holding God as the sole object of worship and
adoration that he expressed it so succinctly in the trust deed of the Samaj's place of worship, as
noted by Farquhar, that the building must be used : ''for the worship and adoration of the Eternal
Unsearchable and Immutable Being who is the Author and Preserver of the universe but not
under or by any other name, designation or title particularly used for and applied to any
particular being or Beings by any man or set of men whatever'14.
From such a 'theological circle' drawn around him, Jesus cannot be placed within Godhead, so
also the Holy Spirit as a Person within the Trinitarian formulation. Even then Roy's appreciation
for Jesus did not diminish; he regarded Jesus as Son of God or Mediator, in a certain limited
sense though, the messenger who communicates the will of God

An Evaluation
One can agree with Keshub Chunder Sen that Roy's secular approach to religion made him
incapable of appreciating mystic spirituality and bhakti cults in any religion. His deistic-
Unitarian faith considered the idea of divine incarnation in any religion as a compromise of
monotheism and as an inevitable source of personal and social demoralization. The later
Brahmos, like Sen and Parekh, tried to correct the course.
This brings to another point to ponder, as M. M. Thomas queries: 'does it mean that a modern
man imbibed with rational ethical secular temper like that of Ram Mohan Roy, cannot apprehend

                                                            
13
Boyd, op cit., p. 24  
14
 Farquhar, op. cit., p. 35 
 7 
 

the truth and meaning of Jesus Christ unless they revert a religious-mystical experience or vision
of reality?15
His 'theological circle' drawn by his philosophical categories of natural theology of monotheism
and rational deism did not allow him to move beyond this circle, as that will mean the complete
break down of that circle. If he would have come out of it and seen the source of morality of
God in Love, this would have opened a way for him to perceive the centrality of cross of Jesus
Christ, as symbol of God's self revelation to humankind.
His methodology of studying religious traditions is worth noting; he studied Hebrew and Greek
to read and understand Christian precepts without any intervention of subjective Christian
theological or doctrinal bias. He did the same in search of Islamic tradition, learning Arabic and
Persian for the understanding Holy Quran and Sufi thoughts. He helped in the translation of
Bible and had the linguistic competence in understanding the import of biblical teachings. He
may have his own bias, but his intension and sincerity needs to be appreciated. He was perhaps
the first Hindu scholar who studied Christian Scriptures in original languages and presented his
own personal reflections.
His missionary zeal was directed for the moral and spiritual reform of the society in general, but
Hindu in particular. His efforts were towards the moral and ethical regeneration of human kind,
and he was willing to learn, use and absorb anything that is common in the religious traditions of
his time for attaining his goal. It was unfortunate that he was misunderstood by the missionary
zealots of his time, and they attacked him and his person, branding him an ‘atheist’ and
‘idolater’. In their missionary zeal for the establishment of Christendom with the nomenclature
‘Christians’, some of the missionary failed to recognize the sincere, perhaps secret, seekers,
sympathizers, followers and disciples of Christ. Most of their attack was on doctrinal and
denominational lines in which these new admirers of Christ were not interest; their interest was
only in the “raw fact of Christ’. This continued trend has alienated many true followers of
Christ and the Indian church has shut its door for many of them. A food for thought for many of
us as we conclude this brief study
 

                                                            
15
 op. cit., p. 32