Harvesting Our Souls

HARVESTING OUR SOULS
Missionaries, Their Design, Their Claims
Arun Shourie
2000
ASA PUBLICATIONS
New Delhi
PDF created by Rajesh Arya - Gujarat
ISBN 81-900199-9-6
© Arun Shourie 2000
Allrights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form or by any means,
without prior permission of the author.
Published by
ASA Publications,
New Delhi.
Printed in India by
Gopsons Papers Ltd.,
Noida.
Contents
1. Introduction
Their design
2. An echo chamber 7
3. Body counts: big, and compelling business 25
4. Is the Vatican also unknown? 34
5. Their singular objective us. the law of the land 42
6. Igniting reaction 54
The figue of bistory
7. "But how can we disobey the command of
Our Lord?" 69
8. They have God as their author" 81
9. The uncertain build-up to the climax 110
10. Silence as evidence 126
The figure of
faith
11. The figure of faith 137
12. Another figure of faith, Another can
of conundrums 162
The Book they bave, and we don't

13. Truth keeps pace with need! 179
14. Dictated? Inspired? Written? Collated? Edited? 191
15. All to a predetermined purpose 206
Their Almighty improvement over our Gods

16. "I, the Sovereign Lord, Almighty" 223
viii Harvesting Our Souls
17. An extreme condition 241

18. What the faithful must do to the altars
and idols of other religions 255
19. The primitive, the superstitious becomes
the divine, the sublime - when they do it! 268
20. *And then they will know I am the Lord" 272
21. "Kill," He conmmands, "Destroy"; they kill,
they destroy; He kills them for killing,
for destroying! 285
22. Ever the unrequited lover 305
23. All-powerful? 320
The Almighty displaced
24. The ascent of Jesus 337
25. The ascent of the Church 360
From "our brethren" to "rapacious wolves"
in one short leap
26. Deification-at-second-remove, its uses
and consequences 373
A few things to do
27. A few things to do 401
Index 421

1
Introduction
Every one in India has the fullest freedom to preach his

point of view. Religious groups and individual missionaries
enjoy this right as fully as others.
These groups and individuals – in particular Islamnic and
Christian groups and missionaries - claim a right that goes far
beyond preaching. They claim that they have the right,
indeed that it is their duty to convert others to their religion.
From this they proceed to dernounce even so elementary a
requirement that fraud and allurement mnust not be used to
secure conversions, they insist that it is a violation of their
fundamental rights, that it suppresses the religious freedom
which the Constitution guarantees them, that it is nothing but
"fascism". Moreover, they insist that they have the right not
just to convert an individual at a time, they claim that they
have the right to convert en masse.
-
As to the means they deploy for the purpose the money
that is sent from abroad, the allurements by which the
innocent are enticed, the way facts are suppressed and
falsehood is insinuated-aquestion has but to be raised, and
they raise a din, "Communalism, fascism, trampling on our
fundamental right..."
The conversion of even an individual causes grave
disruption. His family is torn apart. Tensions erupt in the
Community. This is all the more so because after converting
him, in several instances during the conversion proceedings
themselves, the converters make the person do and say
things that grievously offend the original community of the
person: the individual is led to not just repudiate but
2 Harvesting Our Souls
denounce gods and rituals in which he has grown up, to do

things which are forbidden in his original religion or
community – for instance, to eat flesh which is prohibited.
These things do not happen accidentally. They are
designed. On the one hand, tocut- finally, dramatically, with
a psychological violence - such residual cords which may
still survive in the individual's mind. On the other, their
object is to make it that much more difficult for the individual
torevert to his original community:what the person has done
- the abuse he may have hurled at the local god or goddess,
the food he may have eaten in the feast after the ceremnony
gets known swiftly to his family and community, information
about it is deliberately passed to the family and community.
Angered, the latter distance themselves from the man. And
there is the other side: as the man is no longer able to return to
his community and family, he becomes completely
dependent on his new "family" and "community".
The discord and animosities that result had led Swami
Vivekarnanda to warn a hundred years ago, "Every man going
outof the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the
more "1
A mighty reaction is building up in India against
conversions: few eventshave propelled Hindus in the South
to think as Hindus as did the mass conversions to Islam in
Meenakshipuram, few developments have alarmed citizens
as the systematic targeting by Christiai missionaries of
people in the Northeast, and in our tribal areas.
Conversion is the main activity of church groups, it is their
principal business. But the moment they are asked about it,
they deny that they are engaged in it on any scale of
consequence. In part this book deals with their designs in this
IThe Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta,

1979, Volume V, pp. 233-35, for the text of the Swami's interview to the editor
of Prabuddba Bharat, in which Swami Vivekananda stated that
arrangements must be made to receive back into Hinduism those who had
been converted to Christianity and Islam.
Introduction 3
regard, and the consequences which are bound to follow

from it.
There is another, though allied problemn. To convert us,
missionaries have worked for five hundred years to
undermine our reverence for our gods and scriptures. Tillthe
early 1950s the denunciations used to be open, shrill,
abusive. Today the slander is sophisticated, the untruths are
spoken rather than written. But they are spread even nmore
systematically, through an even wider array of devices, by
using an ever more plentiful chest. I have accordingly
applied one or two of the same criteria which they used to
scandalize our scriptures and gods to () the scripture they
offer instead, (ii) the God that scripture describes, and (ii) the
Son of that God which that scripture describes.
The one thing I hope that the reader of this book will do is
to rush to the scriptures of these religions, and read them
himself - diligently, thoroughly. And to study the histories
that record what the effort of the adherents of these religions
to bring about the order which their scriptures ordain has
wrought for mankind. That will be enough to make him see
through most of the claims of the missionaries.
As for nmissionaries, they may feel upset at these facts
being set out all the more so because the facts are
incontrovertible, taken as they are from their own scriptures,
from their own Decrees and publications. Moreover, these
are facts which, though they are common knowledge and
widely acknowledged in Europe and America, the
missionaries assiduously keep from converts and potential
converts in India. But instead of working up a rage, they
should reflect on the five hundred years of calumny which
their fellow professionals have heaped on our scriptures and
religion.How true the warning and counsel turn outto have
been in retrospect which their Lord himself had given them:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shallbe judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured tayou again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considereth not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Orhow wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in tlhine own eye?
Thouhypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's
eye,?
If only missionaries had remembered these words while

slandering our gods and scriptures for five hundred years. If
only they were to heed them today.
Finally, there is the question that is so often asked of many
of us: "You studied in a missionary school, in a missionary
college. Did anyone try to convert you?" Turn the question
around, as Gandhiji used to do. Why is it that instead of trying
to convert the educated, instead of trying to convert those
who can think for themselves, those who can reflect on the
claims being advanced on behalf of a religion other than their
own, why is it that instead of targeting them, missionaries
target the illiterate tribal?
This book provides one answer: were they to target even
you and me, to say nothing of a Gandhiji, we would ask them
for answers to the sort of questions that spring from what is
set out here.
2Mattheu, 7.1-5.
Their design
2
An echo chamber
If you had been in India in late 1998-early 1999, and the

English-anguage "national newspapers had been your
source of information about what was going on, you would
have concluded that an extensive, well-coordinated pogrom
was on,that maniacal Hindu groups vere going round raping
nuns, attacking missionaries, burning down churches.
What wvas happening in fact? What do we know now about
the incidents by which that miasma was created?
Newspapers and TV channels reported nine sets of
incidents. The one that most blackened the name of the
country initially was the rape of four nuns in Jhabua, Madhya
Pradesh. The Madhya Pradesh Government completed
investigations some months ago, and arrested the suspects. It
turns out that there are as many Christians in the wretched lot
as non-Christians, and that the nuns had been assaulted not
because of any religious hatred or impulse, but because of
local animosities - two groups were contending with each
other, one side concluded that the local church people were
siding with the other group, and decided to teach them a
lesson. Months have passed since the investigations were
completed, and the accused were taken into custody. Not
one of the organizations and publications which had pasted
the rapes on Hindu fundamentalists has done anything not
the littlest thing to ensure that the accused are tried swiftly.
"Jhabua re-enacted in Jhajjar," proclaimed a four-column
headline of The Hindustan Times in regafd to the second
incident. It reported - on the authority of one of the chief
propagandists of Christian organizations, he also doubles up
as an Editor of an afternoon paper in Delhi - that nuns in

Jhajjar, Haryana had been set upon and molested. The
Observer of Business and Politics sent its correspondents to
follow up the story. They found that thè story was a complete
fabrication. The nuns had arrived in Jhajjar some two-three
years earlier. They had started teaching sewing to the local
girls - we will hear more about setting up such services as we
proceed. There was an election for the local mabila mandal.
Two groups were locked in a spirited contest as through the
mandalthey could get control over the profitable tailoring
business. The nuns began to espouse the candidate of one
group. Members of the other group came, shouted at them,
remonstrated with them, and asked them to stay out of local
rivalries. No one was molested. The entire conversation with
the nuns was taped by reporters of The Observer of Business
and Politics. The paper published the facts. Neither the
propagandist-Editor nor The Hindustan Tinmes returned to the
story they had played up so much.
The third incident originated in a story put out by
Associated Press. An American doctor, Dr. John Sylvester,
working in Allabhabad has been attacked by Hindu
fundamentalists, the agency reported, he has had to seek
shelter in a Baptist Church, his clinic has been broken up...
And the facts? Sylvester is not a medical doctor, he has a
Ph.D. in Economics. He is not an American, his wife is. He
has no clinic, instead he runs two schools. Neither he nor his
wife, nor their schools had ever been attacked. But the
assault was the talk in atrocity-circles: in the papers, on
Internet.
In the fourth incident, a nun was said to have been raped in
Baripada, Orissa. Again, in less than a flash the incident was
all over - in the papers, on TV, on Internet. The local
missionary was in the forefront in giving it currency: he
declared that local communal outfits" were the ones who
had raped the lady. Everyone ran with this, and the rape was
projected as a continuation of the attacks by Bajrang Dal
An echo chamber 9
types on helpless Christians. The medical examination

disclosed no sign of rape, not even of struggle: the marks
were reported to be "superficial and self-inflicted". Police
were also struck by a telling detail. The lady was asked for
the garments she had been wearing – these were the items
that were most likely to have had the decisive evidence to
nail the culprits: semen and all. The investigators were told
that all the clothes had been burnt immediately after the
assault. Police and district officials were said to be non
plussed about how to handle the matter - lest the state
government take umbrage. By July, 1999, the Wadhwa
Commission had looked into this incident, among others.
What did his inquiry reveal?
One Sister Jacqueline Mary was said to have been raped on
3
February, 1999. "Orissa nun raped in moving car," the
headlines declared, Justice Wadhwa records. "Orissa's
second stain: nun raped," shouted the Indian Express. "Nun
gangraped by men in sari in Orissa," hollered The Telegrapb.
The village "has become the rallying point of Christians of the
area," the papers proclaimed. "The press, on the basis of
some statement made by the pastor of the Church highlighted
the role of some Hindu fundamentalist organizations," writes
Justice Wadhwa. "....It was termed as a planned attack on the
church. It was said that there was a role of communal
forces. Electronic media was not far behind. It was
highlighted as an anti-Christian attack." "Do not treat this as an
isolated incident," teachers of a Christian convent school told
correspondents. "A communal conspiracy is suspected to be
behind the rape.
There indeed was a conspiracy it turns out, and a
communal one at that. The whole thing was a concoction - by
those whose agenda it is to paint Hindus as communalists on
the rampage, and the RSS, BJP, etc., as organizations which
are orchestrating a "pogrom". "Investigations, however,
revealed that what Sister Mary said in the FIR was not
true," records Justice Wadhwa. "It was a made-up story.
10 Havesting Our Souls
Investigations found that there was in fact no rape of Sister

Mary. B. B. Panda, D(ireçtor) G(eneral) (of) P(olice) stated
that the 'ape of the nun' case was projected and highlighted
all over the world and was also projècted as an attack on
Christians when in fact was not true, and the case turned out
to be false."
In the fifth incident, a young girl and boy were found
murdered in Kandhamal, also in Orissa. The murders had
taken place in a remote forest. Local officials said that there
seemed to be no communal angle to the murders, but our
papers and those abroad portrayed them to be part of
continuing attacks on Christians by militant Hindus. The
incident got redoubled prominence: it became a butt in the
factional war within Congress - local Congressmen found in it
the ultimate weapon in their efforts to replace J.B. Patnaik,
the then Chief Minister of Orissa. Justice Wadhwa looked into
this incident also. And what did he find?
On 7 February, 1999, two children, aged 10 and 19, vere
found murdered, a third had sustained injuries. "This incident
again attracted a great deal of publicity in the media,
including electronic media," writes Justice Wadhwa.
"Newspapers came up with the headings, 'Two Christians
killed, one injured in Orissa,' '2tribal Christians done to death
in Kandhamal,' and 'Orissa hunts for Christians' killer.'
Additional D.G.P. John Nayak reportedly said that the
communal angle to the attempted rape and murder could not
be ruled out..." "A certain political party even blamed the
State and Central Governments," Justice Wadhwa recalls,
"and stated that the inaction of the State Government in the
Manoharpur missionary killing incident [the killing of Staines
and his sons to which we shall come in a moment) and the
alleged rape of the nun in Baripada encouraged miscreants to
commit yet another crime in Kandhamal." "In short", he
concludes, "as per various reports that appeared in the
newspapers, the incident was taken as an attack on the
Christians."
An echo chamber 11
"Ultimately investigation revealed that the crime was

committed by a relative of the victims who was also a
Christian," the Commission notes. The killings seemed to
have been riggered by the usual, not just local but personal
jealousies. I would sincerely request you to scour the back
issues of your papers, and compare the prominence that was
given to news of the murders originally with the way news of
the suspect having been found, of his having confessed to the
crime was treated, and whether any paper even reported the
concusion which Justice Wadhwa reached on the case after
sifting the evidence.
Another incident that became the talk in atrocity-circles
was one that occurred on 8 Decenmber, 1998. Tribals attacked
the police station at Udaygiri, stormed the jail, dragged two
undertrial prisoners out, and lynched them to death in front of
the police station. After that, they burnt houses belonging to
members of a particular caste, Pana. The incident too was
projected as a Hindu-Christian encounter. Justice Wadhwa
sets out the facts about what actually happened. The incident
had nothing to do with Hindus and Christians. The tribals
were being harassed by criminals who happened to be from
some particular caste, the Pana caste. The police had been
doing nothing. One day some tribals were proceeding to
seek employment. The criminals robbed them of all their
cash. That ignited the flash. The two who were dragged out
of jail, as well the ones whose houses were burnt happened
tobelong to this Pana caste, and the mob that went for them
consisted of tribals who had been agitated at the police doing
nothing to bring the criminals to book. But a Hindu-Christian
clash it became!
In yet another incident - this one occurred in mid-March,
1999 – Hindus, a minority in the village, were pictured as
having sparked off Hindu-Christian clashes in village Ranalai,
Orissa. In his report, Justice Wadhwa reconstructs the
sequence of events. Christians painted a large Cross on a
hillock, Some Hindus transfigured it into a Trisbul. A Peace
Committee consisting of reprasentatives from both

communities decided that there would be neither a Cross nor
a Trisbul. Next day, Hindus went and erased the sign.
Christians alleged that while returning, Hindus shouted
slogans proclaiming victory. Tension mounted. While trying
to control the situation, a Circle Inspector of the police was
manhandled by Christians. He registered a First Information
Report against three of them. Houses of Christians were said
to have been burned down. Cross-complaints were filed by
Hindus and Christians - each side accused the other.
The Minorities Commission sent a team, and declared that
seeds of the trouble had been sown a few months earlier, that
BJP men had gone and inflamed feelings of local Hindus and
instructed them to convert the Cross into a Trisbul. As for the
incidents and tension, it came to the conclusion it always
reaches: the Hindus had created the trouble.
Justice Wadhwa observes, "These findings are without
examining any person on oath or receiving evidence on
affidavits." The Minorities Commission had also stigmatized
the State Government for inaction. Justice Wadhwa writes,
"When the members of the Minorities Commission visited the
village [within a fortnight of the supposed incidentsl,
normalcy prevailed. Cases had already been registered
against members of both the groups...." Justice Wadhwa
shows that the Minorities Commission proceeded in a manner
that is in manifest violation of its own statute. But the
manufactured version of the Minorities Commission was used
to fortify the pogrom-thesis.
Justice Wadhwa quotes the account that The Economic
Times correspondent had filed after visiting the village. The
22 March, 1999, issue of the paper reported, Justice Wadhwa
writes, "that roots of the Ranalai village incident in Gajapati
district of Orissa in which houses of Christian families were
burnt down by Hindu tribals of nearby villages lie in the
economic disparities prevailing between the two
communities. The report further said that tension had been
An echo chamber 13
building up since the night of February 9, when 23 houses of
Hindu amilies were burnt down by criminals belonging to
the Christian community of the nearby Jhami Gaon... The
report further stated that The unfortunate incident was
largely unreported and totally ignored by national and
international media'"
In Dangs, Gujarat, newspapers reported not one but a set
of attacks on churches. Accounts in our "national", that is
English papers portrayed the attacks as the handiwork of
militant Hindu organizations affiliated to the RSS. Reports
in the papers of Gujarat pointed in an entirely different
direction. The local Sarvodaya leaders - who have been
working in the area for over forty years - put the respons
ibility at the door of missionaries and their aggressive
proselytizing activities. In the English press, an organization
styling itself as the Hindu Jagran Manch was held to have
executed the attacks. The VHP said that the organization had
nothing to do with it. Tbe Indian Express showed that this
organization had been listed in an RSS-brochure as one of its
affiliates. The suspects were soon arrested. In the months that
followed not one organization which had screamed about the
"attacks" did anything to ensure that the trials of the suspects
proceeded.
The contrast between the truth about the incidents and
what they were made out to be should alert our newspapers
and TV channels not to shoot off accounts without examining
the facts. In particular, they must not go merely by the
allegations of communalism-mongers.
Several groups have several reasons for manufacturing
calumny - from money to ideology to the crassest kind of
politics. Many of these are well-organized, some, as we shall
see, have well-knit, world-wide networks. And they have
honed expertise in manufacturing atrocity-stories, in
broadcasting them round the globe, and in putting their
manufactures to profitable use. One of the simplest of these
techniques is to create an echo chamber. Select some out of
the way place. Manufacture an occTrence at this place: "Nun

raped in Baripada." Get a wire service, one newspaper, or
better still someTV channel to pick it up. Get your groups to
broadcast it on Internet, over your publications, your radio
network. By the time newspapers and channels get to send
Some reporter to reconstruct the incident, they would have
carried the fabrication so many times that they would have to
think first of the harm the facts would do to their own
reputation. In the natural course, therefore, they would have
a predisposition to reinforce the version they have been
carrying.
And the condition of the media today makes it an easy
instrument for spreading such fabrications: purveying
allegations without any examination, servility to intellectual
fashions, superciliousness.... each of these traits is familiar to
readers, each of them has fateful consequernces.
But media is just one of the institutions that contributes to
broadcasting untruth in this fashion.
This is brought out by the fabrications which the Minorities
Commission put out on the Ranalai incident. The ninth
incident brings it out even more graphically. It was the one
that resounded the world over like the rape of the four nuns
the brutal killing of an Australian missionary, Graham Staines
and his two little sons.
The Staines killings
The murders of Graham Staines and his young sons were

widely attributed to one, Dara Singh. Rival organizations
alleged that he had been affiliated with the opposing
organization: Hindu organizations alleged that he had been
close to "progressiv" politicians of UP, the latter alleged that
he had been a member of the Bajrang Dal. The press in India
and the world over portrayed the killings as part of the saine
series of assaults on Christians. The central Government
appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by a sitting judge
An echo chamher 15
of the Supreme Court, Justice D.P. Wadhwa. The Judge

submitted his report in July, 1999. Not one organization, not
one publication which had done everything it could to
portray the murders as the handiwork of raving Hindu
fundamentalists sO much as put outeven pro formaa demand
that the Government make public the Commission's findings!
The Government released the Report. On the face of it, the
Report should have been very welcome to our secularist
friends. Justice Wadhwa had concluded that the main person
who organized the attack was indeed Rabindra Kumar Pal
alias Dara Singh, that the killings were premeditated, that
Dara Singh's motive in organizing and carrying through the
brutal killings was "misplaced fundamentalism", namely his
Conviction that conversions by missionaries were threatening
Hinduism. Justice Wadhwa also recorded evidence to the
effect that Dara Singh had been involved in an activity which,
in theeyes of secularists, is as nefarious as an activity can get:
protection of cows from slaughter.
But no, the secularists were all in rage. "A stained report",
"A whitewash", "A politically tutored report" - they shouted.
Jústice Wadhwa had failed the litmus test: if only he had
included a sentence - a single sentence! - imnputing, how
soever obliquely, that Dara Singh was in some way affiliated
to some organization that our friends could have some
how linked to the RSS or the BJP,what applause would have
greeted the Report!
But the Judge had stuck to evidence. Hence the fury! For
our friends, a Commission of Inquiry is truthful only if it is
useful! And it is useful only if it helps reinforce the stereotype
they have manufactured!
The English press, as well as the Minorities Commission
projected Staines as a devoted social worker. They focused
on the work - exemplary work - he had been doing for
leprosy patients. In the Report it sent to Justice Wadhwa,
the Minorities Commission went so far as to declare that
for ten years Staines and his fanmily had not been involved
in preaching of Christianity leading to conversion in

Manoharpur. That characterization is as good a point as any
on which to begin.
In fact, associates of Staines himself told the Wadhwa
Commission that Staines used to conduct "Bible classes" at
"Jungle camps". One of his oldest acquaintances told the
Commission that Staines had been totally secretive about both
the "Jungle camps" and the accounts, etc., of the Leprosy
House he ran. While some witnesses maintained that Staines
never even attended baptisms, some reported that he did,
and also that he provided vehicles for marriages and baptism
functions. More telling is something of an order altogether
different from the oral testimony of witnesses.
It turns out that Staines and his wife, Gladys, regularly filed
despatches for a journal in Australia, Tidings. This journal is
run by the missionary organization in Australia which
financed Staines and his activities in Manoharpur. When the
Commission learned about the despatches, it requested the
concerned persons for copies of the journal. None were
supplied! The Commission had to obtain these from other
sources. Justice Wadhwa reproduces several extracts from
the despatches.
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 25 April, 1997: The first
jungle camp in Ramchandrapur was a fruitful time and the Spirit of
God worked among the people. About 100 attended and some were
baptized at the camp. At present Misayel and some of the Church
leaders are touring a number of places where people are asking for
baptism. Five were baptized at Bigonbadi. Pray for the EtaniTrust in
which the Mission properties are vested. One man managed by
underhand means to get parts of the property in his own name and a
number of nominal Christians of the Baripada Church are also trying
to get some of this valuable property for themselves. The Trust is
having to take legal action to rectify this.
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 23 July, 1997: Praise
God for answered prayer in the recent Jagannath car festival at
Baripada. A good team of preachers came from the village churches
An echo chamber 17
and four OM workers helped in the second part of the festival. There
were record bOok sales, so a lot of literature has gone into the
people's hand.. Incidentally,OM is a carefully chosen acronym: the
organization it signifies is actually one of the largest publishers and
distributors of missionary literature, and has its offices in Carlisle,
Cumbria, United Kingdom!
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 19 September, 1997:
Praise God we now have the Ho New Testamentin Oriya script and
many copies are now in the hands of the Ho people [Staines had
done the translation himself]. Pray to God thatit will be used of God to
speak to many as they read his word in their own language...
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 11 February, 1998:
Jungle camp means four days of Bible teaching, prayer and
fellowship of Christians living together. It enables believers from
other churches to meet with local Christians to discuss experiences
and encourage one another....The camp also can create hunger in
the hearts of those who come just to observe. Eaclh camp has a
bookstall, which for many is the only chance to buy Christian
literature... It was also encouraging to see so many Ho people
following the references in the Ho New Testament during the
messages at Sarat Jungle camp. We sold all the New Testaments we
took there....
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 20 March, 1998:
..Over the next twO Months there will be a programme of baptismin
nearby villages for those asking för them. These are times for witness
to non-Christians too..
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 19 May, 1998: There
are many new believers in the Manoharpur Church and the work is
growing. The devil is now finding opportunity to hinder the work of
God. There is disagreement between the young people and the
older men of the church. A problem arose about the land on which
the church is built and the planned Vacation Bible School had to be
canceled. Last year more than 100 children attended this
programnme. The translation of Daily Life into Oriya is complete..
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 19June, 1998 In many
churches here Sunday schools have ceased to function. I have been
advocating these and ata recent church leaders meeting I heard that
some have re-started this work...The Vacation Bible School that was
to be held at Manolharpur was canceled because of problems in the
church there. Two hundred and eight children registered for the one
at Raika... It was an excellent time and SOme young people who

teach in VBS [the Vacation Bible School] are being trained and
encouraged for children's work and Sunday school.
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 21 August, 1998:
...There are still divisions in the church at Manoharpur and the
churches at Durakuntia and Burudi are very weak. It is wonderful to
see the little girls being cared for in the Rairangpur hostel. They have
a wonderful opportunity to learm to read and learn of the Lord....
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 18 September, 1998:
Four men visited Manoharpur Church to discuss the problems there
and much was Sorted out. A man who wantsto be the head of the
church wants to bring in or join with two other groups who do not
teach and walk according to the scriptures....
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 19 December, 1998: It
is encouraging to hear of some improvement in the church at
Manoharpur and thatthey are preparing for the jungle camp. Misayel,
Paul and Nehemiah visited Patana in early December but, as many
were away rice harvesting, they could meet only witlh a few. They
were able to encourage a new believer who had been a priest of the
Sana Dhoram, an animist sect. The village people pleaded with him
not to become a Chistian saying, How can we continue our worship
if youleave us?You can do as you like, butI am following Christ,' he
said. Continue to pray. God is working.
The typical concerns of a typical missionary - harvesting

souls for the Church, ensuring that properties of the church
do not fall into hands of others, ensuring that control of church
affairs remains in the hands of persons who will heed the
missionary. The prejudices of a missionary - Sanatana
Dharma, an animist sect! While his wife and some others
denied this,one of his close associates spoke of his "hatred"
for other religions. This associate reported - and even
Gladys, Staines' wife, acknowledged - that, if he happened
to be at any non-Christian function, Graham Staines would
never take prasad, as, Mrs. Staines claimed, doing so is
prohibited in the Bible...
After reviewing the evidence, the Wadhwa Commission,
therefore, concludes,
An echo chamber 19
Besides his involvement with Leprosy House, Staines was also
involved in missionary work. The missionary work of Staines has
Come to light from the various despatches sent by him to Australia,
which are published in the newsletter, Tidings. Staines also used to
take part in baptism ceremonies although he may not have
necessarily carried out the baptisn himself. Paul Murmu says that
Staines attended baptism ceremonies and marriage ceremonies of
Christian families whenever he was available. However, it is the
despatches sent by Staines to Australia in the newsletter Tidings'
that make it clear that Stairnes was also involved in active propagation
of his religion apat from his sOcial work. It is also clear from the said
despatches that conversions were taking place in jungle camps. The
missionary work of Staines obviously included organizing and
conducting jungle camps, trarnslating the Bible in tribal languages,
preaching of Bible to the tribals. It is obvious, therefore, that Staines
was botha social worker engaged in the treatment and eradication of
leprosy amongst the poorest of the poor and also a missionary driven
by a deep commitment to his religion and the belief that he should
spread its tenets amongst the people in the area. His missionary
activitiesdid lead to conversions of tribals to his faith.
But as far as the Minorities Commission is concerned,

suppresso veri, and pronounce!
Having asserted that Graham Staines had not been
involved in missionary work, the Minorities Commission
asserted that cordial relations existed between Hindus and
Christians, that there were no ill feelings among them. The
two assertions together set the stage for the main theme
which the Minorities Commission pressed: the murders were
lightning out of the blue, they were the handiwork of Dara
Singh,and Dara Singh in turn was affiliated to the Bajrang Dal.
While a number of Christian witnesses as well as some
policemen told the Justice Wadhwa Commission that there
was nO COMmunal tension in the area, others testified to the
Contrary. There had been tensions between the communities
for seven years, they told the Commission. And for
one
reason.
The Australian missionary organization which was

financing Staines had set up 20-25 churches in Mayurbhanj
and Keonjhar districts, a linguist working with the Indian
Evangelical Mission told the Commission. Jungle camps were
used for baptizing persons, witnesses told the Commission.
B. B. Panda, who was Director General of Police, Orissa from
October, 1997 to March, 1999, stated in a report to the State
Government that "Mr. Staines was attending Jungle Mela in
Manoharpur for the last more than 20 years. Majority of the
local Adivasi Christians had been converted to Christianity
through hisefforts." S.C. Bala, the Superintendent of Police of
the Crime Branch, who investigated the case, was asked by
the Wadhwa Commission what in his view was the likely
motive for the murders. He told the Commission that the
motive "appeared to be that non-Christian people were
aggrieved on the ground that Christian fathers/missionaries
a
are converting the people to Christianity in deceitful
manner by giving allurements."
More telling are the despatches of Staines and his wife in
Tidings, the newsletter of the Australian missionary
organization. They themselves Wrote about these tensions
repeatedly.
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 19 September, 1997:
...The Ho believers in Thakurmunda still face persecution. From
time to time the village people have beaten them up, broken their
bicycles and not allowed them to worship in their own church
building. Three people came to Baripada to meet district oficials and
petition for justice. Pray that action will be taken to allow freedom to
worship.
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 22 February, 1998: We
have just arrived home from the Baliposi campa day early. Some
people from a Hindu militant group who are persecuting the
Christians came to the camp but were not able to disturb the
meetings. On the last day the police came and told us to stop the
meeting and leave, as they would not be able to protect us....
[election-related requirements left no mento spare.]
An echo chambe 21
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 2O March, 1998: Six
men came to Baripada to speak with officials in the intelligence
department regarding the tension in the Thakurmunda area..
Grabam and Gladys Staines, Mayurbbanj, 19 May, 1998: We
have been told that amilitant Hindu group plans to concentrate on
Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar districts to turn Christians back to
Hinduism....
In a word: conversions were taking place; this had caused

tensions; so much so that a Hindu group had decided to try
and get the converts back into Hinduism, But for the
Minorities Commission, all was peace and harmony!
The First Information Report on the Staines' murder was
filed by the pastor of the Manoharpur Church. He turns out to
bea good candidate for some of our secularist organizations.
The assailants shouted Jai Bajrang Dal", he recorded in the
FIR. Witness after Christian witness testified that what the
assailants shouted was aiBajrang Bali". The assailants set
fire to the church, he said. The church turned out to not have
been harmed, On count after count - what he saw, 'what he
heard, the persons he named as having committed the crime
- the pastor's statements turned out to be contradictory. On
count after count he disOwned them himself. After narrating
these somersaults, Justice Wadhwa remarks, "It is, thus, clear
that the FIR was drawn up only after the Chief Minister had
left Manoharpur. From all angles, it is a doctored FIR, a large
part of which has been disowned by the informant himself
and also has been shown to be false." But it is this IR which
became the basis for imaginative journalism.
B.B. Panda, who was then Director General of Police,
Orissa, told the Commission that the New Indian Express
that is, the southern editions of the Indian Express - of 25
January, 1999, quoted him as saying, "Over 50 people
suspected to be activists of the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu
Parishad were involved in the incident, and so far 47 persons
have been arrested." He told the Commission that, as he had
not said this, he sent the paper a contadiction. The paper did
not publish the contradiction.
By that figure of 47-50 arrests hangs another lesson also.
One result of the gruesome nature the murders, of the
of
fact that even the little sons had been done to death, of the
fact that the State Government had to show to the Congress
leadership in Delhi that it was acting energetically, and also
of the glare the media had brought to bear on the case was
that the police felt it just had to show something. The
consequence? "The police went berserk," observes Justice
Wadhwa. It picked up anyone who in its imagination could
somehow or the other be linked with the Bajrang Dal. Fifty
one persons were thrown into jail. The Crime Branch found
that there was absolutely no case against them. All of them
had to be released. Justice Wadhwa observes,
It would thus appear that 51 persons underwent the agony of going

into judicial custody for twO months or more. Though initially the
as
State Government took a great deal of pride that police arrested
many as51 accused showing the efficiency and promptness of the
police, but ultimately subsequent events showed that in the State of
Orissa, as far as these 51 persons are concerned, there was no rule of
law, Prakash Mehra (DIG) in his supervision note had stated that
there was noevidence in respect of all the five FIR-named acCused
persons Or the 51l persons arrested by the local police.
«The question then arises in view of the contradictions which

make the FIR a false document, what was the motivating
force behind it?," asks Justice Wadhwa. "And why as many as
51 innocent persons were arrested between 23rd to 28th
January, 1999?" "Answers to these questions are not far to
seek," he concludes. "The State Government was rattled by
the gravity of the crime. To divert attention from its own
failure to maintain law and order and to protect the innocent
and then show 'speedy and decisive' action, a false picture is
presented."
And as for the involvement of the Bajrang Dal, etc., the
An echo chanber 23
Commission concludes, "The Commission has scrutinized the

evidence before it and especially the evidence of the
associates of Dara Singh whowere involved in the carnage at
Manoharpur. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the
persons involved in the crime was in fact a member of either
the Bajrang Dal or BJP or any organization. There is nothing
to suggest in the evidence before the Commission, or in the
investigation conducted by the Crime Branch and the CBI
thus far that there is involvement of any organization, even
that of Bajrang Dal, in the planning and the execution of the
Crime."
Several witnesses testified to Dara Singh's involvement in
the crime - in preparing for it, in executing it. Justice
Wadhwa is in no doubt that Dara Singh was the prime mover.
To fly off in rage at Dara Singh, and feel that one has done
one'sduty is to miss the point.
There are several important clues. Several witnesses
testified that Dara Singh had been engaged in rescuing cows
that were being transported for slaughter. He had been trying
to get the State to enforce laws which it has itself enacted for
preventing cruelty to animals. This activity was branded,
even by the police, to be anti-Muslim" activity. Dara Singh
Was accordingly implicated in cases filed by persons
engaged in transporting and selling cows for slaughter. That
is as far as the consequences for Dara Singh under the law are
concerned. The effect on the people was the exact opposite.
Witness-29, who testified that he had been asked by Dara
Singh to accompany him to Manoharpur, told the
Commission, "Dara Singh is a very popular figure in the
village as he forcibly frees cows from the people who take
them for selling. After freeing the cows, Dara Singh
distributes the cows among the villagers..
Cows are revered by Hindus. The man trying to save them
becomes an outlaw in the eyes of the police, anda hero in the
eyes of the people. Two lessons in that.
On the other hand, Staines and his associates are left free to
go on converting Hindus to Christianity. Tensions mount as a

result. Staines' own despatches testify to this. But our
institutions –the Minorities Commission and the police being
representative in this regard - even in retrospect assert the
fiction that there was no tension between Christians and non
Christians.
The second clue is provided by the evidence of a key
witness, one whose testimony contributes most to the
concluding that Dara Singh was the architect of the crime.
The witness is one Dipu Das. He was a close associate of
Dara Singh. He revealed to the Commission that "youth from
Gayalmunda and Bhalughera had approached Dara Singh
SOmetime in August 1998 to stop the Christians from
converting Hindus to Christianity.... "
A clue for us to follow.

Body counts:
big, and compellingbusiness
The central premise of the Church, thus, remains that only

those willbe saved who confess to faith in Christ. More than
that has been the institutional impulse. The Church had but to
get established and it became obsessed with numbers - with
the nunmber of souls it had, to use the term so favoured by
churchmen, "harvested" for Jesus. Numbers remain its
singular obsession today: we will see this soon in the case of
Mother Teresa herself – we will soon see how intensely the
hierarchy will use her for marketing purposes should the
Church see its way to proclaiming her a saint.
The impulse is not just the Church's own history in this
regard. The impulse is not just its character - it is, after all,
primarily an organization, and therefore like all organizations
it is obsessed with its market-share.
To a very large extent, the inmpulse is commercial. The
Church is big business. Evangelization is big business. And
this business dependson that "harvesting" of souls. You just
have to.scan American missionary publications, or those of
Europe, to see that one of the main grounds on which
believers are induced to donate funds to the Church is that the
money is needed for harvesting work. But even in that there
is now a problem.
In Europe as well as in the USA, the Church is in serious
trouble. Attendance in Rome itself has fallen to just three per
-
cent of the number of nominal believers in Rome, the very
seat of the Vatican. With this shrivelling, has come another
problem: the Church has been having greater and greater
26 Haivesting Our Souls
difficulies in recruiting priests, nuns, and ancillary staff to

man the churches. The need for focusing on countries such as
India has therefore tripled.
Missionary publications bear ample testimony to this focus:
they are full of targets, of detailed plans, of marketing
strategies by which the harvest here is to be multiplied: a
church to be "planted" in every village, a Bible to be placed
in every pair of hands, lists and characteristics of "people
groups" which are to be targeted WOmen, Scheduled
Castes, and, most of all, tribals; the beliefs and characteristics
of each target-group which can be used to enter the group,
the beliefs which are liable to be hindrances and how these
may be transformed into aids.
"The majority Meiti are Hindu," notes Operation World,
and points to what may be used to wean them away:
"nationalism is lowering commitment to Hinduism." As a rule,
evangelists denounce nationalism, how are they looking
hopefully at nationalism among the Meiti?, you may wonder -
that is because, in this instance, by "nationalism" they mean
feeling for the tribal identity as against what the people of the
region share with the rest of the country! Meghalaya: already
57 per cent Christian, focus has now to be on "the less
reached"- "Some of the smaller tribes - notably the Hajong,
Mikir and others - have been less responsive and remain
entrenched in their animism, The Hindu minority has been
little affected by the gospel." Mizoram: already 85 per cent
Christian; focus has to be on the less reached" - and there is
a sign of hope, "The Buddhist Chakmas are being intensively
evangelized by Mizo, and churches are multiplying," followed
by the next target-group in bold type, "The Bangladeshi
refugees and the Hindu population are needy." The beam of
hope from Nagaland: "Missionary vision blossomed as a
result of revival. Christians made a solemn covenant in 1980
to live for, and further, world evangelization. They are
trusting God that 10,000 missionaries will be sent from
Nagaland...."
Body counts:big, and compelling business 27
Not just the minute targeting, notice the words they use,
the very ones who denounce Hinduism for being saturated
with casteism. "Haryana is one of India's least evangelized
states," Operation World laments. "Indian agencies are
pioneering work among the eight million Jat and 1.5 million
Chamar castes (FMPB, Indian Inland Mission), and the Sikhs
(Indian Inland Mission). Pray for a response. Pray also for the
unreached Muslims and Jains..." "Punjab..., Most of the
Christian community originated in the last century in mass
movements from depressed Chamar and Chura castes.. "
"Chama," "Chura"- weresome Hindu publication or even a
Government publication to use such words, they would
shout, "degrading, insulting, obnoxious, totally unacceptable,
a penal offence....
A minor footnote: Operation World is published by the
same Om Publisbing, Carlisle, UK, that we encountered in
the Staines' despatches! [Patrick Johnstone, Operation World,
OM Publishing, Carlisle, UK, 1993. The map of the country
with which the chapter on India opens shows not just most of
Kashmir to be out of India, it shows Arunachal Pradesh also as
being in some other country.]
That name – OM - tells a larger tale. Missionary publica
tions set out how the dress of the clergy,how the ambiance in
churches, how Christian ritual are to be "indigenised" so that
people do not continue to look upon the Church as foreign.
Stating that the Cardinal President of the Consilium, His
Eminence Benno Cardinal Gut, has accepted the proposals
of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India, a circular of
Archbishop D. Simon Lourdusamy informed churches in the
country,
(1) The posture during Mass, both for priests and the faithful may be
adapted to local usage, that is sitting on the floor, standing and the
like; footwear may also be removed. (2) Genuflections may be
replaced by the profound\bow with the anjali basta. (3) A
panchanga pranam by both priests and faithful can take place
before the liturgy of the Word, as part of the Penitential rite, and at the
concusion of the Anaphora. (4) Kissing of objects may be adapted to

local customs, that is touching the object with one's fingers or palm of
one's hand and bringing the hands to one's eyes or forehead. (5) The
kiss of peace could be given by the exchange of anjali basta and/or
the placing of the hands of the giver between the hands of the
recipient. (6) Incense could be made use of in liturgical services. The
receptacle could be the simple incense bowl with handle. (7) The
vestments could be simplified. A single tunic-type chasuble with a
stole (angavastra) could replace the traditional vestments of the
Roman rite...(8) The corporal could be replaced by a tray (thali or
thamboola thattu)..(9) Oil lamps could be used instead of candles.
(10) The preparatory rite of the Mass may include: ....(b) the
welcome of the celebrant in the Indian way, e.g. with a single arati,
washing of handsetc.; (c) lighting of the lamp... (12) In the Offertory
rite and at the conclusion of the Anaphora the Indian form of worship
may be integrated, that is, double or triple arati of flowers, and/or
incense, and/or light...
An evangelical Internet site exults in how that ministry

consciously avoids overturning the beliefs and practices of
the target-peoples, how instead it ensures "deculturisation"
over an extended period by introducing into their awareness
what it terms "functional substitutes" for those beliefs and
practices. So much so that it commends its own logo too on
this ground! We have not replaced the lotus, "which is
supposed to be the seat of the Indian gods," it reports, we
have entrenched the Cross in it! While addressing the
ignorant and illiterate in India this ministry vill point to the
lotus, while addressing the potential donor its selling-point is
the opposite: "The inference is," the site informs that donor,
"that the historical Christ and the Cross must ultimately take
the seat of these mythological deities and thereby Christianity
should become deeply rooted in the culture of India."
Even minor outfits garner literally millions through this
harvesting business. Taken as a whole the enterprise is being
conducted on a scale we just cannot imagine. As the late Ram
Swarup had pointed out, even fifteen years ago, the Mission
Handbook, North American Ministries Overseas had put the
Bocdy counts: big, and compelling business 29
number of missionaries raking in the harvest at around a
quarter million. Even then it had put the expenditure on such
activity at around one and a balf billion dollars. Of course, it
had exhorted the faithful to dole out much more: "it costs
money to stay in business," it had said with fetching
frankness One of the ways for these missionaries to get their
!
flock to cough up money has been to paint our people and

country in gory colours – this has not changed one bit since
the 19th century. Starving, sunk in superstition, crushed
under the heels of high-caste Hindus, in the grip of Satan
himself - hence the urgent duty to save them, and for that
send your donation to.. "The Indian sub-continent, with one
billion people, is a living example of what happens when
Satan rules the entire culture," Ram Swarup quoted fromn the
Texas-based Gospel for Asia. "India is one vast purgatory in
which millions of people... are literally living a cosmic lie.
Could Satan have devised a more perfect system for causing
misery?"
Nothing gets the faithful to dip into their pockets as atrocity
stories. The country got a taste, as we have seen, in late 1998
early 1999 of the extent of the Church's networks, of their
potency, as well as of the shameless vigour with which they
deploy falsehood. Every other week it was jolted by stories
of atrocities being heaped on poor Christians by rabid Hindu
fundamentalists. They were a substantial plot in themselves.
But in fact the fabrications are just a part -just one component
of a general device, an enormously lucrative device at that.
Atrocity stories
Missionary publications and Internet sites are predictably
full of gory tales, and, unlike those eight incidents which
have disappeared from our' papers, the regular Christian
publications and sites are full of atrocity-mongering at all
times.
"Christian suffering in India is the worst in India in 50
years," a site informed potential danors through the Internet

in a dispatch by the Editors of Religion Today, dated 30
November, 1998 – that is, even before the late 1998-early
1999 series of fabrications began' to be put out. “Mobs of
religious fanatics have attacked churches and Christian
schools, dispersed outdoor gospel meetings, and beaten
evangelists in dozens of incidents this year," it proclaimed.
"Oppression is widespread," it said, sourcing it to "a person
with contacts." Churches have been burned, an orthodox
school attacked for not teaching Sanskrit, tractors and
crowbars used in attack..Government deliberately taking
no action.... Hence "the workers pray God for their
protection. They 'take the threats before the Lord in fasting
prayer and ask Him to protect them.' Christians have been
beaten, tortured with razor blades, and thrown from a
speeding train, and 6 to 12 per year are martyred, he said."
Who said? The very same propagandist-Editor who was
soon to be in the forefront spreading concoctions like "Jhabua
re-enacted in Jhajjar."
But not just atrocity stories - if they were all, they could
well drain potential donors of enthusiasm, "What's the use?",
they could conclude. And so, triumph-in-face-of-atrocity,
atrocity-as a-reflection-of-triumph stories too. The same site,
in the same story, "...Hundreds of tribal people in a section
of northern India are becoming Christians through the efforts
of evangelists" - notice the unverifiable locaie: "a section of
northern India"! Next, "The area is known for violent tribal
clashes" - that to redouble the admiration for the evangelists:
they are doing the Lord's work in spite of the risks the area
poses. «It is the greatest revival we know of at this timne,'he
said. Youdon't get this kind of revival without persecution,
and bloodshed, and martyrdom. One comes with the other.""
The one operational conclusion!
Conclusion: give because India is in the grip of Satan; give

because with its billion people India represents such a vast
Body counts: big, and compelling business 31
opportunity to save souls for the Lord; give because Christians

are being cut up with razor blades there; give because in spite
of this, in fact because of this bloodshed, the harvest is
muliplying by the hour.... And as in every advertising
campaign, a certificate from a satisfied consumer! "Dr.
Donald McGavran made the following observation about the
ECI(the Evangelical Church of India]," notes a related site on
Internet. ""The fascinating story of the unique church
planting ministry of ECI in India must be told everywhere in
the pessimistic missionary vorld. What Dr. Sargunam and his
colleagues have achieved during the last two decades affirms
that the Lord of the harvest is at work in several parts of India.
I have been in a few of these churches and watched the
number of baptisms. I commend Christians everywhere to
support and claim a share in this tremendous victory and help
many more thousands to be discipled and churches
multiplied until Christ returns.
The site of AD 2000 Mission informs donors, "Vasanthraj
Albert of the Church Growth Research Center in Madras,
states, 'I believe that India today is on the map for the global
church.' And Peter Wagner, coordinator for the AD 2000
United Prayer Mobilization Network observes, 'Of all the
nations in the world, India has the highest potential of fruitful
investment of evangelistic effort at this time. It is the place to
invest time, energy and resources.
Organizations upon organizations. Targets upon targets:
for "200 people-groups", for "50 languages", for "50urban
areas", for "200 geographical districts". How their mouths
water at the sight of "unreached peoples': "Remarkably this
[the unreached of India] is 30% of the world's unreached
peoples. The goal is to plant churches in all the remaining
500,000 villages and several thousand unevangelised
segments of the 300 largest cities in India. To achieve these
goals, delegates have agreed to cooperate with the India
Mission Association, which networksto place an evangelist in
every postal code area,"
"Calcutta is an amazing testimony to the power of prayer,"
the site of the AD200Omovement reports. An estimated 35

million focused on Calcutta one day, it says. This was
followed by a month of on-site prayer. "That month of prayer
enhanced the Mission Calcutta 2000 Neswork, whose aim is
to establish a church in every one of the city's 93 postal zones
by the end of the year 2000. Great progress has been made.
Thirty zones that did not have a church now have one. Today
only 30 other zones remain untouched."
And Calcutta isn't the only target, it says. "Varanasi in the
state of Uttar Pradesh is Hinduism's holiest city, with
thousands of temples centering on the worship of Shiva, an
idol whose symbol is the phallus. Many consider this city the
very seat of Satan. Hindus believe that bathing in the Ganges
at Varanasi washes away all sins. A number of Christian
workers took up the burden of prayer for this city and in
prayer-walks boldly declared before the idols, 'You are not a
living god.' One year later it was discovered that church
planting works had opened up in sixty villages around
Varanasi over that past year, with 300 baptisms reported."
"An intensive training program has been implemented to
teach people to practice intercession for the target units," it
records. "An experienced prayer warrior from Africa, Dr.
Zachariah Fomum, has played a key role in this training for
praye.... India is ready and waiting.
One of the difficulties has been that India is “like an
intricate mosaic," the site says. At last the barrier is being
breached. "Much progress has been made in the last few
years to 'spy out the land and its inhabitants' and to give an
accurate and up-to-date picture of the challenges and the
opportunities," it reports. The Indian Missiorns Association,
in partnership with Gospel for Asia, has researched and
published very informative and accurate books on what has
been done so far and the work yet to be done to complete the
task of evangelization within India. They have defined the
work according to language groups, PIN (Zip) codes, and
unreached-people groups in the country..." The work of
Body counts: big, and compelling business 33
others is contributing to the same cause, the site informs the

faithful - hence, the Anthropological Survey of India is
completing and publishing its "People of India Project".
Invaluably helpful data...
And that too testifies to God's hidden plan! "Perhaps never
before has this kind of information on India been so carefully
surveyed, prepared, well-published and distributed. In this
the North India-HindiBelt is unique. We do not believe it is
accidental. God is allowing us to 'spy out the land' that we
might go in and claim both it and its inhabitants for Him."
"But who are these organizations? Who are these
individuals?," asked a member of the Congress() in a raised
voice. I had just drawn the attention of tlhe Rajya Sabha to
what these publications were themselves proclaiming. The
organizations and individuals are active in India, they are the
cause of much tension. Their activities and statements had
been in newspapers all over. But our MP was all fire and fury.
Who are they?, he demanded.

4
Is the Vatican also unknown?
The right of the Church, the divinely ordained duty of the

Church, the very purpose of the Church is to proclaim the
Gospel to all men, to ensure that all things and all men "are
restored in Christ." That claim, or objective if you like, is
-
reiterated at every turn by the Church it was advanced
emphatically by Vatican-II in several of its decrees: in Lumen
Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, in Ad
Gentes, its Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church, and
others.
While the message has been taken to and received by
millions, millions remain out of its reach as yet, Vatican-II
noted. Many of them have not received it through no fault of
their own. "Hence, to procure the glory of God and the
salvatíon of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's
command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark
16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions."
Doing so is our right, it is our over-riding duty, Vatican-II
declared:
As he had been sent by the Father, the Son himself šent the apostles
(cf. Jobn 20:21) saying, 'go, therefore, and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you; and behold I an with you all days even unto the
consummation of the world' (Matthew 28:18-20). The Church has
received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles, and she
must fulfll it to the very ends of the earth (cf. Acts 1:8). Therefore,
she makesthe words of the apostle her own, Woe to me if I do not
preach the Gospel' (1 Cor. 9:16), and accordingly never ceases to
send heralds of the Gospel untileach time the infant churches are
s the Vatican also unknown? 35
fully established, and can themselves continue the work of
evangelization. For the Church is driven by the Holy Spirit o do her
part for the full realization of the plan of God, who hasconstituted
Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. By her
proclamation of the Gospel, she draws her hearers to receive and
profess the faith, she prepares them for baptism, snatches them from
the slavery of error, and she incorporates them into Christ so that in
love for him they grow to full maturity. The effect of her work is that
whatever good is found sown in the minds and hears of men or in the
rtes and customs of peoples, these not only are preserved from
destruction, but are puified, raised up, and perfected for the glory of
God, the confusion of the devil, and the happiness of man.!
A duty handed on through Jesus from God Himself.
Compelled by the example of Jesus himself. In obedience to
the command of Jesus himself. That is how the Church puts its
goal of conversion beyond reasoning and argument. That is
how it seeksto put its claim to pursue Conversion beyond the
reach of law and Constitutional provisions, of judgments of
courts. And notice too the condescension hidden beneath all
the fine talk of God, broad-mnindedness: what is to be
preserved, what in fact is preserved from other traditions:and
religious systems?; "whatever is good" in them; and what is
the “good in them"?; that which conforms to, that which has
traces of the Christian dogma!
The same string of assertions follow one after the other in
Ad Gentes, Vatican-II's Decree on the Mission Activity of tbe
Church. "Divinely sent to the nations of the world to be unto
them 'a universal sacrament of salvation', the Church, driven
by inner necessity of her own ctholicity, and obeying the
mandate of her Founder (cf. Mark 16:16), strives ever to
proclaim the Gospel to all men," the Decree begins - thus the
Church is to pursue this purpose because it has been
"divinely sent", because it is "driven by inner necessity,"
because that is the mandate its Founder decreed for it. The
'Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 21

November, 1964, 17.
Apostles themselves, on whom th Church was founded,

following in the footsteps of Christ, 'preached the word of
God and begot churches,"" the Decree continues. "It is the
duty of their successors to make this taskendure 'so that the
word of God may run and be glorified' (2 Thess. 3:1) and the
kingdom of God be proclaimed and established throughout
the world,"
Indeed, given the way things are, the duty is all the more
urgent, the Council said: "n the present state of affairs, out of
which there is arising a new situation for mankind, the
Church, being the salt of the earth and the light of the world
(cf. Matthew 5:13-14), is more urgently called upon to renew
every creature, that all things may be restored in Christ and all
men may constitute one family in Him and one people of
God." In plain language, all persons and all things belong to
Christ, that what is being done is merely to "restore" them to
Him - exactly the claim on which conversion is undertaken,
and lands have been usurped down the centuries for Islam!
And the justification for this mission is that the Church is "the
salt of the earth and the light of the world," that it is the
"universal sacrament of salvation," And what is the basis for
this claim? That Matthew says so, that it has been so
proclaimed by the same Council, Vatican-II, in another
Decree, Lumen Gentium, 48! No more than a self-anointing
though it is, in the reckoning of the Church the claim entitles,
indeed binds the Church to bring "all men" and "all things"
under its wing!
"Therefore", said the Council - "Tberefore"?, how does
self-acclamation prove the proposition? - "this sacred synod,
while rendering thanks to God for the excellent results that
have been achieved through the whole Church's great
hearted endeavour, desires to sketch the principles of
missionary activity and to rally the forces of all the faithful in
order that the people of God, marching along the narrow way
2See note 1
of Ad Gentes.
Is tbe Vatican also unkn0wn? 37
of the Cross, may spread everywbere the vreign of Christ, Lord
and overseer of the ages (cf. Ecc. 36:19), and may prepare
theway for His coming. »3
The Council proclaimed "without hesitation", as it noted,
"that what has not been taken up by Christ is not made
whole."4 Indeed, not only is the Church conducting its
missionary activity because of its love and compassion for
mankind- love and compassion which impel it to save each
and every human being - it is God Himself who is acting
through the Church, the Council claimed. "Missionary activity
is nothing else and nothing less than an epiphany, or a
manifesting of God's decree," Vatican-IImaintained, "and its
fulfillment in the world and in world history, in the course of
which God, by means of mission, manifestly works out the
history of salvation. By the preaching of the word and by the
celebration of the sacraments, the center and summit of
which is the most holy Eucharist, He brings about the
presenceof Christ, the author of salvation. But whatever truth
and grace are to be found among the nations, as a sort of
secret presence of God, He frees from all taint of evil and
restores to Christ its maker, who overthrows the devil's
domain and wards off the manifold malice of vice. And so,
whatever good is found to be sown in the hearts and minds of
men, or in the rites and cultures peculiar to various peoples"
- this condescension is what constitutes the new "tolerance"
for which we are to be properly grateful - "is not only not
lost, but is healed, uplifted and perfected for the glory of
God, the shame of the demon, and the bliss of men" in
actual fact, having "harvested" the man and his family, the
missionaries strain to have them do things that rent asunder
every link with their tradition and culture, but in their
reckoning they are just healing, uplifting and perfecting our
sick, fallen and flawed cultures.
Ad Gentes, Decree on the Mission Activity of the Churcb, 7 December,
1965, 1. In this book,unless otherwise stated, emphases have been added.
^lbid., 3.
The Counci! proceeded to remark, "Thus, missionary

activity tends toward eschatological fullness. For by it the
people of God is increased to that measure and time which
the Father has fixed in His power (cf.' Acts 1:7). To this
people it was said in prophecy: Enlarge the space for your
tent, and spread out your teni cloths unsparingly'(Is. 54:2).
By missionary activity the mystical body grows to the mature
measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Ebh. 4:13): and the
spiritual temple, where God isadored in spirit and in truth (cf.
Jobn 4:23), grows and is built up upon the foundation of the
Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the
Supreme corner stone (Epb. 2:20)."5
The Church has been sent by Christ to communicate "the
love of God" "to all men and nations," the Council said. It is
acutely aware, the Council said, that the Gospelmessage "has
not yet, or hardly yet, been heard by two billion human
beings (and their number is increasing daily), who are formed
into large and distinct groups by permanent cultural ties, by
ancient religious traditions, and by firm bonds of social
necessity. Some of these men are followers of one of the
great religions, but others remain strangers to the very
knowledge of God, while still others expressly deny His
existence, and sometimes even attack it. The Church, in order
to offer all of them the mystery of salvation and the life
brought by God, must implant berself into these groups for
the same motive which led Christ to bind Hinmself, in virtüe of
His incarnation, to ceitain social and cultural conditions of
those human beings among whom He dwelt."6 "Sent by
Christ", "for the same motive as Christ" - these are assertions,
self-certificates. The operational part is, "the Churcb... must
plant berself into these groups."
The Council urged missionary organizations to adopt
techniques, etc., which would make them more efficient in
5Tbid., 9.
6Ibid., 10.
Is the Vatican also unknown? 39
their task: training, organizational proficiency, setting up
institutions of service, research, and the rest. Not the least
among these is for the mnissionary to immerse himself in the
beliefs and practices of the target groups. As the Council
stressed, "All these different kinds of formations should be
completed in the lands to which they are sent, so that the
missionaries may have a more thorough knowledge of the
history, social structures, and the customs of the people; that
they may have an insight into their moral order and their
religious precepts, and into the secret notions which,
according to their sacred tradition, they have formed
concerning God, the world and man. Let the missionaries
learn the languages to such a degree that they can use them in
a fluent and polished manner, and so find more easy access to
the minds and the hearts of men. Furthermore, they should be
properly introduced into special pastoral problems..."
Nor is missionary activity to be the concern only of those
who hold office in the hierarchy of the Church: every lay
devotee must contribute his mite. This point was stressed
more than once by Vatican-II in Lumen Gentium. After listing
the "reasons" - the command of God, the command and
example of Jesus, etc. - on account of which it is compelled
to evangelise, the pronouncement decrees, "Each disciple of
Christ bas the obligation spreadingthe
of
faith to the best of bis
ability...» 8 And again, laterin the same decree, *....That is,
the faithful who by baptism are incorporated in Christ, are
placed in the People of God, and in their own way share the
priestly,prophetic and kingly office of Christ, and to the best of
their ability carryon the mission of thewbole Christian people
in the Church and the world. " And yet again,
The apostolate of the laity is a sharing in the salvific mission of the
Church. Through Bapism and Confirmation allare appointed to this
apostolate by the Lord himsclf. Moreover, by the sacraments, and
7Ibid., 26. 8Lumen Gentium, op. cit., 17.

lbid., 31.
especially by the Eucharist, that love of God and man which is the
soul of the apostolate is communicated and encouraged. The laity,
however, are given this special vOcation: to make the Church
present and fruitful in tbose places and,circumstances wbere it is
only through then that she can become the salt theearth. Tbus,
of
every lay person, througb those gifts given to bim, is at once the
witness and the living instrument of the mission of the Church
itself according to the measure of Christ's bestowal,'10
"Besides this apostolate which belongs to absolutely every

Christian," the Council continued, "the laity can be called in
different ways to more immediate cooperation in the
apostate of the hierarchy, like those men and women who
helped the apostle Paul in the Gospel, labouring much in the
Lord (cf. Pbil. 4-3; Rom. 16:3 ff.).." - in plain words, they
can be directed to assist the missionaries and priests in more
direct ways to further their work of "planting" churches and
the like. "Al the laity, then, bave the exalted duty of working
for the ever greater spread of the divine plan of salvation to all
men, of every epoch and all over the earth. Therefore may
the way be clear for them to share diligently in the salvific
work of the Church according totheir ability and the needs of
the times,"l1
And yet again:
..Therefore,even when occupied by temporal affairs, the laity can,

and must, do valuable work for the evangelization of the world. But
when there are no sacred ministers or when these are impeded under
persecution, some lay people supply sacred functions to the best of
their ability, or if, indeed, many of them expend all their energies in
apostolic work, nevertheless the whole laity must cooperate in
spreading and in building up the kingdom of Chist..12
The same goal that we encountered in the proclamations of
1°Lume2 Gentium, op. cit., 33. 11]bid., 33.

12Jbid., 35.
Is the Vatican also unknown? 41
organizations which the irate Congress(I) MP refused to

recognise. The same goal, advanced on the same grounds.
Is the Vatican also to be dismissed as some unknown
organization?

5
Their singular objective

Us. the law of the land
At every turn, decrees and other proclamations of the

Church recall what they characterize as “the final command"
of Jesus, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded yOu.... »1 Citing this, the Church claims as do
individual missionaries that it isn't just their right, it is their
overriding duty to preach, and not just to preach but to
baptize and convert.
And to go on converting till all everywhere are converted
to Christianity. "From the beginning", the Sacred Congrega
tion for Religious and Secular Institutes stated in a typical
passage, “the tradition of the Church - is it perhaps necessary
to recall it? - presents us with this privileged witness of
a constant seeking for God, of an undivided love for Christ
alone, and for an absohute dedication to the growth of bis
kingdom.."2
The goal was affirmed even more emphatically in
Evangelit nuntiandi, the proclamation on "Evangelization in
the Modern World." The preaching of the Gospel is a duty,
the Pope declared, which shall benefit not only Christians but
'Matthew, 28.18-20.
Evangelica testificatio, the 4postolic Exhortation on the Renewal of
Religious Life, 29 Jurne, 1971, 3.
Their sinIgular objective us. the law of
the lanl 43
the whole human race. It is a duty that falls not just on those
who are formally in the hierarchy of the Church, it is the duty
which every Christian must discharge, the proclamation
emphasized: "The command which vas given to the twelve:
Go preach the Gospel' applies to allChristians though in
different ways. This is why Peter calls them a 'chosen race
to declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light'..." "Moreover, the Gospel
of the kingdom which is coming and has already begun," the
Pope continued, "concerns all men of all times. All those,
therefore, wbo bave received this message and by virtue of it
bave been united in the communityy of salvation bave the
power and the obligation to band it on and disseminate it."
The Church is keenly aware of this," he said, "she realizes
that the words of the Saviour: 'I must preach the good news
of the kingdom of God' have a direct application to herself.
And with St. Paul she freely declares: 'If I preach the Gospel,
that gives me no cause for boasting. For necessity s laid upon
me. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.'" It was
therefore "a great joy and consolation" for him, the Pope said,
to hear the Assembly of Bishops declare, "We wish to affirm
once again that the essential mission of the Cburcb is to
evangelise all men"4
On the fact that it is in the Gospel that the true path to
salvation lies, on the fact that spreading the message of Christ
is a duty inherent in the Church, that it is a necessity for
the Church, on that there can be no compromise, the Pope
emphasized. Proclamations about ecumenism are made
much of in Church propaganda in countries such as India.
What they amount to is well brought out by the emphatic
declaration of the Roman Pontiff in this regard:
Pope Paul VI, Erngelit nuntiandi, the proclamation on Erangelization

in the Modern World, 8 December, 1975, 1.
4Tbid., 13, 14.
...The Gospel message is, therefore, aecessary; it is unique; it is

irreplaceable. It does not admit of any indiference, of any
accomnodation to the principles of other religious beliefs or of
any compromise, for on it depends the whole issue of man's
salvation and in it are contained all the splendours of divine
revelation..5
The lofty reasons that are adduced -"for on it depends the

whole issue of man's salvation and in it are contained all the
splendours of divine revelation" – are just presumption. The
point is the operational inference which is drawn from the
supposition: tdoes not admit of any indifference, of any
accommnodation to the principles of other religious beliefs or
of any compromise.
And for good reason: "The Gospel which has been
entrusted to us is also the word of truth," the proclamation
declares, "This truth confers liberty on men and it is it alone
wbich can bring peace to the soul..."o In aword, the Church
loves mankind, it fervently desires the salvation of everyone;
therefore, in their interest, the Church cannot keep itself from
persuading them of the truth of the one doctrine which alone
can bring them salvation.
The slight nod towards other paths which Vatican-II had
made has remained just that, a formal nod, in a sense just
words. These other religions contain "seeds of the Word," the
Church continues to maintain - while it, of course, is the
repository of the Word in its fullness! Each of these other
religions is but a "preparation for theGospel," it says. True,
other religions contain "seeds of the Word," true, they are
"preparations for the Gospel." But unless those who still stick
to them realize that these religions are but «seeds", that they
are but a "preparation", hence incomplete and imperfect,
unless, that is, the adherentsgrow out of these religions and
5Ibid., 5. Ibid., 78. 7Ibid., 53.

Their singular objective us. tbe law of tbe land 45
embrace Christianity, they are doomed to perdition, the
Church declares again and again:
..Those who have responded to the love and compassion of God

willgo to etenal life. Those who have refused them to the end will be
Consigned to the fire that is never extinguished...$.Certainly, the
only complete salvation offered to men is Christ bimself, the Son of
God and the Son of Man, who makes himself present in history
through the Church. He joins inseparably together love for God and
the love which God has until the end for men as they seek their way
amid the shadows, and the value of human love whereby aman gives
his life for his friends. In Christ, and only in bim, do all these things
become whole....9
The operational inference which is invariably drawn from

that formal nod - about other traditions containing the seed
also – further belittle the concession. "Neither the respect for
these religions," the Church declares, "nor the high esteem in
which we hold them nor the complexity of the questions
involved should deter the Church from procaiming the
message of Jesus Christ to these non-Christians. On the
contrary she holds that these multitudes of men have the right
to know the mystery of Christ...." Thus, the Church is
labouring hard- just to fulfill the right of non-Christians! And
for good reason, as always: "..n other words, by virtue of
our religion," the Church declares, "a true and living
relationship with God is established wbich other religions
cannot achieve even though they seem, as it were, to have
their arms raised up towards heaven." Condescension can
scarcely be greater! Even their hands being raised towards
heaven is something "as it were"!
The operational imperative is predictable: *The Church
therefore (It is indeed one of these enduring mysteries how
*Pope Paul VI, Solennni bac liurgia, The Credo of the People of God,
30 June, 1968.
Synod of Bishops, Ultimis temporibus, The Ministerial Priestbooc,
30 November, 1967, 6.
from a series of suppositions and assçrtions the Church jumps

unabashedly to "therefore"!] seeks to foster and maintain her
missionary zeal: it is, in fact, her aim to increase it in these
present times. She feels bound by a duty to all peoples in the
discharge of which she will spare no pains in her efforts to
spread the good news of Jesus our Saviour" - hence the
Church is sending outmissionaries to ensure that the rights of
the non-Christians are fulfilled! It is doing so because it is
in duty bound to serve these suffering non-Christians!
Accordingly, "She is constantly training new generations of
missionaries for this purpose.... »10
We are being constantly told in India that Christianity
has turned a new leaf. See, Vatican-II went so far as to
acknowledge that salvation is possible through other routes
also. What more can be expected? The Church on the other
hand has since been emphasizing that that kind of
acknowledgment does not curtail the right and duty of the
Church to bring home the truth of the Gospel to all mankind.
The proclamation on Evangelization lists inferences which
are drawn from those passages in Vatican-II documents
only to dismiss them: "So it is that only too often do we hear it
asserted in various forms that to insist on a truth, even if it be
a truth of the Gospel, to prescribe a way
of life, even if it be
the way of salvation, is to do violence to religious liberty.
And, they will add, why should the Gospel be preached if all
Imen can attain salvation by their own uprightness of heart ?
Furthermore, they say, the world and its history are full of the
'seeds of the wvord'; it is therefore a mere illusion to seek to
bring the Gospel to places where it is already present in the
seeds which the Lord himself has sown.
Such views are "entirely different" from the view which
inheres in the Vatican-II documents, the Church warns. "So
1°Pope Paul VI, Erangeliiuiuntiandi, the proclamation on Erangelization

in tbe'Moderin World, op. cit., 53.
Their singular objective vs. the law of the land 47
far from this [converting non-Christians to the truth of the
Gospell being a violation of the liberty of conscience, it is a
mark of respect for that liberty when we give the opportunity
of choosing a way of life which seems noble and
praiseworthy even to those who do not believe in God. Can it
be regarded as a crime against the liberty of another to
proclain in the spirit of joy the Gospel which we have
received from the all-merciful God? Why should it be only
errors and falsehood, the unworthy and obscene which may
be proposed? Can it be right that these should be inculcated
as, alas, they frequently are, through the persuasive and
pernicious propaganda of the mass media or as a result of the
undue tolerance of legislation, or the cowardice of good men
and the audacity of the evil?"11
On these assertions, we Hindus, to take one instance, are
ones who are mired in "error and falsehood", what our
teachers and scriptures propose, what our temples and
traditions embody is "unwothy and obscene". So, naturally,
the Church must have the unfettered right to convert us to the
truth! Indeed, more than a mere right is involved.
"To proclaim Christ and his kingdom with all due respect
for others is not merely the right of the evangelizer," the
Church asserts, "it is his duty... " And the question is not just
whether those others - we Hindus, for instance - can be
saved without the Gospel, but "can we ourselves be
saved?"l2 In a word, if you put any impediment in the way of
the Church, you are not just thwarting the right of non
Christians, you are preventing Christians from being saved!
Nor is the right of the non-Christians limited to merely
hearing the good news about Jesus, nor is the duty of the
Church limited to merely broadcasting the good news about
Jesus, the Church insists. The non-Christian has a right to be
IiJbid., 80.
12Jbid., 80.
converted! The Church has a duty to convert! How

emphatically the proclamation puts this, and with what
typical circumlocution:
For evangelization will never achieve its full force and significance
unless it is received, accepted and adopted, and unless it evokes the
wholehearted allegiance of those who hear it. A man may assent to
the truths which a merciful God has revealed, but he will give a much
deeper and fuller assent to the spirit and way life-that is a life now
of
transformed- which these truths propOse to him. Ina word, a man

gives his allegiance to the kingdom, that is to 'a nevw world', a state of
things, a new manner of existence, a new way of life, of communal
life, which the Gospel inaugurates. This allegiance, which cannot
abstract from the external circumstances of life, is expressed by the
visible and objective entry of man into the community of the
faithful. Therefore those who have experienced this conversion
enter into a community which by its very nature is a sign of
transformation and of a new life: that community is the Church, the
visible sacrament of salvation.3
Thus the Church brings to the non-Christian the message of

Christianity because it is his right to hear it, and because it is
the duty of the Church to bring it to him. But the bringing
cannot be complete unless it consummates in conversion, in
"the visible and objective entry of man into the community of
the faithful," which is the same thing as the visible and
objective repudiation by the person of his own community,
the community of the faithless!
But even that is not the end! The Church proceeds,
Finally, the man who has been evangelized becomes himself
an evangelizer. This is the proof, the test of genuineness of his
conversion. It is inconceivable that a man who has received the word
and surrendered himself to the kingdom should not himself become
a witness and proclaimer of the truth.14
13 [bid., 23.
14 Jbid.. 24.
Tbeir singular objective s. the lauw of
the land 49
Talk of a person, given an inch, grabbing a mile! And notice
the way the psychological screw is turned: if the new convert
is less than zealous in converting others, he has failed "the
test of the genuineness of his own Conversion"!
The law of the land
Now, all this points to a real problem, and if it is neglected

as the growth of Bhindranwale was neglected for three
murderous years, as the Babri mosque controversy was
-
neglected for decades grave consequences are bound to
follow. That is not a warning, not a threat. It is a forecast -
exactly at par with the forecasts which persons like me had
made in regard to Punjab, the capitulation to fundamentalists
Over Shah Bano, the shutting of eyes to the conversions in
Meenakshipuram, and, of course, the Babri mosque. On each
of those occasions, our forecast - that the capitulation and
neglect would stoke a mighty reaction was dismissed as
the hallucination of communalists. In regard to each matter,
those forebodings came true. Ido hope that will not be the
seuence again.
The problem is this. Even these introductory extracts show,
the singular objective of all churchmen in India is conversion,
or, to use their term, the harvesting of souls for Jesus. Their
documents and publications show that in their reckoning
everything they do is, and should be an instrument for
attaining this singular objective. Moreover, because of severe
problems which the Church is facing in places like Europe,
church-groups have made India a special target for the
Coming decades.
But this activity flies in the face of our law.
Because of the severe tensions which had been caused by
Conversion activities of the Church and Islamic organizations
like the Tabligb, several members argued in the Constituent
Assembly that, while guaranteeing the freedom to profess,
practice and propagate one's religion, the Constitution

should explicitly prohibit conversions brought about by
force, fraud or allurement. Christian members objected. The
point got mixed up with an amendment prohibiting
conversions - of all manner and kind-of minors. Eventually,
the matter was deferred. Two observations "soporifics"
would be the more appropriate word- proved vital. Sardar
Patel said that, in any case, anything done by force, fraud or
alluremnent was illegal, hence in a sense it was not necessary
to incorporate an explicit provision of the kind which was
being proposed. Second, B.R. Ambedkar observed that the
fact that the provision was not being incorporated in the
Constitution did not prevent legislatures from enacting laws
on the question when the need arose in the future.
As a result of the compromise, Article 25(1) provides,
"Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess,
practice and propagate religion."
Two points are evident even without any complicated
analysis. The right is not an absolute one: it is given "subject
to public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of this part." Therefore, to take one instance, even
if the right to convert is said to follow from this Article, if the
scale of conversions is such, if the means that are being used
to obtain them are such that they endanger public order, the
State has not just the right but the duty to scotch them. The
proviso "and to other provisions of this part" is even more far
reaching. For not just that part of the Constitution, the very
Article provides that "Nothing in this Article shall affect the
operation of any existing law or prevent the State from
making any law (a) regulating or restricting any economic,
financial, political or other secular activity which may be
associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social
welfare and reform..." Receiving money fromn abroad for
Their singular ohjective us. the law of the land 51
conversions, the overt and covert political role of churchmen

and church bodies in politics in the Northeastern states,in the
Jharkhand area, in Kerala, their growing intervention even in
General Elections through the "guidelines" that churchmen
have started issuing to Christian voters - such activities
obviously fall within the scope of the proviso.
Second, as the Artice explicitly states, this is a right to
which "all persons are equally entitled." That means, for
instance, that as Christian missionaries claim that they have
the right under this Article to convert Hindus to Christianity,
Hindu organizations have an equal right to reconvert them
from Christianity to Hinduism.
Christian missionaries and organizations like Tabligb have
been claiming that they have the fundamental right to carry
on their conversion work because this Article guarantees to
each person, not just the right to "profess and practice" the
religion of his choice, but also the right to "propagate" it.
It turns out that this assertion has been conclusively nailed
by the Supreme Court. What happened is as follows. [At the
height of the noise which had been raised over "atrocities on
Christians" in late 1998-early 1999, Surya Prakash drew
attention in The Pioneer to this unambiguous judgment. The
secularists looked the other way, as usual.]
Because of the large tribal populations they have, Orissa
and Madhya Pradesh have been specially targeted by
Christian missionaries. Tensions had mounted even in the
fifties. Eventually, both states passed Acts - as Dr. Ambedkar
had envisaged - prohibiting conversions by force, fraud and
allurement.The Acts were challenged. In Yulitha Hyde's case
the Cuttack High Court struck down the Orissa Act. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh Act.
The matter came to the Supreme Court.
The judgment - Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madbya
Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908 – was delivered not by some one
judge of the Supreme Court. Not by what is known as
a
Division Bench - of two judges. Ngt even by what is known

as a FullBench - of three judges. It was delivered by a Bench
of five judges.
And the judges happened to be ones whom no secularist,
and certainly no Congressman would fault! The bench was
headed by none other than Chief Justice A.N. Ray - the very
judge to make whom the Chief Justice, Mrs. Indira Gandhi
superseded three distinguished judges, the very judge who
rendered such sterling service throughout the Emergency.
The second judge was Justice M.H. Beg - who followed
A.N. Ray in the Chief Justice's chair. The others were Justice
R.S. Sarkaria, Justice P.N. Shingal and Justice Jaswant Singh -
each a person with impeccable secular credentials. And the
judgment was delivered not at some time when "communal
forces" held sway. It was delivered when Mrs. Gandhi held
the country in her fist - during the Emergency, in January,
1977.
After delineating the dictionary nmeaning of the word
"propagate", and considering the arguments which had been
urged, the Supreme Court held that "what the Article grants is
not the right to convert another person to one's OWn religion,
but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its
tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees
freedom of conscience' to every citizen, not just the
followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn,
postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert
another person to one's own religion because if a person
purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his
religion, asdistinguished from hiseffort to transmit or spread
the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the 'freedom
of conscience' guaranteed to all the citizens of the country
alike."
In their unanimous judgment the five judges held that "we
find no justification for the view that it [Article 25(1)lgrants a
fundamental right to convert persons to one's own religion. It
has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined
Their singular objective 1s. the law of tbe land 53
in the Article is not guaranteed in respect of one religion
only, but covers all religions alike, and it can be properly
enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner
commensurate witlh the like freedom of persons following
the other religions. What is freedom to one, is freedom for the
other, in equal measure, and there can, therefore, be no such
thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one's
own religion."
As will be evident, the judgment of the Supreme Court is
unambiguous. It has not been altered by any subsequent
pronouncement. Hence, this is the law.
How does the singular pursuit of the Church- conversicon -
stand in the face of the law?
The law apart, this obsession with body-counts isruinous -
not the least for the Church itself: it has already drained the
Church of all spirituality, exactly as Gandhiji had warned it
Would. Moreover, conversions on the scale the Church is
aiming at, conversions by means missionaries claim are
warranted - on the ground that the task for which they are
being used is "divinely ordained" - such conversions are
bound to invite a grim reaction.
And this is where the "success" of our secularists in
preventing the State from taking corrective action - on this
matter as on infiltration from Bangladesh, on the activities of
Islamic fundamentalist groups, on reform of civil law - is
pushing society into taking the law into its own hands. And in
that lies a fatal difference. In contending with a problem,
a State can act, it usually acts in an orderly manner. Society
is too disorganized for its action to be orderly. Inundated
by infiltrators, people cannot get to the authorities in
Bangladesh,they will get at their neighbour in the adjoining
slum. Incensed by mounting conversions, they cannot get to
the Pope in Rome, or the evangelist headquarters in the USA,
they will leap at the poOor convert next door.
6
Igniting reaction
"The media through which the Gospel is propagated are

primarily the schools, hospitals and orphanages," wrote the
Niyogi Committee after receiving voluminous evidence
to this effect during its inquiries into the workings of
missionaries in Madhya Pradesh.
It quoted document after document of the Church which
emphasized that evangelism must be the central focus and
purpose of all activities. It quoted reports and publications
about schools, etc., which stated in the clearest possible
terms that the reason that the particular activity called for
celebration was that it multiplied the number of converts.
It quoted the Report of the World Conference of the
International Missionary Council: "Care should be taken to
secure that evangelism has a central place in all medical and
educational institutions." It quoted passages after passages
from the Church periodical, the Gharbandhu:
What is the advantage of the school to the Church? Schools are the
means for expansion of the Kingdom;
Here a preacher named Asaf Gudia has been sent vho does tlhe work
of both preacher and teacher-because the objective of this mission
circle is hat through the school preaching about Christ should be
accomplished;
This way it is not sOme worldly school, it is a Christian school, the
house for the propagation of Christ;
The teacher takes it as his bounden duty tlhat the word of Christ
should take root in and flower in the stucdents....
Great hopes are entertained that when they grow up the students
shall accept Jesusas at present they are under the control of their
parents...
Igniting reaction 55
It quoted the Report of tbe Church of the Nazerene:
"Evangelism is our call. We make no excuse nor ask for any
reservation in this period. Jesus has called us to preach the
Gospel to every creature and we mean to do it in every phase
of our work, be medical or distinctly
it educational,
evangelical. 'Go, teach, win,' is the command under whiclh
we work. We cannot lessen this emphasis." IL reproduced the
W'itten statement 012 bebalf of the Central India Baptist
Mission which the Baptist Mission had sent it: "Missionaries
and Board members alike are incrcasingly aware of the need
both for a dynamic programme of direct evangelism and the
use of medicine and education in the development of the
work." Andso on.
It documented the use that was being made of schools,
hospitals, even leprosy asylums for conversion. Even
orphanages, in regard io which in a typical paragraph the
Niyogi Committee concluded:
Now as to Christian Orphanages, they are undoubtedly being run to

multiply the population of Christians. A large number of such orphans
were gathered into the Christian fold during famine, natural
calamities like floods and earthquakes. There can thus lbe little doubt
that special emphasis on spreading Christianity is given in dealing
with young immature minds or those temporarily disabled by
physical ailments. No wonder that the largest number of convets are
from such backvard classes living in areas where due to various
causes only Mission schocols and hospitals exist. Most conversions
have been doubtless insincere admittedly brought about in
expectation of social service benefits and other material
COnsiderations.
The Niyogi Committee documented he use by

missionaries of means ranging from education and medicine,
to calumnising figures revered by other religions - the report
reproduced what Christian publications contained on Shiva,
Krishna, Ram, Mohammed. It documentcd how even money
lending was being used - money would be lent, when the
time came to repay it, the borrower would be told that the
56 Hasvesting Our Souls
amount would be remitted if he and.his family converted, in

default of which he would have to repay it with interest. It
listed instances of outright fraud.
Read, for instance, the extracts that the Committee
reproduced from the instruction booklet, Catbolic Dbarma ka
Pracharak:
If you know for certain that the father will never agree to the baptism
of his son, and you learn that the son is gravely ill, that he is close to
death, then using the excuse of adnministering some medicine [to
davai ke habane mein]by some secret stratagem [kisi gupt riti sel
sprinkle some water on his head and pronounce the words of
baptism. 0' preacher, you would have opened the doors of heaven
for thechild. Is that not good Now, if every preacher puts himself to
this task, how many children will get sent to heaven in ayear!
A second extract from this instruction manual:

If the relatives of the dying man do not let you sit in the house, then
try and make them understand that your acquaintance is no bad
thing. Almighty God will make him better. If this stratagem too does
not work, then, using the excuse of administering medicine, gain
access to him. Ina word, use every device you can tosave his soul.
This approach continuesto this day that every occasion is

an opportunity to convert, that everything that is done must
be a reaper for the harvesting. Take the most unlikely
example. We look upon Mother Teresa as a symbol of
Compassion, of service. No one would associate the least
parochialism with her. We have been conditioned to believe
that she would rush to provide succour equally to anyone and
everyone, that her love - the love she preached - would be
unconditional, abundant and equal for all. Her own attitude
was a bit more ambiguous, it would seem. Recall, for
instance, her answers to India Today:
O: Some Muslims in Assam feel that you are espousing their cause.
They have referred to your recent work in Beirut, where you saved
stranded Muslim children.
A: Notbecause they are Muslimns. Please try and understand this. Be it
Beirut, be it Assam, they are tlhe children of God. We make no
distinction of caste, creed or nationality....
Q: As a Christian missionary, do you adopt a pOsition of neutrality
between Christian poor and other pOor?
A:Iam not neutral. I have my faith.
Q: Do yOu believe in conversion?
A: To me, conversion means clhanging of heart by love. Conversion
by forceor bribery is a shanneful thing. It is a terrible humiliation for
anyone to give up religion for a plate of rice.
2:Just as the caste system in Hinduism is a fetter, do you feel that the
labyrinthine regulations of the CatholicChurch too are a fetter?
A:Inever felt that way. Nor do I feel the necessity to clange the rules
of the Catholic Church. It is not relevant, too. In the hour of death, we
are going to be judged by what we have done to the poor. We have
Consecrated our lives to give wholehearted and free service for the
poorest of the poOr.
O: Can the Church do any wrong?
A: No, as long as it stands on the side of God.
Q:
Mother, if you were born in the Middie Ages, and were asked, at
the time of Galileo'sinquisition, to take side, which wouldyou have
chosen- the Church or modern astronomy?
A: (Smiling) The Church.!
Both affirmations simultaneously: "We make no distinction

of caste, creed or nationality," as well as, "Iam not neutral. I
have my faith." Recall next the testimony that Christopher
Hitchens cites about Mother Teresa's order. It is from Susan
Shields, who worked for nine and a half years in the Sisters
of Charity, the organization of Mother Teresa. This is what
Shields reports,
For Mother (Teresa), it was the spiritual well-being of the poor that
mattered most. Material aid was a means of reaching their souls,of
showing the poor that God loved them. In the homes for the dying,
Mother taught the sisters how to secretly baptize those who were
dying. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted
a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to
baptism. The sister was then to pretend she was just cooling the
'IndiaToday, 31 May, 1983.

person's forehead vilh a wet cloh, while in fact she was baptizing
him, saying quietly the necessary words:Secrecy was important so
that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were
baptizing Hindus and Moslems.?
A literal adherence to the instruction manual which the
Niyogi Commilee had reproduced 40 years ago.
Here before me is Tbe Thailand Report on Hindus.
Published by the Lausanne Committee for World
Evangelization, it is the report of the Consultation on World
Evangelzation held at Pattaya, Thailand, from 16 to 27 June,
1980.
On the goaiof the missionaries, the Consultation observed,
we are conscious that God longs for the whole Hindu
people to know Jesus Christ and live under his Lordship
(Isa. 17:7, 8)." Of themselves in relation to this divinely
ordained goal, the assembled missionary-experts said,
We... sincerely repent that we have failed to be a blessing
to the Hindus among whom God has placed us." "We rejoice
in the activity of God in recent days," they said, and called for
"world-wide prayer commitment for world-evangelization."
"As a first and most important step, we call upon the Church
world-wide, and specially the Church in India, to mobilize
intensive and believing prayer for the reaching of the 565.5
million Hindus. We strongly believe that God is calling his
people to active involvement in evangelizing Hindus in
every part of the world.,"
The clap-trap apart about what God is longing for, notice
how a few hundred million have just been chopped off from
the population of Hindus! As has been documented in
Missionaries in India, this miracle of the Church is an exact
continuation of what was done through census-redefinition
by the British rulers in the 1920s and 1930s - in the face of
protests from their own Census officers who knew the reality
Christopher Hitchens, The Missionay Position, Verso, London, 1995,

p. 48.
Igiiting reaction 59
on the ground, to divide society, they began lopping off
chunks: the Sikhs first, the tribals next, the scheduled castes
thereafter.
Notice too the concluding words: "....Hindus in every part
of the world." These missionary-experls concluded that
Indians who had settled abroad, and whose links with
their mnother-culture had thus been weakened by exposure
to the West, are a group that would yield a specially
rich harvest: "The main concern of the recently established
Fellowship of South Asian Christians (organized .at the
Overseas Indians Congress on Evangelism, June 9-15, 1980)
is the evangelization of South Asians living abroad. This
should become a dynamic force for evangelism of Asians,
many of whom are Ilindus, scattercd in countries other than
their homeland."
The report lists elements of Hindu beliefs which can be
turned to advantage. It lists case studies to highlight the
techniques which work: "family head responds through
unusual circumstances," it counsels; "Miraculous hcaling
Convinces many," it records; "Social concern softens the
community," it points out; "Repeated exposure to the Gospel
bears fruit," it shows; "A period of teaching and discussion
precedes reaping in high-caste community," it demonstrates
by recounting how a group of Reddys in Andhra was
harvested; "Initial contact through students," it counsels....
It also lists "Theological blocks" whiclh stand in the way
of fulfilling God's longing to harvest the Hindus. The very
thing which the secularists say is the essence of India
independently-of-Hinduism, these missionary-experts list
as a block in the way of God! "Four particular theological
barriers to effective communication with Hindus should be
highlighted," it says. First that "Hindus in general are
syncretistic: They believe that all religions lead to God,
implying thereby that there is therefore no need to change
from one religion to another. Indeed, Hindus find the very
mention of change of religion by the Christian highly
objectionable. Such demands must be presented with clarity

and respect...."
Every group is viewed instrumentally, every device is
assessed for its potentiality as an instrument for harvesting.
Recall how ostentatious the Church has been in putting up a
show of concern for the Scheduled Castes. And see what an
instrumental view it actually has of them. "Our commitment
to evangelism must seek to reach people in community,"
the missionary-experts say. Ambiguous enough to be
unexceptionable, it seems at first sight. "We must, therefore,
be sensitive to the complexity of communal acceptance"
elliptical at first sight. And then the truth comes out: "Two
problems present particular difficulties. In our enthusiasm for
individual conversion we may erect barriers to acceptance
among the majority. If, as frequently occurs, the first converts
are those who are socially isolated for one reason or another
from the community, premature reaping may create serious
barriers to the establishment of the Body of Christ in that area.
We must exercise patience as we sow the seed, create a
hunger, and work for the conversion of the opinion leaders in
the community...."
"Premature reaping," "sow the seed, create a hunge, and
work for the conversion of the opinion leaders of the
community..." In a word, save the wretched soul, but in a
way and at a time when it will subserve the singular goal -
that is, when it willhelp the Church multiply!
There is a "strategy for social concern" too. "....iii) Do not
give room for suspicion on the part of the government or
the public. (iv) Practise a servant-leadership (Jobn 20-21).
(v) Whenever possible, relate social service to evangelism:
(a) Christian compassion can be rightly expressed only by
Christian believers. They alone can seek to express the
concerns of Jesus Christ for the salvation of those served.
(b)Long term planning and budgeting of the local church for
social service should reflect the priority of the evangelization
of the non-Christian community around them....
The missionary-experts stress how fecund a device

distributing "literature" free can be for the harvest -
especially among villagers, etc.: ""Christian Groups' fomed
as a result of the distribution of gospels by Every Home
Crusade, are proving to be a distinctly ruitful ministry. In
many villages, totally without Christians or churches, many
Hindus have accepted the Lord. These new converts are
formed into small groups in homes for fellowship and Bible
study.. At present, over 1,500 groups of this kind are the
result of this type of literature ministry.
They point out that in a society in which literacy levels are
low, it is "radio evangelism" which will prove the "real
boon." But the use of this medium requires careful
calibration, the missionary-experts emphasize: "Only a
programme prepared after careful audience research will
produce results. For example, the vernacular transmissions
prepared by Trans World Radio and broadcast on medium
wave have revolutionised the broadcasting scene in India. In
most parts of the country, people, as they tune in to medium
wave, will invariably stumble on these Christian
broadcasts...." "India's commercial filn industry is ranked
highest in the world for years," they stress, "...Christians
should take note and meet people where they are, using this
valuable tool for evangelism. Systematic follow-up is
essential." And of course the latest harvester, television:
"Television is new and popular with the middle class and
upper class in cities," the far-seeing missionary-experts write
in 1980, "Christian programmers should be keen to take the
various opportunities offered by Government, especially on
Christian festival days."
Much is made by secularists of the Church being open to
"dialogue". But it is to be just an instrument for harvest-work,
the missionary-experts warn. "The use of dialogue in
reaching people has to be carefully considered," they write.
«This method paves the way for a sharing of experiences,
and provides an opportunity for frank interchange in
conversation. It provides an aunosphere in which both

parties can understand each other, and creates a mutual bond
of friendship and appreciation. However, it must not end
ibere. It must lead to proclaiming Christ as Lord. This method
finds a ready reception among the intelligentsia and in the
western countries where there is a strong Hindu influence.
The purpose of dialogue should be carefully and constantly
borne in mind. It should not simply end in dialogue."
Prayer groups should be formed, the missionary-experts
prescribe. They should focus on a specific target-group, and
untila specific consummation: "Their primary conmitment to
the Lord will be to pray for their adopted community until a
cluster of evangelizing churches is planted among them."
The groups should hold "regular and intensive prayer
meetings for the Hindu world in general, and their people
group specifically. " Not just some general prayer, mind you:
"They should pray for spiritual bondage to be broken (2 Cor.
4:3-4; Acis 26:18), and for many to come to the Lord (Matt.
9:36-38). Further as soon as evangelistic work begins within
the people-group, they should pray for the missionaries
there (Gol. 4:2-3)."
Our friends are full of useful marketing tips! "() As far as
possible, churches must encourage converts to continue to
relate to their own community and to win it to Christ.... (iv)
Follow a suitable life-style, which helps identification with
villagers. (v) Use indigenous forms of communication, such
as drama, bhajans and katba, sat sang (dialogue), etc. ...vi)
Challenge local churches to identify receptive communities
and become involved in reaching them. (vii) Form prayer
cellsamnong new Converts to keep before them the vision and
burden to evangelise their own people...."
High priority must be given to work among Hindu women,
they say, "since they are the custodians of the faith." And for
this they suggest various devices: "..(b) the local churches
should motivate and encourage Christian Women to work
chiefly among Hindu women in a holistic ministry using
bridges like the following: (i) Christian festivals, (ii) Sewing
and cooking classes, (ii) Adult literacy classes, (iv) Hospital
visitation, (v) Neighbourhood children's work, (vi)
Neighbourhood Bible studies.." "Rejected and neglected
groups, Such as prostitutes and prisoners, should be a vital
target for evangelism."
"When female Hindu college students become Christians,"
our missionary-experts observe, "they often receive no
nurture after leaving college. Hence, they easily slip back
into the religious and cultural customs of their homes.
Accordingly they prescribe various devices to prevent this
lapsing back: "...Those who have won them to Christ must
consider seriously their responsibility for constant nurture...
Christian homes in their community should be sought out for
the purpose of spiritual nurture and establishment, including
marriage arrangements if necessary...."
High school and university students offer "great
opportunities", the missionary-experts say, and exhort, "The
Christian Church should take advantage of this opening by
effective reach out." Again, they are expertise itself in
locating vulnerable, susceptible groups: "(a) Students from
a traditional Hindu home appear open to the Gospel, due to
the breakdown of their religiosity, while in the secular
atmosphere of the college/university. (b) Students coming
from a rural background to study in a city are open to
Christian influence through friendship. (c) The students of
other larnguage areas studying in linguistically strange areas
are open for friendship from Christian youth (e.g., a Bengali
North Indian studying in an engineering/medical/technical
college in Hyderabad)... " And they list a "suggested
strategy":": "....Keep an open hone; adopt international
students as your own; take them to church/picnics, etc...
Train Christian students to develop close friendships with
Hindu students... Help them financially when they are
genuinely needy..
The 1993 handbook and guide Operation World, urges the
same instrumental approach. Target the families of AIDS

patients, target the leprosy patients, target the blind.. And all
this is camouflaged by a euphemism: ever so often these
publications use the words "targeting""harvesting" directly;
when -as in the case of AIDS patients, leprosy patients or the
blind - it would be manifestly galling to use such words, the
publications instruct the missionary about the targets on
which he must focus his efforts by saying, "pray for..."!
Medicàl work? "The Emmaneul Hospitals Association has
responsibility for all the institutions that were run by
evangelical missions," Operation World notes. "Pray that the
witness going out from these hospitals to the many patients
may lead many to seek the Saviour.. All over India the
proportion of Christian medical workers is high; pray that
many non-Christians may be won to Jesus through them.9
Christian radio? It has already "won a huge audience among
Christians and non-Christians," Operation World states.
"Although there is no Christian broadcasting from stations
within India, more than 20 studios prepare programmes for
broadcasting by TWR Sri Lanka and Guam (24 1anguages),
FEBA Seychelles (18 languages and 250 programmes a
week) and FEBC Manila (4). Weekly there are 295 hours of
broadcasting in a total of 35 languages. TWR broadcasts in
the early morning have gained an audience of millions. Pray
for wise long-term strategies that will lead to effective
evangelism and church-planting - perhaps by radio alone.."
Notice not just the manner in which everything is viewed, but
the enoIMous network which is already bent to the task of
harvesting us..
Everything an instrument, specially the new convert.
Every need and difficulty of the other an opportunity: "The
oppressed and the poor have always been receptive to the
Gospeldown the centuries in India and elsewhere...." notes
the Evangelical Church of India on its Internet site. "The poor
have a natural capacity to put their trust on almost anything.
They are not dogmatic. This has always been the entry
point' in the struclure of any society, through which we can

easily enter.... The suppressed and the 'untouchables' have
often thought that it was prestigious for them to become
Christians and find a place in the society by embracing
Christianity...."
The entire enterprise is manifestly contrary to the law of
the land as laid down by the Supreme Court. Yet if you so
much as ask a question about it, you are communal, you are
"justifying the pogrom."
The figure of history
7
"But how can we disobey

the command of our Lord?"
“But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved by

compassion on them," Matthew reports, "because they
fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no
shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, the harvest truly is
plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the
Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into His
harvest."l And a while later, Jesus is telling them how they
vill be persecuted for believing in him and spreading his
message, but how they must persevere; "What I tell you in
darkness," he exhorts them, "that speak ye in light: and what
ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.. "2
And so also in Mark, "For whosoever will save his life, will
lose it; but whosSoever shall lose his life for my sake and the
Gospel's, the same shallsave it..."3And again, later in Mark,
we have Jesus warning his disciples, "But take heed to
yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in
the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought
before ulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against
them. And the Gospel must first be published among all
nations "4
Armed with such exhortations, the missionaries assert, "It
isn't just that it is our right, it is our duty. For our Lord, Jesus
Christ, hascommanded us to go to all the nations of the world,
can
and spread his mnessage and baptize," and demand, "How
we disobey his command and still claim to be Christians?"
'Mattbeu, 9.36-38. 2Matthew, 10.27.

BMark, 8.35. 4Mark, 13.9-10.
Exhortations to spread the word age interspersed atseveral

places in the Gospels. They are ascribed to Jesus. Jesus may
have delivered himself of them, or, as we shall see, they may
have been inserted to meet the needs of the nascent Church.
Evolution of the law

The first point, of course, is that the assertion of
missionaries or others that converting others to Christianity is
a part of being Christian does not settie the matter. Till twenty
years ago, a few passages taken by themselves in some of
the judgments could be taken to mean that in the view of the
Supreme Court the authorities of a religion are the ones who
would decide which practice was an essential part of that
religion. That view had reached its culmination in the Sardar
Syedna Taber Saifuddin Sabeb case in 1962.5 The Court held
that what was an essential ingredient of a religion was to be
cdecided primarily with reference to the doctrines of that
religion, that the recognized authorities of that religion - in
that case the dictatorial Syedna of the Bohras – were the ones
who were the ones to affirm what that doctrine was, and,
furthermore, that Article 25 protected not just the doctrine but
also practices which flowed from it. On these grounds, the
Court upheld the right of the Syedna to excommunicate
Bohras from the flock, and to impose all the penalties that he
decided flowed from excommunication.
Even as those judgments were being delivered, the Court
was aware that such a doctrine of letting the recognized
authorities of a reiigion have the last word on which practice
is essential to a religion - was bound to run into difficulties.
For one thing, recognized authorities of the reiigion as often
as not were not in agreement among themselves the
Deobandis, Wahabis, Ahle Hadis, to say nothing of Shias have
declared each other to be Kafirs on questions such as whether
one is to kiss one's thumbs after pronouncing the name of the
51962 Spp. 2 S.C.R. 496.

"But bou can we disobey the command of our Lord2" 71
Prophet. For this obvious reason, in Govindlalji v. State of

Rajasthat, Justice Gajendragadkar said, "In cases where
conflicting evidence is produced in respect of rival
Contentions as to competing religious practices the Court may
not be able to resove the dispute by a blind application of the
formula that the community decides which practice is an
integral part of its religion, because the community may
speak with more than one voice and the formula would,
therefore, break down." Accordingly, the judge concluded,
"This question will always have to be decided by the Court
and in doing so, the Court may have to enquire whether the
practice in question is religious in character, and if it is,
whether it can be regarded as an integral or essential part of
the religion... "6
That difficulty can be shown to be so frequent an
occurrence as to puncture the principle that the Court had
accepted in the case of the Syedna. The more important
consideration, howeve, is that the doctrine these early
judgments had tended to accept was manifestly a dangerous,
indeed untenable doctrine. Jibad to exterminate or convert
Kafirs can most certainly be shown to be a doctrine intrinsic to
Islam, And the most revered authorities of Islam have held it
to be so. Does that mean that believers in India are to be free
to practice it because of Article 25? Or consider the matter
from another point of view. If Christians can insist that they
have a right and duty to convert non-Christians to Christianity
because Jesus asked them to do so, Muslims too can insist
that they too have as overriding a right to do so because
Muhammad ordered them not to rest till the entire world had
been converted into a darul-Islam. Is India then to be left
to become a battleground where these totalitarian claims slug
it out?
Accordingly, since those early decisions, in a series of
judgnents the Supreme Court has laid down that (a) practices
associated with a religion are to be distinguished from
Govindialji v. State of Rajastban, A. 1963 S.C. 1638, para 58.

practices which are essential arnd integral to the practice of

that religion; (b) that only these core practices are protected
by Articles 25 and 26, and that too only to the extent that is
allowed by those Articles; most iiportant (c) the courts are
the ones that shall decide which practices are essential to the
practice of a religion; and () in doing so they shall not be
guided by what the practice is in some other country
practicing that religion, nor by what has been held by States
and rulers subscribing to that religion in the past, but by
the Constitution and laws of India, and by what has been
approved by Indian courts.
7
That point is by itself sufficient to rule out of court the

assertion that, as Jesus or Muhamnmad commanded the faithful
to convert others, believers have an overriding, peremmptory
duty,and therefore under Article 25, a fundamental right to
do so. And there is another point: on what authority can it be
said that Jesus actually commanded Christians to convert
everyone they could to Christianity?
The point apart that the claim cannot stand in law, how
much weight can one attach to the claim itself? what exactly
is Jesus supposed to have said? How do we know he said
that?
Answers to these questions are vital in themselves - they
are central to believing the claim or setting it aside. They are
doublv inmportant because they lead us to a fundamental
point, indeed to what is the fundamental fraud in missionary
activity. Let us take an example.
A typical sequence
The bare sequence is as follows. Jesus has been nailed to
the Cross. He dies. His body is interred. A large stone is
placed to close the tomb. Devotees visit the tomb. The body
7Some of the judgments, in particular the Supreme Court's opinion in
response to the Presidential Reference on Ayodhya, are analyzed in my
"Steps towards Secularism," in Tbe Ayodbya Reference, Supreme Court
Judgment and Commentaries, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1993, pp. 156-74.
"But bow can we disobey the command of our Lord?" 73
is Jesus appears to disciples. He speaks to them.
missing
Now, let us take the sequence step by step. As everyone
knows, there are four Gospels - by Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John. In the eyes of the Church each is a saint. Every word of
each Gospel is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth.
Wbo goes to the tomb? For wbat purpose? "Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre," says
Matthew. "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jams,
and Salome," says Mark, as they "had bought sweet spices,
that they might come and anoint him."9 "Mary Magdalene,
and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James,and other women
that were with them," says Luke, "bringing the spices which
they had prepared."10 John reports Mary Magdalene alone as
having gone to the tomb.'1 Thus: from Mary Magdalene
alone, to her and the other Mary, to the two of them and
Salome, to the two of them and Joanna plus the other women
who were with them. Similarly, whoever went, the purpose
was either to "see the sepulchre" or to anoint the body. For
the latter purpose, they were carrying sweet spices which
they had either bought or prepared themselves.
What happened wben, wboever went, arrived at the tomb?
"And, behold, there was a great earthquake," says Matthew,
"for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came
and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it."12
Mark mentions no earthquake, no angel descending; instead
he says that, while on their way the women had been asking
each other "who shall roll us away the stone from the door of
the sepulchre?,"," when they arrived they saw that the stone
had already been rolled avway.15 Luke too does not report any
earthquake, he too says that when the women arrived they
found the stone to have been rolled away.!* According to
John, Mary Magdalene alone had gone. He too mentions
8Mattbeu, 28.1. 9Mark, 16.1. 10Luke, 24.1, 10.

"Jobn, 20.1. 12Mattbew, 28.2. 13Mark, 16.3-4.
14Luke, 24.2.
neither an earthquake, nor any angel descending. But he too

reports that she found the stone to have been rolled away
already. l5
Upon reaching the tomb, upon seeing tbe stone rolled
away, wbom do they encounter? An angel, says Matthew,
sitting on the stone he has rolled away, "his countenance
was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow," and so
awesome was his presence that "and for fear of himn the
keepers. fthat is, the guards]did shake, and became as dead
men."»16 According to Mark, they encounter not an angel, but
"a young man", sitting, not on the stone outside the entrance
to the tomb, but "on the right side" inside the sepulchre. (The
women see him after entering the sepulchre.] The young
man is "clothed in a long white garment" not dazzling like
lightning, just ordinary white. And upon encountering a
young man unexpectedly inside the tomb, the ones who are
"affrighted" are the women - there is no mention of guards.17
Luke reports no angel, nor does he report one young man.
According to him the women encountered "twO men.... in
shining garments. »18 John has Mary Magdalene going alone,
she encounters no one.19 Thus, from "an angel", to "one
young man," to "twO men", to no one.
One woman, two sets of three women, or more than three
women have reached the tomb. They have encountered an
angel, or one young man, or two, or none. The women see
that the body of Jesus is missing.
What bappens next? Do not be afraid, the angel tells
them, Matthew says. You are looking for the Jesus who was
crucified. He is not here, for he is risen. "Go quickly and tell
his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he
goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." The
women depart quickly "with fear and great joy," and run to
the disciples. But on the way, Jesus meets them. "All hail", he
says. They fall at his feet, they hold his feet, they worship
19Jobn, 20.1. 16Matthew, 28.2-4. 17Mark, 16.5-7.
18Luke, 24.4. 19Jobn, 20.1-2.
"But bow can we disobey the command of our Lord?" 75
him. "Be not afraid", Jesus says, "Go tell my brethren that
they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. »20
According toMark, neither the angel at the tomb nor Jesus
on the way asks them to give that message to the disciples.
-
That one young man does so at the tomb itself.21
According to Luke the conversation takes place with the
two men at the tomb. Not only are the words that are
exchanged different. No one not the angel, not one man,
not Jesus, not either of the twO men asks the women to tell
the disciples that Jesus is going to Galilee ahead of them and
that they will see him there,?22
According to John, what transpired was altogether
different. Mary Magdalene goes alone. She sees that the
stone has been removed, and the body is missing. She runs
"to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved,"
and informs them that the body is missing. Simon Peter and
the other disciple run to the sepulchre. They see for
themselves, and return home. Mary, on the other hand,
continues to stand outside, weeping. She looks into the
sepulchre and sees two angels "in white sitting, the one at the
head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had
lain." And then Jesus himself appears to her.* Jesus appears
to her - as in Matthew. But there are three differences. In
Matthew Jesus appears to the two Marys, in John he appears
to Mary Magdalene alone. In Matthew he appears as the two
Marys are rushing to the disciples, in John he appears when
Mary Magdalene, having informed two of the disciples,
returns with them to the sepulchre. And, third, in Matthew,
Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, at once
recognize him, they fall at his feet, they hold his feet, and
worship him.24 But in John, even when she sees Jesus
standing in front of her, she does not recognize him. Instead,
she takes him to be the gardener.25
20Mattbeu, 28.5-10. 21 Mark, 16.7. 22Luke, 24.3-7.

23 Jobn, 20.1-14. 2^Matthew, 28.9. 25Jobin, 20.14-15.
Jesus speaks to her in John, as Jesus does in Mathew

though in the latter totwo Marys, notone; though in the latter
he speaks to them on their way to the disciples, and not at the
tomb when one of them has later returned with the disciples.
But what he says is altogether different. In Matthew he says,
"Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee,
and there they shall see me."20 In John, Jesus tells Mary
Magdalene, "Touch me not;?" for I am not yet ascended to my
Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend
unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your
God."2» No word about going to Galilee!
To proceed. The women have seen that the body is
missing. They have or have not been told by an angel, by one
man, by two men or by Jesus to tell the disciples one thing or
something altogether different.
Wbom do they go and tell? In Matthew, they run to get the
message to the disciples - that they get to the disciples can
only be inferred. For the account is overtaken by other
happenings. First, as we have seen, Jesus himself appears to
them. Second, the Gospel diverts to narrate a conspiracy of
the Jews - one which none of the other three Gospels
mentions: noticing that the body is missing, the guards go to
the chief priests who are at that time in assembly with the
elders; there a conspiracy is hatched: to deny that Jesus has
risen, the guards are to say that they had fallen asleep and, as
they slept, the followers of Jesus whisked away his body.
The guards are paid, and guaranteed protection. And on this
basis the Jews get a concoction to deny the Resurrection unto
this day.9
In Mark, the women tell no one: after the conversation with
the young man, Mark informs us, "they went out quickly, and
fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed:
neither said they any thing to any man; for they were
Matthew, 28.10.
26
27In Matthew, the two Marys hod him by the feet.

28 Jobn, 20.17. Matthe,28.11-15.
"But bouw can we disobey the command of our Lord?" 77
afraid,"30 It is in what is acknowledged even in the printed
Bibles to be one of three different endings to the Gospel of
Mark that we are told that the women went to "Peter and his
friends" and conveyed what they had been told31
In Luke, the women convey the message to "the eleven
disciples and all the rest."32
In John, Mary Magdalene, who alone has gone to the tomb,
goes and tells not, for instance, "the eleven disciples and all
the rest," she tells "Simon Peter and the other disciple, whom
Jesus loved,"33
But, of course, as she has not encountered anyone at the
tomb at this stage, she has no message to convey neither -
about going to Galilee nor about Jesus ascending to the
Father. All she conveys is that the body is missing.
Informed or not, having received only the news of the
missing body or having received that as well as a mnessage,
having received one message or an entirely different one,
which of the disciples goes to the tomb?
In Matthew no one goes to the sepulchre. The eleven
disciples proceed to Galilee,34
In Mark, no one goes to tell the disciples that the body is
missing - the women having been struck dumb by fear. So,
no occasion arises for the disciples to go to the sepulchre.
Subsequently, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. She tells
them. But "they, when they had heard that he was alive, and
had been seen of her, believed not."3> In any event, no one,
goes to the sepulchre.
In Luke, the wonmen narrate everything to the apostles.
But, "their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they
believed them not."30 Peter alone gets up and rushes to the
sepulchre,37 Though later on, when they are talking to the
30 Mark, 16.8.
slThird alternate, Mark, 16.9-10 in The Good Neus Bible, The Bible Society
of India, Bangalore.
32 Luke, 24.9. 33Jobn, 20.2. 3ÁMatthew, 28.16.
36Luke, 24.11. 37 Luke, 24.12.
35Mark, 16.11.
resurrected Jesus, whom they take to be a stranger, two

disciples speak of "certain of them which were with us"
having gone to the sepulchre,38
In John, the information is conveyed tot to all the apostles,
Mary Magdalene informs only two "Simon Peter and the
other disciple, whom Jesus loved." And the two of them rush
to the sepulchre.39
The body, having disappeared, Jesus appears. To whom?
In Matthew he first appears to the two Marys when they are
rushing to the disciples." Subsequently, as he had promised,
he appears to the eleven disciples at Galilee.41
In Mark he appears first to Mary Magdalene alone - the
occasion is neither at the tomb, nor on the way to he
disciples, but a different one, one situated indefinitely
between these two. After that he appears in another form
unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the
country. .n45 And finally he appears "unto the eleven as they
sat at meat. »44 --where the conversation, tc which we shall
just retun, takes place.
In Luke he appears first to two of the disciples as they are
on their way to a village called Emmaus "which was from.
Jerusalem about three-score furlongs." Jesus walks with
them, he talks with them. But they do not recognize him for
the longest time - it is only later after he vanishes that, seeing
how their hearts burned as the stranger talked with them, that
they realize who he was.45
They go to tell the eleven. Who say that he has appeared to
Simon. 46 And as they are talking Jesus himself stood in the
midst of them." Jesus talks to them at length.7
In John, Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene - outside
the sepulchre when she has returned with two of the
disciples. She takes him to be the gardener, as we have seen,
till he addresses her by her name.48
38 Luke, 24.24. 39Jobn, 20.2-4. 40 Matthew, 28.9.
í"Mattheu, 28.16-17. 42Mark, 16.9. 43 Mark,
16.12.
tMark, 16.14. 45 Luke, 24.13-32. 46Luke, 24.34.
17 Luke, 24.36-50. 48Jobn, 20.14-17.
"But bou can we disobey the conmand of our Lord?" 79
He next appears to the disciples as they have assembled

behind shut doors "for fear of the Jews."49
He appears again to the disciples eight days later - this
time doubting Thomas too is present.
He appears a third time to his disciples at "the sea of
Tiberias."sl Extensive exchanges take place between Jesus
and the disciples on this - the last - occasion.
By this uncertain route we reach the exhortation to cary
the message to all nations. But what precisely does Jesus say
on the subject?
In Mathew, after telling his disciples that all power has
been given to him in heaven and in earth, Jesus says, "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the endof the
World. Amen. "52
In Mark, he upbraids them for "their unbelief and hardness
of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him
after he had risen." And then come the words relevant to our
Concern: "And he said unto them Go ye into allthe world, and
preach the gospel to every creature." "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned. "53 Notice that here Jesus is asking the disciples to go
"and preach tbe gospel to every creature" - he is not asking
them to baptize and convert the people they encounter. What
hedoes is to forecast a future for those who believe and have
been baptized, and for those who do not believe.
Incidentally, after this Jesus tells them: "And these signs
shallfollow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out
devils;they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up
serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover. »54 Are the missionaries able to take up serpents? Are
4Jobn, 20.19-23. 507obn, 20.26-29. SlJobn, 21.1-22.

52Mattheuw, 28.18-20. 53Mark, 16.14-16. 5ÁMark, 16.17-18.
they immune to poison? Do the sick recover as they touch

them? Are there devils which missionaries drive away?
"Thus, in a word, while in Matthew what Jesus says about
baptism is an exhortation, in Mark it isahadjective. The even
more consequential fact in this context is that the earlier
manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at the Sth para of this
chapter. Paras 9 to 20- of which paras 15 to 18 which contain
the exhortation form a part - are acknowledged, even in the
printed versions of the Bible today, to be later add-ons.
In Luke, Jesus is at pains to convince the disciples that
what has been visited upon him is in accord with what had
been writen in the scriptures. Luke adds, "And he said unto
them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
and to rise from the dead the third day," "And that reperntance
and remission of sins should be preached in his name among
all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."5> Notice that here also
Jesus is not asking them to convert and baptize, he is merely
asking them to preach in his name - indeed, what he asks
them to preach is also limited to "repentance and remission of
Sins,"
John also reports at length the exchanges which Jesus has
with his disciples when he reappears to them. There is not a
word in these passages about going out, converting and
baptizing, or even preaching to the others.
Woulda claim based on so tenuous a foundation survive in
any court assessing evidence?
Moreover, if it is deemed to be a duty of missionaries to
convert, may it not be deemed to be a duty of those
belonging to the targeted societies to provide true information
to the targets about the creed which is seeking to convert
them?
55Luke, 24.44-47.
"They have God as their author
Ever since missionaries began their efforts to harvest our

souls here, they have had four USPs, so to say: that their Lord,
Jesus Christ, has been a historical figure, while our gods have
been figments of imagination; that their Lord has been the
more powerful Lord as he performed miracles which the
others did not – walking on water, raising the dead, healing
the sick, controlling the sea...., that all this is testified to in
something they have and we do not, the Book the Bible -
with its Old and New Testaments, and these, to recall the
declaration of the First Vatican Council, "have God as their
author"; and that, while our gods are mired in sin, their Lord is
immaculate.
That last used to be a staple of missionary publications till
the mid-fifties. Bereft of protection from the imperial power,
these days the harvesters are circumlocutory on this point.
But historicity is something they stress all the time. It can't
mean anything by itself, Ram Swarup used to point out. After
all, everyone holding this publication in his hands has that
quality of historicity! But that does not make us unique in any
way. Even so, our friends flaunt this claim a great deal.
Now, the principal, indeed almost the exclusive source
of information about the life and deeds of Jesus consists
of the four Gospels. Let us, therefore, examine in slightly
greater detail a feature about them that we glimpsed while
examining the claim of missionaries that they have been
commanded by their Lord to harvest us. As we proceed, it
–
will profit us to also take a quick sampling of what scholars
-
most of them devout Christians say about the Gospels in
82 Harvestiny Our Souls
Europe and America. The literature on Biblical exegesis and

SCrutiny is by now an ocean by itself. For the corrective we
need, it is not necessary to wade through this vast corpus.
Popular encyclopedias will be eiough: entries in them
summarize scholarly theses, the entries are written by
recognized scholars, the volumes are widely available in our
libraries in India.
The claim that the Gospels have God as their author, and
also that they set out historical facts, iterally and unerringly
true, is reiterated time and again by the Church tll today.
Vatican-II did so with full gravity and authority.
"The Word of God," "consigned to writing under the
inspiration of the Divine Spirit," “they have God as their
author," "God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments,"
"inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing,
they impart the Word of God Himself withoutchange," "the
written Word of God," "the sacred Scriptures contain the
Word of God and, since they are inspired, really are the Word
of God" such are the expressions by which Vatican-II
described the Bible, in particular the Gospels, in its decree,
Dei verbum, the Dognatic Constitu tion on Divine
Revelation.' A typical passage in Dei verbum puts the point
thus,
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented
in sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the
belief of the Apostles (see Jobn, 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter1:19-21;
3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments
in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because,
written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as
their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.
In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while
employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that
with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors,
'Dei verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 18

November, 1965,9,11, 16, 20, 21, 24.
"Tbey bave God as their autbor" 83
consigned to writing everything and ony those things which He
wanted.
Therefore, since everything aserted by the inspired authors or
sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it
foltows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as
teaching solidy, faithfuly and without error that truth which God
wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.
Therefore, 'at Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for
teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and
discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be
efficient and equipped for good work of every kind.' (2 Tim. 3:16
17, Greek text.)?
So, it isn't that this assertion - that the Gospels and other parts
of the Bible have God as their author – is some old, outdated
belief which has since been diluted or abandoned for some
more rational position. It is the current dogma of the Church.
How does it stand up- even on the most elementary test?
The genealogy of Jesus: Two of the four Gospels - Matthew
and Luke - give the genealogy of Jesus. Matthew lists the
supposed ancestors from Abraham onwards. Luke traces
Jesus' supposed ancestors back all the way to Adam, and
thence to God.4 The enumeration preceding Abraham is, of
course, not comparable, as Matthew does not mention the
names. Therefore, let us put the two lists together from
Abraham onwards, and see whether both can in any
conceivable way be simultaneously true.
The genealogy of
Jesus
In Mattbew In Luke
Abraham Abraham
Isaac Isaac
Judas Jacob
Phares Juda
Esrom Phares
Aram Esrom
21bid., 11. BMatthew, 1.1-16. 4Luke, 3.23-38.

Aminadab Aram
Naasson Aminadab
Salmon Naasson
Booz ,Salmon
Obed Booz
Jesse Obed
David, the King Jesse
Solomon David, the King
Roboan Nathan
Abia Mattatha
Asa Menan
Josaphat Melea
Joram Eliakim
Ozias Jonan
Joatham Joseph
Achaz Juda
Ezckias Simeon
Manasses Levi
Amon Matthat
Josias Jorim
Jechonias Eliezer
Salathiel Jose
Zorobabel Er
Abiud Elmodam
Eliakim Cosam
Azor Addi
Sadoc Melchi
Achim Neri
Eliud Salathiel
Eleazar Zorobabel
Matthan Rhesa
Jacob Joanna
Joseph Juda
Jesus Joseph
Semei
Mattathias
Maath
Nagge
Esli
Naum
Amos
Mattathias
"They bave God as their autbo" 85
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus
Thomas Paine put the contradictory lists to devastating use. In

Matthew between Abraham and Jesus there are thirty nine
generations. In Luke, on the other hand, between Abraham
and Jesus there are fifty five generations! Between David and
Jesus in Matthew there are twenty seven generations, and in
Luke there are forty two generations! Of the twenty six names
which occur in Matthew between David and Jesus, only four
occur in Luke- there are three others with spellings close to
each other. And among these few names which occur in both
lists, the order differs! But both lists, originating as they do
from God, occurring as they do in Gospels each word of
which is true, are by definition true!
What is one to make of this divinely authored mix-up?
"Both texts have to be eliminated as historical sources," says
the New Encyclopaedia Britannica. And, with what is surely
unintended irony, it adds, "They are nevertheless important
for the development of Christology (doctrines on the nature
of Christ), because they reveal the difficulty of reconciling
the genealogical proof of Jesus' Davidic descent with the
relatively late idea of his virgin birth." The comment of The
Oxford Companion to the Bible is just as telling: "Davidic
descent, conception through the Holy Spirit while his mother
remained a virgin, homage at birth," it says, all "are clearly
theological"5 - that last being a euphemism, as we shall see,
for the fact that the assertion is wbat the Church bas needed
for the "tbeology", etc., wbich it is peddltng.
SEncyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XXII, 15th edition,
p. 340; and Tbe Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 356.
Jesus' virgin birtb: The belief that is fostered is that the child
was conceived between the betrothal and marriage of Joseph
and Mary, by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. This is one of
the most advertised marks of Jesus' divinity, and so it is
surprising that neither the Gospel according to Mark, nor that
according to John somuch as mentions it. Matthevw and Luke
mention it, but with embarrassing differences. In Matthew the
angel appears to Joseph: he tells Joseph that his betrothed
maiden is going to have a child; Joseph is astonished; how
come?, he demands; the angel explains that God has selected
his wife-to-be for bringing His own Son into the world.°In
Luke, on theother hand, the angel appears not to Joseph, but
to Mary: the conversation he has with her is different, though
the essential point is the same - though a virgin, she has
conceived because of the Holy Spirit "coming on" her, etc.
But, of course, both Gospels "have God as their author."
Apart from the obvious fact that the Church needs such
miraculous claims - scholars point to a linguistic quirk that
accounts for the story. Told that his virgin bride-to-be is
pregnant, Joseph is flummoxed, and apprehensive about
what this would entail for their reputations. The angel
explains that the Holy Spirit has impregnated her, and it has
done so for a purpose: "Now all this happened in order to
make what the Lord had said through the prophet come true,
'A virgin will become pregnant and have a son, and he will
be called Immaneul'. »8
The angel was referring to Isaiab, 7.14. In that sequence,
God sends message after message to Ahaz to ask the Lord for
a sign. Ahaz says he will not put God to a test. Isaiah scolds
him for trying the patience of God, and adds, "Well then, the
Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is
pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immaneul'. By
the time he is old enough to make his own decisions, people
will be drinking milk and eating honey. Even before that time
Mattbeu, 1.18-21. 7Luke, 1.26-38. 8Matheuw, 1.22-23.

"Tbey bave God as their author" 87
comes the lands of those two kings who terrify you will be
deserted."9 Notice the words in the prophecy were "a youn
wOman. " That is what the Hebrew words meant. But about
five hundred years after Isaiab was written, The Good News
Bible notes, it was translated into Greek. The Hebrew word
alma meaning a "young woman' got translated as
"virgin", "and in this way," says the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
"the Christian story came about. "10 But of course on so central
a fact, the translations and retranslations too must be taken to
"have God as their author"!
Virgin birth or not, in wbich year was Jesus born? Matthew,
2.1, says, "Jesus was born.... during the time when Herod was
king." A few verses later Matthew recounts, "After Herod
died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in
Egypt and said, 'Get up, take the child and mother, and go
back to the land of Israel, because those who tried to kill the
child are dead.""11 Now, Herod died in 3 BC: that would put
the birth of Jesus in 3or 4BC at the latest! Luke puts a date to
the climnactic announcements of John the Baptist about the
arrival of Jesus: "It was the fifteenth year of the rule of the
Emperor Tiberius; Pontius Pilate was the Governor of Judaea,
Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip was...12
These verses put the birth of Jesus in 2or 1 BC. That is not all.
For in an earlier passage Luke has specified yet another date:
"At that time Emperor Augustus ordered a census to be taken
throughout the Roman Empire. When this first census took
place, Quirinius was the governor of Syria..."5 Jospeh and
Mary trek to Bethlehem - everyone has to register in his
hometown, and that is when Jesus is born. A census did take
place when Quirinius was governor. But the date for that was
AD 6-7! Hence, Jesus was born in 3 or 4 BC, or in 2 or 1 BC, or
in AD 6 or 7! And, of course, all three dates occurring as they
do in two Gospels must be taken to "have God as their
9
Isaiab, 7.10-16.
10 EncyclopaediaBritannica, Macropaedia, Volume XXII, p. 340.
ilMatthew, 2.19. 12Luke, 3.1-3. l3 L1uke, 2.1-3.

author"! But the millennium must be celebrated taking the

birth to have occurred as decreed'by the Church and other
commercial establishments!
Whatever the year, on wbat date uwas, Jesus born?"We have
no knowledge of the specific day of his birth," writes Will
Durant in his monumental history of civilization. "Clement of
Alexandria (ca 200) reports diverse opinionson the subject in
his day, some chronologists dating the birth April 19, some
May 20;>he himself assigned it to November 17, 3 BC. As far
back as the second century the Eastern Christians celebrated
the Nativity on January 6. In 354 some Western churches,
including those of Rome, commemorated the birth of Christ
on December 25." And that by mistake, it turns out! Durant
adds, "This December 25] was then erroneously calculated
as the winter solstice, on which the days begin to lengthen; it
was already the central festival of Mithraism, the natalis
invicti solis, or birthday of the unconquered sun. The Eastern
churches clung for a time to January 6, and charged their
Western brethren with sun worship and idolatry, but by the
end of the fourth century December 25 had been adopted
also in the East "14
Whatever the year, whatever the date, uwbere was Jesus
born? Problem upon problem. Mark refers to Nazareth - not
Bethlehem - as the "home town" of Jesus!5 From John's
Gospel, it is evident that even when Jesus had become well
known, his having been born in Bethlehem was not known.
On the contrary, people believed him to be from Nazareth.
Jesus is on one of his visits to Jerusalem - we will hear more
about these in a minute. Jesus has been preaching, his
miracles have got known far and wide. Many say he is a
prophet. Others say he is the Christ. Still others protest, "Shall
Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That
Christ cometh out of the seed of David, and out of the town of
14will Durant, Caesar and Christ, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1944,
p. 558.
15Mark. 6. 1.
"They bave God as their autbor" 89
Bethlehem, where David was?" The argument continues.
The officers who have been sent to arrest Jesus return
without doing so. The chief priests are livid. Why have you
not brought him?, they demand. "Never man spake like this
man," the officers say. The priests are adamant: the man is not
to be believed, they declare. One who has been to Jesus in
secret, objects: "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear
him, and know what he doeth?," he asks. The priests answer:
"Art thou also of Galilee? Search and look: for out of Galilee
ariseth no prophet. "l6 On the other side, Matthew declares
categorically, "Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in
Judaea, during the time when Herod was king. "17 Luke
reports that Joseph and Mary were staying in Nazareth. He
has them travel to Bethlehem just before the birth: that census
was to take place, everyone was ordered to be in his home
town,and as Joseph wasa descendant of David, they came to
Bethlehem, the city where David had lived, and so, Jesus
gets to be born in the city of David. 18
That there was a spur for all this is widely acknowledged
today. "Jesus came from the Galilean town of Nazareth, that is
from the north of Palestine, which also boasted a fair number
of Hellenistic cities (his birth in Bethlehem is a later
theological interpretative fiction)," writes Helmut Koester.!9
"The tradition of Bethlehem as the place of Jesus' birth has its
source in all probability in the Old Testament conception of
the Messiah as a descendant of David.." write the authors of
Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Both traditions (those of Mark
and Luke] are to be judged as legendary variations of the
theological theme of Jesus' messiahship, even though each
in its own way assigns to his birth a place in history. The
extent to which these texts are marked by theological motifs,
above all by the thought that Jesus as Messiah fulfills the
16Jobn, 7.41-42, 51-52. 17Matheu, 2.1. *Luke, 2.4.
to
19Helmut Koester, htoduction the study the New Testarnent, Volume
of
II, Histo1y and Literature of Early Christianity, de Gruyter, Berlin and New
York, 1982. p. 73.
promises of the Old Testament and the hope of Israel and the
world, is shown by the numerous qùotations woven into the
stories. "20
That euphemism again "theological motifs"! In plain
language the authors of the Gospels were propelled to
situate the birth in Bethlehem because they were eager to
establish that Jesus was the same Messiah who had been
prophesied by the Old Testament. Hence his Davidic
genealogy, hence his birth in what was taken to be David's
city.
Jesus was the first to see the contradiction in making both
-
claims simultaneously on the one hand that he was the
Messiah born to a virgin, and, on the other, that he was
descended from David. If he was born of a virgin, that is if
Joseph had nothing to do with his being conceived, where is
the question of his being traced through Joseph back to
David? The Gospel of Mark reports Jesus, the Messiah,
himself raising this question: "And Jesus answered and said,
while he taught in the Temple, How say the scribes that
Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy
Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord [the Messiahl, Sit thou on my
right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David
therefore himself calleth him (the Messiah] Lord; and whence
is he [the Messiah) then his [David's son? And the common
people heard him Jesus] gladly."21
But we must take all these contradictory things to be
simultaneously true - Nazareth being the "home town" of
Jesus but Jesus being born in Bethlehem, Jesus being born to
a virgin buu Jesus having descended from David via Joseph
for all these are stated in the Gospels, and these, as we know,
One way or another, at one place or another, on one date
or another, in one year or another, Jesus has taken birth. Who
20Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XXI, p. 340.

21Mark, 12. 35-37.
Tbey bave God as their autbor" 91
come bearing gifs? According to Matthew three wise men
from the East come. They see a star. The star keeps moving
ahead of them, guiding them till they reach the house. There
the star stands still. They enter, meet Mary and Joseph, and
see the infant. Overwhelmed, they fall down, and worship
the little child.22 In Luke, on the other hand, the ones who
come are not some wise men from the East, instead they are
some local shepherds. And they are led to the house, not by
some star, but by an angel.5
In any case, Jesus has been bon, either some wise men
from the East or some local shepherds have come, paid
homage, given gifts. What bappens thereafter? In Matthew,
when the three wise men see the star and begin looking for
Jesus, Herod hears that a child has been born, and that he will
be the King of the Jews. Troubled, he sends for his chief
priests and scribes, and questions them about the where
abouts of the child. In Bethlehem, they tell him, for so it is
written in the scriptures. Then he sends for the wise men. He
encourages them to look for the child. when you have
located him, do come and tell me, for I too want to worship
the infant, Herod tells them. The wise men locate the house,
as we have seen, they worship the child, but instead of
returning by the way they had come, they take another route,
thereby evading Herod. They do so because God warns them
in a dream that they should not return to Herod. When they
have departed, back in the house, an angel appears to Joseph
also,warns him that Herod will seek to destroy the child, and
that he should immediately take the child and Mary, and flee
to Egypt. The three escape in the dead of night. Herod is
furious. He has all children who are two years and less in
Bethlehem killed. Herod dies. An angel appears to Joseph,
and tells him that it is now safe for them to return. They
do so.24
In Luke, on the other hand, no angel asks Joseph to flee
22Mattheu, 2.1-12. 23 L1uke, 2.8-20. 24Mattbew, 2.1-23.

with his family, Herod does not oxder that the children be
killed, there is no flight to Egypt. Instead, once the mandatory
days for the "purification" of Mary have passed, Joseph and
Mary bring the little child to the Temple at Jerusalem, to
present him to the Lord, and to offer as sacrifice a pair of
turtledoves. At the Temple they encounter a just and true man
who has been promised by God that he shall see the Lord's
Christ before his death. Upon seeing the radiant child, he
knows at once that this is the one for whom he has been
waiting. He tells the parents what a blessing the child is. And
then a prophetess sees the child, and gives thanks,25 There is
none of the tension and apprehension and urgency that
Matthew has set out. And not just in these days immediately
following the birth of Jesus. In fact, Luke portrays a tranquil,
precocious childhood of this gifted child: "And the. child
grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the
grace of God was upon him. "2 Jesus is twelve years old. As
they do every year, the parents visit Jerusalem for the
Passover Feast. Jesus gets lost. The parents are distraught.
They look for him. Eventually, three days later they find him
in the Temple. He has been happily confounding the
doctors.27 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in
favour with God and man."?8 What a contrast to the flight to
Egypt in the nick of time, the slaughter of children, the return
after the death of Herod.
From his birth and childhood there is a sudden jump to
Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist - there is no account
at all of the intervening years.
Jobn and the baptizing of Jesus: Luke would have us
believe that, like Jesus, John too was born as the result
of God's intervention. Zacharias, a priest, and his wife,
Elizabeth are by now old. They have no child. Zacharias is at
the Tenmple. An angel, in fact Gabriel himself, appears, and
25Luke, 2.22-39. 26 Luke. 2.40.

27Luke, 2.41-51. 28 Luke, 2.52.
tells him that his wife shall bear a child. But how,Zacharias
asks, "for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in
years." Gabriel informs him that it is the decision of God that
Elizabeth should bear John. Indeed,when a little later Mary is
troubled upon being told that she is pregnant though she is a
virgin, the angel asks her to visit Elizabeth for she too is
pregnant by God's design.29 Surely, this mode of John's
Conception is as important a detail as any. Yet it does not
oCcur in Matthew, it does not occur in Mark, it does not occur
in John.
Inany event, John is baptizing. He announces the coming
of Jesus, and its significance for the world. People come fromn
all over, Confess their sins, and he baptizes them in the river.
But when the Pharisees and Sadducees arrive, John berates
them, "O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee
from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for
repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have
Abraham to our father: for Isay unto you, God is able of these
stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the
axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree
which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast
into the fire..."30 In Luke also John uses the same rebuke: "O
generation of vipers," he is reported as saying, "who hath
warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth
therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for Isay
untoyou, That God is able of these stones to raise up children
unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of
the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good
fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.."31 In a word,
except for the transposition of one "therefore," the words
john huris are the same. But while in Matthew the target at
which he hurls them are the Pharisecs and Sadducees, in
1.5-20, 28-31, 36.

29 Luke,
30 Mattbe, 3.7-8. 31 Luke,

3.7-11.
Luke it is "the multitude which came forth to be baptized of
him"!
Soon, Jesus himself arives to be baptized. John demurs -I
should be the one who is baptized by you rather than the
other way round, he says. Jesus makes him see the plan of
God. The ceremony done, the heavens open, we learn in
Mark and Luke, "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily
shape like a dove upon him Jesus), and a voice came from
heaven, which said, Thou art My beloved Son, in thee I am
well pleased,"32
In Matthew, the words God speaks are not directed to Jesus
but to the assembled people. God tells them, "This is My
beloved Son, in whom Iam well pleased,"33
In John, God doesn't speak. John the Baptist says, "I saw
the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode
upon him. AndIsaw, and bare record that this is the Son of
God... »34
Are those vital words of John the Baptist or of God? Did
God address themn to Jesus or to the people who happened to
be there?
Baptized, with God speaking or not, Jesus' ministry
Commnences.
When does it commence? In the first three Gospels Jesus
begins his independent ministry after John the Baptist is
imprisoned: thus in Mark, "After John had been put in prison,
Jesus went to Galilee and preached the good news from
God...."35 In John, on the other hand, Jesus commences his
independent ministry before John is put in prison: thus,
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land
of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And
John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because
there was much water there; and they came, and were
baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison."0
32Luke, 3.22;Mark, 1.11. 33Mattheu, 3.17.

34
Jobn, 1.32, 34. 35 Mark, 1.14.
3Jobn, 3.22-24.
"They bave God as their author" 95
Whenever it commenced, bow long did Jesus' ministry last?
Just a few months, at the most a year, according to the first
three Gospels - for they mention only one Passover. John, on
the other hand, puts the duration close to three years – for he
mentions three Passovers³7 before the final Passover leading
to the crucifixion 38
From this discrepancy follow many others. John reports
Jesusvisiting and preaching in Jerusalem at least thrice.39 The
other three have Jesus visiting Jerusalem only once - in the
last week of his sojourn on earth. As a consequence, John
places that famous visit to the Jewish Temple - at which
Jesus overturns the tables, and drives the money-lenders, and
traders out - at a much earlier phase in Jesus' ministry than do
the other three. But we must take both contradictory
sequences to be simultaneously true for all the four Gospels
Either way, Jesus has been baptized by John. In Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, Jesus immediately leaves for the wilderness.
Here he is tempted by the devil. The scenes are dramatic.
The retorts that Jesus hurls at the devil, the ease with which
he sees through the design of the devil – these have entered
our vocabulary. In John, by sharp contrast, there is nothing
about his being tempted by the devil.0
All right, Jesus has warded off the devil. He now gathers
his disciples. Wben and bow does be gather these initial
disciples?
In Matthew and in Mark, having heard that John the Baptist
has been thrown in prison, Jesus leaves for Galilee. One day
as he is walking by the sea, he sees two fishermen, Simon
3Jobn, 2.13, 6.4.
3FOr the resulting uncertainties see, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume
XIV, Macropaedia, p. 970; or the Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M.
Metzger, Michael D.Coogan, editors, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993,
PP.358-59.
Jobn, 2.13-23; 6.4; and, of course, finally Jobn, 11.55.
40Contrast, Mattbew, 4.1-11; Mark, 1.12-13;Luke, 4.1-13; with Jobn, 1.34
35.
and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea. "Follow
me," he calls out to them, "and I ill make you fishers of
men." They straightway leave their nets, and follow him.
Soon they chance upon James and his brother, John, mending
their fishing nets. Jesus calls out to them. They too at once
leave their boat, and join up with him.1
In Luke, Jesus has commenced his teaching, he has begun
performing miracles too - for instance, he is pictured driving
out a spirit from a man, he is pictured rebuking the fever
which has gripped Simon's mother. One day he is standing
by the lake. The people are all round asking him to teach
them. He sees two ships standing by the lake, but the
fishermen are out washing their nets. He enters one of the
ships. It is Simon's. Jesus asks him to take the ship a bit into
the lake. From there he addresses the people. The account
continues:
Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into
the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.
And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all niglht,
and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the
net.
Andwhen they had this done, they enclosed a great multitude of
fishes: and their net brake.
And they beckonedunto their partners, which were in the other ship,
that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both
the ships, so that they began to sink.
When Simon Peter saw it, he feldown atJesus' knees, saying, Depart
from me; for Iamna sinfulman, O Lord.
For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of
the fishes which they had taken:
And so vas also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were
partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from
henceforth ye shall catch men.
And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and
followed him,42
4lMattbeu, 4.18-22; Mark, 1.16-20.

12Luke, 5.3-11.
"Tbey bave God as their author"
97
What a contrast to the account in Matthew and Mark. And in
John we have a third version of the recruitment, one that
differs completely from the two we have encountered. John
the Baptist has baptized Jesus. He- John - says that he has
seen "the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it
abode on him Jesusl," he pronounces Jesus to be the Son of
God.The next day, John is standing with two of his disciples.
Jesus comes. "Behold the lamb of God," exclaims John. The
Gospel continues:
And the two disciples heard him John] speak, and they followed
Jesus.
Then Jesusturned, and saw them following, and saith unto them,
What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being
interpreted, Master) where dwellest thou?
He saith untothem, Come and see. They came and saw where he
dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was
Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have
found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him,he said,
Thou art Simon the son ofJona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is
by interpretation, A stone.
The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth
Philip, and saith unto him, Follow nme.
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him,of
whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of
Nazareth, the son Joseph...3
of
Has either account anything to do with the other?

Jesus' miracles: Jesus has commenced his ministry.
Miracles are an important component: he directly helps
people through them, he advances them as proof of his being
the Son of God, he invites people - including skeptics and
opponents like the Pharisees and Sadducees - to believe in
13Jobn, 1.37-51.
98 Haivesting Our Sous
him, if not because of what he is saying then, at the least,

because of the works" he is doing, that is the miracles that
take place through his hands and by his word. These miracles
have also had a central position in the proselytizing
campaigns of the Church. And that in at least two ways. The
missionaries insist that our gods, for instance, are inferior,
because they did not work these miracles none of them
rose after death, for instance, their publications and
propaganda point out. Second, the Church and the
missionaries inveigle the gullible into believing that, being
the body, bride, agents of Jesus, they have a sort of fiduciary
power to work some of the miracles. In publications like the
Catbolic Dharma ka Pracharak, as we have seen, priests are
urged to seek out non-Christian families in which someone,
specially a child, is gravely ill. They are instructed to try and
convince the parents and the patient that by invoking Jesus
they can have the child cured. "Our god is powerful," they
are instructed to tell the parents. If they agree, the priest is
instructed to perform the baptismal rites; if they do not, he is
told to perform them either while the parents are out of
hearing or sight, or on the pretext of administering some
medicine....44
The miracles are an act of faith, in any case – in at least two
senses. Ever so often Jesus himself tells the person who has
suddenly got cured, "Your faith has cured you." On occasion,
the Gospels themselves suggest that the miracle could be
performed because the people believed, and that it could not
be performed or Jesus did not work miracles in a particular
place because the people of that place did not have the
requisite faith. Believing the Gospel accounts of the miracles
today is, in any case, a matter of faith: in the very nature of
things, no proof can be offered that Jesus actually walked on
water, that his touch or spittle actually cured a man of his
4^For several telling instances and passages
the reader can look up the
NiyogiCommitee Report, reprint, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1998; or my
Missionaries in India, ASA, 1994.
congenital blindness.... At the least we may inquire how

consistent the accounts of the miracles are in the different
Gospels.
Several miracles which are set out in one Gospel are
missing from others. Several of them are said in one Gospel
to have been performed on a particular occasion, in a
particular setting, and on completely different occasions and
settings in the other Gospels.
A leper appeals to Jesus to cure him. Jesus touches him.
"And immediately his leprosy was cleansed," we learn. Jesus
tells the man, see that you tell no one, instead show yourself
to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses had prescribed.45 In
Mark the man tells everyone.0 In Matthew there is no
indication that he tells anyone, or that the miracle gets
known. In Luke, news of the miracle spreads, but it is not
clear whether the man himself has mentioned it round,47
Jesus enters Capernaum. A centurion comes to him, and
implores him to cure a servant of his who is sick with palsy.
Elaborate exchanges take place between this representative
of the Roman Empire and Jesus. Eventually Jesus cures him.
Luke also gives an extended description of this miracle. In
that account, however, the centurion does not come to Jesus.
Instead, he sends Jewish elders to Jesus to plead with him
that he cure the man's servant. The centurion sends them
consciously, deliberately:
Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the
people, he entered into Capernaum.
And a certain centurion's servant, whowas dear to him, was sick, and
ready to die.
And when he heard of Jesus, be sent unto bim the elders of the Jeus,
beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying,
That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
45Mattheu, 8.4. 46Mark, 1.45.

47 Luke, 5.15. 8Mattbeu, 8.5-13.
For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.

Then Jesus went with them. And whea he was now not far from the
house, the centurion sent friends to bim, saying unto him, Lord,
trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter my
roof:
Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but
say in a word and my servant shall be healed...19
Simon Peter's mother-in-law is ill with fever. In Matthew, and

also in Mark, Jesus touches her and the fever subsides.50 In
Luke, Jesus admonishes the fever, and it leaves the lady.1
Each of the three Synoptic Gospels reports Jesus
exorcising spirits. Matthew speaks of two men possessed by
devils.2 Mark and Luke speak of many spirits having taken
possession of one man53
Jesus cures a man stricken by palsy. "And he entered into a
ship, and passed over, and came into his own city," Matthew
tells us. "And, behold, they brought him a man sick with
palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto
the sick with palsy; Son, be of good cheer: thy sins be
forgiven thee ."54 In Mark and Luke, the encounter is much
more dramatic. "And again he entered into Capernaum, after
sOme days," Mark reports, "and it was noised that he was in
the house. And straightway many were gathered together,
insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not So
much as about the doo: and he preached the word unto
them. And they comeunto him, bringing one sick with palsy,
which was borne of four. And wben they could not come
nigh unto bim for the press, tbey uncovered the roof wbere he
was: and wben thbey bad broken it up, they let down tbe bed
wberein the sick tbe palsy lay.."55
of
Soon thereafter, a father rushes to Jesus, beseeches him to

save his daughter, Jesus speaks to her, she rises. What was
the condition of the daugbter before Jesussaw her? According
19Luke, 7.1-10. 30Matthew, 8.15; Mark, 1.31. 51 Luke, 4.39.
52Mattbey, 8.28. $$Mark, 5.2-3; Luke, 8.27. 5iMatthew, 9.1-2.
35Mark, 2.1-4; Luke, 5.18-19.
"Tbey bave God as their author" 101
to Matthew, upon rushing to him, the father informs Jesus,

"My daugbter is even now dead."When Jesus reaches the
house, he finds relatives and friends, mourning and making a
noise. He tells them, "Give place, for the maid is not dead,
but sleepeth." "And they laughed him to scom," Matthew
says.0 According to Mark, she was at the point of death.57
Luke reports that the little girl was dying when the father
caught up with Jesus, that, while they were talking, someone
came and told the father that she had in fact passed away.58
While Jesus is walking to the father's house, a woman who
has had uncontrollable bleeding for twelve years sees him.
She tells herself that if she can just touch his garment, she will
becured. So, as Jesus presses through the crowd, she touches
the hem of his garment. In Matthew Jesus at once turns to her,
blesses her, and she is hcaled: "But Jesus turned him about,"
Matthew says, "and when he saw her, he said, Daughter be of
good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the
wOman was made whole from that hour. "59 In Mark, and in
Luke too, the moment she touches the garment, she is healed.
Jesus, on the other hand, is upset: "And Jesus, knowing in
himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in
the press," Mark says, "and said, Who touched my clothes?"
His disciples protest, "Thou seest the multitude thronging
thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?" "And he looked
round about to see her that had done this thing. But the
woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in
her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
And he said unto her, Daughter, thy aith hath made thee
whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. »60
Jesus has just fed a crowd of five thousand with just five
loaves and two fish, and still there are baskets of food to
spare. He asks his disciples to board the boat, and proceed
to the other side of the lake. In Matthew, no motive is
$6Mattheu, 9.18-19, 23-26. 57 Mark, 5.23.
S8Luke, 8.42, 49,52-56. 59Mattheu, 9.20-22.
6Mark, 5.25-34; Luke, 8.45-48.
mentioned for his asking the disciples to board the boat.ó1

John, however, adds to the story an urgency and motive:
Jesus asks the disciples to get into the boat and row to the
other side of the lake because he apprehends that, having
seen the miracle, the multitude will proclaim himn king.°2
Even more significant is an incident that happens en route.
Having told the disciples to proceed, Jesus retreats into a
mountain to pray. By the time he returns, the boat has left.
Soon, he walks over water towards it. Seeing an apparition
treading water, the disciples are startled. It is a spirit, they
fear. Jesus calls out to them, and reassures them that it is he.
Atthis point, in Matthew a telling incident occurs. Peter calls
out to him, and says, "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto
thee on water." Jesus answers, "Come". "And when Peter
was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to
go to Jesus," Matthew says. "But when he saw the wind
boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried,
saying, Lord save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth
his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little
faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And when they were
come into the ship, the wind ceased "63 A vital incident, not
only in regard to Jesus, and of course Peter, but even more so
because of the significance it has for the teaching. It does not
figure in Mark. It does not figure in John. And as far as Luke is
concerned, the entire business of Jesus walking on water
does not find a mention!
Jesus has fed a multitude again: this time he has fed four
thousand from just seven loaves of bread, and few small
fish. Not only has everyone eaten his fill, seven baskets of
food are left over. He enters a ship with his disciples, and
they leave for the other side of the lake. They alight. “And the
Pharisees came forth," Mark tells us, "and began to question
with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, tempting
him. »64 Matthew would have us believe that along with the
6lMatthew, 14.22. Jobn, 6.15.

6 Mattbeu, 14.22-32. 6iMark, 8.11.
"They bave God as their author" 103
Pharisees were some Sadducees: "The Pharisees also with

the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would
show them a sign from heaven. "65
How does Jesus react to the demand? "And he sighed
deeply in his spirit," Mark says, "and saith, Why doth this
generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, There
shall no sign be given unto this generation." And that seems
to be the end of the exchange on this occasion, for Mark
reports, "And he left them, and entering into the ship again
departed to the other side."ó In Matthew, on the other hand,
the exchange was more extensive, for he reports,
He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be

fair weather: for the sky is red.
And in the moming, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and
lowering.O,ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of thesky; but can
ye not discern the signs of the times?
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign...
In we have seen, Jesus has told them that "There

Mark, as
shall no sign be given unto this generation." In Matthew,
Jesus' refusal is not absolute, indeed Jesus makes an all
important exception, one dealing with his eventual death, his
being entombed for three days, and his resurrection: having
pronounced them hypocrites, and a wicked and adulterous
generation, he says, "and there shall be no sign given unto it,
but the sign of the propbet Jonas."7
Jesus warns his disciples against the doctrines of the
Pharisees and Sadducees. They reach the coast of Caesarea
Philippi. Jesus asks his disciples, Who do men say I am? They
answer that men think of him in different ways: some say that
he is John the Baptist, some that he is the prophet Elias, some
that he is Jeremias. But who do you say I am?,Jesus asks. An
exchange follows which is of vital importance for the Church:
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the Living God.
65Matthew, 16.1. 66Mark, 8.11-13. 67 Mattheu, 16.2-4.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar
jona: for flesh and bood hath not revealedit unto thee, but my Father
which is in heaven.
AndI say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell sthall not prevail against it.
And I will give untco thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed on earth...8
The incident figures in Mark, and also in Luke. But this all
important exchange - one from which springs the claims of
the Catholic Church of Rome to authority, one from which
springs the myth of Peter having the keys to heaven, is
missing!9
Next, Jesus restores sight to the blind. According to
Matthew and Mark, this happens as Jesus and his disciples
leave Jericho. According to Luke, it happens as they
approach Jericho. According to Matthew, there are two blind
men. According to Mark and Luke, there is 0ne blind man.
According to Matthew, Jesus restores sight by touching the
eyes of the blind men. According to Mark and Luke, he does
so merely by speaking to them, "Go thy way, thy faith hath
made thee whole."70
Each of the three Synoptic Gospels narrates how Jesus rid a
possessed child of the devil that had taken possession of him.
But again, the narratives differ in significant ways: all
important exchanges which are in one are missing from
others, in those exchanges, all-important observations of
Jesus which are in one Gospel, observations that form almost
the moral of the miracle in one Gospel are completely absent
from the others.
Jesus is surrounded by a multitude. A helpless father falls
on his knees, and implores Jesus to cure his son. He is a
Mattheu, 16.16-19.
Pc.f: Mark, 8.27-30; Luke, 9.18-21.
7Compare, Mattheu, 20.29-34; Mark, 10.46-52; Luke, 18.35-43.
"Ibey have God as their author" 105
lunatic, the father says, he is sorely vexed. Often he falls into
fire, often into water. I brought him to your disciples, the
father tells Jesus, but they could not cure him. Jesus is
moved as well as vexed. He says, "O faithless and perverse
generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I
suffer you? Bring him hither unto me."
The child is brought. Jesus rebukes the devil. The devil
departs. The child is cured.
In Mark, the cure is preceded by an exchange between
the father and Jesus, an exchange oft-cited to stress the
importance of reposing faith:
And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came into lhim?
And he said, Ofa child.
And oft timesit hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to
destroy him: butifthoucanst do anything, have compassion on us, and
help us.
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him
that believeth.
And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears,
Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief.71
The exchange is missing from Matthew, as it is from Luke.

In Matthew and in Luke, Jesus having rebuked him, the
devil at once leaves the child alone. And the child is cured.
Not so immediately in Mark. In the latter, Jesus commands the
spirit, "Thou dumb and deaf spirit, Icharge thee, come out of
him, and enter no more into him." The spirit cries out, he tears
at the child...., and only thereafter departs. The child "was as
one dead," reports Mark, "insomuch that many said, He is
dead." «But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up;
and he arose "72
In Luke, the child having been cured, everyone is amazed
at "the mighty power of God," and the incident is closed. But
both Mark and Matthew advance an additional and important
7'Mark, 9.21-24. 7Mark, 9.25-27.

instruction: Jesus discloses to the disciples that the particular
kind of spirit which had taken posstssion of the child yields
only to prayer and fasting.
Furthermnore, Matthew has Jesus ddress a significant
admonition to the disciples, one that once again bears upon
the importance of faith. When they are alone with him,
Matthew reports, the disciples ask Jesus in private, "Why
Could we not cast him out?" And Jesus says,
Because of yourunbelief: for verily I say unto you, Ifye have faithas
a
grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove
hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shallbe
impossible unto you....
That is missing altogether from Mark as well as from Luke.73

Soon an argument breaks out among the disciples. What is
the dispute about? How does Jesus comne into the picture?
What does Jesus say? Each of the Synoptic Gospels reports
the incident, but on detail after detail each differs from the
others.
Matthew would have us believe that the discussion was
about "who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven'" that is, -
it was about the meritorious in general, not about any
inter se
ranking among themselves. Both Mark and Luke narrate, on
the other hand, that the argument was about who among
them wvas the greatest.
In Matthew, the disciples themselves pose the question to
Jesus. In Mark, having reached the house in Capernaum, Jesus
asks them, "What was it that ye disputed among yourselves
by the way?" "But they held their peace," says Mark, "for by
the way they had disputed among themselves, who should
be the greatest." In Luke Jesus comes into the exchange in
yet another way: "Then there arose a reasoning among them,
which of them should be greatest. And Jesus, perceiving the
thougbt of their beart, took a child, and set him by him...."
7BCompare, Mattbew, 17.14-21; Mark, 9.17-29; Luke, 9.38-43.

"Tbey bawe God as their autbor" 107
What Jesus says in elaboration is significantly different

from Gospel to Gospel....74
Incidents follow incidents. If we go by Matthew, the
mother of James and John comes to Jesus, and says, "Grant
that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and
the other on the left, in thy kingdom." Jesus tells her that she
knows not what she is asking for, that she knows not the
sufferings that those who accompany him shall have to
endure, that, in any case, the privilege of sitting on his left
and right is not his to confer but that of God. But according to
Mark, the exchange takes place not between Jesus and the
mother of James and John, it takes place between the two
brothers and Jesus, the mother is not on the scene at all. The
incident is missing altogether from Luke, and also from
John....75
Jesus is not long into his ministry. Luke narrates a famous
and moving story relating to this period. Jesus is at the house
of a Pharisee for dinner. A woman, who was a sinner, comes.
She has brought an alabaster box filled with a precious
ointment. The woman comes in, Luke continues, "And stood
at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet
with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and
kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment."
The Pharisee sees this, and thinks, "This man, if he were a
prophet, would have known who and vhat manner of
woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner." Jesus
discerns the thoughts passing through his mind. And he asks
Simon, the Pharisee: if one debtor owes a man five hundred
pence and another owes him fifty, and both are unable to
repay the amounts, and the man forgives them both, which of
the two is liable to love the creditor more? "I suppose," Simon
answers, that he, to whom he forgave most." "Thou hast
rightly judged," Jesus says, and explains,
7ÁCompare,Matheu, 18; Mark, 9.33-50; Luke, 9.46-48.

7Compare Mattheuw, 20.20-28; Mark, 10.35-45.
Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no
water for my feet: but she hath washedmy feet with tears, and wiped
them with the hairs of her head.
Thougavest me no kiss: but this Woman since the time I came hath
not ceased to kiss my feet.
My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed
my feet with ointment.
Wherefore Isay unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for
she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Turning to the woman, Jesus tells her, "Thy sins are

forgiven....Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. "76
In Matthew, Mark and John also we get the incident of a
woman coming with an alabaster bOx filled with ointment,
and anointing Jesus. But in every other particular the
accounts differ radically from that in Luke.
The incident occurs in the very last days of Jesus. Just two
days are left for the Passover feast. Jesus is in the house of
Simon whom Matthew identifies as "the leper" rather than as
the Pharisee. The woman Comes. She pours the ointment
on Jesus' head not his feet, as in Luke. The disciples are
indignant. Towhat purpose is this waste?, they say, "for this
ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the
poor." Jesus teaches them, and in the process once again
forecasts the dramatic events that are about to unfold:
Why trouble ye the woman? For she hath wrought a good work upon
me.
'For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for
my burial.
And he tells them that for this good deed, "Wheresoever this
Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also
this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of
76Luke, 7.36-50.
"Tbey haare God as their autbor" 109
her." The woman is not a sinner. The moral is not about who
had loved Jesus more, nor aboutwho, being in greater need
of exculpation, is the one to whom the Lord shall rush His
benediction.
John'sversion differs from both, having as it does elements
from each of the two! The Passover feast is six days hence.
Jesus is in Bethany, from where he will soon proceed on the
final, fateful journey to Jerusalem. He is at the house not of
sOme Pharisee, not of some leper, but of Lazarus - whom he
has raised from the dead. Lazarus' sisters, Mary and Martha,
who hacd got Jesus to come over to resurrect their brother are
attending on him. No woman comes from outside. There is no
alabaster box. Mary takes "a pound of ointment of spikenard,
very costly." She anointsthe feet of Jesus - she does not pour
it over his head; she wipes his feet with her hair.
Not the disciples in general as in Matthew and Mark, but
one disciple - Judas Iscariot, who will sOon betray him
exclaims, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred
pence, and given to the poor?" John adds an editorial
comment: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but
because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was
put therein." "Let her alone", Jesus remarks, "against the day
of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have
with you; but me ye have not always." There is nothing about
his having directed that the deed must be remembered
wheresoever the Gospel is taught .78
Quite a bundle of irreconcilables, and the foregoing is just
a sample. And, as we shall see, they are nothing compared to
what happens when we get to the climax - the final week,
and the decisive events to which the Gospels devote the
largest proportion of their text.
7 Mattheu, 26.6-13; Mark, 14.3-9 simila.

78Jobn, 12.1-8.
The uncertain build-up to the climax
The time has come. Jesus is on what will be his final

journey. His final days on earth. He is nearing Jerusalem.
According to John, Jesus finds a donkey, and rides into the
city on it.' According to Mark and Luke, as the group
approaches Jerusalem, Jesus asks two of his disciples to go
ahead into the village, he tells them that they will see a colt
tied there, that no man has yet sat on it, that they should
unfasten it, and bring it to him. They do so, and Jesus rides
into thecity on it. According to Matthew also Jesus sends two
disciples, but he asks them to fetch not the colt, but both - the
ass and its colt. And there wvas a reason for his doing so,
Matthew explains: "Allthis was done, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the
daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek,
and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." The
disciples go, "And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on
them their clothes, and they set him thereon."3 Did Jesus
ride into Jerusalem on the donkey, on its colt, or on both
simultaneously?
Either way, Jesus enters Jerusalem. To a triumphant
welcome by the populace. In Matthew and Luke, he goes
straight to the Temple, and cleanses it - so directly does Jesus
proceed to the Temple that the walk to the Temple is
telescoped into the account of the entry into Jerusalem.* In
Mark, Jesus goes to the Temple all right, he looks at the
'Jobn, 12.14-16. Mark, 11.1-7; Luke, 19.28-34.

BMattheu, 21.1-7. ^Mattheu, 21.12-17; Luke, 19.45-46.
Tbe uncertain build-up to the climax 111
goings-on, but, as it is late, with his twelve disciples, he

leaves for Bethany. It is on the next day that he returns to the
Temple, overturns the tables, drives out the money-lenders,
sellers of doves and the like. In John, the entire episode
of the Temple has occurred much earlier - at the very
commencement of Jesus' public activity, and not, as in the
other three Gospels, at the very end of it! So, while jesus
enters Jerusalem, and the subsequent events which we will
follow transpire, there is no cleansing of the Temple, etc., in
these final days.o
Discrepancies continue to dog every subsequent step in
the accounts. We pick up the narrative from the event which
is so central to Christian lore - Jesus' last meal with his
disciples. It has been the subject of innumerable paintings. It
is the theme of innumerable dramatizations. So many
decisive things happen during it - Jesus tells his disciples that
he will not be long with them, he foretells the betrayal by
Judas, and so on. Some of the rituals central to Church
services derive from this meal - for instance, that of eating
that white flake as the body of Jesus, and drinking that sip of
wine as the blood of Jesus. So, this last meal is as central to the
Church as anything. What do the Gospels tell us about it?
In the first three Gospels, the meal is the Passover meal
itself." In John there is no celebration of the Passover Meal at
all in this round, as by the day of the Passover events have
moved ahead towards their inexorable climax. The meal in
John is on the day before the Passover Festival.8 "Each of
these datings may be theologically motivated," says the
Encyclopaedia Britannica - protagonists choose one
description rather than the other depending on "whether it be
that the Eucharist is to be represented as the Passover meal
(Synoptics) [that is, the first three Gospels] or whether Jesus
5Mark, 11.11-12, 15-16.
Jobn, 2. 13-17; 12.12 onwards.
7Mattbey, 26.17-25; Mark, 14.12-21; Luke, 22.7-26.
Jobn, 13.1.
himself is to be shown as the true Passover lamb, who died at

the hour when the lambs were slaughtered.."9
Each of the Gospels contains elaborate accounts of what
was said at the meal - mainly by Jesus. The discrepancies are
so considerable, and their "theologicalP implications so
telling that scholars despair of being able to get at what
actually happened. Summarising the result of sifting over
centuries, The Oxford Companion to the Bible states, "The
exact words Jesus spoke over the bread and cup are
impossible to recover, since the various accounts of the
institution (1 Cor. 11.23-25; Mark 14.22-24; Matt. 26.26-18;
Luke 22.19-20) have been coloured by liturgical
developments in the post-Easter community...."10 "Jesus had
celebrated a last meal with his disciples before his arrest, but
what was said during that meal eludes our knowledge,"
Koester Concludes. "Everything that the relevant texts report
about it derives from the interests of the Christian cult and has
been fomulated according to later interpretations of Jesus
death on the cross.... whether Jesus expected a visible
demonstration of God's rule in the near future as a result
of his path to the cross, whether some of his disciples
(especially Judas?) tried to force this event, whether Jesus
himself thought that the hour for a decisive action had come
(is the entry into Jerusalem at all a historicalevent?) -all these
are questions which merely invite speculation. Neither the
historian nor the theologian should try to answer these
questions, "l1
Take up any event and see what we learn about it in
accounts of this meal - say the one dramatized no end, the
betrayal by Judas. All the four Gospels report that two days
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XXII, p. 345.

10Tbe Oford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M. Metzger,
Michael D.
Coogan, editors, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993, p. 359.
1lHelmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume II, History
and Literature of Early Cbristianity, de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1982,
p. 84.
The uncertain build-iup to the climax 113
before that final meal the chief priests and elders decide to
arrest Jesus secretly and to have him put to death. According
to Mathew, Judas then goes to the chief priests and asks,
"What will you give me if Ibetray Jesus to you?" They count
out 30 silver coins and give these to him. From then on
Judas is looking for a chance to hand Jesus over to them.12
According to Mark and Luke no money is paid at this stage:
Judas goes to them, offers to deliver Jesus, they are pleased,
"and promised to give him money."13 In John also we are told
of the chief priests hatching the plot, but there is no mention
of Judas going to them. l4
Jesus is said to have foretold Judas' betrayal at this meal.
According to Matthew, when they are eating Jesus says,
"Verily I say unto you that one of you will betray me." The
disciples are agitated, each begins asking Jesus, "Is it I?"
When Judas asks, "Master, is it I?," Jesus answers elliptically,
"Thou hast said."5 According to Mark, Jesus says that one of
those who is eating with him will betray him. Questioned by
the agitated disciples, he repeats the prophecy, "It will be
one of you twelve, one who dips his bread in the dish with
me..." But there is no additional exchange with Judas. l6 In
Luke the sequence is more or less the same as in Mark-there
is no specific hint about Judas, nor is there any additional
exchange with him.
According to John, on the other hand, Jesus was as specific
as anyone can be. The supper has ended, the devil has
planted the idea of betraying Jesus into the heart of Judas
Iscariot. Jesus begins to wash the feet of his disciples. He
alludes to what lurks: "... All of you are clean," he says, "all
except one". And yet again: "I speak not of you all: I know
whom I have chosen: but that the scripture nay be fulfilled,
He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against
me. Now Itell you before it come, that, when it come to pass,
12Mattbew, 26.14-16. 1'Mark, 14.10-11; Luke, 22.3-6.

1Jobin, 11.45-57. 15Meuttheu, 26.20-25. lMark, 14.17-21.
ye may believe that I am he.." Jesus is thereafter troubled in
spirit, and continues, "Verily, verily I'say unto you, that one
of you shall betray me." A disciple goads another to ask Jesus
who shall do so. Jesusanswers, "He it is to whom I shall give
a sop when Ihave dipped it." He dips the bread in wine and
gives it directly to Judas Iscariot. "And after the sop Satan
entered into him" - that is, into Judas.Jesus tells him, "That
thou doest, do quickly." Even then the other disciples do not
understand what Jesus is saying - but Judas does: for John
tells us, "He then, having received the sop went immediately
out: and it was night..."1" Incidentally, in Matthew's Gospel
that admonition, for Judas to do quickly what he is going to
do, occurs not at this stage - it occurs later, in Gethsemane
when Judas, having led the guards to Jesus, goes up to
identify him, says, *Peace be with you, Teacher," and kisses
him. 18
Thesupper over, Jesus and eleven of his companions -all
except Judas, that is - go to the garden, Gethsemane to pray.
As Jesus retires to a corner to pray, he asks three of them to
stay awake and keep watch. In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus
finds them asleep thrice. In Luke once.!9 In all these three
Gospels, though saying that God's will alone must prevail,
Jesus implores God, "If you will, take this cup of suffering
from me." In Luke– butnot in the other two- an angel comes
to strengthen him.20
Soon they come to arrest him, accompanied by Judas. Wbo
cOme? In Matthew and Mark they are "a large crowd armed
with swords and clubs and sent by the chief priests and
elders."21 In Luke, however, "the chief priests and the
officers of the temple guard and the elders" themselves come
to seize him.22 In John, the ones who come are the temple
"Jobn, 13.2; 13.10-1 1;13.18-27. 18Mattheu, 26.49-50.

19 Luke, 22.45. 20 Luke, 22.43.
2l Matthew, 26.47; Mark, 14.43 similar. 22Luke, 22.52.
The uncertain build-up to tbe climax 115
guards who have been sent by the chief priests and elders,
but in addition there are also Roman soldiers,23
Whoever have come, have reached. What happens next?
All four Gospels report that one of Jesus' disciples - Peter -
takes a sword and hacks off an ear of one of the fellows. In

Matthew, Jesus says, "Put your sword back in place. All who
take the sword will die by the sword. Don't you know that I
could call on my Father for help, and at once He would send
me more than twelve armies of angels? But, in that case, how
could the scriptures come true which say that this is what
must happen?"24 In Mark, the disciple hacks off the ear all
right, but there is no report of Jesus saying anything to the
disciple,25 In Luke, on the third hand, Jesus exclaims,
"Enough of this!," and touches the man's ear and thereby
heals him.20 In John there is no touching and therefore no
healing, and what Jesus says is something quite different:
Jesus says to Peter, "Put up thy sword into thesheath: the cup
which my Father hath given me, shall Inot drink it?"27
In the three earlier Gospels, Judas leads the guards, etc., to
Jesus, he identifies Jesus by kissing him. In John, on the other
hand, Jesus, "knowing all things that should come upon him,"
asks them who they have come to get, and upon their saying
that they have come to get Jesus of Nazareth, he himself- not
once, but twice - declares that he is that Jesus. There is no
Occasion nor need for Judas to identify him.28
Whoever they are, Judas leads the men to the garden. In
Mark, Matthew and Luke, they lay their hands on Jesus and
take him,29 In John, on the other hand, when Jesus identifies
himself to them himself, something altogether different
happens. Those who have come to seize him, are startled,
they fall to the ground: “As soon then as he had said unto
23Jobn, 18.3. 24Mattbety, 26.51-54.
25Mark, 14.47. 26Luke, 22.51.
Jobn, 18.11.
29
23Job1, 18.4-9.
Matbeu, 26.47-57; Mark, 14.44-53; Luke, 22.47-54.
116 Hanesting Our Souls
them, I am he," John records, "they went backward, and fell

to the ground."30
Shifting the blame
One way or another, with rudeness or veneration, Jesus is

arrested. As we move from the account of what follows from
one Gospel to the next, the guilt of the Roman governor is
ninimized, and that of the Jews is progressively increased - a
change that parallels to the dot what was happening in real
life in the century and a half following the death of Jesus: that
is, the sharpening conflict between the Jewish church and the
new Christian sect.
The account in Matthew and Mark is similar. Jesus is taken
to the house of Caiaphas, the High Priest, where teachers of
law and elders have already gathered. He is questioned, and
the next moning, chained, he is taken to the house of the
Roman governor. In Luke the questioning takes place the
subsequent morning. But in substance the account is similar,32
In John, on the other hand, Jesus is taken not to the house
of Caiaphas but to that of his father-in-law, Annas. He is
questioned there. And after that Annas sends him to
Caiaphas,33 While in Mark and Matthew, and even in Luke,
though in this Gospel the transfer talkes place a day later, it is
the Jewish council which convicts Jesus, in John that council
is nowhere in the picture - Annas and Caiaphas dispose
of
Jesus individually on their own.
Whichever the place, attempts are made to implicate Jesus
in some crime which would entail the death penalty. He is
accused of claiming to have the power to bring down the
Temple, and rebuild it in three days. He is accused of
blasphemy - because of his claiming to be the Son of God. In
30Jobn, 18.6.
31 Matthew,
26.57-68, 27.1-2; Mark, 14.53-65.
32Luke, 22.54-55, 66-71; 23.1. 33 Jobn, 18.12-14,
19-24.
The uncertain build-up to the climax 117
all, except John - in which there is no information about the

questions jesus is asked by the Jewish authorities.
Jesus is now before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor.
In the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, Pilate is in cahoots with
the crowd. He knows that the priests want Jesus out of the
way because of jealousy. He asks him some perfunctory
questioOns. Jesus does not defend hinself against the
calumners, Pilate asks the crowd whom they want him to free
- Barabbas (who was guilty of sedition and murder) or Jesus:
it is the Passover Festival, and it was the custom for the
Roman governor to set one mnan free in accordance with the
wishes of the subjects. The crowd screams that Jesus be
crucified, and Barabbas freed. "Pilate wanted to please the
crowd," Mark says, "so he set Barabbas free for them. Then
he had Jesus whipped and handed him over to be
crucified,"34
Matthew follows the acCount of Mark - but the balance
begins to shift. We now learn that when Pilate asks the crowd
whom he should free, the chief priests and elders instigate
the crowd to shout that Barabbas be freed and Jesus be
crucified. At this point Pilate's wife sends him word, "Have
nothing to dowith that innocent man, because in a dream last
night I suffered much on account of him." Even after it has
shouted for Jesus' crucifixion, Pilate asks the crowd, "What
crime has he commited?" They shout all the more, "Crucify
him, crucify him."
"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing," says
Matthevw, "but that rather a tumult was made, he took water,
and washed his hands before the multitude saying, 'I am
innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then
answered all the people, and said, 'His blood be on us, and
on our children."" Pilate releases Barabbas, and sends Jesus to
be crucified. And those sentences imputed to the crowd
34Mark, 15.1-15.
become the justification down the ages for the persecution of

Jews,35
Luke adds a few more twists to exculpate the Romans,
and intensify the guilt of the Jews. -In this Gospel, the Jewish
establishment hurls many additional charges against Jesus:
that he has been misleading our people, that he has been
exhorting them not to pay taxes to the Emperor, that he has
been claiming to be Messiah, a King. Pilate asks Jesus, "Are
youking of the Jews ?" Jesus gives the enigmatic answer, "So
you say."
Pilate declares, "I find no reason to condemn this man.
The priests redouble their insistence, "With his teaching he is
starting a riot among the people all through Judaea. He began
in Galilee and now he has come here." Learning that Jesus is
from Galilee, Pilate sends him off to Herod who rules over
that part. Herod asks questions. The priests hurl accusations.
Herod too concludes that Jesus is not guilty. He puts a fine
robe on him, and reverts him back to Pilate.
Pilate now tells the crowd and the priests, "Ye have
brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people:
and behold, I, having examined him before you, have found
no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse
him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing
worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise
him, and reease him." The crowd shouts all the more, Kill
him, set Barabbas free. Pilate appeals to them a third time,
*Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death
in him: Iwill therefore chastise him, and let him go." The
crowd and the priests shout for crucifixion yet again. Pilate
gives in, "And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they
required. "36
In John also after the questioning at Caiaphas' place, the
Jewish authorities take Jesus to the judgment hall of Pilate,
but they stay outside, "lest they should be defiled" for the
35Matthe, 27.11-26. 36Luke, 23.3-5, 13-25.

The uincertain build-up to tbe climax 119
Passover Feast. What wrong has he done', Pilate asks them.

"If he were not a malefactor, we would not have dclivered
him unto thee," they answer. In that case, Pilate says, "take ye
him, and judge him according to your law." The Jews say
there is a problem, "It is not lawful fOr us to put any man to
death." Pilate then goes into the judgment hall again, and
begins to question Jesus.
The exchanges are very different from the ones reported
in the other Gospels. In any event, Pilate goes out and tells
the Jewish authorities, "I find in him no fault at all." But there
is the custom that I am to release a man you name for
Passover, he says, do you therefore want that I release to you
this King of the Jews? No, Barabbas, they say. "Now Barabbas
was a robber," John reports - others, as we saw, say he was
guilty of sedition and murder. "Then Pilate therefore took
Jesus, and scourged him," John says.7 And the last journey to
Golgotha commences....
The discrepancies between the Gospels apart, it is now
widely acknowledged that the descriptions of Jesus' trial and
conviction just cannot be squared with what is known for
certain about Jewish legal procedure. It is only in Luke that
the charges are listed with any specificity on acCOunt of
which the Jewish council convicted Jesus: none of these
carried a capital sentence under Jewish law. Indeed, there
are many reasons to infer that Luke is suggesting that the
Jewish authorities held Jesus to be not guilty of blasphemy.38
"The historical reliability of this account [of the Jewish
authorities convicting Jesus] has rightly been questioned,"
the Encyclopaedia Britannica concludes. The narratives in
the four Gospels contradict each other, for one, it says.
Moreover, "the question arises what earwitness can be
supposed later to have given the disciples an exact report" of
what transpired in the Jewish council. Furthermore, the
37Jobn, 18.28-40.
3cf., A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, The Bampton
Lectures 1980, Duckworth, 1982, Appendix 1, pp. 174-75.
Encyclopaedia points out, trials of this kind were not to be

conducted during the period of the festival." "The strongest
argument against the Synoptic presentation is, however, that
it is styled throughout in a Christian, and not in a Jewish way,"
the Encyclopaedia notes, "that is, on the basis of scriptural
proof and the Christian confession to the messiahship and
divine Sonship of Jesus. The High Priest's question, 'Are you
the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' (Mark 14:61), is unthink
able from the viewpoint of Jewish premises, because Son of
God was not a Jewish title for the Messiah. Thus, the account
reflects the controversies of the later church with the Judaism
of its day.. »39
There are disputes also about the jurisdictional
competence of the Jewish council, the Encyclopaedia
observes. Some maintain that the Jewish council did in fact
have the authority to sentence a man to death for blasphemy,
and so there would have been no reason to take Jesus to
the Roman governor. Recall that in John, when they reach
Pilate's palace with Jesus, Pilate asks the Jewish authorities,
"What accusation bring ye against this man?" They do not
give a specific answer: "They answered and said unto him,"
John tells us, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have
delivered him up unto thee." «Then said Pilate unto them,
Take ye him, and judge him according to your law."Now see
what the Jews tell Pilate: "The Jews therefore said unto him,
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."40 In regard to
this statement about the powers of the Jewish council, The
Cambridge Companion to the Bible observes,
John 18:31 quotes the Jewish authorities as declaring that they could
not put anyone to death, but prior to the fall of Jerusalenm in 70 CE, he
Jewish council (synedrion) did have the right to execute those Jews
who violated Jewish law, although they needed the prior approval of
the Roman authorities to do so. On the other hand, those whose
misdeeds were seen as threats to the public order had to be turned
Encyclopaedia Brilannica, Macropaedia, Volume XXII, p. 344.

Jobn, 18. 29-31.
The uncertain build-up to the clinax 121
over to the Roman authorities for judgment and appropriate action. A
decision by the Jewish council leading to the death of the offender is
described in Acts 5:27-40. Further, early rabbinic sources report
executions carried out by authority of the Jewish council according to
their laws,41
And all this from scholars who believe that Jesus was in fact
arrested as a trouble-maker, informally interrogated, and
handed over to the Roman governor as one leading a political
revolt against the Empire..
Out to kill Jesus from the outset
By the time we reach the Gospel of John hostilities of the

nascent Church with the Jewish establishment have reached
such a pitch that the latter gets blamed not just for being
responsible for the ultimate killing of Jesus, the Gospel
makes out that they were out to get Jesus from the very
commencement of his ministry. Indeed, this hostility of the
Jews, their attempts and plans to kill Jesus become a refrain
that runs through John.
Jesus hasreached Jerusalem again - it is his second visit: in
the other three Gospels, as will be recalled, Jesus comes to
Jerusalem only once, for the final dramatic consummation; in
John, he visits it at least twice on earlier occasions also. There
is a pool at the market. An angel is said to come and stir the
water once in a while. Whoever is the first to enter the pool
gets cured of whatever ailment he has, An infirnm man has
been coming there repeatedly. But there is always such a
rush that he is never able to be the first to enter the pool after
it has been stirred. He appeals to Jesus. "Rise, take up thy
bed, and walk," Jesus tells him. "And immediately the man
was made whole," John informs us, "and took up his bed, and
walked: and on the same day was the Sabbath."
lHC. Kee, E.M. Meyers, John Rogerson, AJ. Saldarini, The Cambridge
Companion to the Bible, Cambridge University Press, Carmbridge, 1997,
P. 546.
The JewS are upset: as men are being cured by the mere
to
Wordof this outsider, who will flock them and their places?
They use the pretext of Jesus having worked - a miracle
though it be - on a Sabbath. "And therefore", the Gospel
records, "did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay
him...." Questioned, Jesus answers, "My Father worketh
hitherto, and Iwork." That enrages the Jews even more, John
would have us believe: "Therefore the Jews sought the more
to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but
said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with
God n42
Because of confrontations of this kind, Jesus is said to

leave for Galilee, "for he would not walk in Jewry judaea),
because the Jews sought to kill him. "43 Soon, the Jewish feast
of the tabernacles is at hand. Jesus' disciples urge him to go
for the feast: the one who seeks to be known openly cannot
remain doing things in secret, they tell him. No, he says, my
time is not yet come, you proceed. But eventually he too
goes, "not openly, but as it were in secret." The Jews seek
him out. "Where is he?", they demand. People keep the
information from them...44 The Jewish authorities see and
hear the adulation in which the people are coming to hold
Jesus, "and the Pharisees and Chief Priests sent officers to
take him, "45
The Gospel has Jesus himself declare, and to the Jewish
authorities themselves that they are out to kill him, and
that they are determined to do so because they have been
fathered by the devil: "I know that ye are Abraham's seed,"
Jesus tells them, "but ye seek to kill me, because my, word
has no place in you.. If ye were Abraham's children, ye
would do the works of Abrahamn. But now ye seek to kill me,
a man that hath told you the truth, which I have
heard of God:
Jobn, 5.16-18. Jobn, 7.1. 44Jobn, 7.1-13.
45Jobn, 7.32; Jobn, 12.19 for the similar reaction
of the Jewish authorities at
his subsequent visit to Jerusalem.
The uncertain build-up to the climax 123
this did not Abraham.... If God were your Father, ye would
love me: for I proceeded forth and came fromn God; neither
came I myself, but He sent me.... Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own; for he is liar, and the father of it..."»46
The heated exchanges continue. Soon, the Gospel would
have us believe, the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus.
Jesus eScapes by hiding himself.47
A man who has been blind since birth comes to Jesus. Jesus
spits onto some clay, and puts the clay over the eyes of the
man. The Jews are incensed when they hear of the miracle.
They cross-examine the man, then they cross-examine his
parents. The parents evade the question of who has restored
his sight and how. "These words spake his parents," John
tells us, "because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had
agreed already,that if any man did confess that he was Christ,
he should be put out of thesynagogue. n48
No time has elapsed, and the Jews are again pictured as
taking up stones to stone Jesus - this time the provocation is
that he has referred to himself and God as one. Jesus
remonstrates with them: Ihave done so many good works, he
tells them. We do not stone you for the good works, but for
the blasphemy you utter, they answer. But why don't you see
that I am able to do these works because Iam in God and He
is in me?, Jesus asks. "Therefore they sought again to take
him: but he escaped out of their hand."49
At last, their plot has ripened. Thus far the Gospel has
given a diverse set of motives which have impelled the Jews
to get at Jesus: he has broken the code in regard to the
Sabbath,for instance; the people are turning to him; he utters
46 Jobn, 8.37-44. 47Jobn, 8.57-59.

48Jobn, 9.1-22. 4Jobn, 10.30-33, 36-39.
blasphemies - equating himself to God. Jesus' plain

speaking too incenses them. John ndw suggests another, one
may say higher or more conclusive motive which impels the
Jews to have Jesus killed:
Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said,
What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
thus alone, all men will believe on bim: and the
f we let bim come
Romans shall and take away both our place and nation.
Caiaphas, who is the High Priest at the time, provides the
ultimate rationalization:
Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one
man should die for the people, and that the wbole nation perish
n0t.
John elevates the matter even higher. The Gospel comments,

"And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;And
not for that nation only,but that also he should gather together
in one the children of God that were scattered abroad,"
"Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to
put him to death," concludes John.0 They issue a command
that anyone who knows the whereabouts of Jesus should
disclose them so that they may take him.1
Event follows event. They catch Jesus. They try him in
a sort of kangaroo-court. And then they take him to Pilate.
The Jews first charge Jesus with blasphemy. As this makes
Pilate even more cautious, they say that he has been inciting
people against Caesar, that anyone who does not proceed
against him is against Caesar. On four separate occasions
John has Pilate tell them and the mob that he finds Jesus
guilty of no wrong. But they demand, and secure Jesus'
crucifixion.
S0Jobn, 11.48-53. 5lJobn, 11.57.

The uncertain biuild-up to the climax 125
And thus is forged the charge-sheet which has justified the

persecution of the Jews for two millennia.
All this is done, to use the expression so favoured by our
scholars, for "theological reasons" - in plain language, it
reflects what, in view of its sharpening conflict with the
Jewish establishment, was convenient for the Church.
10
Silence as evidence
Pilate has washed his hands off the innocent Jesus. At the
clamour of the crowd, instigated as it is by the Jewish
authorities, he has sent Jesus to be crucified.
The trek to Golgotha differs from one Gospel to the other:
OCcurrences in one do not figure in others. Even events that
are at the centre of the Christian myth, which indeed have
become figures of our common speech - the soldiers puting
that crown of thorns on Jesus' head, for instance events -
which form so dramatic a part of one Gospel are totally
missing from the others. "The Passion narrative (Mark 14-15
and parallels) is difficult to harmonize with what we know of
Jewish legal procedure in the 1st century," the authority from
the Union Theological Seminary, at New York, begins his
account of the events leading to the crucifixion in The
Encyclopedia Anmericana.' Having listed the reasons for
which the accounts in the Gospels even of Jesus' trial cannot
be trusted, the Encyclopaedia Britannica observes - without
adducing any evidence, of course - that events such as Judas'
betrayal, Jesus' last meal, Peter's denial "are certainly
historical". But even it is constrained to remark about these
and other events that, apart from the trial, "The other scenes
in the Passion story do not need to be listed
separately.
They relate more to thetheological meaning of Jesus Passion
and are, to a large measure, formed in an edifying cultic
manner. "2
1The
Encclopedia Americana, Volume XVI, p. 44.
ZEncyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XXII, p. 345.
Silence as evidence 127
That is the common view which one can find listed even in
general reviews like those contained in encyclopedias. But
here in India not just missionary publications, even secular
newspapers and magazines narrate the events as if they were
merely reproducing accounts of eyewitnesses! It will,
therefore, pay us to sample an occurrence or two relating to
these final hours.
Jesus is nailed to the cross. According to Matthew, he cries
out in a loud voice, "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?" "And straight away one of them lfrOm among
those who were standing around] ran, and took a spunge, and
filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to
drink," Matthew says. "The rest said", he continues, "Let be,
let us see whether Elias will come to save him." Jesus does
not seem to get to drink the soporific. Mark, from whom, as
we shall see, Matthew bOrrowed wholesale, gives a similar
account.4 Even though it forms the penultimate climax in
Mark and Matthew, the incident does not figure in Luke at
all.5
It figures in John all right, but to a different end. Jesus has
just spoken to a disciple - we shall come to this in a moment
"After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now
accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I
thirst," reports John. "Now there was set a vessel full of
vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it
upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore
had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he
bowed his head, and gave up the ghost, 0
Two bandits have also been nailed to crosses, one to Jesus'
left and one to his right. In Matthew and in Mark passers-by
and, of course, the chief priests mock Jesus, and so do the
bandits. There are no exchanges with the bandits. In Luke
upon being nailed and mocked, Jesus says those famous
Matthew, 27.46-49. 4Mark, 15.35-36. Scf., Luke 23.44-46.
Jobn, 19.28-30. 7Mattbew, 27.32-44.

words, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they
do."8 It isn't just that these words do not occur in any of
the other Gospels, as the Good News Bible notes, "some
manuscripts lof Luke itself] do not have.[them],"9
In Matthew and in Mark, as we just noted, both the bandits
join the passers-by in mocking Jesus. Neither Gospel says
that Jesus had any exchanges with them. In Luke, on the
other hand, only one of the two criminals mocks Jesus: "And
one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him,"
Luke writes, "saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."
Instead of joining this thief in his mockery as he does in the
other two Gospels, "the other answering rebuked him,
saying, Dost thounot fear God, seeing thou art in the same
condemnation?" Not only that, this second bandit remarks on
what a difference there is between them and Jesus: "And we
indeed [are being crucified] justly; for we receive the due
reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss."
He proceeds further: instead of mocking Jesus as in Matthew
and Mark, he implores Jesus: "And he said unto Jesus, Lord,
remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." And
Jesus responds, full of compassion: "And Jesus said unto
him, Verily Isay unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in
paradise."10 In John, the bandits are there all right. But neither
incident transpires - they do not mock him, nor does Jesus
exchange any words with them.!1
On the other hand, John reports one exchange which none
of the others do. All report that among those who were
present was Mary, the mother of Jesus. "When Jesus there
fore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he
loved," reports John, "he saith unto his mother, Woman,
behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy
mother! And from that hour that disciple took her into his oWn
*Luke, 23.34.
Good Neus Bible, Today's English Version, The Bible Society
of India,
Bangalore, The New Testament, p. 114, note c.
10
Luke, 23.39-43. 1Jobn, 19.16-30.
home...." And then follow the vinegar, and Jesus' exclaiming,
"It is finished, "12
Notice that here in John, the last words are these, "It is
finished," In Mark and Matthew, there is the cry of despair
and incomprehension, "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?" In Luke, Jesus is in an altogether different
mental state. He commends himself to God with the serene
words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."13
Clearly, the import of the words is entirely different. Will
Durant offers a typical explanation: the words in Mark and
Matthew, he notes, follow Psalm 22,18; "perhaps finding
such words repugnant to the theology of Paul," Will Durant
says, Luke "substitutes for them, 'Father into thy hands I
commend my spirit,"" "which in turn", Durant writes, "echoes
Psalm 31,5 with suspicious accuracy."14 How apposite the
words of the writer of the essay in the Macropaedia, that all
these things "are.... to a large measure, formed in an edifying
cultic manner...." But our missionaries recite all of them -
taking care to select the set that best suits the occasion!
Jesus has died - the hour assigned differs. In John, Jesus
just gives up the ghost. The soldiers come. They break the
legs of the bandits. Seeing that Jesus is already dead, they do
-
not break his legs and that too is in accordance with what
has been set out in a scripture. One of them pierces his body
- and that too fulfills a scriptural prophecy. Nothing happens
as far as the. environment is concerned. Jesus' body is taken
down, and eventually consigned to the tomb.15 In Mark and
Luke, on the other hand, the event is of such force that the
curtain which hangs in the Jewish Temple is rent in two,l6
In Matthew, on the third hand, cataclysmic consequences
follow: "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice,
1Jobn, 19. 25-27.

13Matthew, 27.46; Mark, 15.34; Luke, 23.46, John, 19.30.
lwill Durant, Caesar and Christ, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1944,
PP. 572-73.
9Jobn, 19.30-42. 16Mark, 15.38; Luke, 23.45.
yielded up the ghost," he reports; "And, behold, the veil of

the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and
the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were
opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
intothe holy city, and appeared unto many."1/
When such earth-shaking events occur, and the very ones
who would be expected most of all to focus on them do not
So much as mention them, that silence is itself evidence, it
creates an overwhelming presumption. In The Age f Reason,
the book that almost cost him his life, Thomas Paine remarked
two hundred years ago,
Now, if it had been true that those things had happened, and if the
writers of those books had lived at the time they did happen, and had
been persons they are said to be, namely, the four men called
apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it was not possible for them,
as true historians, even without the aid of inspiration, not to have
recorded them. The things, supposing them to have been facts, were
of too much notoriety not to have been known, and of tOo much
importance not to have been told. All these supposed apostles must
have been witnesses to the earthquake, if there had been any; for it
was not possible for them to have been absent from it; the opening of
the graves and the resurrection of the dead men, and their walking
about the city, is of greater importance than the earthquake. An
earthquake is always possible and natural, and proves nothing; but
this opening of the graves is supernatural, and directly in point to
their doctrine, their cause, and their apostleship. Had it been true, it
would have filled up whole chapters of those books,and been the
chosen theme and general chorus of all the writers; but instead of this,
littie and trivial things, and mere prattling conversations of, be said
tbis, and be said that, are often tediously detailed, while this, most
important of all, hadit been true, is passed off in a slovenly manner by
a single dash of the pen, and that by one witer only, and not so much
as hinted at by the rest.
It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it
is told. The writer ofthe book of Matthew should have told us who the
17
Matthew, 27.50-53.
saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what
became of them afterward,and who it was that saw them- for heis
not hardy enough to say he saw them himself;... whether they
remained on earth, and followed their former occupation, or working;
or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and
buried themselves.
Strange, indeed, that an army of saints should return to life, and
nobody know who they were, nor who it was who saw them, and that
not a word more should be said upon the subject, nor these saints
have anything to tell us!.... But instead this, these saints were made
of
to pop up, like Jonah's gourd in the night, for no purpose at all but to
wither in the morning...3
Earthquake or no earthquake, saints leaping out of their

graves or not,Jesus dies. His body is interred. The tomb is
sealed with a huge boulder. The body vanishes. He appears
again to this set of his disciples or that. Or does he? The
Gospel according to Mark ends with the women rushing
away from the empty tomb, "for they trembled and were
amazed," they say nothing to anyone "for they were afraid.""9
It is now widely acknowledged that the verses?0 which
maintain that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and
others are later addenda. Similarly, John's account of the
reappearances ends midway: for there are serious grounds
for believing that all of John, 21 is a "literary epilogue", an
"appendix" added on later for special purposes 'of the
Church's future programme.*
The resurrection is pictured as yet another fulfillment
of what had been prophesied in the scripture. Matthew
describes the famous encounter. The scribes and Pharisees
ask Jesus for a sign of his special relationship with God.
Jesus reprimands them, and says, "An evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be
18Thomas Paine, The Age ofReason, 1793/1 794, Prometheus Books, New
York, 1984, pp. 153-55.
20 Mark,
19Mark, 16.8. 16.9-19.
2iSee,for instance, John M. Court, Reading the New Testanent, Routledge,
London, 1997, pp. 137-54.
given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For Jonas was
three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the
Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth. "22 A minor, but none the less embarrassing fact: as
Thomas Paine remarked, going by the Gospels themselves,
Jesus left the grave within 36 hours instead of the prophesied
72. There is more than an arithmetical problem here. Por
scholars see that Jesus had talked of resurrection in a
corporate sense - in the sense of the community of believers
as a whole being resurrected once the Kingdom of God broke
out on earth, and not of his being resurrected as an individual.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible summarizes the position:
"Critical scholarship regards the predictions by Jesus of his
own resurrection (Mark 8.31; etc.) as creations of the post
Easter community after the event. Since, however, Jesus'
preaching of the kingdom implied resurrection, there can be
no question that he foresaw the corporate resurrection of
God's people as lying beyond his death (Mark 14.25). But
there is nothing in his authentic preaching to suggest that he
expected an individual resurrection for himself. "23
But, strange to say, the exact opposite has transpired! He
arose as an individual. The conmunity of believers is still
waiting - two thousand years after his death.
In Mark the disciples are told to proceed to Galilee, in
Matthew they actually go to Galilee and it is there that
Jesus appears to them, in Luke all the appearances of the
resurrected Jesus take place in and around Jerusalem.24 In
any event, in Galilee and Jerusalem, or around and in
Jerusalem alone, risen, Jesus appears - to this group or that.
And then he ascends to heaven. Does be? Matthew, who, as
22Matthew, 12.38-40.
23The Oxford Companion to the Bibie, Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D.
Coogan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993, p. 647.
2cf., for instance, H.C. Kee, E.M. Meyers, John Rogerson, A,J. Saldarini,
The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1997, p. 525.
we have seen, never misses an opportunity to put in

elaborate accounts of whatever will redouble one's faith, has
absolutely nothing on the matter. That Gospel just ends with
the risen Jesus speaking his final words to the disciples.25
Mark as it originally existed also has nothing about Jesus
being taken into heaven - for it ends with the distressed and
terrified women fleeing from the empty tomb.26 In the
passages which were added on, the risen Jesus appears
thrice - to Mary Magdalene, then to the two disciples while
they are on their way to the country, and finally to the eleven
in Jerusalem. He exhorts them. "So then after the Lord had
spoken unto them," the add-ons inform us, "he was received
up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."27 The
ascent takes place from Jerusalem. In Luke too Jesus appears
to the eleven at Jerusalem. He addresses them at greater
length. Having doneso, *he led them out as far as Bethany,
and lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to
pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and
carried up to heaven. And they worshipped him and returned
to Jerusalem with great joy. And were continually in the
temple, praising and blessing God... "28 Alas! There is not a
word about being lifted up to heaven in John - that ends with
ascribing words to Jesus so as to refute the charge that,
John says, has been put out since - regarding yet another
prophecy of Jesus not coming true....
In any event, assume Jesus has ascended to heaven. How
many days had passed between his resurrection and ascent?
How many days had he been moving around, meeting
disciples, counselling them, etc., here on earth? Forty days,
we are told in the Book of Acts, [1.3.] Five hundred and fifty
days, we learn in the Gnostic Epistles of the Apostles.9
25 Mattbew, 28.16-20. 26, Mark,

16.8.
27 Mark,
16.19. Luke, 24.50-53.
28
2OFor instance, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. cit., pp. 39-40.
The figure of faith
11
The figure of faith
*But that is exactly the point," they say in raised tones.

"That is precisely why the Lord has said, 'The letter killeth,
the spirit giveth life.' You are nit-picking, going on about
discrepancies between the account of an event in one
Gospeland that in another. But the details in the Gospels are
not what are important. It is the figure of faith they weave."
That is a somersault, surely. Ever since Christianity was
brought to India, the missionaries have advanced as one of
the decisive arguments in its favour that Jesus is a figure of
history whiie our gods are creatures of imagination, that the
life of Jesusis "documented" in The Book - directly dictated
by God, in the alternate written at His direction and under His
inspiration - while the accounts of our gods are in sundry
books, oozing, to recall Macaulay's derision, with “medical
doctrines which would move laughter in girls at an English
boarding school, history abounding with kings thirty feet high
and reigns 30,000 years long, and geography made up of
seas of treacle and seas of butter...a literature admitted to be
of small intrinsic value... (one) that inculcates the most
serious errors on the most important subjects... hardly
reconcilable with reason, with morality... fruitful of
monstrous superstitions... false history, false astronomy,
false medicine... in company with a false religion...
And now, suddenly- "the details are not important, it is the
figure of faith the Gospels create.." If the figure of faith is
what is important, what, pray, is the reason to prefer Jesus
over Ram and Krishna? After all, as a figure of faith, the latter
have sustained millions upon millions for far longer than
Jesus! And they have done so without the well-oiled, and so

well-heeled machinery of a church
Moreover, is the faith evidence of some trait in Jesus - or in
the believer? Is the faith, and the resultant holiness in Jesus?
Or is it something in us - our need, our despair to believe?
The circularity strikes one from a mile. Mela-like gather
ings of charismatic healing are staged with great fanfare
across the country.Thousands of desperate patients and their
relatives throng to these gatherings. The congregations are
among the most fertile occasions for enlarging the harvest.
Jesus heals, the missionaries proclaim. The miracles in the
Gospels in which he cured a paralytic, in which the blind
began to see, in which the deaf began to hear are recalled
as literal truths. But there is always the catch: only those
who have true faith shall be healed, the preacher slips in.
Therefore, have true faith in Jesus, he screams. Remember
the woman who had been bleeding for twelve years?, he
asks. She got to touch Jesus' garment, the bleeding stopped.
But what did our Lord tell her? He opens Mark, Chapter 6
and reads, "Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole..".
Therefore, develop that intense faith in Jesus, and that faith
shall make you whole, he says. The preacher reads from the
next chapter. And be not like the men and women of that
village, he shouts, of whom Saint Mark has remarked that our
Lord Jesus "marveled because of their unbelief.." And the
climax: the son who had been possessed since he was a
child, Desperate, the father has brought him to the followers
of Jesus. They are unable to drive the spirit out. The scribes
mock and question the followers. Jesus arrives. The father
explains the plight of the son: the child foams, he gnashes his
teeth, he pines, he falls to the ground, "and wallowed
foaming." I spoke to your disciples, the father says, and they
could not drive the spirit. "O faithless generation", Jesus
exclaimns - take into your heart what Jesus is saying, our
preacher, looking up from the text, says in a raised voice, "O
faithless generation": the Lord is talking of us, he is talking of
The figure of
faitb 139
everyone bere, he says. It is faith we have to acquire. He
returns to the father's pleading: "And ofttimes it hath cast him
into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him," the father
explains, and implores Jesus, "If thou canst do any thing,
have compassion on us, and help us." And see what our Lord
Jesus tells the father of that helpless child, "If thou canst
believe, allthings are possible to him that believeth - that is
the essence, believe, believe, our preacher shouts...
How can one say that I have true faith, that I believe or not?
If Ido, Iam healed. If I am not healed, it shows that I do not
have true faith...
And how do Iacquire that faith? By surrendering to Jesus,
the missionaries exclaim. And how will we know that I have
surrendered to Jesus? By the fact of my having acquired the
requisite faith. If I lack in faith that shows that my surrender is
incomplete...
Anointing: wben it heals, and wby it does not

"He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood," John has
Jesus say, "has life eternal, and Iwill raise him up on the last
day." And on the strength of that the Church exhorts its
ministers to rush to administer the sacrament of anointing to
the sick and the dying – "rush does seem the right word, for
the Church tells its clergy, "A prudent or probable judgment
about the seriousness of the illness is all that is required.
There is no reason to be scrupulous in the matter, but if
necessary a doctor may be consulted."2 What is the statement,
"He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life
eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day," but an
assertion?What is the belief that there is an "eternal life", that
there is a "last day", that some persons will be selectively
Jobn, 6.54.
2Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Hominum dolores,
Introduction to tbe Rite of Anointing and to the Pastoral Care of the Sick,
7 December, 1972, 8.
"raised up" on that day, and these will be those who have
eaten Jesus' "flesh" and drunk his blood", what are these but
propositions which have to be taken on faith?
Since the Council of Trent the Church has been claiming
-
that this anointing is "a divine institution" the claim can be
accepted only on faith. It relies on the statement of James, the
brother of Jesus, that if there is someone sick, presbyters of
the Church should be sent for, and "They in turn are to pray
over him with oil in the namne of the Lord. This prayer uttered
in faith will reclaim the one who is ill, and the Lord wil1
restore him to health. If he has committed any sins, forgive
ness willbe his." That Jesus can and will forgive us- that is,
set us free from the consequences of the wrongs we do -
upon this prayer being said is also just a matter of faith.
Next, notice that James' assurance is absolute: "This prayer
uttered in faith will reclaim the one who is ill, and the Lord
willrestore him to health." Now, given mind-body relation
ships, that a person believes that a ritual will cure him is liable
to facilitate his recovery, no doubt. But it is the belief, not
the ritual of anointing which helps get him back on his feet -
any other ritual, provided the patient believes in it as much,
will do.
And even in the case of devout Christians, the ritual of
anointing may not! The Church is certainly aware of this, and
hedges against failure being taken as proof to the contrary.
There was already a caveat in James' claim itself: for the
prayer to Work it must be "uttered in faith", so that, if it does
not work, it is not the prayer which lacks in potency, it is that
it was not uttered with the requisite faith! The Church has
since fortified the caveats, making out that when the prayer
does not work there is a higher purpose being served, that it
has not worked to design! Anointing the ritual as "a divine
institution," the Council of Trent observed,
James, 5.14-15.
The figure of
faith 141
The central reality is the grace of the Holy Spirit. The anointing
removes any remaining sin and its remnants. It brings relief and
strength to the soul of sick persons, making them greatly confident in
the divine mercy. Thus sustained, they can more easily bear their
illness, be better able to withstand the temptations of the devil in
ambush (Genesis 3:15) and sometimes they regain bodily strength,
f this will contribute to the bealth of the soul. (Decree for the
Armenians)..
In a word, to start with "sometimes they regain bodily

strength," and, second, when patients do not recover, there is
a divine calculus behind their decline - recovery would not
be good for the health of their soul! The decree of Pope Paul
VI on the sacrament of anointing the sick and dying recalls
this explanation with approval!'
Thus, a matter of faith trwice over! When it works, you must
take it on faith that the prayer has worked. When it does not,
you must take it on faith that its not working is good for the
health of your soul!
The scholars are not far behind. "It is only those with faith
who can receive healing," The Oxsford Companton to the
Bible explains after citing some of the miracles,and referring
us to passages in Mark, "and the stories themselves become
paradigms for the meaning of faith. The man who has ears but
cannot hear tillJesus touches them (7.31-37), the blind man
vho has eyes but cannot see, and who receives his sight
gradually (8.22-26), the man who cries, I believe; help my
unbelief (9.24), and the beggar who receives his sight and
follows Jesus on the way to Jerusalem (10.46-52) all tell us
something of what belief in Jesus means. »5
The circularity apart, so much is now known of the mind
body relationship that no one would doubt that the touch or
'Pope Paul VI,Sacrum unctionem infirmorum, Apostolic Constitution on
the Sacrament of theAnointing theSick, 30 November, 1972.
of
5The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D.

Coogan, editors, Oxford University Press,Oxford, 1993,p. 495.
blessing of a charismatic person, of a person who one is

convinced can cure one, such a toûch or blessing cani indeed
trigger a breakthrough. It is also possible that Jesus had this
power in large measure, in uncommn measure. But that
being the root of the ensuing cure, has the Church warrant to
claim so much on behalf Jesus and at the same time belittle
of
accounts of persons who affirm that they have been vaulted

out of their torment by other healers? By the presence of
Ramana Maharshi? By Sai Baba?
To be taken on faith
Nor is it a question only of the general nature of figures and
objects of faith. This sudden turn-around – from historicity
being the decisive consideration to historical facts being
unimportant - cuts deeper. For the Jesus of the Gospels is not
just a figure of faith, he is a figure who has to be taken on
faith. True, we cannot construct anything definite about him
from the Gospels, scholars and churchmen concede, but
about the fact that he existed there can be no doubt. But when
the sources for him are only the Gospels, and similar material,
and when they are so patently flawed, how does that "but
about the fact that he existed..." follow?
Assume that it follows, that about the fact that Jesus existed
there is no doubt. But that, as we noted earlier, is hardly
something that would set him apart - countless others,
including all of us, have existed, for far longer than the Bible
says the world has existed. The point is that everything
which
does make Jesus special has to be taken on faith. The virgin
birth; the opening of the heavens upon John baptizing him,
the descending of the Spirit, and the celestial voice
proclaiming that Jesus is the beloved Son of God, that God is
well pleased with him; the miracles; the exorcisms; the
prophecies in the Old Testament of which he and his life, his
death, his resurrection are said to have been a fulfillment; his
prophecies of his own suffering; that he was crucified as "a
The figure of faith
143
ransom for many, " that he died for our sins, that our sins have
been absolved by his crucifixion; that this was the best way
for God to demonstrate His compassion for us - to send down
His Son, and have him nailed to the cross: wouldn't it have
been more to the point for Him to have had Satan in the shape
of a serpent impaled on that cross?, the irrepressible Paine
had ingquired; that though our sins were absolved by the
sacrifice of Jesus, we continue to suffer, that the world in
general continues to have so much cruelty and suffering; the
disappearance of the body; the resurrection; the appearances
to the disciples; the sonship of God; God Himself...- each of
these is "a matter of faith," exactly at par with, say, the belief
of our tribals that spirits dwell in the trees they revere....
Isthe Trinity anything other than a "matter of faith"? Is the
belief that this community - those who believe in Jesus - is
the one Chosen of God rather than every other community -
those who believe in Jehovah, those who believe in Allah -
which claims as much on its behalf: what is this exclusivist
claim but a "matter of faith"? What is the belief - common to
the Jews, the Christian Church, and the Islamic Ummab - that
history, specially their own history, is the unfolding of the
purpose of God except a "matter of faith"? What is the belief
that their community is being taken through suffering for a
purpose, that in the end God will ensure triumph except a
"matter of faith"? What are the several "signs" by which Jesus
and God make known Jesus' special proximity to God except
"matters of faith"? That he changed water into wine at the
wedding feast when the hosts ran out of wine, that he healed
the son of the nobleman by his mere word though the son
was dying:? that a man who has been lame for thirty eight
years should rise and walk at Jesus asking him to do so; that a
multitude of five thousand which has followed him should
get fed on next to nothing;" that when his disciples have gone
Mark, 10.45, 14.24. ?Jobn, 4.46-54.

8obn, 5.5-9. Jobn, 6.2-14.
twenty to thirty furlongs into the sea, Jesus should come to

them walking on water0- what âe these but matters one
must accept on faith? The assertion that the man who had
been born blind was born with that handicap not because of
sheer chance, nor, as some would have it, because he or his
parents had sinned, "but that the works of God should be
made manifest in him" - in this case, so that Jesus may
perform a miracle and make this blind man see and that the
man is able to see because Jesus, having spat on the ground,
applies the clay mixed with his spittle to the man'! - is either
the assertion or the happening other than something one has
to believe or not as a "matter of faith"? That Lazarus, dead
four days, buried in a cave should be restored to life at Jesus
commanding him, "Lazarus, come forth," "And that he that
was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes:
and his face was bound up with a napkin"12- is believing that
event not another "matter of faith"?
That when Jesus is being proffered temptations by the
devil angels administer to him;13 that he calms the tumultuous
storm;4 that he walks on water;"5 that he is, as he says, "the
bread of life":16 that those who "eat the true bread from
heaven" in that they accept Jesus and no other, shall share in
eternal life;" that he, Jesus, is the one and only way to God,
that he who has known him, Jesus, has known God;18 that he
dies for our sins, that his being killed is in fact a triumnph of the
forces of good over those of evil as he was resurrected,
that he came from God, that he returned to God, that in his
death he actually overcame the world19 - which of these
propositions is any more than a "matter of faith"?
Recall the much-vaunted "transfiguration scene",20 Jesus
takes Peter, James and John into a high mountain. There, as
10Jobn, 6.15-21. "Jobn, 9. 1-41. 12Jobn, 11.
13Mark, 1.12-13. 14Mark, 4.35-41. 15Mark, 6.45-52.
1oJobn, 6.35. 1?Jobn, 6.32-35. 8Jobn, 14.6-7.
19Jobn, 16.24-33. 20 Mark, 9.1-13; Mattbeu, 17.1-9.
The figure of
faitb 145
they watch, he is transfigured: "and his face did shine as the

sun, and his raiment was white as the light," says Matthew;
Moses and Elias appear; a bright cloud overshadows them,
and a voice breaks through the cloud, "This is my beloved
Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." “And when the
disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore
afraid," Matthew tells us. This is a celebrated incident
further "proof" that Jesus was the chosen Son of God. But is
there an iota more proof for this occurrence than for other
"transfiguration scenes"? Any greater proof than for the vision
Daniel saw², a vision the replica of which this account in
Mark and Matthew is said to be?
A representative example
It is indeed a good exercise to read through SOme

authoritative enunciation of the Credo of a Christian, to list
from it the number of elements which have to be taken
on faith, and ask how any of these elements has a more
substantive basis than the beliefs of our people in Krishna
and Ran which these missionaries parody. A good example
at hand is Pope Paul VI's Solemni bac liturgia, The Credo of
the People of God. Here is a representative passage from it:
We believe in eternal life. We believe that the souls of all those who
die in the grace of Christ- whether they must still make expiation in
the fire of Purgatory, or whether from the moment they leave their
bodies they are received by Jesus into Paradise like the good thief-
go to form the People of God which succeeds death, death which will
be totally destroyed on the day of Resurrection when these souls are
reunited with their bodies.
We believe that the multitude of those souls gathered round Jesus
and Mary in Paradise forms the Heavenly Church. There they enjoy
eternal happiness, seeing God as He is. There also, in different
21
Daniel. 10.1-21.
degrees and ways, they share with the holy angeis in that exercise of
divine power which belongs to Christ in his glory when they
intercede for us and come to the aid of our weakness in brotherly
care. 22
Five sentences in all, and sixteen propositions you have to
take on faith:
1. That there is "eternal life";
2. That there is a Paradise;
3. That Jesus and Mary are siting there;
4. That there is a Purgatory;
5. That some "souls that die" have to "make expiation in the fire of
Purgatory":
6. That other souls “from the moment they leave their bodies are
received by Jesus into Paradise";
7. That there is a People of God "which succeeds death;
8. That death is "totaily destroyed on the day of the Resurrection";
9. That on the day of the Resurrection "these souls are reunited
with their bodies";
10. That thereafter they "enjoy eternal happiness";
11. That there isa God;
12. That having been reccived in Paradise, these souls get to "'see
God as He is";
13. That there are holy angels;
14. That they "share in the exercise of divine power";
15. That ensconced in Paradise, these souls also get to share with the
angels the exercise of divine power;
16. That they direct this divine power in our interest by interceding
for us and coming to the aid of our weaknesses.
Sixteen matters to be taken on faith in just five sentences! And

missionaries traduce our religions for being nothing but a
string of fables!
Or take the sbraddba ceremonies that the Hindus do. For
the missionary these are just the vestige of unmitigated
superstition. But on what does the high and lucrative -
edifice of Indulgences rest butsuperstition?
2iPope Paul VI, Solemni bac lituigia, The Credo of the People of God, 30
June, 1968.
The figue of
faith 147
That "by the hidden and kindly mystery of God's will a
supernatural solidarity reigns among men'; that as a
consequence both the holiness and sins of one are
transferable to, they are transmitted to others; that "we can
see evidence of this solidarity in the fact that Adam's sin is
passed on through propagation to all men" - notice the words
"evidence of", "the fact that" as if that Adam's sin is being
transmitted down the generations is some proven fact; that
thereis one great reservoir available to all– for Jesus died for
our sins;25 that the merits earned and stored up by the saints
toocan be parcelled out for our redemption; that the keys to
this reservoir have been handed to Peter and through him to
his successor, the Pope; that by his having delegated the
power to them, the bishops decide on the way and extent to
which "satisfaction" is to be made; that they may decide to
grant a partial indulgence or a complete one; that all this
having been established, the Church "condemns with
anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that
the Church does not have the power to grant them"; that we
gain particular merit in charity by obtaining indulgences for
the dead - these propositions are not contained in the
writings and encyclicals of the middle ages, they are the
Current doctrine.4 Which step in this long sequence rests on
anything more than what, were it urged by the clergy of some
other religion, the Church would condemn as superstition?
At every turn, inventive arguments

And new argument at every turn. "It is not the individual
a
detail of Jesus' life which is important," the very ones who

had been proclainming that Jesus was unique in that every
detail of his life had been documented now began saying, "It
is the personality of Jesus, the example of Jesus which
2SActually as Jesus saves only Christians that expression should read,

"That Jesus died for the sins of Christians."
on
2cf., Pope Paul VI, Indulgentiarum doctrina, Apostolic Constitution
the Revision of Indulgences, 1 January, 1967.
emerges from the Gospels which is important." But veracity
does not inhere in a "personality"or "example" which has
been created by the Gospels any more than it inheres in a
personality or example created in. any other morality play:
surely one must first establish the truth of the person and life.
"The resurrection is visible - Jesus rose and lives through
the Church, the body of Christ," those most likely to benefit
from the proposition, the churchmen say. Can one therefore
say that "Ramakrishna Paramhamsa too rose- he lives in and
through the Ramakrishna Mission?"
"But on the testimony of so many of his disciples,Jesus
reappeared to them after his death, he moved with them, he
counselled them, he ate with them," our friends say. That the
"testimony* does not cohere apart, devotees of Shirdi Sai
Baba are just as certain that he has continued to appear
to them after his death. "But there is the witness of so
many today, through Christ they have experienced the
transforming and liberating power of God." The devotees of
Sai Baba of Puttaparthi testify that they experience an equally
charged transforming and liberating power through him, they
affirm that he appears to them in far away places, that he has
in front of their eyes cleared hindrances from their lives, that
he has appeared and offered them guidance when they were
thousands of miles away, that he has stepped in and shielded
them from harm.
Commentators now freely concede that the evangelists
shifted the emphasis, they "edited" events and sayings
depending on what they thought would best ensure belief
and following. The story or event - for instance, the account
of Jesus being anointed - is not to be seen in itself, they
argue. Fiom this it folows, they extrapolate, that one should
not focus on the differences in details the accounts furnish;
rather one should get to the COre of the event, and grasp its
significance. Each evangelist had told that version of the story
which he felt would fortify the overall message which he
The figure of faitb 149
wanted to convey through his Gospel taken as a whole.25 On

this reasoning the question that is important is not whether
the facts included in a particular narrative (or left out of it)
agree with the facts included or excluded in some other
narrative, but whether they serve to enhance the 1nessage
that the evangelist set out to convey. Surely, this sort of
reasoning puts the Gospels at par with ordinary literary
creations - a poem, a novel, say.
Moreover, if this is regarded as a valid way for the
evangelists to construct their accounts, should Jesus' life as a
whole which emerges from the Gospels not be taken as a
meta-parable, as that life which the evangelists thought
would best ensure belief and following? How can it be that
we freely acknowledge in regard to incident after incident
that it has been sifted for "theological reasons" but insist that
the whole made up of precisely those incidents is
trustworthy? Could it not be that the life taken as a whole too
has been imagineered for the moral that had to beconveyed,
for generating the example which it was thought necessary to
advance?
"But the very fact that the accounts in the Old and New
Testaments have had such an enormous effect over such a
long period on so many millions - surely that fact itself tells
us that there must be the kernel of truth in them." On that
reasoning, as I noted earlier, the legends of Kishna and Rama
- deities whom missionaries have been denigrating for
centuries - must be all the more true. That apart, in such
defence the expression "truth" is used in two widely
different senses. In the sense that the stories must have hada
kernel of truth – this version remains a non sequitur. And in
the sense that the stories answer a deep quest, that they
answer to a deep yearning in human nature- but that is true
25See, for instance, John M. Court, Reading the New Testament, Routledge,
New Testament Readings, London, 1997,pp. 62-63.
of all myths, as the work of Jung, of Joseph Campbell, and

others hasset out: after all, Christian myths are not the only
ones which have endured down the ages.
More esoteric formulations are advançed. The Bible is not
to be identified with past revelation, Karl Barth, one of the
principal Christiarn theologians of this century, argued. It
bears witness to a revelation in the past, and its significance
consists in the fact that it becomes the channel through which
one may hear the voice of God today. But in this sense it can
be no different from other means - the surrender in Bhakti
marg, progressive unfolding in Gyan marg, the sudden
insight in Zen..
Sborn of the miraculous

How bereft of a halo, even of mere significance is the bare
event without the miraculous element - the element which
one has to take on faith. Jesus feeds the multitude even
though there was little food - that miracle has "multiple
attestation".", says The Oxford Companion to the Bible! It has
“multiple attestation" because it is mentioned twice in
Mark, and once in John, the scholars say! It isn't just that the
occasions on which the samne thing is reported by the two to
have occurred are different. It isn't just that the scholars
themselves note that the "stories" relating to the incidents
Were "shaped" in what they call “stage II" - that is, they form
part of "materials shaped and transmitted in oral tradition."
They note that even in this stage "they were modeled partly
on the Eucharist tradition and partly on the Elisha story
(2 Kings 4,42-44, whence the multiplication of the loaves
derives)." If the story has been "modeled" on a story
occurring in an earlier text, ifit has been "modeled" expost to
conform to the subsequent tradition of the Eucharist, and
the needs of the Church, how much credence is one to
place on it?
The figure of faith 151
"But such a meal itself may well be historical," the scholars

add, "Jesus met with his followers in a remote place and ate
with them...."»26 Surely, all sorts of people have meals with
their companions in remote places. Neither they nor the
meals become special because they have had such meals
with their companions. What makes those meals of Jesus
special is that, though the folowers had little food, multitudes
got fed. If the accounts of these have been "modeled" on
some book, or if they have been crafted so as to give
substance to some subsequent ritual, surely the meals lose
their "theological" significance.
This mode of reasoning is taken even further on occasion –
not just by the Church, even by scholars. What the Church
asserts must be taken to have occurred, and what it prescribes
the faithful must do is justified on the ground that that is what
Jesus did or commanded they do. But when this becomes
difficult to maintain in view of the discrepancies in the
accounts, the opposite is argued- we must give credence to
the accounts, it is said, because, without the story, what the
Church has prescribed cannot be sustained!
Tbe Oxford Companion to the Bible notes the differences
in the accounts relating to the Last Supper - between the
Gospels, and between them and 1 Corinthians. And then
proceeds to observe,
What we have here, then, is an account of the essential elements in

the Last Supper that formed the pattern for the church's meal. It has
been argued that the story in the Gospels is not so much a part of the
story of Jesus as a liturgical text that was preserved on itsown and
then inserted into the gospel narrative. Some scholars would go
further and claim that the story is based on early Christian liurgies
rather than on history,the accounts of what the church did having
been read back into the lifetime ofJesus. Stillothers claim that the
uncertainty in the tradition of Jesus' sayings and how they express
26Tbe Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. cit,, p. 358.

carly Christian theology suggest that they are the creation of the early
church (or at least that the oiginal fom has been heavily modified in
transmission), with the result that we can no longer be sure what
Jesus said. For example, the presence of the command to 'do this'27
in remembrance of Jesus, which is lacking in Mark's account, given
once in Luke and twice in 1 Corintbians, could be due to the early
church putting into words what it took to be the intention of Jesus.
Even if this is the case, we would still be left with a tradition of Jesus'
sharing a loaf and cup with his disciples, and these acions would
invite. interpretation. In other words, to account for the origins of
the church meal and the early Christians' appeal to Jesus we must
surely postulate the bistoricity of some kind of meal be beld 28
The resurrection must have occurred, says the essayist in

the Chambers's Encyclopaedia. "It is possible", he allows,
"that there will always be differences of opinion as to what
precisely took place [in regard to the tomb being found
emptyl, yet it is clear enough from such records as we have
that unless something epoch-making had bappened there
would bave been no cburch to make any records at all."29
Surely, that is some neW mode of deduction: post boc, ergo
ante boc – because X
has occurred after Y, it must have
oCcurred before Y!
And yet one can scarcely complain. For, in easoning thus,
the scholars, to say nothing of the Pope and his associates, are
merely following the example set by the Apostles! Recall
how Paul "proves" that Jesus must have risen from the dead.
In Corinthians he asks,
27In MakJesus says, "This is my body"; in 1 Corinthians, Jesus says, "This
is my body that is for you. Do this iin remembrance of me"; in
Mark the next
clause is, "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out
for many";
in Luke the last words are "which is poured out for you"; in 1
Corintbians
additional words figure, "Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance
of
me.
28 The Oxford Comnpanion to the Bible, op. cit., pp. 465-66.
29 Chambers's Encyclopaedia, George Newnes, London, 1959, 1963,
Volume VIII, p. 86.
The figue of
faith 153
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some
among youthat there is no resurrection of the dead?
and answers,
Butif there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen;
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching in vain, and your faith
is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have
testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so
be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Chist are perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most
miserable 30
A textbook example of circular "proof"! Jesus must have

risen. For if he did not rise, we, the Apostles, have been
spreading falsehood; and you - that is, those who believe
what we have taught you to believe - continue in sin; those
who have died believing that he rose are imperiled; and we
are deprived of. any ground for hope beyond this life. As it
cannot be that we are false, as it must not be that your faith
has been misplaced, as those who have already died must not
be left to perish, as the reason for hoping beyond this life
must somehow be sustained, Jesus did rise! QED
Suddenly, the question of historicity is declared to be
unduly limiting. Till the other day the resurrection was held
-
up as in preaching to our illiterate tribals, it is to, this day
held to be - conclusive proof of both- Jesus' divinity as well
as his superiority over mere Krishna and Ram who did not
rise after death, suddenly the question of historicity is
proclaimed to be in a sense an irrelevance, for the event
is meta-historical! "The resurrection, while a real event
301 Cornitbians, 15.12-19.

according to the unanimous testimony Inote the word] of the

New Testament, is not a historical event in the sense that
ordinary events are," The Oxford Companion to the Bible
tells us. "Itoccurs at the point where history ends, and God's
end-time begins [whatever that phrase means]. And it is not in
itself an observable occurrence. No one saw God raise Jesus
from the dead. Nor can it be verified. In a sense, it is an
inference from the disciples' Easter visions (and to a lesser
degree from the empty tomb.). "31 Just a few lines later, this
very Conmpanion has the following to say about how this
"unanimous testimony" came to be fashioned:
Mark,generally regarded asthe earliest Gospel, originally contained
no appearance stories, but merely pointed forvward to subsequent
appearances in Galilee (16.7). Appearance stories seem to have
grown up as isolated units (pericopes), like the bulk of the gospel
material. Inevitably, what was originally indescribable came to be
clescribed in earthly terms. The risen Christ talked, walked, and even
ate with his disciples as he had while on earth (Matt. 28; Luke 24;
Jobn 20, 21; Mark 16.9-20). Clearly, the only way post-apostolic
COmmunity could construct appearance stories was to model them
on the stories from the earthly ministry..32
Though this is how, on their own analysis, the stories "grew

up", though this is how they came to be "constructed",
together they constitute "unanimous testimony"! After setting
out at length how themessianic appellations of Jesus evolved
- and after showing how this evolution paralleled the needs
of the Church to exalt and eventually deify him the
Macropaedia plays down the question itself! "The question
appropriate to the Gospel tradition would, therefore, not be
what has happened to Jesus of Nazareth in the course of the
development," it instructs us, "but, rather, why the first
Christians held fast to him. To ask in this way and to accept
31The Oxford Comnpanion to the Bible, op. cit., p. 648.

321bid., p. 648.
The figure of faith
155
the answer of the Gospels are matters of faith. It goes beyond

the limits of historical research."33
Of course, the asking of the question "in this way", and
accepting the answer as it emerges from the Gospels "are
matters of faith." That is precisely the point which the Church
and its missionaries have been denying for centuries. They
have been asserting that while our belief in Krishna or Rama
are unsubstantiated "matters of faith", their aith in Jesus and
everything they assert about him is grounded in history, that it
is not "faith", it is fact. Substitute "Sai Baba" for "Jesus" in the
forgoing lines: "The question appropriate to the Sai tradition
would, therefore, not be what has happened to Sai Baba of
Puttaparthi in the course of the development, but, rather, why
millions hold fast to him. To ask in this way and to accept the
answer his devotees, and Sai literature give are matters of
faith. It goes beyond the limitsof historical research." Does
the altered passage go down the throat of missionaries? Why
is the assertion valid in the case of the evolution of the Jesus
legend, but baseless in the case of the evolution of the
tradition of some other venerated figure? Specially when the
evolution is taking place before our very eyes, specially
when no one can doubt the historicity of the subject?!
In the sort of exercise which is typical, the Chambers 's
Encyclopaedia authorities go even further in endowing to the
accounts a meaning which is just not there in the Gospels,
a meaning that is contrived to clothe the accounts in the
verisimilitude of veracity. They write,
II is further very evident [note the words] that the Resurrection
appearances are not intimations of immortality' but recognitions
ofa familiar and beloved figure as alive and active, and that the
activity described frequently takes the form of commissioning the
disciples and assigning tasks to them, which they are to do under the
present guidance and control of the Master. (Notice that already the
33 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XXIl, pp. 345-46.

appearances, from being an objecive fact, have been converted into

a subjective experience of the disciples.] The actual formulation in
words of these commissions may perbaps owe sometbing to later
reflection [One can scarcely get much closer to conceding that the
words are ex post manufacture.] but th conviction of the real
presence and purposeful activity of the living Lord Jesus in bis
communityis there from the beginning. [But so is the conviction in
every devotee of the Shirdi Sai Baba.] Althis the apostles described
by saying that Jesus had 'risen from the dead',wbich is a sufficiently
accurate description of wbat in fact took place, nanely the
continuation into the lifeand work ofthechurch, the new body of
Christ, of the personal presence, guidance and power of the
exalted Lord bimself34
So, what was an objective fact - of the body of Jesus having

vanished, of his having risen from the dead, of his having
appeared after his death to his disciples, and having talked
with them and walked with them and eaten with them now
becomes a subjective experience of the disciples. Whether it
happened or not, whether they crafted the words describing
the happening later or not, they were convinced from the
beginning that he had risen, that he was present. In the
Gospels he is very much in the flesh after his death: he walks,
he talks, he eats with them. But now suddenly we are to
believe that what is up and about is his new body - and this
body is nothing but the Church!
In a word, the Church propagates the story it needs for its
ownpropagation, the story that Jesus has been about. And the
proof of that is that the Church is about!
The discomfort shows. Fidelity traps scholars in infirmity.
On the one hand, the evidence is so overwhelming, and their
commitment to facts so admirable that Biblical scholars do
not just list the facts which researclhes over these many
centuries have disclosed, they acknowledge the devastating
Consequences these discoveries and analyzes have for the
3Chamhers's Encyclopaedia, Volume VIII, pp. 86-87.

The figure offaith 157
claims of the Church and its missionaries. On the other, they
cling to defences which can only invite compassion!
"According to Matthew 20.19 and 26.2, Jesus said that once
delivered to the gentiles he would suffer crucifixion," The
Oxford Companion to the Bible notes, and adds, "The
predictions of suffering by Jesus are not necessarily
prophecies after the fact"35 Having alluded to the fact that
"the historical value of these collections [the Gospels] has
been seriously questioned by the formn-critical' school.."
the Chambers 's Encyclopaedia feels compelled to remark,
"While, therefore, it is necessary to bring all the resources of
literary and historical criticism to bear upon the material
supplied in the New Testament, it is not necessary to cary
bistorical skepticism to the lengths to wbich it bas been carried
by some practitioners form-criticism. "30 Hardly a sturdy
of
defence!
Shieldingfables
There is no doubt that in puncturing the claims of the
Church scholars have led the way. For three hundred years
they have relentlessly proceeded wherever their analysis
has led them. Their intellectual and moral courage are an
example. And yet, even today, we glimpse the same failure
of nerve. Having listed the reasons on account of which so
much in the Gospels cannot be taken at face value, having
shown at length how they grew up piece by piece, the
scholars observe, "The canon can still be understood to be
God-given just as the contents of the scripture are God
given"- surely, that can only mean that the proposition that
accepting the canon as God-given is as much "a matter of
faith" as accepting the contents of the scripture as God-given
is a matter of faith – "but not purely and supernaturally so -
35 The Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. cit., p. 142.

36 Chambers's Encyclopaedia, Volume VIII, p. 83.
rather, only indirectly and through ghe mediation of human

intentions and meanings are these "human intentions and
meanings" to be regarded as independent of the said God, or
as being directed by Him?, we are not told. "Biblical critics
have not rejected the canon," Te Oxford Companion to the
Bible tells us, "on the wbole they have continued to uphold it,
maintaining that the religious content of the Bible (i.e. the
canonical books) [notice, not the entire content, just "the
religious content"), is, broadly speaking, vastly superior in
quality to that of any other set of written texts."37 What a climb
down! "On the whole," "the religious content", broadly
speaking," and after all that the claim only that the "quality" of
this is "vastly superior" to other texts! An assertion which,
apart from everything else, is certain to be disputed by
every Muslim – for whom the literary excellence which is
incomparable is that of the Quran, and that excellence is one
of the principal proofs of its divine origin!
And then the familiar attempt to salvage whatever one
can: "The resurrection, while a real event according to the
unanimous testimony of the New Testament, is not historical
in the sense that ordinary events are" - what is the other
sense in which an event, extraordinary though it be,
"historical"? "It occurs at the point where history ends
and God's end-time kingdom begins," the scholars say. 38
How would they react were similar words being used to:
validate Krishna's assurance, "yada yada be dbarmasya
glanirbhavati..."? "The dialogue with Arjuna, while being a
real event according to the unanimous testimony of Hindu
scripture, is not historical in the sense that ordinary events
are. It occurs at the point where history ends and God's direct
intervention begins...."
The Church is, naturally, even more zealous in guarding
the fables, For long it condemned and excommunicated
37 The Oxford Comppanion to the Bible, op. cit., pp. 320-21.

38
Jbid.,p. 648.
The figure af faitb 159
persons, it roasted them alive for calling into question,
even by implication, what had been stated in the Bible or
had been certified by it. Today, that is not possible. Even an
organization which is able to command as much obedience
from its members as the Church cannot shut the door entirely
on inquiry and questioning. It adopts a tactical line, therefore:
you may proceed to study and inquire, it says, but within
limits. And what are the limits? Nothing that calls into question
the Credoas sanctioned by us should be pursued!
"The Church certainly regards it as her duty never to
relax in her efforts to penetrate more deeply the hidden
mysteries of God, from which all derive the myriad fruits of
salvation, and in like manner to express them to succeeding
generations in a way progressively adapted to contemporary
understanding," it says in words that the unwary may think
open up avenues of free inquiry. "But at the same time the
greatest care must be taken that the important duty of
research does not involve the undermining of the truths of
Christian doctrine" - but the very object of research is
thereby killed, the object of ascertaining whether what is
stated as “the Christian doctrine" is indeed the truth. And this
limit the Church lays down only in the interest of the faithful!
"If this happens", it goes on to observe, "and we have
unfortunately seen it happen in these days - the result is
perplexity and confusion in the minds of the faithful"39
nothing naturally to the effect that such research would
undermine its own kingdom!
The same utbe bar nigab par baam tak na pabuncbe
approach to study and research is asserted in Mysterium filii
Dei, the proclamation regarding Errors concerning tbe
Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity. That there are/is
the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son, that the Son is the only
begotten one of the Father, that he was "before all ages", that
3°Pope Paul VI, Solemni bac liturgia, The Credo of the People of God,
30 June, 1968.
he is "coeternal with the Father," that the three are one, the
one three, etc., the usual assertions - each of which has to be
taken on faith - are put forth in the document as if they are
propositions based on proof. Every formulation which differs
in the slightest from the Church-approved one is dismissed as
"far removed from true belief," as one that "deviates from the
faith." And the only "reason" that is advanced for sticking to
the formulation of the Church is that even the slightest
departure on one limb undermines the rest also:
Oncethe mystery of the divine and eternal person of Christ the Son
of God is abandoned, the truth respecting the Most Holy Trinity is
also undernmined, and with it the truth regarding the Holy Spirit who
proceedseternally from the Father and the Son, or from the Father
through the Son...
The unimpaired truth of these mysteries is of the greatest momnent
for the whole Revelation of Christ because they pertain to its very
Core in such a way that, they are undermined, the rest of the
treasure of Revelationis adulterated.
As everything else rests on these mysteries shouid be the

reason for examining them all the more relentlessly! The
Church draws the opposite conclusion:
This certainly does not prevent the Church,in her awareness of the
progress of human thought, from considering it her duty to have
these mysteries continually examined by contemplation of the faith
and theological examination, and to have them fully expounded in
up-to-date terminology. But wbile the necessary duty of
investigation is being pursued, diligent care must be taken that
these profound mysteries are not interpreted in a sense other than
that in wvbich the Church bas understood and understands
then'. 40
And again on the task of theologians, badbe baatb lekin jaam

tak na pabunche!"For them to be able to accomplish this task
40Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium
filii Dei,
Errors concening the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Tinity,
21 February, 1972.
The figue of faith 161
adequately, it is beyond doubt that they must be given the

necessary freedom to investigate new questions and to
further study the old ones," the Church declares, only to add,
However, they must put themselves bumbly and faitbfiully at the
service of the WWord of God, and they must never make Luse of it to
favour their own opinions.
Tiue freedom uSt always be contained witbin the limnitations set
by the Word of God as it bas been constantly preserved and as it is
taugbt and explained by the living magesterium of the Church and
especially the Vicar of Christ.
Let theologians be aware of their responsibility, wbich is indeed
great, in seeking the truth with scientific honesty and in
cominunicating their conclusions in sucb a way as to imbue their
brethren with a spirit of love and reverence toward the Word of
God and the teaching Churcb41
Lenin would not have needed to add a coma!

And yet again. Pointing to the danger that arises to the
world from secularism, the Church deciares,
Wedo not mean by this secularization which is the effort, in itself
quite proper and legitimate and in no way inconsistent with faith or
religion, to discern in creation, in every thing and in every event in
the whole world, universal laws by which they are controlled in what
may be described as an autonomous manner. This is legitimate
provided we accept without question the factthat these laus bave
been established by God.2
"The fact that these laws have been established by God"?
41Synod of Bishops, Ratione babita, On Dangerous Opinions and on

Atbeism, 28 October, 1967, 4.
4'Pope Paul VI, Evangelii nuntiandi, 8 December, 1975, 55.
12
Another figure of faith,

Another can of conundrums
For drilling faith in the new sect, the Apostles proceeded in

two directions. On the one side they asserted that Jesus had
been the messiah who had been prophesied in the Old
-
Testament this entailed altering passages of the Old
Testament, it entailed reading "young woman" as "virgin",
reading "Immaneul" to mean Jesus, and so on. On the other
side, Jesus was progressively elevated in precisely the
direction that would have infuriated the Old Testament God
no end. As we shall soon see, the Old Testament God
candidly speaks of Himself as the Jealous God, as the God
who may pardon every thing but who shall never pardon one
"sin" – if we put anything or anyone next to Him, much less at
par with Him.But the Apostles proceeded to do just that:they
identified Jesus more and more with God Himself. Each of
these leaps created new problems.
The more the Gospels strove to portray Jesus as a
fulfillment of prophecies contained in the COld Testament, the
more they pushed Christianity into a basic problem. The
central message about the arrival of the prophet had been
that his advent wbuld usher in "all things true and beautiful."
Jesus arrived, or was sent. Peace, tranquillity, plenty,
righteousness did not. On the contrary, he postponed the
Kingdom till he returned a second time! And till then, he
forecast even greater suffering! His postponement was till
the closing years of those who were hearing him – fifty years,
say. As those years also passed, and the Kingdom remained
Another figure of faith, Another can of conundrums 163
as far away, his disciples postponed it yet again: this time into
the indefinite, but still somehow imminent future!
One sent by God. The Son of Man. The Son of God.
Indistinguishable from God Himself. By the time John's
Gospel came to be gathered, this identification was
complete. Thus, Jesus says, "My doctrine is not mine, but his
that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of
myself."1A little later Jesus raises his voice in the Temple and
cries, "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I
am not come of myself, bu he that sent me is true, whom ye
know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath
sent me."2 First the authorities of the Temple, then their men
try to take him, but they do not, for "his hour was not yet
come." The ordinary people ask him whether the Christ
when he comes will perform more miracles than he is doing.
Jesus tells them, among other things, "Yet a little while am I
with you, and then I go unto him that sent me...."3
During the famous scene at the Temple, when Jesus lets
go the woman who has been accused of adultery, the
identification is carried much further. Jesus says that his
judgment is true “for I am not alone, but I and the Father that
sent me:"* that even by the law that requires two witnesses
what he says is valid for "I am one that bear witness of
myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."5
Jesus tells them repeatedly that they do not know whence he
came, that they can neither tell nor follow him where he will
be going - to God.ó *Ye are from beneath," Jesus tells them,
"I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world."
Jesus warns them on this count, and completes his
identification with God: "I said therefore unto you, that ye
shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am be, ye
Jobn, 7.16-17. Jobn, 7.28-29. 3Jobn, 7.33.

Jobn, 8.16. SJobn, 8.18. Jobn, 8.14, 21.
shall die in your sins." You will see allthis only later on, Jesus
says: "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then ye shall
know that I am be, and that Ido nothing of myself; but as my
Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent
me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone: for I do
always those things that please him." Even as genealogies
are set out in other Gospels tracing Jesus through David to
Abraham, Jesus himself affirms that he has existed before the
line even began: "Verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham
was, I am."8 While commending his followers to God Jesus
again affirms his identity with God. The hour has come, Jesus
proclaims - the hour for the final events: his going to the
garden, his arrest and all that is to follow. Jesus asks God to
glorify him as he glorifies God: "And now Iam no more in the
world,"Jesus tells God, "but these are in the world, and I
come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name
those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we
are »9
On the one hand, this put Christianity in direct
confrontation with the tradition Jesus had said he was
fulfilling - the tradition of Judaism and the Old Testament.
For, as we just noted, the superimposition of Jesus on God
certainly amounted to the very crime, to the very blasphemy
which the Old Testamnent God had declared was the one
crime He would never pardon. On the other, it had
consequences in regard to those who had been close to Jesus
in his lifetime. Mary the foremost among them. She started as
one who had been chosen by God to be the mother of His
Son. As the Son became the Father, she became the mother of
the Father!
The ascent of
Mary
Few errors of translation have had as long a run, or reached

such heights as that one - of reading “young woman" as
Jobn, 8.23-29. &Jobn, 8.58. Jobrn, 17.11.

Anotber figureoffaith, Another can of conundrums 165
"virgin". From a mere two or three peripheral references in

Mark to godhead of sorts, the cult of Mary has grown over the
centuries to become one of the major cults - as well as one
of the major enterprises - of the Church. There has been a
twofold inevitability to this.
-
First, that he had been born miraculously to a virgin, by
the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit – became one of the
main "proofs" of Jesus' proximity to God, of his having been
sent by God, of his being the Chosen One. Once this "proof"
became so important, Mary could not but be exalted: after all,
one could not proclaim that the miracle was all-important,
and not ascribe equal significance to the being Mary -
through whom God chose to manifest that niracle. Second,
Jesus was exalted closer and closer to, and eventually made
indistinguishable from God: again, one could not lift Jesus
closer and closer to God and not simultaneously lift the one
who had borne him into the world at the instance, and by the
intervention of that very God.
As the centuries passed, to the event of virgin birth were
added three notions. First, that Mary was a virgin not just
when she conceived Jesus, she was and remained the "ever
holy", the ever-virgin: that she was a virgin before Jesus'
conception, that shewas a virgin at Jesus' conception, that
she remained a virgin during his birth, that she remained
a virgin for the rest of her life. Second, that she was and
remained a virgin not just in the narrow physical sense but
that she was never tainted by what has afflicted all of
mankind, "original sin" – by the unique and exclusive grace
of God, a Grace He conferred on no one else, she was never
tainted by even the shadow, the thought of sin, a fate that
afflicts each and every one in the rest of mankind from the
moment of conception. Third, having borne Jesus, and with
Jesus becoming progressively identified with God, Mary
became 7Theotokos, the "God-bearer"; from this was ascribed
an incomparable holiness to her, a unique proximity to God; a
proximity and weight that gave her thepower to intercede on
behalf of devotees with God, her Son.
To begin with the references to Mry are few. Even among

Gospels, it is only in the later ones that she begins to
acquire the faith and innocence which have since become
synonymous with her. The Encyclopaedia of Religion
sketches this evolution well. 0 "The Gospel of Mark (written
about AD 70) describes Jesus' mother and brothers on the
edge of a crowd listening to him teach (Mk. 3:31-35)," it
recalls. "'His own' (3:20), likely 'his family' have come to
take him away because Jesus was, they thought, 'beside
himself'; they are like the hostile scribes who claim that he is
possessed by Beelzebub' (3:22). In Mark 3:34-35, Jesus
designates as 'my mother and my brothers'those who dothe
will of God, thus contrasting his natural family, including
Mary, with his 'eschatological family' of disciples. The
passage in Mark 6:1-6a, about the rejection of Jesus in his
home synagogue, does nothing to change this picture of Mary
and Jesus' brothers as sharing the unbelief of those of the
surrounding countryside.... "ll From Matthew onwards
the cleansing begins. To take a typical example, The
Encyclopaedia of Religion records, "In the scene of Jesus'
eschatological family (MI. 12:46-50) no reference is made to
Jesus' natural family comning to take custody of bimn. In the
synagogue scene at Nazareth (Mt. 13:53-58), Matthew drops
out the Marcan reference to bis own relatives' in what Jesus
says (12:57; cf. Mk. 6:4).12 By the time we get to Luke,
Mary is well on the way to becoming a repository of faith
and innocence, even of being the favoured one", The
predictable alterations are made: thus, says this review, "The
rejection scene at Nazareth (Lk. 4:16-30) is presented very
differently, and the saying about Jesus' eschatological family
(Lk. 8:19-21) lacks any contrast with his natural family....»13
What Tbe Encyclopaedia characterizes as "cascading
piety" proceeds. Even till the third century, Mary is not an
10 Tbe Encylopaedia of
Religion, Volume IX,Mircea Eliade, Editor in Chief,
Macmillan, New York, 1987, pp. 249-52.
11 Jbid., p. 12 Jbid.
250. 13 Jbid.
Another figureoffaith, Anotber can of conundrums J67
object of veneration. At the Council of Ephesus in AD 431,

she is proclaimed Theotokos, "God-bearer". As the centuries
pass, she graduates from being one who was fortuitously
chosen to bear God to one who is the Mother of God. By
1854, the Pope proclaims it to be a dogma to which every
believer must subscribe that "the most blessed Virgin Mary,
from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace
and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus
Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from
all stain of original sin..."
The cult of Mary is among the most potent in Christianity.
In Kerala today one can see her idols at every turn – in
chapels, alongside roads, with passers-by praying to them,
making offerings as to any other idol.
Scholars see in this cult the continuation of earlier, pagan
goddess-cults. Thus, Tbe Oxford Companion to the Bible
observes,
Non-Christian sources are instructive in tracing parallels to the cult of
Mary. Virgin Birth stories (e.g., Hera, Rhea, Silvia, Brigid) Were
circulated in other cultures, as were tales of mothers mourning lost
and deceased children (e.g., Demeter and Persephone; Isis and
Horus). Iconographically, just as Mary was often portrayed holding or
nursing the infant Jesus, so too was the Egyptian goddess Isis
depicted suckling her infant son, Horus. Even as Mary was called
Queen of Heaven and sometimes depicted as surrounded by the
zodiac and other symbols, so too were the deities Isis, Magna Mater,
and Artemis.
Such parallels show that Mary'scult had roots in the cults of female
deities of the Greco-Roman pantheon, cults ultimately eradicated by
Christianity..14
Mircea Eliade's Encyclopaedia notes not just these parallels
but another one as well–a continuation in the cult of
of Mary
the patriarchal fear of female sexuality. Having emphasized
D.
14The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M. Metzger, Michael
p.
Coogan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993, 500.
how "Mary eventually became the repository of all the

lingering images of the goddesses," it turns to the
incompleteness and remarks,
..Although many Christians have continued to worship Mary as God,

few have questioned the patriarchal fear of female (and ultimately
all) sexuality implicit in her title as virgin. Until and unless the virginity
of Mary is recognized in the ancient sense as the power of
regeneration and renewal that is expressed in sexuality, Mary, like
Artemis and Athena, will remain a truncated image of the goddess, 5
The Church, of course, insists that the conception of

Mary, that the Christian's worship of Mary and her idols is
altogether different from run-of-the-mill idolatry of ignorant,
superstitious heathens like us. "Mary is the spiritua! mother of
al! living," reports Tbe Catholic Encyclopaedia Dictionary.
"Catholics venerate her with an honour above that accorded
toother saints., but different from the divine worship given
to God only; they pray to her, and she in Heaven intercedes
with her son, God the Son, for them. Recognizing that Mary is
a creature and that all her dignity comes from God, devotion
to ber is far removed from the idolatry wbicb prejudice bas
Sometimes associated uvith it.."l6
But, as it turns out, this idolatry, this getting perilously close
to us heathens is one of the lesser consequences. From the
second century onwards a formidable dispute arose from
this attribution of immaculate conception to Mary. Every
descendant of Adamn carries the consequence of his
alienation from God, of the "original sin." This consequence
is cleansed in the case of every individual only by the death
of Jesus on the Cross. It is in this sense that Jesus dies for the
sins of all mankind. But, if Mary never had the taint of original
sin, she was never in need Jesus' redemption, and so Jesus
of
did not die for her sins. Thereby, the theologians reasoned,
15The Encylopaedia of Religion, Volume XV, op. cit., p. 278.
16The Catholic Encyclopaedia Dictionary, Donald Attwater,
Editor,
Cassell, London, 1949, p. 310.
Anotber figure of faith, Another can of conundrums 169
her relationship with God's grace was less than full and
perfect. This reasoning was countered with great ardour.
Mary had been preserved from the taint of sin, it was argued,
by the same death of Jesus on the Cross - except that in her
case it was an anticipatory saving! Notice how the devout
scholar puts it in the Chambers's Encyclopaedia, notice
in particular how what is just a series of assertions, of
assumptions suddenly become a "fact":
..As every other human being, Mary stood in need of redemption
and could be redeemed only by the death of Christ; and only from the
merits of that death, seen in anticipation, does the unique grace and
favour of her immaculate conception derive. Because of Adam's sin
all his progeny, from the first monment of their existence, have
suffered in their whole nature the blight and alienation from God that
is original sin. But though Mary inherited the same spiritual liability as
all the rest of Adam's children and, for any liberation from it, was
dependent on the future sacrifice of the cross, that liability was,
nevertheless, in the solitary case of the mother of God, not realised:
whereas the rest of mankind have, by the saving merits won on the
cross, been cleansed of the taint of original sin, Mary, by those same
merits,was preserved from the taint;and God so provided that there
was never an instant in her existence when her soul was actually, in
any degree, under the domination of sin and less than perfectly
united to him through grace. The doctrine of the immaculate
conception is the Roman Catholic Church's statement of tbis fact
and of its relation to the divine plan for the salvation of all of Adam's
descendants. 17
The Encyclopedia Americana amplifies the thesis, and faults
those who down the centuries have seen theological
problems in it. The Encyclopaedia observes,
..Their denials stemmed not from anything explicitin the sources of
revelation, but from three basically speculative objections:
Notice how the matter is already wound round a circularity:
17
Chambers's Encyclopaedia, Volume VI, International Learning
p. 390.
Systems, London, 1973,
the touchstone is that there should be something "explicit in

the sources of revelation" - but trusting "the sources of
revelation" is no more than one of those "matters of faith"!
And notice too how the objections of the other person are
"speculative" while one's own speculations are facts - being
based on something explicit in those sources of revelation!
However, to continue, the "speculative objections" are:
(1) The strange notion that original sin was transmitted, as it were
physically,by concupiscence in generation; since Mary was naturaly
conceived, she must have contracted it, they thought. (2) The notion
that the souls had to be first infused, and only then sanctified; they
failed to realize that it (the soul]could be sanctified simultaneously
with its infusion. (3) They thought that if Mary had no sin, she could
not be redeemed; they did not see that redemption could consist in
preservation from contracting sin, instead of litberation from sin
already contracted. The solution to these difficulties came largely
from the Franciscan scliool....»18
Which element in this string of assertions can be proven" in

any sense of the term? That there is something called
"original sin"? That it cannot be transmitted "by
concupiscence in generation"? That there is a soul? That it can
be "sanctified" without being "infused"? That sanctification
can consist of anticipatory preservation from sin rather than
merely of being cleansed of it ex post facto? Which element
in the argument is any more than yet another leap of faith?
Yet, strung together, they are proclaimed to be a "solution"!
"The popes added also an argument of fittingness, " The
Encyclopedia Americana adds, "that it would be strange if
the Mother of God were not exempt from all sin."9 God
impregnates Mary with Jesus via a mis-translation. Jesus
becomes God by the steps we have seen. Thus, from being
the one who was impregnated by God, Mary becomes the
Mother of God. As she is the Mother of God, "it would be
18The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume XIV, Americana Corporation,
New York, 1969,p. 712.
19 [bid.
Anotber figure of
faitb, Anotber can of conundrums 171
strange if she were not exempt from all sin." And this is
proclaimed to be "an argunent of fittingness"!
What of the Quran which using the very same "argument
of fittingness" asserts that Jesus was not the Son of God? For
Allah says, "It is not befitting to (the nmajesty of) Allah that He
should beget a son...", and that anyone who alleges that
Jesus was the Son of God is guilty of blasphemy?20 In which
of these mutually exclusive "arguments of fittingness" should
one put his faith? For one man's fittingness is the other man's
blasphemy.
And thereis the other problem - one that springs from the
Gospels themselves. We have two propositions: that Jesus
was born to a virgin, and, second, that she remained a virgin
throughout her life. Each proposition is called into question
by the plain text of the Gospels themselves.
Matthew is describing the visit of the angel to Joseph. The
angel dispels the doubts which have erupted in Joseph's
mind about marrying Mary who is already pregnant. He
marries her. How does Matthew describe their subsequent
relationship?
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had
bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she bad brought forth berfirstborn son.21
The clear implication being that after the birth of the child, he
came to "knOw her",
Jesus is claimed to be the Son of God- not just figuratively,
not just because of his spiritual or other attainments, but
literally in that it was the Holy Spirit which, by "coming upon"
20 Quran, 19.35. Commenting on the verse Abdullalh Yusuf Ali remarks,
"Begetting a son is a physical act depending on the needs of man's animal
nature. Allah Most High is independent of all needs,and it is derogatory to
Him to attribute sucli an act to Him. It is merely a relic of pagan and
anthropomorphic materialist superstitions." Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The
Meaning of the Holy Quran, Amana Corporation, Brentwood, 1994 reprint,
p. 751, footnote 2487.
21Mattbeu, 1.24-25.
Mary, led to his being conceived. As he was the only one

who was so conceived, he naturally had no sibling. But, in
fact, the Gospels speak of the brothers of Jesus as well of
as
his sisters. Though the sisters are referred to collectively, the
brothers are even named. Jesus has returned to Nazareth. He
teaches. He does mighty works. The people are wonder
struck. "Is not this the carpenter's son?," they ask, "Is his
mother not called Mary? And his brethren, James and Joses,
and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?
Whence then hath this man all these things..?" As Jesus
was born to a virgin, as Mary remained a virgin through the
birth and throughout the rest of her life, how do these others
become Jesus' brothers and sisters?
No explanation has come up that would preserve the
notion that all statements contained in the Gospels are
simultaneously and literally true: they were in fact cousins,
runs one set of "explanations", they were in fact children of
Joseph from an earlier marriage, runs another set....
Many among the faithful have become so attached to Mary
that their devotion to her has long been a problem for the
Church. It has campaigned against idolatry, but Mary's
devotees have all along been fervent idolaters! It has insisted
that no one should be put at par with Jesus, but for the
devotees of Mary she is at least at par with him, in any event
she is closer, more accessible! And so numerous have been
the members of the cult, so intense their devotion that the cult
could not just be brushed aside. Yet to accept it in totality....
The Church has wrestled: seeking to minimize the cult in one
thrust,to accommodate it in the next, to assimilate, and then
incorporate, and finally to appropriate it in the subsequent
ones.The tension continues to this day, it sticks out in one of
the fundamental decrees of Vatican-II – Lumen Gentiun, the
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Passage after passage
in it seems to have been put in to qualify the one that
precedes it!
22Mattbeu, 13.55-56; Mark, 6.3.

Anotber figure of
faith, Anotber can
conundrusof
173
The Council reiterated that Mary was and remained "ever

Virgin," Lhat Jesus' conception was virginal",that the birth of
Jesus also "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but
sanctified it." It declared her to be "truly the Mother of God
and the redeemer," the "Mother of the Son of God, and
therefore...also the beloved daughter of the Father and the
temple of the Holy Spirit."23 The centuries-old dilemma – if
she had always been and remained free of sin, she clearly
was not in need of redemption by Jesus' death- elicited from
the Councilthe same centuries-old assertion: "Because of this
gift of sublime grace," the Council declared, "she far
surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. But,
being of the race of Adann, she is at the same time also united
to all those who are to be saved; indeed, 'she is clealy the
mother of the members of Christ.... since she has by her
charity joined in bringing about the bith of believers in the
Church, who are members of its head.' Wherefore she is
hailed as pre-eiminent and as a wholly unique member of the
Church, and as its type and outstanding model in faith and
charity..."24 The Council declared that there had been a
purpose to God's sending the redeemer through Mary, a
Woman: as the downfall had been occasioned by a Woman,
God decided that a woman should contribute to life. Hence,
"the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's
obedience," the Council cited earlier authorities to have
established.25
These were of course the old, familiar assertions. The
point was about the cult. What should be the attitude of the
Church towards it? Assertion followed by caveat followed by
assertion....
"In the Nords of the Apostle there is but one mediator: 'for
there is but one God and one mediator of God and nmen, the
man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all'
25Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,

21 Novenmber, 1964,52, 57.
25
24
Jbid., 52. |bid., 56.
(1 Tim. 2:5-6)," the Council began. "But Mary's function as

mother of men in noway obscures or diminishes this unique
mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the
Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men originates not in
any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It flows
from the super-abundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his
mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power
from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of
the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it."20 A
subordinate, dependent role and power, in other words - but
one secured by nothing more than a string of dogmatic
assertions.
Of course, she continues to intercede for the faithful, of
'course "her manifold intercession continues to bring us the
gifts of eternal salvation," the Council decreed, and forthis
reason the Church honours her with titles such as AdvOcate,
Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." "This, however, is so
understood," it emphasized, "that it neither takes away
anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of
Christ the one mediator."27
The Council held that the cult of Mary be ""generously
fostered," only o have to add, "But it strongly urges
theologians and preachers of the Word of God to be carefulto
refrain as much from false exaggeration as from too summary
an attitude in considering the special dignity of the Mother
of
God...."28
What we see in the case of Mary is an unvarying sequence.
Atheists, monotheists, those professing hatred for idolatry
smash idols. The new cult becomes idolatry of the one who
led them to smash the original idols. Soon, he seems too
distant, too forbidding. "Saints" round and about him seem
more accessible, more humane. They come in first as
intercessors with him. Soon, they become intercessors, along
with the founder of the cult, with the ultimate God, and
26
Jbid.,0. 27 1bid., 60, 62. 28
Jbid., 67.
Anotberjgure of
faith, Anotber can of conundruns 175
therefore objects of worship in their own right. And in little

time their cult becomes a rival to the cult of the founder.
And soon the cult of the suppOsed "saint" becomes the
cult of the supposed relics of the supposed saint. And that
becomes a gold mine for the Church...
The Book they have,
and we don't
13
Truth keeps pace with need!
One euphemism recurs all the time in the writings of

Biblical scholars: "theological", The writer of the Gospel
adopted Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus, they say, for
"theological objectives". John ascribed such and such words
to Jesus, and Luke and Matthew some others for "theological
reasons", they say. This Gospel emphasized miracles, while
that one hardly mentions them for "theological reasons", they
say.
Dictionaries tell us that theology is "the science of God".
But choosing Bethlehem rather than Nazareth as the place
where to locate the birth of Jesus, choosing 25 December as
the day of his birth, putting one set of words in his mouth as
he is dying rather than some other words, ascribing miracles
or not doing so what has this to do with "the science of
God"?
In plain words, words which these scholars shy from using,
the result of their inquiries is the following: to create and
sustain the new cult, the apostles and, even more so, once it
became the custodian and main beneficiary of that cult, the
Chrch needed to show certain events to have occurred,
certain words to have been spoken; need ensured supply,
accounts of the events took the content which was required,
words materialized which would be most helpful. This
impulse of the evangelists and the Church is what scholars
mean when they talk of the "theological reasons" that led the
supposed author to advance some account, or that led the
Church to put one construction on what that had written rather
than some other.
180 Harvesting Our Sonls
"In post-Biblical Judaism of the first Christian centuries,"

we are told in the MacIopaedia, "it was believed that the
spirit had ceased after the writing of the Book of Malachi (the
last book of the Old Testament canon), and that no longer
Could anyone say, "Thus sayeth the Lord,' as had the
Prophets, nor could any further Holy Writ be produced...."!
No problem: assert that the Spirit is working through Jesus.
But not all that is necessary and useful for the Church has
been said by Jesus. No problem: have him as "a living
-
presence" who is – after his death providing those words.
But as many come to claim to be receiving guidance from
that "living presence", a great variety of sayings and accounts
surface. Not all are convenient. Not all can be harmonized.
How should one wrest exclusive authority for the Church,
how can one ensure that the only imprimatur that willcount
will be that of the Church? No problem: project the Church as
the body of Christ, in the alternate as his bride, and make it a
mark of being Christian that the person believe that it is in and
-
through the Church that the Spirit of Jesus, and therefore of
God- is now working.
Legends and words that have congealed in the Old
Testament are what have been internalized by the people,
they are what have a hold over the imagination of the people.
No problem: show the new cult as, not the rival or
replacement of the existing one but as its culmination, the
New Testament not as the rival or replacement of the Old but
as its fulfillment. Show again and again that Jesus is doing the
things, that he has the altributes, that he is proclaiming the
words which the Old Testament had said the new prophet
shall do and say. So intense is the anxiety in this regard that it
yields an embarrassing pattern. Ever so often events occur
which could well have gone some other way, ever so often
Jesus puts himself into situations including the climactic
-
events which lead to his crucifixion in the end which he
'Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XIV, p. 961.

Truth keeps pace uvith need! 181
Could have side-stepped, and the explanation, to recall the
phrase tlhat occurs almost a dozen times in Matthew, is, "This
was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet..." Had
Someone in the Old Testament forecast what was going to
happen, orwere the events being brought about so that some
prophecy be fulfilled? The words in the Gospels certainly
suggest the latter - so strong was the compulsion behind the
accounts that it breaks through the text.
But conflict with Judaic authorities intensifies. Prudence
dictates that the Romans be kept in good humour. Soon,
prospecs open up in Rome. No problem: shift the guilt for
killing Jesus more and mnore on to the JewS, and water down
the responsibility of Pontius Pilate.
As people hearken back to David - even though next to
nothing is known about him, even though much in the legend
is not altogetlher edifying- David's career has all the standard
ingredients of Old Testament careers: adultery, murder,
family squabbles, the single-minded pursuit of dominion - it
is necessary to claim that Jesus is a descendant of David. No
problem: genealogies arrive, the birh takes place, one way
or another, in what people have come to regard as the
hometown of David.
The prophecy in Isaiah has got wrongly translated - "a
young voman" has become a "virgin". No problem: Jesus is
born to a virgin without the intercession of the Joseph
through whom he is the descendant of David.
And make adjustments where necessary. Jewish lore
forecasts that a "Son of Man" shall come down riding clouds
radiant, in the fullglory of triumph. Jesus is spoken of as that
Son of Man. But he is put to so much suffering. No problem:
the Gospels adjust the characterization a bit, and speak of the
"suffering Son of Man".
As Jesus is the prophet, he cannot but have foreseen his
own suffering. So, he is recalled to have forecast it many
times. Soon,the Ronmans too begin persecuting the Christians.
No problem: Jesus is now seen to have foretold this
persecution, to have enjoined on Christians the duty to hold

out, and to have forecast that in the end they would prevai.
The Book of Revelationcomes about to fill this need...
Constructions tailored to need

Like all messianic prophets, Jesus too thought that the new
era was at the brink of breaking out. The Kingdom of God is
imminent, he proclaimed. It is set to break out within the
lifetime of those who are hearing this message, he said. This
expectation which he exprssed so often has, of course,
been a source of major embarrassment to the Church, and the
missionaries in general. They have tried to defiect the matter
by maintaining that Jesus did not really mean to specify any
chronological date. They point to the answer he gave the
Pharisees as they asked him when this Kingdom of God he
kept talking about would in fact break out in the world. "The
Kingdom of God cometh not with observation," he said,
"Neither shal!they say, Lo here! or, Lo there!, for, behold, the
Kingdom of God is within you."»2
Two elementary considerations will help us gauge the
weight we should place on explanations of this sort.
First, notice the expression on which the explanation rests:
"the Kingdom of God is within you." It turns out that this is just
one variant. The Good News Bible notes that the words are
the Kingdom of God "is within you; 0r is among you; or will
suddenly appear among you."5 In another copy of the Bible
which is before me the expression is, the Kingdom of God is
in the midst of you." The very Church which today tries to
explain away Jesus' forecast by making out that he was talk
ing of a Kingdom wiibin us, that very Church has used the
alternate expressions, "is among you," "is in the midst of
you," to bolster the notion that it – the Church - is central: the
ZLuke, 17.20-21.
Good Neus Bible, Today's Engish Versio, The Bilble Society of India,
Bangalore, The New Testament, p. 103,footnote 'u'.
Tub keeps pace witb need! 183
Kingdom of God, has taught, is wherever the faithful are

it
gathered - as it is in the Church that they are gathered, it is
where the Kingdom of God prevails!
Second, recall an example from the current apologia On
behalf of Islam. For centuries a specific, murderous construc
tion has been placed on the exhortations to jibad, for centu
ries that particular construction has been the rationalization
for war and pillage. But today, in countries like India where
Islam is not in power, the apologists insist that what Allah and
the Prophet had intended when they talked of jihad was an
inner-directed struggle against the evil tendencies that lurk in
each one of us! The Kingdom of God is to be within each of us
- exactly as jibad, after centuries of annihilation and pillage,
is to be waged within each of us!
Hov justified are missionaries in contriving such
explanations? What exactly is Jesus reported by the Gospels
themselves to have said? What did his direct disciples
understand him to have meant?
Jesus has gathered his twelve disciples. He is instructing
them how they are to conduct themselves as they carry his
message from house to house, from city to city. He tells them
of the opposition they are liable to encounter, how those who
oppose them shall soon meet retribution at the hands of
God..., how they must not lose heart, how, instead, they imust
persevere, and at the same time be prudent: "....And ye shali
be hated of all men for my name's sake," he tells them, "but
he that endureth to the end shall be saved." "But when they
persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say
unto you, Ye shall not bave gone over the cities of Israel, till
the Son of man may be come" - that is, they wvould scarcely
have gone through the cities of Israel - a very snall number
a
in a very small area and he would have returned second
time, 4
The imprisoned John hears of what Jesus is doing. He
4Mattheu, 10.22-23.
sends two of his disciples to inquire of him, "Art thou he that

should COme, or do we look for another"– the query itself is
an embarrassment, coming as it does from the very John who
had proclaimed the coming of Jesus, upon whose baptizing
Jesus not only did the heavens open, and the voice from
heaven resound, "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased," this is the one about whom at that moment
John the Baptist himself said, "I saw the Spirit descending
from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.... And I saw,
and bae record that this is the Son of God ó
In any event, what is Jesus' answer? "Go and shew John
again those things which ye do hear and see," he tells the
Baptist's disciples. "The blind receive their sight, and the
lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the
dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to
them."? The very signs that Isaiah had prophesied shall testify
that the Kingdom of God has arrived: for we are told in Isaiah,
"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not:
behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with
a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of
the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be
unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the
tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters
break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground
shall become a pool, and the thirsty lands springs of
water.. »8
Jesus has had exchanges with his disciples about who the
people think he is, and who they- the disciples -think he is.
He has been telling them how, in accordance with the plan of
God, he must go to Jerusalem, how he will have to undergo
much suffering, how he will eventually be killed, how he
shall rise on the third day. The disciples protest. Jesus teaches
them how they are to look upon the suffering he will be
Mark, 1.10-11. Jobn, 1.32, 34.

7Matthew 11.3-6. $Isaiah., 35.4-10.
Tiutb keeps pace with need! 185
undergoing. But that whole period will not last long, he

assures them. Neither the period of his travails, nor the
period of his being away from them. "Verily I say unto you,
Jesus teaches thenm, "Tbere be some standing bere, wbich
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in
his Kingdom" - that is, the Kingdom of God shall come to
prevail within the lifetime of some of those who are
conversing with him then and there,9
Jesus has come out of the Temple- at that time the symbol
as much of the prevailing religion as of permanence. He tells
his disciples, "See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto
you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
shall not be thrown down." He goes on to tell them of the
signs of the last days. And those days are not far off, he warns
them. “Now learn a parable of the fig tree," he says. "When a
branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that
summer is nigh. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these
things, know that it is near, even at the doors, Verily I say unto
you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be
fulfilled."
What no one but God knows is the precise moment when
those catastrophic events which are to precede the second
coming may break out; for that reason, the watchword of
cach must be, "Watch", be ready at all times - that is, do not
delay for a moment conducting yourselves in accordance
with the message. lo But that indefiniteness relates only to the
Imoment at which the catastrophic events, and thereafter the
Kingdom of God will break out - not to the fact that that entire
sequence is going to commence and be completed within the
lifetime of those standing in front of Jesus and conversing
with him.
The forecast - that the Kingdom of God is imminent as can
be - as nuch as the sequence of events which shall precede
Mattheu, 16.28.
10Mattbew, 24, and 25; in particular, 24.32-34; 25.13.
it are set out in Mark as explicity. This Gospel also states

repeatedly that the Kingdom of God is at hand. John the
Baptist has just been arrested. Jesus commences his ministry.
Hedeclares, "The time has come, and the Kingdom of God is
at hand,." Jesus tells the disciples, "Verily I say untoyou,
That there be some of th0se that stand bere, wbich shall not
taste of death, till they bave seen the Kingdom of God come
with power. "12 And again, "Verily I say unto you, that this
generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."13 As in
Matthew, allthat is uncertain is the precise moment when in
the near future all this may break out:
For the Son of man is as a man taking a far joumey, who left his house,
and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and
COmmanded the porter to watch.
Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house
cometh, even, or at mid-night, or at the cock-crowing,or in the
t
morning:
Lest coming suddenly he findyou sleeping.
And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.'4
So certain is Jesus that the Kingdom of God is just about to

break out that he says, "Iwill drink no more of the fruit of the
vine until I drink it new in the Kingdom of God."l5
And in Luke too- the Gospel in which that passage about
-
the Kingdom of God being within us occurs Jesus declares,
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing bere, wbich shall
not taste of death, till they see the Kingdom of God1o
Moreover, this imminence is what the immediate disciples

of Jesus understood from what he had been telling them.
Jesus has been telling them of the dramatic events that
are about to be enacted in Jerusalem sOon. They are
approaching Jerusalem. They have seen him go to the house
11Mark, 1.15. 12Mark, 9.1. 13 Mark, 13.30.
1(Mark, 13.34-37. 15Mark, 14.25. 16Luke, 9.27.
Trutb keeps pace with need! 187
of Zacchaeus, a rich man whom many regard as a sinner.

They have heard Jesus tell him, "This day is salvation come
unto this house." "And as they heard these things," Luke tells
us, "he (jesus) added a parable, because he was nigh to
Jerusalem, and because they thougbt that the Kingdom of God
sbould immediately appear."17
In a word, contrary to what our missionaries say now, the
Kingdom of God was something external, something that was
to break out outside of the believers and disciples, and it was
to break out within the lifetime of some of those who were
then present: within fifty-sixty years of Jesus' death. Not
quite what has transpired.
In announcing the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of
God, Jesus was true to type: all prophets have forecast an
imminent overturning - the imminent Day of Judgment,
qayamat in the case of Muhammad, the imminent collapse of
Capitalism in the case of Marx.... This imminence is the major
solace they offer for holding out a little longer, it is the reason
they give for embracing their new creed forthwith, for
repenting immediately. But Jesus was true to type not only
in that he too, like every other prophet, proclaimed this
imminent outbreak, he was true to type also in that, as in the
case of every other prophet, his forecast failed to materialize.
Jesus came and went. The generation within whose lifetime
the Kingdom was to break out, that too passed away.
Seventy-eighty generations have come and gone since. And
still no Kingdom, still the same prayer "Thy Kingdom come"
Some tme in the future!
The solution? A new interpretation at every turn! A new
device at every turn to explain away the forecast, including
interpolation and over-writing! The Cambridge Companion
gives an example: having recalled the assurances that the
Kingdom of God would break out soon, it reimarks,
17 Luke, 19.11.
We can see in the biblica! tradition that this outlook causes problens,
especially when the fulfillment of the hopes of the group does not
OCcUr On schedule. For example, the promise of Israel's renewal in
the space of seventy years expressed by Jeremiah Jer. 25:11, 29:10)
is revised by Daniel tO seventy 'weeks' of years, or 490 years (Dan.
9:1-27). In the Gospel tradition, and in other parts of Christian
scriptures, there is evidence that with the passage of time the
expectation of an imminent end of the age had to be dealt with, and
a variety of solutions were offered. 18
This "variety of solutions" - mark the word "solutions", as if

these devices actually solve the problem! - have ranged
all the way from declaring the sayings which contained
the forecasts to be spurious, to reading altogether novel
meanings into the words. What Jesus meant by his assurances
that he would come again is not that some thing external to us
would happen, theologians and scholars now tuy to make the
faithful believe, his assurance is that whenever we surrender
to him, he comes to us.... Interpolation and over-writing too
have been deployed in the interests of the faith.19
But what are mere scholars in comparison with the
Church?! An even more inventive solution comes from the
Vatican! In Somemni buc liturgia, The Credo of the People
of
God, the Pope turns to explaining the Church's immersion in
the imprOvement of the secular lives of adherents, in that
some of its members are working for social justice and the
like. He remarks, We likewise confess that the Kingdom of
God, which had its beginnings here on earth in the Church of
Christ"- notice the typical superimposition, the substitution:
the Kingdom of God had its beginnings not in Christ, not in his
preaching, not in his miracles, not even in his ministry as a
1Howard C. Kee, Eric M. Meyers, John Rogerson, Anthony J. Saldarini,
The Canbridge Companion to the Bible, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1997, p. 446.
1For instance, Tbe Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M. Metzger,
Michael D. Coogan, editors, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993,
Pp. 685-86,
Trutb keeps pace vith need! 189
whole, but in the "Church of Christ"! – "is not of this world,

whose form is passing, and that its authentic development
cannot be measured by the progress of civilization, of
science or of technology" – a blatant evasion: foget science
and technology,did the Kingdom of God on the crileria Jesus
bad in mind when he said that it would come to pass before
some of those who were hearing him had passed away, has
the Kingdom 0n those criteria come any nearer to being
realized? But to proceed with the construction that the Church
now puts on those forecasts,
The true growth of the Kingdom of God consists in an ever
deepening knowledge of theunfathomable viches of Christ, in ever
stronger bope in eternal blessings, in an ever more fervent
response to the love of God, and in an ever more geneous
acceptance of graceand boliness by men. But it is the same love
that induces the Church to promote persistently the true temporal
welfare of men. Although she does not cease to warn her children
that here they have no abiding city, she urges them to improve their
OWn human conditions within the limits of their own state of life and
possibilities.. 20
The explanation for immersion in secular struggles, etc.,

apart; the question whether the Church has signed up in such
struggles because it has believed that they flow from Jesus'
teaching and life or because there was no other way to
convince people that it was relevant to their lives, that
question apart; the matter of concern for us at the moment is
the construction which is put on the "Kingdom of God." And
that is a novelty- theassertion that this Kingdom "consists in
an ever deepening knowledge of the unfatbomable riches of
Christ, in ever stronger bope in eternal blessings, in an ever
nore fervent response to the love of God, and in an ever
more generous acceplance of grace and boliness by men.
Z0Pope Puul VI, Solenmni bac liturgia, The Credo of the People f God,
30 June, 1968.
Now, from whom, and by whose activities do these things

"an ever deepening knowledge of the unfathomable riches
of Christ, lan] ever stronger hope in eternal blessings,
ever more fervent response to the love of God, and... an
ever more generous acceptance of grace and holiness by
men" - flow? From the Church, from what it is doing.
What is the evidence, therefore, that the Kingdomof God
is nearing? The fact that the Kingdom of the Church is
expanding!
14
Dictated? Inspired?
Written? Collated? Edited?
Potential converts in India are still fed the line that the
Bible - specially the Gospels, of course - is a divine book
which was dictated by God. That used to be the claim of the
Church in Europe also – but it was abandoned long ago. A
lesser claim was then advanced: that while the Old and New
Testaments were written by humans, by mortals, at the time
these authors wrote them they were under the inspiration of
God. They were a sort of passive hand that was used by the
Holy Spirit to set out the narrative. The Oxford Companion to
the Bible describes the current status of this assertion as
follows:
Today all but the most extreme Jewish and Christian fundamentalists
recognise the complicated and heterogeneous origins of the Bible
and that it contains statements that in any other literary work would
beconsicdered erroneous. Modern biblicalcriticism has immeasurably
enriched our understanding of biblical backgrounds, customs, and
mores, but it has inevitably raised other issues. Most modern
believers acknowledge that in the end the issue of biblical inspiration
is ultimately a mystery - truly a matter of faith.'
So much of an understatement as to be misleading, we shall

Soon see. But even such euphemisms serve to awaken us to
the reality behind the figure-of-faith rationalization that we
encountered earlier: the figure of faith rests on accounts
accepting the authenticity of which itself is "a matter of faith"!
Double-storeyed faith, so to say.
'The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M. Metzger, Miclhael D.
The next climb-down was the assertion that, even if

God did not dictate the narrative, ven if we set aside the
inspiration-theory, the narratives were penned down by
eyewitnesses, by followers of Jesus who saw the events
themselves,who heard Jesus, who conversed with him. This
assertion is repeated today only in countries like India
countries in which it has been possible lo keep the laity
completely shut-off from the results of Biblical scholarship.
All one reed do is pick up any of the standard Companions
to the Bible, any of the scores and scores of books Containing
the results of Biblical research, any of the standard
encyclopedias, and open the entries on the Bible, on Biblical
analysis or criticism, on the Old or New Testament. They set
out how the Old and New Testament are now regarded as
"residues" or "precipitates" of centuries of collating, editing,
sifting.
Theaccumulation of the Old Testament

Far from the Old Testament being the result of a one-time
revelation or dictation by God, as the potential targets are told
in India, scholars freely acknowledge today that it is the
precipitate, the residual accumulation over a millennia. This
is how The Cambridge Companion to tbe Bible summarizes
the process:
The change from oral to written forms involved extensive editing of

older material, as well as arranging it in the present patterns in whicl
it ispreserved in our Biblical books. In addition to the weaving of
narratives into a consecutive epic form, the present form of the first
five books of the Bible shows clearly that the material has been
compiled and expanded over a period of centuries and in a variety of
circumstances....The heavy underscoring of the ritual aspects of the
law in the period covered by the Pentateuch isa sure sign that in its
finalediting, the hand of the priestly leaders of Israel was at work
reshaping the tradition.
This fact suggests at least two of the major motivations that were at
Dictated? lnspired? Written? Collated? Edited? 193
work in this recasting oftheBilblical tradition: (1) o bring the tradition

up tocdate, so that its relevance for the present situation in the life of
Israel is immediately apparent; (2) to harmonize or blend diverse
traditions to provide an overall unity to the tradition as finally
recorded. This process is also evident in the historical and prophetic
materials. The Books of Chronicles, for example, when compared
with the accounts of the same events in the Books ofKings, slhow that
the values and point of view of the priests of the period after Israel's
return from exile in Babylon have had a shaping effect on the
Chronicler's version of Israel's history. Also, in the period after the
exile, traces of Persian ideas appear in Biblical writings, such as the
notion of Satan as God's adversary. In the case of the prophets of
Israel, earlier predictions which did not take place as expected are
balanced by the addition of later naterial. For example, the
prophecies of the eighth-century BCE prophet Isaiah that predict
God's punishment of his disobedient people are supplemented by
predictions about the end of the age (Isa. 24-7) and then later by
reports and celebrations of Isracl's return to the land (Asa. 36-9) and
hopes for the future fulfillment of God's purposes for his renewed
people (Isa. 40-66). Less obviously, but just as significantly, other
prophetic writings received later supplements, as is the case with
Amos, Zechariah, and Malachi..2
A thoroughly conventional process, carried through by

ordinary individuals to fulfill thoroughly conventional
objectives. The identical sequence transpired not just in the
writing and gathering of the Gospels, but also in the final
selection of 27 books that today constitute the New
Testament.
How the Gospels grew, and were sified

Scholars freely acknowledge that the Gospels grew bit by
bit over 125 years, that the New Testament as a whole with
-
its 27 books - did not assume the shape it has today till the 4th
century after Christ:
H.C. Kee, E.M. Meyers, John Rogerson, A. J. Saldarini, The Cambridge
p.
Conpanion to the Bible, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, 10.
The New Testament consists of 27 books, which are the residue, or

precipitate, out of many 1st-2nd-centuty-AD writings that Christian
groups considered sacred...In a seemingly circuitous interplay
between the historical and theological processes, the church
selected these 27 writings as normative for its life arnd teachings..
The Gospel literature represents the crystallization or 'precipitation'
in writing of the oral tradition about Jesus, his life, teaching, death, and
resurrection...
Within a century or so of Jesus' departure, over a score of

gospels got written, and an even larger number of "letters"
attributed to assorted Apostles, books of Acts, of Revelation.
Several of these could not be harmonized with others.
Marcion, for instance, maintained that the fact that the Old
Testament did not agree in all particulars with what had been
subsequently revealed to Jesus showed that the former had
originated from some lesser god; on this premise he
produced a version of the scriptures from which all traces of
Old Testament prophecies, sayings, doctrines were excised.5
Clearly, this premise could not be squared with what
Matthew, etc., had tried to do: their entire effort had been to
establish that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecies of
the Old Testament. The Gnostics and their works presented a
challenge of an altogether different kind. It isn't so much that
they held creation, existence, the body, elationships like
marriage, activities like procreation all to be evil. Of greater
concern to the Church was what they declared to be the way
out of this swamp of evil: direct perception by the soul of its
oWn nature. If individuals could pursue this way directly, on
their own, if the ultimate referent was not to be conformity to
Some text or decree but direct experience of reality, where
would that leave the authority of the Church?
Encylopacdia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XIV, p. 961.
iThe Encyclopedia Amertcana, Volume IIl, p. 702.
SA Gnostic, Marcion flourished in
the 2nd century AD.He was repudiated
by the Church Fathers, and left Rome.
Dictated? Inspired? Wiitten? Collated? Edited? 195
Individuals began sifting this pile to prepare a standardized

list of texts which alone would have scriptural status: Justin, a
philosopher; Irenaeus, a bishop; Clement of Alexandria; later
Origen, the first of Biblical scholars, also from Alexandria.
Neither the criteria different authorities used nor tlhe lists they
arrived at were always the same. Eventually, as late as the 4th
century, the list of 27 works came to be accepted by most
sections of the Church. Gospels which differed from the ones
that had been selected were destroyed. When they surfaced
later - SOmetimes because sOmeone had hidden some of
-
them they were put down as apocryphical. The process of
sifting, excluding, destroying was a conventional process, an
iterative one, one dictated by the needs of the Church at that
time.
The justification was circular: we have not endowed
authority to these particular works, it was asserted; we have
merely recognized the authority which was inherent in them.
Clearly, the scholars and clerics had as individuals selected
some works for inclusion and excluded others, and they had
been guided in doing so by what each tlhought would be
useful for conventional purposes: for advancing the line they
thought would best help propagate the message, for meeting
the needs of the community - for instance, the themes
which would moivate believers to hold on in the face of
persecution. A conventional selection by conventional
processes by individuals. The Church had an explanation
around this obvious fact: true, individuals made the selection,
it conceded; true, they selected some and excluded other
works in response to specific needs; but, it maintained, it is
God who put those needs in the way of the new community,
and then guided those individuals to that particular set!
And that explanation passes muster even today. Having
acknowledged that “the Christians did not and do not agree
among themselves as to which books compose their canon,"
Tbe Cambridge Companion to the Bible says,
..The decisions about canonicity rested on three factors: (1) what

had proved useful in the Christian communities; (2) what could be
traced back to the earliest times of the church; (3) what could be
shown to have been written by an apostle or an apostolic associate....
The primary considerations in assembling the canon, therefore, were
the needs, the experience, and the corporate judgments of the early
Christian communities. The decisions did not derive from objective
criteria offered by detached observers. In the process of deciding
what wriings would constitute the Bible, both Jewish and Christian
decision makers demonstrated the conviction held by the Biblical
writers themselves: that God addresses his people, calling them to
account and disclosing his purpose for and through tlhem, and that
this takes place in the living context of social and cultural crisis and
change.6
Scholarslhip has also completely debunked the notion

of the supposed authors of the Gospels having been
eyewitnesses to the events. In fact, it is now commonly
accepted that the material developed in three or four stages:
as bits and pieces repeated orally from person to person; as
bits and pieces reduced to writing, and being handed around
as unrelated “fragments"; of their being put together in
various collections; of the entire corpus being winnowed,
edited, combined, sifted into a number of gospel-like
accounts; of the nascent church finally selecting the 27 books
- including the four Gospels- and anointing them as the New
Testament. In almost every case, the gospel was originally
put together anonymously, and only later was it ascribed
to some figure who had been prominent in the past.
Today there is no agreement whatsoever on who "Mark,"
"Matthew", "Luke" or "John" was. Witness the entries about
them in the Macropaedia, and the Oxford and Cambridge
companions.
In regard to "Mark" we are instructed, "Though the author
of Mark is probably unknown, authority is traditionally
oThe Cambridge Companion to the Bilble, op. cit., pp. 11, 573.
commonly held that Matthew was written about85 or 90 CE

by an unknown Christian who was at home in a church
located in Antioch of Syria...Although the apostle Matthew
may have been active in founding the church in which the
gospel story attributed to him arose (9.9; 10.3), it is unlikely
that he was the author. On the contrary, that author exhibits a
theological outlook,command of Greek, and rabbinic training
that suggest that he was a Jewish-Christian of the second
rather than the first generation (cf. 13.52). Also, Antioch of
Syria commends itself as the place where he may have been
at home, because the social conditions reflected in his story
correspond with those that seem to have prevailed there: the
city was Greek-speaking, urban, prosperous, and it had a
large population of both Jews and gentiles."1 "This Gospel is
anonymous, like the others," The Cambridge Companion
says. "When the church in the second century sought to lend
authority to its Gospels, it assigned each of them to an apostle
or an associate of an apostle. About 130, Papias atributed this
Gospel to Matthew (who seems also to have been known as
Levi; cf. Matt. 9:9 and Mark 2:13) and ciaimed that he wrote it
in Hebrew. But its author used the Greck Gospel of Mark as a
source, and the many scriptural quotations are from the
Greek translation rather than directly from the Hebrev Bible.
Although we cannot determine who the author was, careful
analysis shows us what his concerns were and on what basis
he modified and expanded the Gospel tradition.. For
convenience we refer to the author and his Gospel as
Matthew."12 The Cambridge Companion proceeds to give a
sketch of the structure and method of Matthew, and, when it
comes to one of the principal messages of this particular
Gospel, remarks, "...In Jesus' sketch for his people's
responsibility to God in this Gospel there is a distinctive
emphasis on true righteousness, in cOntrast to that of the
Pharisaic tradition (3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33). That theme is
The Oxford Companion to the op. cit., pp. 502-03.

Bible,
12The Canbridge Companion to the Bible, op. cit., pp. 502-03.
Dictated? Inspired? Written? Collated? Edited? 197
derived from a supposed connection with the Apostle

Peter...." After recounting the attribution to someone
connected with Peter, The Oxford Companion records,
"Traditionally, he has been identified with John Mark
mentioned in Acts 12.12, but the latter was associated with
Paul and Barnabas, not Peter (Acts 12.25; 5.37,39; Col. 4.10; 2
Tim. 4.11), and the name 'Mark' was one of the most
common in the ancient world."* Similarly, after recounting
who the Mark who is mentioned on several occasions in the
Acts and Letters might have been, The Cambridge
Companion says, “But the writing that now bears his name
seems to have been compiled from oral and written sources
which consisted of snmall units of tradition from several
sources. It does not have the strict narrative sequence one
might expect from a report of a firsthand observer (such as
Peter) of Jesus' public life.."9
What about "Matthew"? *Although there is a Matthew
named among the various lists of Jesus' disciples," the
Macropaedia informs us, "more telling is the fact that the
name of Levi, the tax collector who in Mark became a
follower of Jesus, in Matthew is changed to Matthew. It
would appear from this that Matthew was claiming apostolic
authority for his Gospel through this device but that the
author of Matthew is probably anonymous. The Gospel
grew out of a 'school' led by a man with considerable
knowledge of Jewish ways of teaching and interpretation.
This is suggested by the many ways in which Matthew is
related to Judaism. It is in some ways the most Jewish'
Gospel. Striking are 11 'formula quotations' ("This was to
fulfill what was spoken by the prophet... .) claiming the
fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecies."10
Similarly, we learn in The Oxford Companion, "It is
Encyclopaedia Britanntca, Macropaedia, Volume XIV, p. 973.
Tbe Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. cit, p. 493.
9The Cambridye Companion to the Bible, op. cit., pp.455-56.
WEnCyclopaedia Britannica, Macropacdlia, Volume XIV, p. 975.
Dictated? Inspired? Wiitten? Collated? Edited? 199
most fully developed in a discourse section that does not fit
the pattern sketched above in our outline and that may have
been added to an earlier form of the gospel as the hostility
between Matthew 's community and the Pharisees inlensified
(Matt. 23), "13
And "Luke"? He has been taken to be a physician who
accompanied Paul on his journeys: the hypothesis is based on
allusions in some sources to his having been a companion or
follower of Paul, and on the supposition that Luke's language
is laced with medical imagery. Can even this much be
maintained about him with any confidence?
"References are often made to Luke's medical language,
says the Macropaedia, "but there is no evidence of such
language beyond that to which any educated Greek might
have been exposed. Of more import is the fact that in the
writings of Luke specifically Pauline ideas are significantly
missing; while Paul speaks of the death of Christ, Luke
speaks rather of the suffering, and there are other differing
and discrepant ideas on law and eschatology. In short,
the author of this Gospel remains unknown." The other
embarrassing fact is that while this Gospel is supposed to be
the "most historical" of the four, it is evident that "the writer
had no accurate idea of its (Palestine's] geography."14 Tbe
Oxxford Companion's observations are to the same effect:
"Unlike the Pauline letters, which bear the Apostle's name,
the third Gospel is anonymous, as are the other gospels.
Ancient church tradition attributed the third Gospel to Luke...
the 'beloved physician'... Most modern commentators on the
Lucan Gospel, however, are skeptical about the validity of
this traditional attribution... (Reasons for this skepticism
follow in the volume.] The result is that many modern
commentators are uncertain about the authorship of Luke
Acts."15 The Cambridge Companion too recounts the various
13The Canbridge Companion to the Bible, op. cit., p. 504.

1Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume X1V, p. 976.
15Tbe Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. cit., p. 470.
personages with which "Luke" has been sought to be

identified, the uncertainties surrounding such identifications,
and then concludes, "More likely, the author, as he tells us in
Luke 1:1-2, was not an eye-witness of the events he reports
but based his account on reports he had heard or read from
those who were. For convenience, we refer to him as Luke,
but as is the case with the other gospels, the identity of the
author is simply unknown, and probably has been from the
earliest years of the document's existence."l6
And the final one, "John"? After listing allusions to more
Johns than one in Greek sources, the Macropaedia observes,
"Because both external and internal evidence are doubtful, a
working hypothesis is that John and the Johannian letters
were written and edited somewhere in the East (perhaps
Ephesus) as the product of a 'school', or Johannian circle, at
the end of the 1st century....17 Tbe Oxxford Companion says
that though, given itsdramatic structure, John's Gospel
displays a literary unity, in the Gospel "there are some
features that suggest it was composed and in edited stages." It
lists the surprising breaks in the narrative, the switches from
one locale to another in the middle of incidents, the jumps in
language and style, the repetition of material, and seeks to
explain these features by the hypothesis that "behind the
composition of the Gospel lie a number of different sources,
recording the signs, the teaching, and the passion of Jesus,
that have been combined and edited at various stages in the
writing of this document, until its final publication as a unified
work.."l8 *Although we do not know who wrote this
anonymous work," The Cambridge Companion writes in
regard to the Gospel attributed to "John", "the frequent
references to 'the disciple Jesus loved' (13:23-5; 19:26-7;
20:2-8, 21:7, 20) and the fact that such a person seems to be
identifying himself as the one who recorded this Jesus
16Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Cambridge Conpanion to the Bible,
op. ci., pp.519-20.
17Macropaedia, Volume XIV, p. 977.
1WThe Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. ci!., pp. 374-75.
Diciated Inspired? Wiitten? Collated? Edited? 201
material led many in the early church to the conclusion that

the gospel was written by John, the son of Zebedee (Mark
I1:19), although he is never mentioned by name in the
gospel. The reference in 21:22 to the possibility that this
disciple might live until Jesus returned to earth led some to
suppose that he was writing at a greatly advanced age,
perhaps late in the first century. But these are no more than
ancient guesses...."19
In regard to the Gospel attributed to "John", the authors
proceed to note further that "The language of this gospel is
disarmingly simple Greek. But the symbolic strategy of the
author, with the focus on timeless meaning rather than
merely reports of what happened, and the fact that in many
narrative and teaching details this gospel differs widely from
the other gospels, suggest that i was written by someone
who later became a follower of Jesus, not an eyewitness. "20
Turning to the other work which is attributed to the same
John, The Cambridge Companion observes, "In sharp
contrast to the Gospel of John, the Revelation of John is
written in thoroughly apocalyptic style, and its major interest
is never touched on in the Gospel of John: the political and
cOsmic conflict between the Roman Empire and the people
of God, which is sOon to culminate in the final battle between
God and the powers of evil. The confrontation which is
shaping up between the church and the empire, with their
incompatible claims to the divinity of Christ and of the
emperor, is the distinctive focus of the author of
Revelation. »21
Bits and pieces from bere and there
Summarising the position, The Osford Companion to the

Bible states,
19The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, op. cit., p. 539.

201bid., p. 540.
21 Tbid., p. 540.
Classical Biblical criticism has been much interested in matters of

authorship. The Pentateuch was not ritten by Moses himself; the
Book of Isaiah contains materials from a time long after that prophet
lived; the Gospels were not necessarily written by the disciples
whose names they bear. This realisation at once changes our picture
of the sort of book the Bible is: it is not a once-for-al, divinely dictated
report but a product of a tradition developed over some time within
communities of faith. Relations between documents like the
synoptic gospels (That is, the first three Gospels.] are literary
relations, involving revision, change of emphasis, selection, and
theological difference. The feature of pseudepigraphy must be
recognized as a fact: that is, that books may be written in the name of,
and attributed to, Some great person of the past who presides over
that genre...22
And The Cambridge Companion concludes,
.In a conscious or unconscious attempt to

lend authority to tlhese
writings, the accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus, although
preserved in anonymousdocuments known as the gospels, came to
be associated with disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John) or with
associates of the disciples or apostles (Mark, said to be Peter's
Companion, and Luke, associated with the apostle Paul). The place of
origin of the Gospels cannot now be determined, but Matthew
became the central document in Rome; John was linked with
Ephesus; Mark, with Alexandria. In Acts Luke demonstrates close
knowledge of Asia Minor and Greece, but this gospel writer and
historian may have come from any city in Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, or
Italy. The apostolic link was crucial to the authority of writings:
later
cdocuments were written in the name of an apostle (such as the later
letters attributed to Paul) and anonymous writings were attributed to
an apostle (as Hebrewswas assigned to Paul). Since
there were no
-
official copies of the writings either Jewish or Christian it was -
inevitable that they would be modified by those who copied or used
them. Additions and adaptations were made, such as harmonizing
differences in the gospel accounts of Jesus....Furthermore, insertions
from one gospel to another were made in copying the documents,
22 The Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. cit., p. 319.

Dictated? Inspired? Wiitten? Collated? Edted? 203
and passages were added in some copies of a gospel, such as the

story of the adulterous womnan in John &..23
How very far all this is from the "dictated-by-God,"

"written-under-the-direct-inspiration-of-God," "written by
eyewitnesses" fables that are fed to our illiterate tribals!
Far from any scholar today thinking of the Gospels as
having been written at one go by one author, much less
dictated by God, etc., most now accept that the Gospels were
put together bit by bit. At first some stories - about miracles,
sayings, parables, events - were handed down orally. These
were reduced individually to written fragments. These were
collated over decades into single volumes. There are
variations in the texts which have survived. When we
approach the Gospels as we now know them, there seem to
have been two primary collections to begin with: what is
Mark's Gospel and a collection of sayings of Jesus which can
today only be inferred from the existing Gospels - this latter
source is referred to as "Q", the initial of the German word for
source, Quelle. Matthew seems to have taken the structure
and narrative of Mark, and woven the sayings from "Q into
that sequence: almost 600 of the 661 verses in Mark, the
scholars tell us, figure in Matthew; and he added some
material from other sourcesunique to him. Luke is taken to
have done the same: he too used Mark and "Q", and some
SOurce unique to him.
John'sversion is traced to an even wider variety of sources
and influences: "Various backgrounds for John have been
suggested," the Macropaedia reports, and proceeds to list
some of them: "Greek philosophy (especially the Stoic
concept of the logos, or 'word', as immanent reason); the
works of Philo of Alexandria, in which there is an impersonal
logos concept that can not be the object of faith and love;
Hermetic writings, comprising esoteric, magical works from
23The Cambidge Conmpanion to the Bible, op. ct., pp. 570-71.

Egypt (2nd-3rd centuries AD) that contain both Greek and

Oriental speculations on monotheistic religion and the
revelation of God; Gnosticism, a 2nd-century religious
movement that emphasized salvation, through knowledge
and a metaphysical dualism; Mandaeanism, a form of
Gnosticism based on Iranian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and
Jewish sources; and Palestinian Judaism, from which both
Hellenistic and Jewish ideas came. In the last source there is a
Wisdom component and some ideas that possibly came from
Qumran, such as dualism of good versus evil, truth versus
falsehood, and light versus darkness. Of these backgrounds,
perhaps, all have played a part, but the last appears to fit
John best..."24
The last - the Dead Sea Scrolls found in, among other
-
places, Qumran is a particularly telling source. The Scrolls
are said to have been written between 100 BC and AD 70.
Much before the birth of Jesus they talk of a "teacher
of Righteousness", those who wrote them lived in the
expectation that such a person would perform miracles like
healing the sick and resurrecting the dead, that he shall bring
good tidings to the meek, that he will shepherd them, that
the opponents "shall slay the Prince of the congregation
by piercing." The Scrolls depict a community, The
Encyclopedia Americana reports, "awaiting the advent of a
royal Messiah (the Anointed One), a scion of David, and of a
priestly Messiah, a scion of Aaron," and so on.25 That such
notions, indeed the very phrases predate Jesus and the
Gospels by as much as a hundred years has created
predictable consternation in the Church since 1947 when the
Scrolls were discovered. For the question has naturally risen:
can it be that such legends and nmessianic expectations were
in common currency in the Middle East at the time, and were
projected on to Jesus? The embarrassment has been
2
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XIV, p. 977.
25 The
Encyclopedia Americana, Volume VII, p. 555.
Dictated? lnspiredl? 1Witten? Collated? Eclited? 205
compounded by the extraordinary efforts the Church made

for decades to totaliy restrict access to the manuscripts. Some
argue that the inference that the Scrolls anticipate notions
central to Christianity is based on wrong reaclings.26 Others
have litle hesitation in acknowledging that a Gospel such as
that of John is marked by lements which seem to have their
roots in the Qumran texts. Thus, while adducing reasons for
the view that John drew on a number of Christian sources
independently of the other three Gospels, he Oxford
Companion states,
.. the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown that before
the common era a literary setting existed in which Jewish and Greek
religious ideas were combined in a manner that was once thought to
be unique to John and of a late, second century CE,date. The scrolls
now make it clear that Jolhn may well have derived from Qumran
itself his language of 'truth,' knowledge,' 'visdom,' and faith,' as
well as his theological conviction that life is a struggle between truth
and perversity, the sons of light and the sons of darkness,good and
evil, in which God will ultimately prevail.27
Far from divine dictation, etc., where is even the uniqueness

in that case?
26For instance, The Encyclopedia Anericana, Volume VIII, p. 555.

27 The Oxford
Companion to the Bible, op. cit, p. 374.
15
All to a predetermined purpose
In the initial period the stories and accounts which now

figure in the Gospels were handed down orally. No group
among the followers has been identified as having consisted
of persons who had specialized in memorizing passages
or sequences of events. The stories were entirely at the
vicissitudes of, to recall Will Durant's felicitous description,
the "illiterate memories" of devotees, they were at the mercy
of the «illiterate memories" of beleaguered devotees.
Eventually, the material was reduced to written form. But no
"autograph," as it is called, that is no original manuscript has
survived. For three hundred years scholars have been trying
to construct the "stemma" of such manuscripts as have
survived. Much has been pinpointed as a result. But as
Helmut Koester correctly points out, there areat least twosets
of difficulties that are well-nigh insurmountable. The first is
that there is an inherent limit to what can be achieved by
going from one manuscript to what seems to be a preceding
text:
The limitations of purely text-historical procedure in working with

classical Greek and Latin texts should not be ignored in Nlew]
Tlestament] textual criticism. The reconstruction of a stemma leads
back to archetypes of first ediions, but not necessarily to the original
text. Even the most successful reconstruction of archetypes in NT
textual criticism gives no more than information about the formsof
the texts which were in existence at the end of II CE. Like the classical
philologian, the NT textual sclholar also has to remember that textual
corruptions can be more severe during the first decades of the
transmission, that is, between the periodbetween the autograph and
All to a predetermined puipose 207
first edition. Such corruptions can be more severe in the very first
years than in subsequent centuries, no matter whether our oldest
manuscript witness comes from the Middle Ages or from II CE. It
does not make much difference how many manuscripts written since
the end of IlCE have been preserved, since not a single manuscript
provides us with a direct insight into the history of the text during the
first fifty to one hundred years after the writing of the autograph.!
The second difficulty arises from the fact that we are dealing
with a period when manuscripts were being copied by hand
- by perSOns of varying ability, of varying fidelity, by perSons
who must have had at least as firm a conviction as the
"authors" of the originals that they should be passing on that,
and only that which will spread and deepen what they
regarded as the correct faith. Even a brief passage from
Koester gives us a glimpse of the resulting uncertainty:
There are numerous examples of alterations and corruptions of the

autographs of N{ewlTlestament) writings during the earliest period
of transmission. These problems cannot be solved with conventional
text-critical methods, but require the aid of literary criticism...The
edition of the Gospel of Mark which was used by Matthew and Luke,
for example, was substantially different from the Gospelof Mark we
know as transmitted in all texts and manuscripts. In.the Gospel of
John, a redactor made several additions to an earlier work (the most
significant is John 6:52-59). In the compilation of the writings which
the manuscripts transmit as 2 Corinthians, the editor had combined a
number of smaller letters of Paul to produce this major epistle; the
same seems to be the case with Philippians. How severely such
additions and redactions could alter the original text is demonstrated
in Marcion's edition of the Pauline letters - and Marcion had no
intention but to restore the original text of Paul's writings. Also
instructive is the example of 2 Peter, which, written in I CE,
incorporated the entire letter of Jude in a new edition (2 Peter 2).
More directly related to textual criticism proper are the cases in which
lHelmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume II, Hstory

and Literature EaryChristianity, de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1982,
of
p. 41.
the text of a passage had become sO COrrupt that the scribe had no
choice but to reconstruct hypotheticaly whatever he thought might
Ihave been the original, or cases of deliberate corrections in order to
adjust a text to a new theological perspective. Marginal notes were
also brought into the text accidentally in a number of cases. A
particular difficulty is the text of the Bock ofActs, which is preserved
in Codex D in a textual form which so radically departs from the texts
of the other manuscripts that it has been surmised that at its base was
a second revised edition made by the book's original author. In
all these instances, the textual critic must turn to a hypothetical
reconstruction (conjecture), for which there may be at least some
justification in the uncertainty of the manuscript tradition, but never
support frOm an actual manuscript reading..
This being the position, a host of difficulties erupt. After all,

what was the rationalization that the Church advanced as
scholars and reformers started focusing on the discrepancies
in the Gospels? These couldn't all be true simultaneously, on
every event at least one of the Gospels was in manifest error.
The Church began maintaining that the inerrancy it had
claimed,was for theoriginal "autographs" –that is, what those
four - the number itself is an assumption – had written with
their oWn hands was what was divinely protected from error.
And, alas!, those originals were nowhere to be found! As The
Oxford Companion explains, "only the now non-existent
autographs, or original manuscripts, are deemed inerrant; all
admit that the later copies contain errors.
That sort of an ex post adjustment of the sails only
generates fresh questions. Why would God, having divinely
protected the original manuscripts from error, have allowed
His sacred word to be corrupted by mere copyists
in
the subsequent copies? Having gone to the trouble of
transmitting the original message, and having expended care
to ensure that the transcribers would take it down without
Koester, op. cit.,p. 20.
3 TheOxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D.
All to apredetermined purpoOse 209
error, why would God have allowed the originals to be lost?
These difficulties are compounded by the way the original
four composite-, or anonymous authors put their Gospels
together. As scholars freely acknowledge, they did not view
their task as one of writing history. Their aim was the
edification of the people, it was the advancement of
Christianity, at times the advancement of some particular way
of looking at the eventswhich the author or compiler felt was
the one that would benefit people the most. They freely
acknowledged as much, and so do scholars today. "The
primary sources for our knowledge of Jesus, therefore, are
the gospels: the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,"
The Cambridge Companion remarks after noting the extreme
paucity of references to Jesus in records other than these
gospels. "But as the title 'gospel' (good news) implies, and as
the opening word of Mark makes explicit, they are not
objective reports but propaganda. That is, they want to
convince the reader of the truth of what they describe, as
Luke makes explicit: That you may know the truth
concerning the things of which you have been informed' (Lk.
1:4)..."4 It could have added several other passages from
other Gospels. What does John himself say albout the things
he has set down?, to take one instance: "And many other signs
truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not
written in this book: But these are writen, ihat ye migbt
helieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that
helieving ye migbt bave life througb bis name."S The author
compiler is himself telling us that he has sifted material, that
he has selected some events and left out others, and that in
doing so he has had in mind a specific purpose.
This process by which the early accounts were put
together bears an embarrassing similarity to the way later
H.C. Kee, E.M. Meyers, John Rogerson, A,J. Saldarini, The Cambridye
Companion to the Bible, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997,
p. 447.
SJobn, 20.30-31.
on Hadis came to be manufactured: as Goldziher and others

were to show, manufacturing badis which would advance the
cause of Allah and His Messenger came to be regarded as an
act of piety that would secure favour from Allah - these
scholars characterized this process as a "pious fraud". What
do scholars say about the Gospels? While commending the
conservatism of the liturgical and other traditions through
which the material was preserved, the Macropaedia is
constrained to note, "But because the church perceived its
risen Lord as a living Lord, even bis words could be adjusted
or adapted to fit specific church needs. Towards the end of
the 1st century, there was also a conscious production of
gospels. Some gospels purported to be the words of the risen
Lord that did not reflect apostolictraditions and even claimed
superiority over them. Such claims were deemed heretical
and helped to push the early church toward canonization.. "6
In fact, as we have seen the original four- if that was the
number had themselves been no less committed while
propagating particular versions, they had selected and used
the events of Jesus' life or his sayings and teachings for
specitic purposes. Again, the Macropaedia's authors give a
telling illustration:
The postulated common saying source of Matthew and Luke, Q,
Would account for much verbatim agreement of Matthew and Luke
when they include sayings absent from Mark. The fact that the
sayings are used in different ways or different contexts in Mathew
and Luke is an indication of a somewbat free way in wbicb the
editors could take material and mold it to their given situations
and needs. An example of this is the parable in Matthew and Luke
about the lost sheep (Matt. 18:10-14; Luke 15:3-7.) The basic
material has been used in different ways. In Matthew, the context is
church discipline -how a brother in Chist who has lapsed or who is in
danger of doing so is to be gently and graciously dealt with - and
Matthew shapes it accordingly (the sheep has 'gone astray'). In
Luke, the parable exemplifies Jesus' attitude toward sinners and is
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XIV, pp. 961-62.

All toa predetermined purpose
211
directedagainst the critical Pharisees and scribes whoobjectto Jesus'
contact with sinners and outsiders (the sheep is 'lost').
Another example of two passages used verbatim in Luke and
Matthew is Jesus' lament over Jerusalem. In Luke (13:34-35; the
lament over Jerusalenm)Jesus refers to how they willcry 'Blessed be
the King who comes in the name of the Lord' when he enters
Jerusalem.(Lk. 19:38). In Luke, the passage is structured into the life
of Jesus and refers to his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, "Blessed is he
who comes in the name of the Lord.' In Matthew (23:37-39) this
same lamnent is placed after the entry into the city (21:9) and thus
refers to the fall of Jerusalem and the Last Judgment. Apparently,
Luke has historicized a primarily eschatological saying.
Mark's Gospel seems to be the oldest, The Cambridge

Companion to the Bible notes as do others. Those of Matthew
and Luke "presuppose the contents and order of Mark," it
says, adding "though each of the otber writers modifies Mark
in order to fulfill bis own special aims." Furthermore, the
Companion notes, "Passages in Mark that the church later
found difficult [not in the sense of being difficult to
comprehend, but in the sense of being inconvenient] are
either onmitted or basically modified." It gives an example.
Mark, 6, begins with Jesus returning to his own country. It
is the Sabbath day. He begins to preach in the synagogue.
Listeners are astonished. How come this man has SO much
knowledge, they wonder, from where does he get this
enormous power to work such wondrous things? Is he not the
son of that carpenter, Joseph, is he not the brother of....? Jesus
says unto them, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his
own country,and among his own kin, and in his own house."
So far so good: the words have become a part of common
vocabulary. But the Gospel is not done with the incident.
Mark continues, "And he could there do no mighty work,
save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed
them. And he marveled at their unbelief. And he went round
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume XIV, pp. 972-73.

about the villages, teaching."% Now, that is an inconvenience:

the passage could be used to put Ješus at par with common
magicians who can work their magic so long as the
audience is credulous. Accordingly, The Cambridge
Companion notes, "Luke completely rewrites and relocates
(Luke, 4:16-30) this comment, and both he and Matthew
eliminate the mention of Jesus' inability (Matt. 13:58).."9
The effect is in itself magic. Recall that Mark had written,
"And he could do there no migbty work.." Matthew altered
this to read, "And he did not many migbty works there
because of their unbelief."10 In Mark Jesus is unable to do the
miraculous works because the people of his country lack
faith in him. In Matthew he decides not to do such works -
almost as a punishment, it would seem, for their unbelief.
Change "could do there no.." into "he did not....", and
inability becomes authority!
Similarly, recall the anxiety of the evangelists to show that
Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecies made in the Old
Testament. "There is a formula of fulfillment in which each
event is portrayed as having taken place 'in order to fulfill
what was spoken of...,' (or similar phraseology) in Matt.
2:15, 17-18, 23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15, 35; 24:4
5: 27:9-10," The Cambridge Companion recalls. And adds:
At times Mattbew shapes the quotation to fit bis aim, as in his claim
that the scriptures predicted Jesus' living in Nazareth, whereas the
Hebrew Bibie never mentions Nazareth but has two non-local ternms:
nezer, which refers toa special consecration to God (Num. 6:2-21,
Lev. 21:12), and netzer, which means shoot'
Isa. 11:1, 53:2).
Elsewhere Matthew shapes the events be refports in order to make
them fit bis understanding of scripture, as when he describes Jesus
riding into Jerusalem on two animals, since two are mentioned in
scripture (Matt.21:7, Zecb. 9:9). The aim is clear, and the method
matches that of Jewish interpreters in that period: the interpreter of
#Mark, 6.1-6.
The Cambridye Companion to the Bible, op. cil., p. 447.
10Mattheu, 13.58.
All to apredetermined purpose 213
scripture is interested in what it means in his own situation, not what
it meant in the time of the writer.!1
Just as changes such as these are effected to prove that Jesus

is the fulfillment of what had been prophesied in what had
hitherto been the scripture of Jews, when Matthew comesto
writing his account of the final events - predictions by Jesus
of his imminent death, the betrayal by Judas, the trial, in
particular the shifting of guilt on to the Jewish authorities and
the Jewish mob, the crucifixion, the conspiracy to put out the
story that his disciples have stolen Jesus' body - he again
alters his text to fit the circumnstances and "needs" of the
Christian community at the time of his writing. Regarding
Matthew's account of these climactic events, The Cambridge
Companion remarks, "The basic pattern of the narrative is
that of Mark 14-16, but these are significant supplements and
changes in detail, many of wbich reflect the tensions between
the church andJudaism.."
The subtle alterations continue in the accounts of events
that are said to have occurred after Jesus' death. Recounting
these, Tbe Cambridge Companion remarks,
..In this post-resurrection encounter between Jesus and the

disciples, the emphasis is on two themes: (1) the authority with
which Jesus sends forth his disciples and (2) their obligation to carry
outa worldwide program of instructionin the commandments which
Jesus has given them. The members of this new community of
disciples from all nations arc united by the rite of baptism, by the
"Trinitarian confession with which that rite is performed, and by the
members' obedience to Jesus' commands. The combination of
community definition over against emergent rabbinic Judaism, of
regulations for members' behaviour and for the internal processes of
organization, and of prescriptions for liturgical practice provide clear
evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was intended to serve as a
constitution for tbe emerging institution: the church.!2
TbeGambridge Companion to the Bible, op. cit, p. 505.

12Tbid., p. 511.
Compared with Mark, Matthew reflects the increasing
tensions with the Jews. By the time Luke gets compiled or
written, that the Jews will not accept Jesus and the new sect
has become evident. Stories are therefore altered and
extended to prepare the ground for taking the message to
peoples beyond the Jews.13 John's concern is to provide a
channel through which people may commune with, through
which they may seek to reach God. Hence his repeated
assertions: the way to become sons of God is to put one's
faith in the Son God sent us;l4 Jesus was the Word made
flesh; no one has ever seen God, it is His only begotten Son
who has lived among us, while prophets such as Moses gave
us the law, "but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."16In a
word, God can only be reached via Jesus. Once persecution
commenced, the Church was necessarily concerned that
believers should not lose heat, that they should not abandon
the faith. It became necessary, therefore, to maintain that
actually Jesus had forecast both - that they would be
subjected to great suffering, and that just as surely they would
come out triumphant in the end. We have the appropriate
prophecies in Matthew 24, in Luke 17.22-37, in Luke 21.5
28. The Book of Revelation is entirely intended to steel
believers so that they may hold out and not abandon their
faith in Jesus, and therefore in the Church.
The same sort of alterations took place in regard to other
features and figures of faith - to recall the instance we have
encountered earlier, the picture of Mary got progressively
luminescent as she came to be exalted.
So decisively was the text influenced by the message
which the author felt ought to be conveyed that it is not
possible today to sift what is fact from what is the result of this
piety and commitment. Indeed, scholars conclude that the
13For examples of these see, The Cambridge Companion to the Bible,

op. cit., p.523.
14Jobn, 1.12. 1SJobn, 1.14. 19Jobn, 1.17-18.
Allto a predetermined purpose 215
search is futile. The more committed scholars say it is an
irrelevance! Koester summarizes the position:
The quest for the historical kernel of the stories of the Synoptic
narrative materials is very difficult. In fact such a quest is doomed to
miss the point of such narratives, because these stories were all told
in the interests of mission, edification, cult, or theology (especially
christolog), and they bave no relationsbip to the question of
bistorically reliable information. Precisely those elements and
features of such narratives which vividly lead to the climax of the
story are derived not from actual historical events, but belong to the
form and style of the genres of the several narrative types. Exact
statements of names and places are almost always secondary and
were often introduced for the first time in the literary stage of the
tradition....17
One point therefore is that words were ascribed to Jesus

which the particular follower felt would advance the cause
on the assertion that Jesus, being alive and present, was
himself guiding the presenter in alighting on those words and
incidents. Next, the individual author/compiler/editor who
came later crafted his narrative to achieve a predetermined
goal. But of course that was far from being the end. A host of
documents, letters, gospels grew up. They espoused, and
could be used to advance a variety of viewpoints. The
nascent Church winnowed many of them out, and arrived at a
standard set - the canon of 27 "books". Henceforth these
were to constitute the New Testament. The Church of course
had a rationalization for what it was doing: we are not
anointing these documents with authority, the authorities
said, we are merely recognizing the authority which already
inheres in the documents.
Scholars agree that in fact this process of winnowing some
books and anointing others was an altogether human
endeavour. Indeed it was a corporate endeavour - in the
sense of being the endeavour of a corporation committed to
17Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, op. cit., p. 64.

enlarging its market-presence, an endeavour guided by what

scholars characterize as “the vital interests of the Church."
"One important historical aspect is the perception of the
canon of scripture: the canon came about historically and can
be understood historically..," The Oxford Companion says.
"The boundaries of scripture are not something eternally and
unchangeably established by God;what scripture included at
one time and place was not identical with what it included at
another; the study of scripture and the study of church history
are not separable. "l8 And then follows a typical salvage
effort - One to which we shall return in a moment.
As usual, the Church was quick to find "theological"
support for what it had selected as scripture! The original
dogma had been that the Spirit had worked through Jesus.
After Jesus died and rose, the dogma becanme that he was a
living presence who was still guiding his disciples - and on
this premise sayings and stories got to be put about. Soon, the
doctrine was advanced that the Church was the new body of
Christ. From this it was but a step to the assertion that the
Spiritwas now working through the Church - hence the claim
that in rejecting several documents of equal authenticity and
antiquity and canonizing the 27 the Church had been
divinely-guided! And therefore the 27 had been selected by
God Himself.
At every step the overriding touchstone was what the
incident or saying would entail for the interests of the new
faith. In practice this soon came to mean the interests of the
Church. Scholars acknowledge this time and again. "Because
of the theological motifs and presuppositions in the faith of
the early church in respect to Jesus," the Macropaedia says,
"it is difficult to write with certainty an authentic life of Jesus,"
that "with regard to the Gospels, it has to be considered that
their tradition was formed and collected from the point of
view of tbe faitb of thepost-Easter church, under the influence
I8The Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. cit., pp. 320-21.

All to a predetermined purpose 217
of its ideas and ways of thoughbt and in close connection with

its vital interests and the ways in wbich its life found
expression...""19 Both the varying traditions of Jesus' birth, it
says, "are to be judged as legendary variations of the
theological theme of Jesus' messiabsbip..." "The loose and
often differing order of the individual scenes only entitles
scholars to speak of a rather ambiguous Galilean period of
Jesus' activity...," it says. "Each of these datings [of the final
supperl, it says, "may be theologically motivated." "The
historical reliability of this account [of the trial of Jesus at the
hands of the Jewsl has rightly been questioned.." It says
there is no need to list other scenes of the Passion as they
relate more to the theological meaning ofJesus' Passion and
are, to a large measure, formed in an edifying cultic
manner," adding, "even though they refer to events which
are certainly historical..." - that last qualifying clause stands
as a self-evident truth in need of no proof...20
"The historical reliability of the Gospels has been variously
estimated," say the authors of The New Universal Library
entry, "but they bear witness to the tradition of the deeds and
words of Jesus which, bowever, was banded down less forits
bistorical interest tban as the basis of the Christian
proclamation of
Jesus as the Redeemer. The records of Jesus
were interpreted records, so that the recovery of a Jesus of
history' free from all dogmatic interests is impossible. This
does not mean that there was no Jesus of history, but that the
real Jesus of history cannot be understood apart from the
beliefs about him in the interests of wbicb the Gospels were
written. It is scarcely possible to abstract from the Gospels a
connected narrative of the life and ministry of Jesus... »21
"The evangelists, in their use of sources and oral
traditions," TheOxford Companion informs us, "shaped tbem
according to their theological interests; this editorial work is
19Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Vol. XXII, p. 336.
20 Tbid.,
Volume XXIl, pp. 336-46.
21 The New Untversal Library, Caxton, London, Volume VIl, p. 478.
known as redaction.."22 Again, "The birth stories in Matthew

and Luke are relatively late...But they contain certain items
that go back to earlier tradition. Some of these are clearly
theological: Davidic descent, conception through the Holy
Spirit while his mother remained a virgin, homage at
birth..."25 And again, "The purpose of the trip linto
Jerusalem] is stated in Mark's three passion predictions
(8.31; 9.31; 10.33-34). It is generally agreed that these
predictions in their present form are prophecies after the
event and therefore reflect a knowledge of the passion story...
But they may well contain an authentic nucleus.. "24 And yet
again, "Critical scholarship regards the predictions by Jesus of
his own resurrection (Mark 8.31;etc.) as creations of tbe post
Easter community after the event..."25 And so orn.
We can now get one answer to the question Gandhiji used
to ask of the missionaries. Why do you target the illiterate
tribal? Why don't you start with me and Mahadev Desai?, he
would ask them. That question is turned around by the
missionaries, and their apologists today: you studied in a
college run by a Christian organization, did anyone try to
convert you', they demand. The reason they did not target
Gandhiji is that he would have immediately sought answers
to the sort of questions that spring to mind from even a
moment's study of the Bible. That reason is reinforced ten
times today: once he starts seriously contemplating so
fundamental a change as giving up the religion into which he
was born, even a person who has received no more than
an average education will come across these difficulties in
the Gospels, etC., he will seek answers, and the project of our
missionaries will be impeded. How much more convenient
to target the innocent tribal!
We can also now see what the basic, foundational
deception has been in all missionary effort: they have kept
22The Oxford Conpanion to the Bible, op. cit., p. 356.

231bid., p. 356. 24 Tbid., p.
359. 25 1bid., p. 647.
All to a predetermined purpose 219
their targeted population entirely in the dark about the results

of three hundred years of discourse on the Bible and related
matters in Europe and America.
Everyone is so firm about requiring "truth in advertising"
in regard to cigarettes. Shouldn't we require some of it in
missionary activity too?
Their Almighty improvement
Over oUr Gods
16
"I, the Sovereign Lord, Almighty"
"The Hindus are mired in superstition and primitive

beliefs. They live in terror of their 330million gods, cajoling
and satiating them. The country is a veritable den of Satan,
a perfect example of what Satan does to a people...."
Missionary literature is full of such statements. As are the
writings of missionary-scholars like Max Muller.!
Apart from asserting that the worship of numerous gods is
symptom of primitive beliefs, of retarded spiritual evolution,
for five hundred years missionaries and committed scholars
have heaped calumny on those Gods – they are sinful, they
are given to licentious conduct, anyone worshipping such
gods cannot but imbibe their predisposition to sin, sex, liquor,
and the rest.
By contrast, they have presented their belief in one God -
monotheism - as the theological breakthrough sans peer. He
is One; He is powerful while your gods are powerless; He
is pure while your gods are given to drink, deceit, sexual
immorality - these were the staples of missionary
publications till the mid-fifties. Since then the calumny is put
out surreptitiously - to tribals, to the illiterate.
What is the God we find in the Bible? What is so great about
His being conceived to be One? What are His concerns? What
does He want of His devotees? How does He want them to
look upon those of other faiths? Does He display the virtues
For examples from their essays, see my Missionaries in India,

Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas, ASA, 1994, HarperCollins, 1997, pp. 133-60.
in which missionaries dress Christianity - humility, tolerance,

forgiveness, compassion, equanimity?
Large-bearted? 2
"1,the Sovereign Lord, Almighty," that is His unvarying
description of Himself. "1, the Almighty Lord have spoken,"
that is how He concludes His innumerable curses.
Moses, God's chosen prophet, warns his fellow-Israelites,
..When the Lord brings you into this land and you have all you want
to eat, makecertain that you do not forget the Lord who rescuedyou
from Egypt, where you were slaves. Honour the Lord your God,
worship only Him, and make your promises in His name alone. Do
not worship other gods, any of the gods of people around you. Ifyou
do worsbip otbergods, the Lord's anger will come against you like
fire and will destroy you completely, because the Lord your God,
wbois present with you, tolerates no rivals3
Joshua, another of God's chosen prophets, warns the people

to the same effect,
But youmay not be able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God and will
not forgive your sins. He will tolerate no rivals, and ifyou leave Him
to serve other gods, He will turn against you and punish you. He will
destroy you, even though He was good to you before.
The people assure Joshua, "No, we will serve the Lord."

Joshua alerts them yet again, You are your OWn witnesses
2For the convenience of the reader citations from the OldTestament are
in
current English. For this I have used the Good News Bible, Today's English
Version, American Bible Society, published by the Bible Society
of India,
Bangalore. Some of the incidents, occasionally a passage also comes up
for
reference more than once - as it exemplifies different aspects of the matter
under discussion. Before he concludes that the citations are repetitious, the
reader nmay recall that it is the Bible which goes round and round the same
sort of incidents.
BDeuteronomy, 6.10-15.
"1, the Sovereign Lord, Almigbty" 225
to the fact that you have chosen to serve the Lord." Yes",
they say, "we are witnesses". Upon which the prophet
COmmands,
Then get rid of those foreign gods that you have, and pledge your
loyalty to the Lord, the God of Israel,4
Job is lacerated with suffering upon suffering that God has

heaped on him. His wail has resounded down the millennia.
Who are you to question My wisdom with your ignorant,
empty words?," God demands. You have no right to do so, He
tells this poor and good man, for Iam more powerful than
you are, for you do not know what I know, for all creatures
obey Me and not you.
"I am the Lord: there is no other god," He tells those He has
chosen to be His people. "I will give you the strength you
need, although you do not know Me," He tells them. And
why, pray does He decide to give them this strength? I do
this," He declares, "so that every one from one end of the
world to theother may know that I am the Lord and that there
is no otber god" "Turn to Me now and be saved, people all
over the world," He admonishes. "I am the only God there
is.." "Every one will come and kneel before Me, and vow to
be loyal toMe," He declares. "They will say that only through
Me are victory and strength to be found," He declares, and
adds the warning, "but all who hate Me willsuffer disgrace."
"With whom can you compare Me?," He demands. "Is
there anyone else like Me?" “Remember this, you sinners,"
He tells the ones He has chosen, "consider what I have done.
Remember what happened long ago; acknowledge that
I alone am God and that there is no one else like Me..."o
"Who can be compared to Me?" He boasts. "Who would
dare challenge Me?" What ruler could oppose Me?7 "Who
4Joshua, 24.19-23. Job, 38-41.

6Isaiah, 45. 5-6, 22-24; 46.5,9. "Jereniah, 49.19.
can be compared to Me?," He demands again, lest anyone
has missed the boast, "Who would dare challenge Me," "What
ruler could oppose Me?"8
Is that merely the truth? Or is it a boast born of exclusivity?
His singular concern

He has just one concern. Indeed, it is His singular
obsession: that every one acknowledge that He alone is
powerful, that He is the only God there is, that every one
-
bow to Him but to Him alone, that every one makes
offerings to Him, that every one sacrifices animals to Him
but to Him alone, that every one obey Him - but Him alone.
Having created this infinite universe, Thomas Paine asked,
why is He so obsessed with whether this puny man on this
puny earth in this one little galaxy out of the infinite number
of galaxies that He has created, is or is not worshipping Him
and Him alone? Two thousand years have gone by, the
Church is yet to tell us why.
In any event, that remains God's singular fixation.
"Do not make idols or set up statues, stone pillars, or
carved stones to worship," He warns His chosen people. "I
am the Lord your God. Keep the religious festivals and
honour the place where I am worshipped. I anm the Lord." If
you fail to do so, "I will bring disaster on you incurable
diseases and feversthat will make youblind and cause your
life to waste away.." your crops will fail, I will have the
enemies youhate conquer you...If after this youstill persist
in not obeying Me, I will multiply the punishments seven
times... And then seven times... And then seven times....
And then seven times.... that is, 2,401 times.
"I will destroy your places of worship on the hills," the
compassionate, forgiving Father says, "tear down your
eremiab, 50.44.
"4, the Souereign Lord, Almigbty" 227
incense-altars, and throw your dead bodies on your fallen

idols. In utter disgust I will turn your cities into ruins, destroy
your places of worship, and refuse to accept your sacrifices. I
will destroy your land so completely that the enemies who
occupy it will be shocked at the destruction... "9
"Never forget the Lord your God or turn to other gods to
worship and serve them," Moses warns the chosen people.
"If you do, then Iwarn you today that you will certainly be
destroyed. If you do not obey the Lord, then you will be
destroyed just like those nations that He is going to destroy as
you advance. »10 Worship Him, God's prophet tells the
people, do all that He commands, love Him, serve Him with
all your heart, obey all His laws. Worship Him alone, he tells
them, be faithful to Him, make your promises in His name
alone, praise Him.!1 “Do not let yourselves be led away from
the Lord to worship and serve other gods," he warns. "If you
do, the Lord will become angry with you. He will hold back
the rain... Then you will die there..."12
Today I am giving you the choice between a blessing and
a curse," God's chosen prophet tells the people God has set
on the path of conquest of non-believers. "A blessing, if you
obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving
you today; but a curse, if you disobey these commands and
turn away to worship other gods that you have never
worshipped before."13
If you obey Him, you will become greater than every other
nation in the world, your barns will be full, the Lord will give
you many children, many cattle. But if you disobey Hlim and
worship other gods, evil upon evil will descend on you. The
Lord will curse your towns and your fields.. He will bring
on you disaster, confusion, trouble, until you are swiftly and
completely destroyed. He will bring disease upon disease on
°Leviticus, 26.1-2, 14-35. 10Deuteronomy, 8.20.
1"Deuteronomy, 10.20-21. 1Deuteronomy, 11. 16-17.
13 Deuteronomy, 11.26-28.
you till there is not one of you left in the land you are about to
occupy.... infectious diseases with swelling and fever....
Disasters, no rain.. The Lord will give your enemies victory
over you...When they killyou, no one will come to scare the
birds and wild animals that will be eating your bodies.... The
Lord will send boils on you.... He will make your bodies
break out with sores, your bodies will be covered with scabs
and itch.... The Lord will make you lose your mind....
Blindness... Your livestock will be butchered before your
eyes.... Your sons and daughters will be given as slaves to
foreigners while you look on... Incurable, painful sores,
boils will cover you from head to foot..Your crops will fail,
your trees will be devoured by insects... your land will be
taken from you.... These disasters will be evidence of God's
judgment on you and your descendants for ever... Hunger,
thirst, nakedness... God willsend a nation to swOop down on
you like an eagle. They will be ruthless and show no mercy
to anyone, young or old...When your enemies are besieging
your towns, you will become so desperate for food that you
will even eat the children the Lord has given you.. you will
all eat your own children... the mother will secretly eat her
new-born child, such will be the hunger the Lord will
inflict...Incurable diseases and horrible epidemics...And all
because you failed to obey Him, and because you failed to
honour the wonderful and awesome name of the Lord..14
Though He has been so good to them as to have chosen
them as His own, the people repeatedly revert to other gods.
The Lord God does not wean them back –after all, that would
be the easiest thing for Him to do: He is All-powerful, is He
not? On the contrary, He orders His prophet, Isaiah, “Make
the minds of these people dull, their ears deaf, and their eyes
blind, so that they cannot see or hear or understand." And
why not? "If they did", this benevolent Father explains, "they
might turn to Me and be healed."
I4Deuieronomy, 28.1-68.
", the Sovereign Lord, Almigbty" 229
"How long will it be like this, Lord?," his alarmed prophet
Isaiah asks. And the Lord declares,
Until the cities are ruined and empty - until the houses are
uninhabited- until the land itself is a desolate waste. I will send the
people far away and make the whole land desolate. Even if one
person out of ten remains in the land, he too will be destroyed; he will
be like the stump of an oak-tree that has been cut down..15
Hence, His unvarying rule: "Now, let us settle the matter.

You are stained red with sin, but I will wash you clean as
Snow. Although your stains are deep red, you will be white as
wool." But only on one condition, says this forgiving,
understanding Father: "If you will only obey Me, you will eat
all the good things the land produces. But if you defy Me, you
are doomed to die. I, the Lord, have spoken."l6 And what is
the essential point on which every one must obey Him? That
they honour Him alone, that they set up no rival to Him.
Again and again, and yet again He punishes the people He
has chosen to be His own. Again and again they revert to
honouring other gods, to worshipping idols. They seek
protection from entities other than the Lord who has declared
Himself to be the only God. They conclude treaties with
persons harbouring other beliefs without asking Him. They
follow plans without checking with Him."" He sends other
nations to punish the people He has chosen as His own. They
wreak indescribable devastation. But, having carried out His
command and punished His chosen people, these other
nations revert to worshipping their traditional gods. He is
enraged. He roars:
Now I will act. I will show how powerful I am. You make worthless
a
plans and everything you do is useless. My spirit is like fire that will
destroy you. You will crumbe like rocks burnt to make lime, like
15Isaiab, 6.10-13. 16saiab, 1.18.

17For instance, the people of Judah: Isaiah, 30.
thorns burnt to ashes. Let every one near and far hear what I have
done and acknowledge my power.'18
His prophet amplifies God's announcement:
....The Lord is angry with all the nations and all their armies. He has
condemned them to destruction. Their corpses willnot be buried, but
will lie there rotting and stinking; and the mountains will be red with
blood. The sun, moon, and stars will crumble to dust. The sky will
disappear like a scroll being rolled up, and the stars will fall like leaves
dropping from a vine or a fig-tree.
The Lord has prepared His sword... His sword will be covered with
blood and fat, like the blood and fat of lambs and goats that are
sacrificed. The Lord will offer this sacrifice in the city of Bozrab; He
will make this a great slaughter in the land of Edom. The people will
falllike wild oxen and young bulls, and the earth will be red with
blood covered with fat.
...The whole country will burn like tar..The land will lie waste age
after age.... Vultures will gather there, one after another.... 19
All this suffering heaped on all nations, why? Because they

acknowledged someone else! Allthis suffering heaped on all
humanity, to what purpose? So that all will know My power!
Time passes. The Almighty God has now chosen the
young Jeremiah as His new emissary to convey His message
to His people. Go and tell them, God commands Jeremiah,
that "I will punish my people because they have sinned; they
have abandoned Me, have offered sacrifices to other gods,
and have made idols and worshipped them..." Jeremiah is
reluctant: "Sovereign Lord, I don't know how to speak; I am
too young," he pleads. I am afraid, he pleads. To no avail.
And so he goes and repeats the words God has asked him
to recite. He repeats God's words verbatim.
What accusation did your ancestors bring against Me?,"
God asks His people. "What made them turn away from Me?"
- His perennial obsession. "They worshipped wothless idols
18saiab, 33.10-13. 19Isaiab, 34.1-15.
"1, the Souereign Lord, Almigbty" 231
and became worthless themselves" – His perennial charge.

*They did not care about Me, even though I rescued them
from Egypt and led them through the wilderness..." - His
perennial lament.
"No other nation has ever changed its gods, even though
they were not real," He charges. "But My people have
exchanged Me, the God who has brought them honour, for
gods that can do nothing for them. And so I command the sky
to shake with horror, to be amazed and astonished...."
Notice that nothing but nothing happens except by His
will. Notice that there is absolutely nothing which He cannot
set right immediately and directly - after all, He is All
powerful. And now consider His answer to the question: who
bears the guilt for His chosen people deserting Him?
"Israel, you brought this on yourself," He thunders. "You
deserted Me, the Lord your God, while I was leading you
along the way... Your own evil will punish you, and your
turning from Me willcondemn you. Youwill learn how bitter
and wrong it is to abandon Me, the Lord your God, and no
longer to remain loyal to Me. I, the Sovereign Lord have
spoken." What is His concern? How does He reconcile the
fact that the very people He has chosen repeatedly desert
Him with it being well within His power to bring about
whatever change He desires - in people's minds as much as
in any situation? You have "abandoned Me". you have
"turned from Me" are these the words of an All-powerful,
Sovereign Lord, or of a self-pitying weakling?
He repeats the grouse again and again: ... long ago you
rejected My authority," He charges, "you refused to obey Me
and worship Me..."20
Helpless, tormented, the people God has chosen as His
OWn turn to Egypt for succour. This sends God into even
greater fury. He now turns on the king of Egypt, on every one
there, on the land itself. And what is that man's crime? One,
20For the foregoing, Jeremiab, 1.6, 16-17; 2.4-6, 11-12, 17, 19-20.
of course, that God's chosen people, having been driven to

death by the sufferings He has hurled at them, have turned to
this king !But they have turned to him, not because the king
has lured them, but because God has driven them. Second,
the Lord God tells His prophet Ezekiel to tell the king on His
behalf, "Iam your enemy, you monster crocodile, lying in the
river. You say that the Nile is yours and that you made it. I am
going to put a hook through your jaw...." The whole land of
Egypt will be laid to waste...
To what purpose? "Then all the people of Egypt will know
Iam the Lord," the Lord God explains. Iwill scatter them all
over. To what purpose? "Then they will know I am the Lord,"
He explains yet again. Then Iwill send the people and king
of Babylon to crush the king and people of Egypt. They will
do so with infinite cruelty.To what purpose? *When I punish
Egypt in this way," the Lord God explains, “they will know
that I am the Lord."
And this humbling and suffering inflicted upon the king
and people of Egypt will teach God's chosen people too
they will see what a weak stick it was that they turned to for
help. To what purpose? "Then you [the chosen people will
know that I am the Lord..."21
So many countless persons put to such extreme suffering
just so thatthey know who is the Lord!
I took Israel as My wife, God says. But
she has betrayed
Me, He wails, and, like a prostitute, taken in every
passing
god as her lover, specially Baal. Therefore, God declares,
My children, plead with your mother- though she is no longer a wife
to Me, and Iam no longer her husband. Plead with her to stop
her
adultery and prostitution. If she does not, I will strip her as naked as
she was on the day she was born. I will make her a dry and barren
land, and she will die of thirst. I will not show mercy to her children;
they are the children of a shameless prostitute. She herself said, 'I will
21
Ezekiel, 29, 30.
"I, the Sorereign Lord, Alnighty" 233
gOtomy lovers -they will give me food and water, wool and linen,
olive-oil and wine.'
SoI am going to fence her inwitlh tlan-bushes, and build awall to
block her way....
She would never acknowledge that I an the one who gave lher the
Con, the wine, the olive-oil, and all the silverand gold that she used in
the worship of Baal. So at harvest time I will uke back My gifts... Iwill
strip her naked in front of her lovers, and no one will be able to save
Iher from My powver....
So Iam going to take her into the desert again; there Iwill win her
back witlh words of love. Iwill give back to her the vineyards she had
and make Trouble Valley a door of hope. She will respond to Me
there as she did when she was young, when she canne from Egypt.
Then once again she will call Me her husband-she will no longer call
Me lher Baal. I will neverlet her speak tlhe name Baal again....22
of
But He rages on. "They have left Me," Hesays of His people.
"Like a voman who becomes a prostitute, they have given
themselves to other gods...."23 «There is no faithfulness or
love in the land," He declares, "and the people do not
acknowledge Me as God.." He lists the wrongs they do, the
people He has chosen as His own, people vho are under His
guidance at every turn, people to whom He is sending
prophets one after the other... "My people are doomed," He
says, "because they do not acknowledge Me..." They have
become prostitutes - taking in other gods as lovers.. They
are under the spell of idols..24
And so, I will myself attack them like a lion, He declares.
"I myself will tear them to pieces and then leave thenm. When
I drag them off, no one will be alble to save them. I vill
abandon My people until they have suffered enough for their
sins and come looking for Me. Perhaps in their suffering they
will try to find Me, "25
Who is to blame? As usual, theother party! I am always
eager to help them, but look at them, says the Lord God.
22Hosea, 2.2-17. 23Hosea, 4.12.
ZiHosea, 4.1, 6, 12, 17. 25Hosea, 5.14-15.
234 HarvestingOur Souls
My people have defiled themselves by worshipping idols,

He says. So much so that "Whenever I want to heal My
people Israel and make them prosperous again, all Ican see
is their wickedness and the evil they do. They cheat one
another; they break into houses and steal; they rob people in
the streets. It never enters their heads that I will remember all
this evil; but their sins surround them, and I cannot avoid
seeing them."
"In spite of everything that has happened," the Sovereign
Lord God laments, "they have not returned to Me, the Lord
their God.." And so, "They are doomed! They have left Me
and rebelled against Me. They will be destroyed. I wanted to
save them, but their worship of Me was false..Even though
Iwas the One who brought them up and made
them strong,
they plotted against Me. They keep on turning against Me to a
god that is powerless. They are unreliable as a crooked
bow.. »26
What would you say of a father whose singular obsession is

that his children pay hin obeisance? Who punishes them so
Cruelly - just to remind them that he has the power to hurt
them?
The only arguments that work
At every turn, the people God has chosen, as much as the

people He has chosen to punish the chosen ones are
reverting to other gods, to idols. And so, at every tun, the
Lord God is swept into rage. He declares that He shall destroy
the people, that He shall let no mercy, no plea restrain His
hand.
His chosen people revert to other gods. He commands
that total destruction be visited upon them. He sets the
neighbouring nations to destroy His chosen people.
Devastation ensues. But these neighbouring people are no
26Hosea, 7.1-2, 10, 13-15.

", the Sovereign Lord, Almighty" 235
less prompt in reverting to their gods. He now pronounces

tbem to be wicked, ungrateful, and swvears to uproot them
completely. The chosen people now feel relieved they -
have been freed from the oppression that the neighbours had
heaped on them. But, nosooner is oppression lifted, they
forget the Lord God. God is again driven to fury: "These evil
people have refused to obey Me," He declares. "They have
been as stubborn and wicked as ever, and have worshipped
and served other gods... I did this (freed them from
oppression] so that they would be My people and would
bring praise and honour to My name; but they would not obey
Me "27
Hence, He vows to wreak total destruction once again,

adding, "No pity, compassion, or mercy will stop Me from
killing them. "28
"Even if Moses and Samuel were standing here pleading
with Me, I would not show these people any mercy," God
tells Jeremiah. "Make them go away; make them get out of
My sight. When they ask you where they should go, tell them
that I have said:
Some are doomed to die by disease

that's where they will go!
Others are doomed to die in war–
that'swhere they will go!
Some are doomed to die of starvation -
that's wlhere they vill go!
Others are doomed to be taken away as prisoners -
that's where they will go!
I,the Lord have decided that four terrible things will happen
to them: they will be killed in war; their bodies will be
cdragged off by dogs; birds will eat them, and wild animals
will devour what is left over...."
As usual, He reverts to recounting the sin for which He is
27Jeremiab, 12.8-11. 2Jeremiab, 12.14-17; 13.8-14.

punishing them. And to recounting the punishments He has

inflicted - Hedoes so always with pride at His great prowess
to wreak unbearable suffering, and simultancously with a
show of regret that He has been forced to inflict the havoc.
" You
people have rejected Me," He says, "you have turned
your backs on Me. So I stretched My hand and crushed you
because I was tired of controlling My anger." And so, My
hand forced,
In every town in the land

Itlhrew youto the wind like straw.
I destroyedyou, My people,
Ikilled your children
because youdid not stop your evilways.
There are more widows in your land
than grains of sand by the sea.
Ikilled your young men in their prime
and made their mothers suffer.
Isuddenly struck them with anguish and terror.
The mother who lost her seven children has fainted,
gasping for breath.
Her daylight has turned to darkness;
she is disgraced and sick at heart.
I will let your enemies kill
those of you who are stillalive.
I, the Lord have spoken.
Hewarns the prophet not to have any children in that land: "I
will tell you what is going to happen to the children whoare
born here and to their parents. They vill die of terrible
diseases, and no one will mourn for them or bury them. their
bodies willlie like piles of manure on the ground. They will
be killed in war or die of starvation, and their bodies will be
food for the birds and the wild animals." Allthis torment for
what crimne? "..because they have defiled My land with idols
that are as lifeless as corpses," the Lord God Almighty
explains, "and have filled it with their false gods, "29
Jereniah, 15.1-9; 16.1-4, 18.

,
the Sovereign Lord, Alnighty" 237
"Bring on your plagues, death!," He comnands. "Bring on

your destruction, world of the dead! I willno longer have pity
on this people. Even though [His chosen peoplel Israel
flourishes like weeds, I will send a hot east wind from the
desert, and it will dry up their springs and wells. It will take
away everything of value. Samaria must be punished for
rebelling against Me. Her people will die in war; babies will
be dashed to the ground, and pregnant women will be ripped
open... "30
Such is the reason which sends Him into fury. Such the
suffering He inflicts. Such His determination.
Is there no way to persuade Him to hold back His Wrath?
There is one way, and one alone: confess faith in Me, He says,
destroy those idols, erase other gods, humble yourselves
before Me.
You unfaithful lot, He says, "come back to Me. I am
merciful; Iwill not be angry with you forever. Only admit that
you are guilty and that you have rebelled against the Lord,
your God. Confess that under every green tree you have
given your love to foreign gods and that you have not obeyed
My commands. I, the Lord, have spoken." He tells His chosen
people, "if you want to tun, then turn back to Me. If you are
faithful to Me and remove the idols I hate, it wil be right for
you to swear by My name. Then all the nations will ask Me to
bless them, and they will praise Me."31 Notice the conditions
precedent: confess that you betrayed Me, destroy those idols,
forswear other gods. Notice the object of the exercise: "Then
all the nations will ask Me to bless them, and they will praise
Me."
And it is when, and only when the prophet and the people
concede that allthe guilt lies with them, that they are the ones
who turned their backs on God, that they did so even though
God had been so kind to them, even though He is so
compassionate and forgiving that the Lord God entertains
their pleas. Thus, having assured God, "Lord God, you are
30 Hosea, 13.14-16. 3l Jeremia,3.12-13; 4.1-2.

honour you. You are faithful to your covenant

great, and we
and show constant love to those who love you and do what
you command," Daniel appeals to God
We have sinned,wehave been evil, we have done wrong. Wehave

rejected what You commanded us to do and have turned away from
what You showed us was right. Wehave not listened to Your servants
the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings,our rulers, our
ancestors, and our whole nation. You, Lord, always do what is right,
but wehave always brought disgrace on ourselves.... Ourkings, our
rulers, and ourancestors have acted shamefully and acted against
You. You are mercifu! and forgiving, although we have rebelled
against You..Wesinned against You, and so You brought on us tlhe
curses that are written in the Law of Moses, Your servant. You did
what Yousaid You would to us and our rulers.... You, O Lord our God,
were prepared to punish us, and You did, because You always do
what is right, and we dicd not listen to You... We are praying to you
because You are merciful, not because we have done right. Lord,
listen tO us, and act. In order that every one will know that You are
God, do not delay. This city and these people are Yours,32
Those closing words, "In order that every one will know
that You are God, do not delay," suggest the one argument
that works, an argument that Moses uses to good effect.
As usual, God is in rage. "How much longer will these
people reject Me?," He roars at Moses. How much longer
will they refuse to trust in Me, even
though Ihave performed
so many miracles among them?" "I will send an epidemic and
destroy them," He declares, "but I will make you the father of
a nation that is larger and more powerful
than they are."
Moses lavishes praise on Him for all the good things He has
done to lift His chosen people. He reminds Him that many
nations have heard Him declare that these people are His
chosen ones. "Now if you kill all Your people," Moses
argues, "the nations wbo bave heard Your fame uvill say
tbat
32 Daniel, 9.4-19.
"I, the Souereign Lord, Ahwigbty" 239
You killed your people in the wilderness because You were

not able to bring them into the land You promised to give
them. So now Lord, Ipray, show us your pOwer and do what
You promised when You said, 'I, the Lord, am not easily
angered, and I show great iove and faithfulness and forgive
sin and rebellion. Yet I will not fail to punish children and
grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for the sins of
their parents.' And now, Lord, according to the greatness of
Your unchanging love, forgive, I pray, the sin of these
people, just as you have forgiven them ever since they left
Egypt."
Sure enough, God relents- He commutes the sentence, so
to say:
I willforgive them, as you have asked. But I promise as srely as I ive
and as surely as My presence fills the earth, none of these peopie will
ive to enter that land. They have seen the dazziing light of My
presence and the miraces I have performned in Egypt and in the
wilderness, but they have tried My patience over and over again and
have refused to obey Me. They will never enter the land which I
promised to their ancestors.... 33
In Deuteronony again, Moses recounts the grounds by

urging which he was able to have God relent. For forty days
and nights I lay with my face downwards in the Lord's
presence for I knew that He was determined to destroy
you, he tells the people who have once again taken to
Worshipping idols. You are the One who brought them out of
Egypt, I told Himn. Rememnber the prophets among them who
were so faithful to You, I told'Him, and do not pay attention
to the stubbornness, wickedness, and sin of this people.
Otherwise, the Egyptians will say that You were unable to
take Your people into the land that You had promised them.
They will say that You took Your people out into the desert to
33 Nunnbers, 14.11-12, 15-23.

kill them, because You hated them. After all, these are Your
people wbom You chose to be Yoùr own and whom You
brought out of Egypt by Your great power and might. "34
-
In a word, flattery plus one unfailing reason that if You
carry out the punishment, those who have heard of Your
promise willthink less of You.
3Deuteonomy, 9.25-29.
17
An extreme condition
It
isn't just that the Lord God of the Bible is enraged if you
Worship someone else. He flies into paroxySms if yOu so
much as praise anyone else. In His calculus, by praising
another you insult Him. An extreme ConditiOn, one that we
can scarcely believe would be the case, yet one that is
the
literal truth.
The Lord God has ordered Gideon to attack the enemy.
They re well-entrenched, in enormous numbers like a
Swarm of locusts," they have "as many camels as there are
grains of sand on the seashore." Gideon and his men hesitate
to hurl themselves at this mammoth opponent. But the Lord
God has a different consideration in mind. "The men you
have are too many for Me to give them victory over the
Midianites," He tells Gideon. How come? "They might think
that they had won by themselves, " God says, "and so give Me
n0 credit. "Therefore, the Lord God commands: tell them that
those vhowant to return home can do So, that way fewer will
be left. Gideon proffers the option. Twenty-two thousand
leave. Ten thousand are left. Still too many, says the Lord. He
prescribes another test: take them to drink water; those who
get down on their knees to drink it, the Lord says, should be
sent back, and only the three hundred who scooped up in
it
their hands and lapped it should remain.
The number is now so small that the victory, should it
follow, cannot but be attributed to God. God in turn ensures it
by makingthe enemy troops attack cach other.
Judges, 7.
The Lord God curses the people, Later He intervenes to

save them from being totally annihilated. His motive? It is the
same one, this time in reverse: He saves His chosen ones lest
the enemies are able to boast that they have destroyed the
former! "With their idols they have made Me angry, " God
declares, "jealous with their so-called gods, gods that are
really not gods..." Therefore, He hurls His curses upon them:
So I will use a so-called nation to mnake them angry;

Iwill make them jealous witha nation of fools.
My anger will flame up like fire
and burn everything on earth.
It will reach the world below
and consume the roots of the mountains.
Iwill bring on them endless disasters
and use all My arrows against them.
They will die from hunger and fever;
they willdie from terrible diseases.
Iwill send wild animals to attack them,
and poisonous snakes to bite them.
Warwill bring death in the streets;
terrors will strike in the homes
Young men and young wonmen will die;
neither babies nor old men will be spared.
"Iwould have destroyed them completely," God says. "But I

could not let their enemies boast that they bad defeated My
people, when it was I Myself wbo had crushed them.."2
In rescuing them at the penultimate moment too, God's
purpose is the same: to drill into the people that He is the
powerful One, and not those other gods:
The Lord will rescue His people
wlhen He sees that their strength is gone.
He will have mercy on those who serve Him,
When He sees how helpless they are.
Then the Lord will ask His people,
Where are those mighty gods you trusted?
Deiuteronomy, 32.21-27.
An extreme condition 243
You fed them with the fat of your sacrifices
and offered them vine to drink.
Let thenm come and help you now;
let them run to your resCUe.
I, and I alone, anm God;
No other god is real.
Ikill andI give life, I wound
andI heal,
and no one can oppose what I do...3
God has chosen Eli and his successors to be priests at the

Tent of His presence. Eli is by now very old. His sons keep
sinning: "....they were even sleeping with the women who
Worked at the entrance to the Tent of the Lord's presence,
Eli keeps being told. He warns his sons, he pleads with them.
"Stop it, my sons," he tells them. "This is an awful thing the
people of the Lord are talking about. If a man sins against
another man,God can defend him; but who can defend a man
who sins against the Lord?"
To noavail. How come? "But they would not listen to their
father," the Bible tells us, for the Lord bad decided to kill
them. " Notice: God is the one wbo bas decided to kill them,
but the suffering will fall on the poor and aged Eli, and of
Course his sons.
And why is the Lord God so upset? I made you and your
sons priests, He tells Eli. I even gave you right to keep a
th
part of the sacrifices that are made in My honour, He reminds
Eli. "Why then do you look with greed at the sacrifices and
offerings which I require from My people?," He demands.
Why, Eli, do you honour your sons more than Me by letting
them fatten themselves on the best pats of all the sacrifices
My people offer to Me?" The creator of the entire universe, of
an infinite number of galaxies, of infinite space, of infinite
time, so bothered over the best parts of an animal which has
been killed in some tent at some speck on this speck of an
earth!
Ihad promised in the past that you and your family will be
3Deuteronomy, 32.36-39.
My priests forever. "But now Isay, I,won 't have it any longer.
Instead, I willhonour those who honour Me, and I will treat
with contempt those who despise Me." "Listen", He declares
to this helpless,aged, faithful man, "the time is coming when
Iwill kill all the young men in your family and your clan, so
that no man in your amily will live to be old. You will be
troubled and look with envy on all the blessings I will give to
the other people of Isracl, but no one in your family will ever
again live to old age..." Your two sons will die on the same
day, He announces. But to what purpose? "Tbis will show you
that everytbing I have said will come true, says the Lord
God.4
The sin of Eliis that, in God's reckoning, he "honours" his
Sons more than God. The evidence for this is that he allows
them to take the best parts of the sacrifices that are made for
God. God decides to kill them, and, therefore, the sons
persist in sin. Godextermninates not just the two of them, He
exterminates every man of Eli's family in his youth. Why? So
as to establish that everything He says comes true! The
offence, the evidence, the responsibility for the sons
persisting in sin, the punishment meted out not just to those
two but to every man – born and unborm - in the family, the
purpose of all this cruelty.
At last after twenty years unremitting labour, the Temple is
complete. King Solomon and the people offer sacrifices to
the Lord God. Solomon sacrifices 22,000 head of cattle and
120,000 sheep as "fellowship-offerings". The Lord hears
Solomon's prayer, He appears to Solomon. He says, "!
consecrate this Temple which you have built as the place
where I shall be worshipped forever. Iwill watch over it and
protect it for all time" - in fact, it won't be long before He
once again takes offence, and the Temple comes to grief.
But, for the moment, notice the condition He lays down:
'1Samuel, 2.22-34.
An extrennecondition 245
fyon in bonesty and integrity, as your father David

will serve Me
did, and fyou obey My laus and do everything I have commanded
jou, Iwill keep the promise Imacle to your father David when I toli
him that Israelwill always be ruled by his cdescendants. But if'you or
yOur descendants stop follouing Me, if youdisobey the laus and
commAnds I bave given you, cAnd worship other gods, then I will
remove My people Israel from the land that Ibave given them. I will
also abandon this Temple... People everywhere will ridiculeIsrael
ancd treat her with contempt. This Temple willbecone a pile of ruins,
and every one who passes by will be shocked and amazed....
Why has the Lord done this, every one wll ask. People, He
forecasts, will answer,
It is
because they abandoned the Lord their God, who brought their
ancestorS (OUt of Egypt. They gavetheir allegiance to othergods and
worsbipped them. That is why the Lord has brought this disaster on
them.5
Even though God has Himself appeared to Solomon not once

but twice, even though on each visitation He has Himself told
Solomon never to worship anyone but Him, the inevitable
OcCUrS:
Solomon loved many foreign women. Besides the daughter of the

king of Egypt, he married Hitite women and women from Moab,
Ammon, Edom, and Sidon. He married them even though the Lord
had commanded the Israelites not to intermarry with these people,
because they would cause the Israelites to give their loyalty to other
gods. Solomon arried seven hundred princesses and also had three
hundred concubines. They made him tum away from God, and by
the time he was old they had led him into the worship offoreign gods.
He was not faithfulto the Lord his God..6
God flies into His accustomed rage, and hurls His customary
curses. He chooses a young official, Jeroboam, who is among
51 Kings, 9.1-9. 1 Kings, 11.1-11.

246 Ilarvesting Our Souls
those who are incensed at Solomon, and decides to hand himn

ten-twelfth of Solomon's kingdom. "I am going to do this
because Solomon has rejected Me and has worshipped
foreign gods," He announces. 7
Solomon tries to kill Jeroboam. Jeroboam escapes to Egypt.
Solomon dies. His son, Rehoboam, succeeds him. Jeroboam
returns. People rebel, Rehoboam is left with Judah alone,
Jeroboam becomes king of Israel.
But the usual sequence ensues. To tempt people from
going to Jerusalem, Jeroboam makes two bull-calves of gold,
and leads the people into venerating the idols. He builds an
altar for making sacrifices to the bull-calves. God is enraged.
He sends a prophet to announce His command:
altar, altar this is what the Lord says: 'A child, whose name will be
O
Josiah, will be born in the family of David. He will slaughter on you

tlhe priests serving at the pagan altars who offer sacrifices on you, and
he will burn human bones On you. 8
On the way back, the poor prophet, contrary to the Lord's

command, stops to have a meal with another prophet, and so
he too is cursed: for having disobeyed the Lord and eaten
here, the older prophet tells him, you shall be killed and your
body willnot be buried in your family grave.9
The curses now commence wreaking havoc on Jeroboam
and his family. His young son is stricken with a grave illness.
Jeroboam sends his wife to seek counsel from an old, blind
prophet. The prophet conveys the Lord's familiar litany - the
Lord recounts all that He has done for Jeroboam, how
Jeroboam has been unfaithful to Him, and hence the familiar
decision:
...Youhave committed far greater sins than those who ruled before
you. You lhave rejected Me and have aroused My anger by making
icdols and metal images to worship. Because of this I will bring disaster
on your dynasty and will kill all your male descendants, young and old
71Kings, 11.33. 81 Kings, 13.2-3. 91 Kings, 13.21-22.

An extrene condition 247
alike. I will get rid of your family; they will be swept away like dung.
Any members of your family who die in the city will be eaten by dogs,
and any who die intlhe open country will be eaten by vultures. I, the
Lord, have spoken. 10
The wife has but to enter the city, and the curses descend.
The son dies.... And, of course, the wrath of God falls not just
on Jeroboam and his family but on the people in general -
for
they had allowed themselves to be misled into worshipping
foreign gods and idols..
In Judah, vhich is under the rule of Solomon's son,
Rehoboam, the chosen people do worse! They too build
"places of worship for false gods, and put up stone pillars and
symbols of Asherah to worship on the hills and under shady
trees..."Worse, "there were men and women who served as
prostitutes at those pagan places of worship."" Ire, anger,
rage follow...
Rehoboam is succeeded by his son, Abijah. Alas!, "He
committed the same sins as his father and was not completely
loyal to the Lord his God..., " the Bible tells us. 12 He is
succeeded by Asa. He fares a bit better, doing "what pleased
the Lord." And what is this? "He removed his grandmother
Maacah from her position as queen mother, because she had
made an obscene idol of the fertility goddess Asherah. Asa
cut down the idol and burnt it.." Unfortunately, Asatoo falls
short of what is wanted: "he did not destroy all the pagan
places of worship...»13
Jeroboam's son, Nadab, becomes king of Israel. Alas!, "like
his father before him," the Bible tells us, "he sinned against
the Lord, and led Israel into sin...»14
And so Baasha plots against Nadab, overthrows him,
becomes king. And now a typical thing happens which we
shall encounter in greater detail soon.
Baasha becomes king. "At once he began killing all the
101Kings, 14.8-11. "1 Kings, 14.21-29. 127 Kings, 15.3.

131Kings, 15.13-14. 141Kings, 15.26.
members of Jeroboam's family," the Bible records. "In

accordance with wbat the Lord had'said through His servant,
the prophet Ahijah from Shiloh, all Jeroboam's family were
killed; not one survived. This happened because Jeroboam
aroused the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, by the sins
he committed and that he caused Israel to commit."15 But
Baasha also sins against the Lord, he too compels the Lord
to rage. And so God curses him also. "You were a nobody,"
God, always particular about all He has done for others,
reminds him, "But I made you the leader of My people..
And now you have sinned..and led My people to sin. Their
sins have aroused My anger, and so I will do away with you
and your family.. Any members of your family who die in
the city will be eaten by dogs, and any who die in the open
COuntry will be eaten by vultures. "16
The Bible explains that these punishments were decreed
on Baasha "because of the sins Baasha committed against the
Lord. He aroused the Lord's anger not only because of the
evil he did, just as King Jeroboam had done before him, but
also because be killed all jeroboam's family. " 17
Consider what is happening. The Lord God decrees that
because of the sins Jerobaom has committed against Him,
all of Jeroboam's family be killed. So, Baasha kills all of
Jeroboanm's family. And God decrees that all of Baasha's
family will be killed because he - Baasha - has killed all of
Jeroboam's family. But whatever Baasha did in this regard
was in strict obedience to the decree of God Himself!
"Do not pray for these people," the Lord tells Jeremiah.
"Do not cry or pray on their behalf; do not plead with Me,
for Iwill not listen." As usual, God is ina rage. Don't you see
what they are doing?, He demands of His chosen prophet.
"The children gather firewood, the men build fires, and the
women mix dough to bake cakes for the goddess they call the
Queen of Heaven. They also pour out wine-offerings to
151Kings, 15.27-30. 161Kings, 16.1-4. 171 Kings, 16.7.

other gods, in order to buit Me. But am Ireally the One they
are hurting? No, they are hurting themselves and bringing
shame on themselves. And so I, he Sovereign Lord, willpour
out my fierce anger on this Temple. I vill pour it out on the
people and animals alike, and even on the trees and crops.
My anger vill be like a fire that no onc can put out."1$
That motive which is read into innocent practices of the
people He has Himself decided are vorthy to be His chosen
people - that they honour other gods so as to burt Him! That
anger which in any other entity would be seen to be so
extreme asto be irrational, indeed pathological.
Ezekiel is now the chosen prophet. Enraged, God
has abandoned His chosen people to suffer. Ezekiel is
conversing with leaders from Judah. He has a fiery vision. It
is God. God has Ezekiel see what He says are the disgusting
things that are being done in the precincts of the Temple
itself.
At the north entrance is an idol "that was an outrage to
God." Inside, on the walls are "dravwings of snakes and other
unclean animals, and of other things" which the chosen
people are worshipping. Next, Ezekiel is shown seventy
leaders each of whom is worshipping images. And then
women whoare veeping over the death of the god Tammuz
-a god who was thought to die with the vegetation each year
and comne back to life the following year. He is also shown
people worshipping the rising sun...
The all-encompassing, compassionate, large-hearted,
magnanimous, God is convinced that the people are doing
these things with one purpose alone: to spite and enrage
Him! He roars at Ezekiel,
These people:are not satisfied with merely doing all the disgusting
things you have seen here and with spreading violence throughout
the country. No, they must come and do them here in the Temple
1HJerenih, 7.16-20.
itself and make Me even more angry. Look how they insult Me in the
most offensive way possible.
That being the case, the outcome is as familiar as it is certain:

*They will feel all the force of My anger," God declares. "I
will not spare them or show them any mercy. They will shout
prayers at Me as loud as they can, but I will not listen to
them "19
A little later, God recalls the many times He has in fact
desisted from inflicting the punishment that these chosen
people actually deserved. Notice the reasons that God
Himself gives for not inflicting punishment.
As usual, God recounts the favours He has done for the
people - how He brought them out of Egyp, how He had
chosen for them the finest land, etc. "I told them to throw
away the disgusting idols they loved," God says, "and not to
make themselves unclean with the false gods of Egypt,
because I am the Lord their God. But they defied Me, and
refused to listen. They did not throw away their disgusting
idols or give up the Egyptian gods."
"I was ready to let them feel the full force of My anger
there in Egypt," He tells Ezekiel. “But I did not, since tbat
would bave brougbt disbonour to My name, for in the
presence of the people among whom they were living I had
announced to Israel that I was going to lead them out of
Egypt."20 I brought them out into the desert, Godsays, "But
even in the desert they defied Me...." "I was ready to
make
them feel the force of My anger there in the desert, and
destroy them," He says. "But I did not, since that would have
brougbt disbonour to My name among the nations wbich bad
seen Me lead Israel out of Egypt."21
He let that generation be, God says, and instead warned
the next generation to respect Him and His decrees. But they
too defied Him. Again God was ready to kill them all, again
19 Ezekiel, 8.1-17. 20 Ezekiel, 20.7-9. 21 Ezekiel, 20.10-14.

252 Harvesting Ou Souls
you, "tben you will know that I am the Lord. "2 "Then you
will remember the disgusting things you did and how you
defiled yourselves. You will be disgusted with yourselves
because of all the evil things you did.. When I act to protect
My bonour, you Israelites will know that I am the Lord,
because I do not deal with you as your wicked, evil actions
deserve."»29
After round upon round of privation, death, epidemics,
wars, the people vill be brought back. The Lord God shows
Ezekiel His throne at the Temple. He tells Ezekiel how things
in the future will difer from the past: "..Neither the people
of Israel nor their kings willever again disgrace My name hy
worsbipping otber gods or by burying the corpses of their
kings in this place.."" He declares 30
Ezekiel is gone. Zephaniah is the chosen prophet. God
speaks to him. "I am going to destroy everything on earth, all
human beings and animals, birds and fish," He thunders. "I
will bring about the downfall of the wicked," He says leaving
some little hope for those who are not wicked. Only tO
Smother it in the very next sentence: "I will destroy all
mankind, and no survivors will be left. I, the Lord, have
spoken."31
As usual, He is particularlydetermined to pulverize His
chosen people. But why this time? God explains:
I willpunish the people of Jerusalem and of all Judalh. I will destroy
the last trace of the wOrship of Baal there, and no one will ever
rememlber the pagan priests who serve him. I willdestroy anyone
whogoes up on the roof and worships the sun, the moon, and the
stars. Iwill also destroy those who worship Me and swear loyalty to
Me,but then take oaths in the name of the god Molech. Iwill
destroy
those who have turned back and no longer follow Me, those wvlo do
not come to Me or ask Me to guide them2
2H
Ezekiel, 20.42. 20 Ezekiel, 20.44. 3
Ezekiel, 43.5-7.
3Zepbaniab, 1.2-3. 32 Zepbaniab, 1.4-6.
He held His hand, and for the same reason: "But I did not,
since that would bave brougbt disbonour to My name among
the nations wbich bad seen Me lead Israel out of Egypt. So I
made them another promise in the desert.... "22
Next, God says He deliberately misleads the very people He
bas chosen as His own, He deliberately lets them wallow in
tbings that disgust Him - so that He can punish them all the
more. He misleads them so that He may punish them. He
punishes them so that the pain will remind them that Hle is the
Lord their God:
Then Igave them laws that are notgood and commands that do not
bring life. I let them defile themselves with their own offeings, and
let them sacrifice their first-born sons. This was to punisb them and
showthem that I am the Lord23
What would you call a fathe, an ordinary, mortal father who
behaved like that towards his children? Does the same
behaviour become exalted because it is the doing of the Lord
God?
God again commands Ezekiel to remind people of these
ways by which their fathers "insulted Me by their
unfaithfulness."24 And to convey Hisdetermination topunish
them, and bring them to heel. "Then you will know that Iam
the Lord," He says.25 He both warns the people, and holds out
a promise -
the object of each of these contrary decrees
being to ensure that His own name is honoured. Please
yourselves, He tells the people. Go on serve your idols, He
taunts them. "But I warn you that after this you will have to
obey Me and stop disbon ouring My boly name by ofering
gifts toyour
idols. "26 Soon I will begin accepting the
sacrifices you burn "and the nations will see that I am
boly."27 And Iwill bring you back to the land I have promised
23 Ezekiel, 20.25-26.
22 Ezekiel, 20.18-23.
2^ Ezekiel, 20.27. 25Ezekiel, 20.37-38.
27
26 Ezekiel, 20.39. Ezekiel, 20.41.
forget tlhe lesson I taught them. But soon they vere behaving as
badly aS ever37
And that becomes the ground for inflicting another round of

merciless suffering – this time on all mankind:
just wait,wait for the day when I rise to accuse the nations. I have
made up my mind to gather nations and kingdoms, in order to let
them feel the force of My anger. The whole earth will be destroyed
by the fire of My fury.
Then I wil change the people ofthe nation...
In what way?
And they willpray to Me alone and not to other gods. Even from
distant Sudan My scattered people will bring offerings to Me...338
What a thing for which to wreck all mankind! What an
objective at which to aim!
$7Zephaniah, 3.6-7. 38Zepbaniab, 3.8-10.

An extrene conclition 253
Notice the reasons for the almighty anger, notice what God
hopes to achieve by the suffering He shall soon inflict.
Zephaniah warns the people, ".... The Lord is preparing to
sacrifice His people and has invited enemies to plunder
Judab.... "35 Notice who it is that is inviting the enemies to
plunder His chosen people, notice who it is that is inviting
them to come and ruin Jerusalem and Judah: it is the Lord God
Himself.
The kingsand armies of Moab, of Ammon, of Sudan, of
Assyria successively come and do so. Now God is furious at
tbem - for humbling His chosen people! "I have heard the
people of Moab and Ammon insulting and taunting My
people, and boasting that they would seize their land," He
thunders. "As surely as I am the living Lord, the God of Israel,
Iswear that Moab and Ammon are going to be destroyed like
Sodom and Gomorrah...that is how the people of Moab and
Ammon will be punished for their pride and arrogance and
for insulting the people of the Lord Almighty..."34
And then, "The Lord will also put the people of Sudan to
death.... "35
And then, "The Lord will use His power to destroy Assyria.
He will make the city of Nineveh a deserted ruin, awaterless
desert.. "36
Destroyed, pulverized, accursed.... For what? For carrying
out the command of the Lord Himself to inflict punishment on
His people!
All successively destroyed, pulverized, accursed... Alas!
to no avail. For soon God iscomplaining again,
I havewiped out whole nations; I have destroyed their cities and left
their walls and towers in ruins. The cities are deserted; the streets are
-
empty nO One is left. I thought that then My people would have
reverence for Me and accept My discipline, that they would never
33Zephaniah, 1.7. 3^Zephaniab, 2.8-9.

35Zepbaniab, 2.12. 36Zepbaniab, 2.13-15.
18
What the faithful must do

to the altars and idols of other religions
Three-quarters of the Bible revolves round a singular

sequence:
The Lord God chooses a people as His own;
He commands them to worship no one but Him, and
destroy the idols and temples of other people;
They promise to do so, but in fact repeatedly revert to
idols and altars of their original gods;
•
The Lord God brings down unspeakable suffering on
them;
Tortured, they once again promise to abide by His
command;
• He
relents, and turns to punishing those who had carried
out the punishment He had decreed;
These new nations whom He had set upon His people,
and the chosen people themselves revert to their
original Gods, idols and altars;
• And
the cycle begins again....
To describe the condition of the Almighty Lord God when He
sees idols as “fear" would besO gross an understatement that
it would amount to untruth. Even "panic" would not describe
the dread. The only word that comes close to depicting His
condition is "paranoia".
And throughout the Bible, the Lord God strives to pass this
paranoia on to His chosen people. "I, the Lord, am a God who
is full of compassion and pity, who is not easily angered
and who shows great love and faithfulness." He says in a
description that runs contrary to what He does throughout the
256 Harr esting Our Souls
Bible, "I keep My promise for thousands of generations and

forgive evil and sin;" only to add, "but I will not hesitate to
punish children and grand-children to the third and fourth
generation for the sins of their parents."
And what must they do to escape that fate? "Do not
worship any other god," the Lord God says, "because I, the
Lord, tolerate no rivals." That is of course familiar. Now see
what He counsels about how the faithful are to deal with
persons of other faiths:
Do not make any treaties with the people of the country, because
when they worship their pagan gods and sacrifice to them, they wil!
invite you to join them, and you will be tempted to eat the fod they
offer io their gods. Your sons might marry those foreign women, who
would lead them to be unfaithful to Me and to worship their pagan
gods..?
So, what should they do? "Instead, tear down their altars," the
Lord God commands. "Destroy their sacred pillarS, and cut
down the symbols of their goddess Asherah... Do not make
and worship gods of metal..."3
Scores and scores and scores of passages speak to the
same paranoia. Garnering them, and reflecting on the
condition they reveal, I leave to the reader - as an
inducement for him to wade through the Bible - the Book
having which is said to be one of the grounds for their
superiority.
Idols and altars being such a threat, what does the
Almighty, the Lord God command be done about them?
"In the land that you are taking," the Bible conmands,
"destroy all the places wbere tbe people worsbip their gods on
high mountains, on hills, and under green trees. Tear dovn
their altars and smasb their sacred stone pillars to pieces.
Burn their symbols of the goddess Asberah and chop down
Exodus, 34.5-7. Exodus, 34.14-16. BExodus, 34.13,17.

Wbat the faitbful must do
257
their idols, so that they svill never again be worshipped at
those places."4
All sorts may try to inveigle you into worshipping those
false gods, the Bible, the book which is presented to us as the
epitome of tolerance, varns. Be alert to them, and deal with
them in one way alone:
Even your brother or your son or your daughter or the wife you ove
or your closest friend may secretly encourage you to worship other
gods, gods that you and your ancestors have never worshipped. One
of you may encourage you to worship the gods of the people who
live near you or the gods of those who live faraway. But do not let
him persuade you; do not even listen to him. Show bim no niercy or
pity, and do not protect hin. Kill bim! Be tbe fist to stone bin,
and ibenlet every one else stone bin too. Stone bin to death !He
tried to lead you away from the Lord your God...
Nor is it sufficient to kill an individual:

When you are living in the towns that the Lord your God gives you,
you may hear that some worthless men of your nation have misled
the people of their town to worship gods that you have never
worshipped before. If you hear such a rumour, investigate it
thoroughly; and if it is true that this evil thing did happen, then kill all
the people in that town, and all their livestock too. Destroy that
iown conpletely. Bring togetber all tbe possessions of the people
wbo live tbere and pile then up in the toivn square. Tben biurn the
town and everything in it as an offering to the Lord your God. It
must be left in ruins for ever and never again be rebuilt...0
In dealing vith people of other faiths, God seeks o mould

His believers in His own image: He gives you a chance to
destroy all your native beliefs and accept Him as the one and
only God; if you take the chance, good; if you don't He lets
all hell loose on you. His command to the faitlhful is to do
likewise:
^Deuteronony, 12.2-3. SDeruteronomy, 13.6-1.
Deuteronon1y, 13.12-16.
When yOu go to attack a city, first give its people a chance to

surrender. If they open their gates and surrender, they are all to
become your slaves and do forced labour foryou. But if the people of
that city will not surrender, but choose to fight, surround it with your
army. Then, when the Lord your God lets you capture the city, kill
every man in it. You may, however, take for yourselves the
women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city.
You inay use everytbing that belongs to your enemies. The Lord
bas given it to you. That is how you are to deal with those cities that
are far away from the land you will settle in.?
Harsh? But that directive, it turns out, is one of the more

compassionate of His directives:
But when you capture cities in the land that the Lord your God is
giving you, kill every one. Completely destroy all the people tlhe
Hittites,the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and
the Jebusites, as the Lord ordered you todo. Kill tbem, so that they
will not make you sin against the Lord by teaching you to do all the
disgusting things that they do in the worship of their gods.8
As for the women, the compassionate Lord decrees a small

mercy:
When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take
prisoners, you may see among hem a beautiful woman you like and
want to marry. Take her to your home, where she will shave her
head, cut her fingernails, and change her clothes. She is to stay in your
home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may
marry her. Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let
her go free.
Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat
her asa slave and sell her.9
These are not academic discourses given by the Lord God

merely for the theoretical education of His devotees. By His
grace victory falls to His worshippers, and they visit His
command on their victims.
Deuteronomy, 20.10-15. BDeuteronomy, 20.16-18.
Deuteronomy, 21.10-14.
What the faitbful mustdo
259
Joshua the prophet. God sets out an elaborate plan:
is
priests are to circle the city for six days, trumpets are to be
blown, the climax is to be a piercing shout. As decreed by
Him, at the shout, the walls collapse. "With their swords they
killed evey one in the city, men and women, young and old,"
the Bible tells us in triumph. "They also killed the cattle,
sheep and donkeys.. Then they set fire and burnt it to the
ground, along with everything in it, except the things made
of gold, slver, bronze and iron which they took and put in the
Lord's treasury" - as literal a presaging as is possible for the
Ghaznavis and Ghauris! The plan implemented, Joshua issues
"a solemn warning":
Anyone who tries to rebuild the city of Jericho will be under the
Lord's curse.
Whoever lays the foundation will lose his eldest son;
Whoever builds the gates will lose his youngest. 10
The Lord God now orders him to advance on Ai. The place
and its king are captured. what does the prophet lead his
soldiers to do? The Bible describes it for us:
The Israelites killed every one of the enemy in the barren country
where they had chased them. Then they went back to Ai and killed
every one there. Joshua kept his spear pointed at Ai and did not put it
down until every person there had been killed. The wbole
population of Ai was killed that day - twelve thousand men and
women... Joshua burnt Ai and left it in ruins....He hanged the king of
Ai from a tree and left his body there until evening. At sunset Joshua
gave orders for the body tobe removed, and it was thrOWn down at
the entrance to the city gate.. 11
Next, this prophet, chosen of God, seized the Amorites. The

soldiers led by the prophet "slaughtered" their opponents.
The Lord God joined in, sending upon the latter "large
hailstones", and thereby Himself killed more than had been
10 Josbtua, 6.21, 24, 26. 1Josbua, 8.24-29.

killed by the soldiers. Joshua then had the five kings of the
Amorites brought out,and slaughterèd them himself.12
The Lord then granted Joshua and his men victory over
Makkedah, and Joshua "put every one in the city to death; n0
one was lefi alive. He did to the king of Makkedah what he
had done to the king of Jericho."3
And then the good Lord granted tlhem victory over Libnah.
And in turn Hischosen ones "spared no one, but killed every
person in it. They did to the king what they had done to the
king of Jericho."14
And then the good Lord gave them victory over Lachish.
"Just as they had done at Libnah, they spared no one, but
killed every person in the city.."15
And then with His blessing they surrounded Eglon. And,
what with the good Lord backing them, "They captured it the
same day and put every One there to death, just as they had
done at Lachish, »l6
And then Joshua led his men up the hills to Hebron. They
attacked it and captured it. And "They killed the king and
every one else in the city as well as in the nearby towns.
Joshua condemned the city to total destruction, just as he had
done to Eglon. No one in it was left alive."17
And on and on. "... Joshua captured the whole land.. He
spared no one; every one was put to death. Tbis is wbat the
Lord God of Israel had conmanded.."18
And then to Hazor. And there too Joshua killed the king,
and “tbey put every one lbere to deatb; 20 0ne tUas left alive,
and the city was burnt."19
How is all this to be reconciled with the image - of
tolerance, compassion, broad-mindedness - that Christian
missionaries would have us swallow? It is a real dilemma, If
they say, the accounts are not true, even if they maintain, like
1Josbiua, 10.7-27. 13Josbua, 10.28.
14Josbua, 10.29-30. 1
Josbua, 10.31-33.
1Jasbua, 10.34-35. 1Josbua, 10.36-38.
1Josbua, 10.40. PJosbua, 11.10-11.
Vbat the faitbful must do 261
the Islamic apologists do today, that the accounts are poetic

exaggerations, they have to forego the claim that every word
of the Bible is true because it is the Word of God. On the
other hand, if they own up to these accounts, they have to
forego their claim to tolerance, compassion and the rest.
As for responsibility, it isn't just tlhat Joshua was a prophet
of God, The Bible tells us emphatically that he was doing no
more than carrying out the commands of the Lord God:
Josbua captured all these cities and their kings, putting every one
to deatb, just as Moses, the Lord's servant, bad commanded... The
Lord bad given His comnands to His servant Moses, Moses bad
given then to Josbua, and Josbuaobeyed them. He did everytbing
that the Lord bad comnanded Moses.20
Not just that. The Lord God had a double-responsibility in the

outcome. It isn't just that what was done vas merely the
carrying out of His commands. He bad so arranged things that
the potential victinns would be stubborn, that they would put
themselves up to figbt the chosen of God, and thereby invite
their oun total destruction. With one exception, all the
peoples refused to accept the peace-terms that God's chosen
offered- in accordance with God's command these had to be
that they surrender absolutely, that they discard their gods
and accept the Lord God as their only god. Nor was their
refusal fortuitous, says the Bible,
Tbe Lord God bad made them determined to figbt the Israelites, so
that they would be condemned to total destruction and all be killed
witbout nercy. Tbis was wbat the Lord bud commanded Moses.21
God puts up the Midianites to punish His chosen people

for what He decides has been the latter's unfaithfulness.
They do so. He now puts up Gideon to punish the Midianites
for having acted according to His command. Gideon is
apprehensive. How can I do so? My clan is the weakest tribe
Josbua, 11.12, 14-15. 21 Joshua, 11.20.

in Manasseh, and Iam the least member of my family. Don't

worry, God tells Gideon, I will be backing you. Thereupon,
God starts giving detailed instructions to Gideon about what
he is to do.Among these is the command about what Gideon
is to do regarding the altar at which are venerated those twin
torments of God, the deities Baal and Asherah:
Take your father's bull and another bull seven years old, tear down
your father's altar to Baal, and cut down the symbol of the goddess
Asherah, which is beside it. Build a well-constructed altar to the Lord
your God on top of this mound. Then take the second bull and bum it
whole as an offering, using for firewood the symbol of Asherah you
have cut down.' So Gideon took ten of hisservants ancd did what the
Lord had told him. He was too afraid of his family and the people of
the town to do it by day, so he did it by night..22
That remains the pattern throughout. King Ahaziah has been

murdered. His mother orders that all members of the royal
family be killed. Only one child, Joash, is rescued by an aunt.
She hides him in the Temple for six years. Eventually she has
him crowned king by the priest. The people come and pay
him allegiance. The mother of Ahaziah rushes to the Temple.
The aunt has the mother dragged out of the Temple, and
killed at the Gate. "Then, says the Bible, "the people went to
the Temple of Baal and tore it down; they smashed the altars
and the idols, and killed Mattan, the priest of Baal, in front of
the altars..."23
How come the Allpowerful is so powerless?

But in spite of all the killings, the destruction of altars and
idols, the same sequence continues. Kings follow kings,most
of them revert to Baal and Asherah. Those who do not, it turns
out, become guilty of another sin: they destroy pagan places
of worship all right, but tbey do not destroy all of them, they
22judges, 6.14-16, 25-27. 232 Kings, 11.17.

Wbat the faitbful must do 263
do not destroy them completely. God, therefore, is compelled
to bring them to grief also!
Joash, that child who was hidden, rules Judah for forty
years. "Throughout his life", the Bible says, "he did what
pleased the Lord, because Jehoiada the priest instructed him.
However the pagan places of worsbip were not destroyed,
and the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense
there..."24 In the 23rd year of his reign, Jehoahaz becomes
king of Israel. “Like King Jeroboam before him he sinned
against the Lord and led Israel into sin; he never gave up his
evil ways...."25 He is succeeded by Jehoash. "He too sinned
against the Lord and followed the evil example of King
Jeroboamn, who had led Israel into sin.."26 In Judah Amaziah
becomes king. "He did what was pleasing to the Lord," the
Bible tells us, "but he was not like his ancestor King David;
instead hedid what his father Joash had done. He did not tear
down tbe pagan places of worsbip, and the people continued
to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.."27 In the 15th
year of the reign of Amaziah, another Jeroboam, the son of
Jehoash, becomes king of Israel. "He sinned against the
Lord," runs the fanniliar complaint of the Bible, "following the
wicked example of his predecessor King Jeroboam, son of
Nebat, who led Israel into sin... "28 In Judah, Uzziah becomes
king. He falls in the second category, for we learn from the
Bible, "Following the example of his father, he did what was
pleasing to the Lord. But the pagan places of worsbip were
not destroyed, and the people continued to offer sacrifices
and burn incense there." Accordingly, "The Lord struck
Uzziah with a dreaded skin-discase that stayed with him the
rest of his life. He lived in his house, relieved of all duties,
while his son Jotham governed the country...."> In the 39th
year of his reign, Menahim becomes king of Israel and rules
in Samaria for ten years. To a pattern, evidently, for we learn,
242 Kings, 12.2-3. 252 Kings, 13.2. 262 Kings, 13.11.

272 Kings, 14.3-4. 282 Kings, 14.23-24. 292 Kings, 15.3-5.
"Hesinned against the Lord, for until the day of his death he
followed the wicked example of`King Jeroboam, son of
Nebat, who led Israel into sin till the day of his death.."30 He
is succeeded by Pekhiah. Alas!, "He sinned against the Lord,
following the example of King Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who
led Israel into sin.. "31 He is succeeded by Pekah as king of
Israel, and "He sinned against the Lord, following the
example of King Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who led Israel into
sin.."32 Remember Jotham - the son who ruled as his father
was confined to his house because of the dreaded skin
disease? Well, he eventually becomes king of Judah, and
rules it for sixteen years. He is the one who built the North
Gate of the Temple. But the net result? "Following the
example of his father Uzziah, Jothamn did what was pleasing
to the Lord. But the pagan places of worsbip were not
destroyed, and the people continued to offer sacrifices and
burn incense there.... "55 And then Jotham's son, Ahaz
becomes king of Judah. He rules for sixteen years, but turns
outto be deliberately perverse: "He did not follow the good
example of his ancestor King David; instead he did what was
not pleasing to the Lord his God and followed the example of
the kings of Israel. He even sacrificed his own son as burnt
offering to idols, imitating the disgusting practice of people
whom the Lord had driven out of the land as the Israelites
advanced. At the pagan places of worship, on the hills, and
under every shady tree, Ahaz offered sacrifices and burnt
incense.."39 Hoshea becomes king of Israel, and rules in
Samaria for nine years. He turns out to be a bit of an
exception: "He sinned against the Lord, but not as much as
the kings who had ruled Israel before him... "35
The predictable happens:
Samaria fell because the Israelites sinned against the Lord their God...
They worshipped other gods, followed the customsof the people
302 Kings, 15.18. 32 Kings, 15.24. 322 Kings, 15.28.

3$2Kings, 15.34-35. 32 Kings, 16.1-4. 3$2Kings, 17.2.
Wbat the faithful must do 265
whom the Lord had driven out as His people advanced... They built
pagan places of worship in all their towns, from the smallest village to
the largest city. On all the hills and under every shady tree they put
up stone pillars and images of the goddess Aslherah, and they burnt
incense on all the pagan altars, following the practice of the people
whom the Lord had driven out of the land. They aroused the Lord's
anger with all their wicked deeds, and disobeyed the Lord's
command not to worship idols.30
This is the conduct of the people God has chosen as His own.
In the case of the kings, this is the conduct of ones who
otherwise do a lot to advance God's plan: several of them kill
thousands in God's cause. Most important, how come God -
the Almighty, the Al-powerful - is so ineffectual? And wby is
He so ineffectual? After all, as He is All-powerful, as nothing
happens except at His command, He must Himself be
making His chosen kings and people behave in so contrary a
fashion. If the mens rea be deduced from what He does as a
consequence, He must be setting them up to outrage Him so
that He may bring down the unspeakable cruelties that He in
fact sends down on them. What would you call a father who
so arranges things in regard to his children? Would you not call
him a sadist? And how is this kind of a God an improvement
over the trees and rivers, the sun and sea to which we Pagans
bow?
The positive examples
But the Bible is not full merely of negative examples.

Manasseh becomes king of Judah. He turns out to be as
unfaithful as the rest of them: sinning against the Lord,
rebuilding the pagan places of worship that his father
destroyed, worshipping Baal and Asherah himself.... God
shouts,
..So 1, the Lord on Jerusalem and

God.. willbring such disaster
362 Kings, 17.7-12.
Judah that every one who hears aboutit will be stunned...Iwill wipe
Jerusalem clean of its people, as clean as a plate that has been wiped
and turnedupsidedown. Ivill abancdon the people who survive, and
will hand them over to their enemies, who will conquer them and
plunder their land. I will do this to My pebple because they have
stirred up My anger....
Who will? I wilI, says the Lord God, I will, He says

repeatedly. And yet, in less than no time He pastes the
responsibility first on His people – for compelling Him to
punish them - and then on their enemies for meting out what
He has decreed.
The wrath of the Lord God, and what He has decided as a
consequence is conveyed to king Josiah. He acts swiftly to
preempt God's Wrath, he takes one step after another to
arrange things to God's satisfaction. He desecrates altars, he
"smashed the altars to bits," he breaks the stone pillars to
pieces, he cuts down the symbols of the goddess, he "burnt it,
pounded its ashes to dust, and scattered it over the public
burial-ground," he "ground the idols to dust and broke in
pieces all the altars," "he killed the pagan priests on the altars
where they served, and he burnt human bones on every
altar..."»
Beginning in Judah and Jerusalem, Josiah repeats each of
these steps in city after city - Ephraim, Simeon, as far north as
Naphtali. And thus, the Bible, the book which is projected to
our poor, illiterate tribals as the fount of tolerance, of
civilization, of wisdom, tells us, Josiah "cleansed" the places,
he "purified" them 38
In all thisJosiah is not just some enthusiast doing things on
his own which be thinks will please the Lord God. As we
have seen, the Bible lists Josiah among the few who do what
actually pleases the Lord God. More than tha, in doing what
372 Kings, 21.1-5, 10-15; also 22.16-20.

82 Kings, 23.5-20; 2 Chronicles, 34.3-8.
Wbat the faitbfulmuust do 267
he did, Josiah is following the command of the Lord God

literally, to the dot. For the Lord has proclaimed,
....Iwill send a sword to destroy the places where people worship

idols. The altars will be ton down and the incense-altars broken. All
the people there will be killed in front of tlheir idos. I will scatter the
COrpses ofthe people of Israel; I will scatter their bOnes all round the
altars. All the cities of Israel will be destroyed, so that dheir idols and
their altars will be smashed to pieces, their incense-altars will be
shattered, and everything they made will disappear. People will be
killed everywhere, and those who survive will acknowledge that I
amthe Lord..
Wring your hands! Starmp your feet Cry in somOw.. They are going to
die in war, by famine, and by disease. Those far away will fall ill and
die; those nearby will be killed in war; those who survive will starve to
death. They willfeel all the force of My anger. Corpses will be
scattered among dhe idols and round the altars, scattered on every
hill, on the top of every mountain, under every green tree and every
large oak, in every place wlhere they burnt sacrifices to their idols.
Then euery one uill knouv that Ia12 the Lord. Yes, I will stretch out
My hand and destroy heir country... Then every one will know tbat
Iam the Lord3)
Josiah does no more than obey.
39 Ezekiel, 6.3-7, 11-14.

19
The primitive, the superstitious becomes

the divine, the sublime - when they doit!
Bowing to an idol of some god other than the one Lord

God is heinous. Making any offering, sacrificing anything in
honour of any other deity is terrible. Even burning incense
before representations of those others, as we have seen, is a
capital crime. But when it comes to Himself, the Lord God is
-
both very possessive, as well as very, very punctilious.
He commands His chosen people to break down all idols
of others. He commands them to pulverize all altars of other
gods.' And then commands,
Every first-born son and first-born male domestic animal belongs to

Me, but you are to buy back every first-bon donkey by offering a
lamb in its place. If you do not buy it back, break its neck. But buy
back every first-bon son.
No one is to appear before Me without an offering..?
The Temple in Jerusalem is at last nearing completion. The

Lord God is giving instructions to Ezekiel about howit is to be
consecrated to Him. "Mortal man, listen to what I tell you," He
says. "When the altar is built, you are to dedicate it
by burning
sacrificeson it and by sprinkling on it the blood of the animals
that were sacrificed.. You will give them [the priests] a
young bullto offer as a sacrifice for sin. You are to take some
of its blood and put it on the projections on the top corners of
the altar, and on the corners of the middle section of the altar,
and all round its edges. In this way you will purify the altar
'Exodus, 34.1-18. ZExodus, 34.19-20.

Tbe primithe, the superstitious becomes divine, sublime 269
and consecrate it. You are to take the bull that is offered as a
sacrifice for sin and burn it at the specified place outside the
Temple area. The next day you are to take a male goat
without any defects and offer it as a sacrifice for sin. Purify the
altar with itsblood in the same way as you did with the bull.
When you have finished doing that, take a young bull and
young ram, botb of bem without any defects,and bring them
to Me. The priests will sprinkle salt on them and burn them as
an offering to Me. Each day for seven days you are to offer a
goat, a bull, and a ram as sacrifices for sin. All of them must be
without any defecis.."
The killing of innocent animals brings as much honour to
Him, evidently, as to any of the deities which these
missionaries have condemned as primitive. The cleansing
and honouring by blood of these poor animals - is it more
compassionate when it is done in honour of the Lord God
than when it is done for the deity of the Incas? And notice
how finicky the Lord God is about the animals that they
-
must bring and kill in His Temple make sure, He says
repeatedly, that they are without any defects.3
The Lord Almighty remonstrates with the priests:
A son honours his father, and a servant lonours his master. I am your
father-why don't you honour Me? I am your master - why don't you
respect Me? You despise Me, and yet you ask, 'How have we
despised You? This is how - hy offering worthless foodon my altar.
Then youask, 'How have we failed to respect You?' Iwill tell you
by showing contempt for My altar. When you bring a blind or sick or
lame animal to sacrifice to Me, do you think there is nothing wrong
with that? Try giving an animal like that to the govenor! Would he be
pleased with youor grant you any favours?..
..As your offering to Me you bringa stolen animal or one that is lame
or sick. Do you think I will accept that from you? A curseon the cheat
who saCrifices a worthless animal to Me, when he lhas in his flock a
good animal that he promised to give Me. ForI ama great King, and
people of all nations fear Me,4
3 Ezekiel, 43.18-25. ^Malacbi, 1.6-8, 13-14.

In Exodus, God prescribes with great meticulousness how

-
He is to be honoured by offerings of gold, silver, bronze,
fine linen.... sweet smelling incense, jewels. He goes into
minutedetails about the Tent which should be made for Him,
about the box in which He wants the covenant to be kept- it
must be of acacia wood, it must be covered in gold inside and
out, it must have a gold border, it must have four gold carry
ing rings. He is equally finicky about the Table, Lamp Stand,
Altar, the linen curtains, the garments of the priests....> How
come the creator of this infinite universe, of endless time and
space is so concerned about baubles?
Similarly, much of Leviticus is taken up with descriptions
of animals and birds which are to be sacrificed to Him, how
the bloodis to be offered to Him, how the smell that rises as
-
the poor animal burns specially of the fat as it burns is -
pleasing to Him. This holy Book sets out many occasions on
which, the many purposes for which, the many sins to expi
ate which God requires these "sacrifice offerings". It com
mends an easy way for sinners to escape the consequences
of their sins:
When Aaron has finished performing the ritual to purify the Most
Holy Place, the rest of the Tent of the Lord's presence, and the altar,
he shallpresent to the Lord the live goat chosen by Azazel. He shall
put both his hands on the goat's head and confess over it all the evils,
sins, and rebellions of the people of Israel, and so transfer them to the
goat's head. The goat will carry all their sins away with him into some
uninhabited land.ó
What mockery Christian missionaries would let fly if they

encountered some of our tribals acting on the identical sup
position?
But even more important than making these offerings and
sacrifices and rituals is to obey Him to the last letter. And what
carrying out His commands literally means, we have seen. As
SExodus, 24 onwards. Leviticus, 16.20-22.

The primitive, the superstitious becomes dwine, sublime 271
usual, He directs Saul to exterminate an entire people -
this
time those of Amalek. Saul marches on them. All the people
are butchered. God is furious. He calls Samuel and tells him
that Saul has disobeyed Him. Samuel conveys this to Saul. But
I have carried out the Lord God's command, Saul protests.
"Why then do I hear the cattle mooing and sheep bleating?,"
Samuel asks, Saul explains that his men destroyed Amalekites
completely, but that they did not finish off the best cattle
and sheep, and instead have brought them over so that they
may be sacrificed tothe Lord God. He prefers obedience to
sacrifice, Samuel says. And Saul has to acknowledge that he
has sinned. And the kingdom istaken from him...
71Samuel, 15.10-30.
20
"And then they will know I am the Lord"
In bringing down unspeakable suffering on mankind, in

relenting and pardoning people the Lord God pursues just
one aim: and He is candid about it. He kills and ruins entire
peoples saying, "And then they will know I am the Lord
God." He promises to restore what He had promised them,
once in a while He rehabilitates them, each time saying, "And
then they will know I am the Lord God"!
He has enabled His chosen people to flee Egypt. They are
blocked by thesea. Why are you crying out for help?, He asks
Moses. Tell your people to move forward, and you, you lift
up your stick and hold it over the sea. The vater will divide
and the people will be able to walk through the sea on dry
ground.
So far sO good. One cannot grudge God doing a favour to
the people He has chosen as His own - though His purpose
for choosing a people at all is that they will worship Him and
Him alone: viz., "....Just as shorts fit tightly around the waist,
so I intended all the people of Israel and
Judah to hold tightly
to Me. I did this so that they would be My people
and wouid
bring praise and bonour to My name.... "1 But He proceeds
further. The water will divide and His chosen people will be
able to cross over, but then, He declares,
I willmake the Egyptians so stubborn that they will go
in after them,
and I will gain honour by My victory over the king, his army, his
chariots, and his drivers.
Jeremiab, 13.11.
"And then they will knowI am the Lord"
273
But why drown them? Why kill them in so horrible a way?
The Lord God explains:
When I defeat them, the Egyptians will know tbat I am tbe Lord?
As usual, He is cursing thepeople He has chosen as His own.

You wil be corpses, He thunders. You will be the meat in a
pot, He thunders. I will hand you over to foreigners who will
kill you in your oWn country. To what purpose?
Then euery one 2vill knov that I am the Lord..3
Tell the people of Jerusalem, God commands His prophet,

Ezekiel, "..Cities that are now full will be destroyed, and the
country will be made a wilderness." To what purpose?
Then every one will know tbat I am the Lord.?
He curses the poor women. He is particularly incensed with

the wristbands they wear. "Ihate the wristbands you wear in
your attempt to control life and death," He thunders. "I will
rip themn off your arms and set free the people that you are
controlling. I will rip off your scarves and let My people
escape from your power once and for al." To what purpose?
Then you will know that I an the Lord..5
"I will send My four worst punishments on Jerusalem," God

announces yet again, "war, famine, wild animals, and
disease," till the people are killed, and the place brought to
ruin. "Just as the vine is taken from the forest and burnt, so I
will take the people who live in Jerusalem and will punish
them. They have escaped one fire, but now fire will burn
them up." And what would that accomplish?
When I punisb them, you wll know that I am tbe Lord..
'Exodus, 14.15-18. BEzekiel, 11.7-12. 'Ezekiel, 12.17-20.

SEzekiel, 13.18-21. (Ezekiel, 14.12-21; 15.6-8.
He, the Al-powerful, all-knowing, compassionate Lord God,

deliberately misleads His people So that He can punish
them for what they are doing as a result of His misleading
commands. "Then I gave them laws that are not good," He
says, "and commands that do not bring life. I let them defile
themselves with their own offerings, and I let them sacrifice
their first-born sons. This was to punish them and sbow tbem
that I am the Lord"7 What a fine God - He allows little infants
to be killed so as to establish that He, and not anyone else, is
the Lord!
"I will take firm control of you and make you obey My
covenant," He warns the people. "I will take away from
among you those who are rebellious arnd sinful..." To what
purpose?
Then you will know that I am the Lord...8
Go and please yourselves, God tells the chosen people, go

on serve your idols. "But I warn you that after this you will
have to obey Me and stop dishonouring My holy name by
offering gifts to your idols." He pledges to take them to the
promised land. And what is it that He looks forward to by
doing so?
There in the land, on My holy mountain, the high mountain of Israel,

all you people of Israel will worsbip Me. I will be pleased with you
and will expect you to bring Me your sacrifices, your best offerings,
and your holy gifts. After Ibring you out of the countries where you
have been scattered and gather you together, I will accept the
sacrifices that youburn, and the nations will see that Ian boly.
WhenIbring you back to Israel..., then you will know that I amthe
Lord.. When Iact to protect My honour, you Israelites will know
that I am the Lord, because Ido not deal with you as your wicked,
evil actions deserve,9
7Ezekiel, 20.25-26. BEzekiel, 20.37-38. 9Ezekiel, 20.39-44.

"And then they will know I an the Lord" 275
A telling metapbor
Soon, the Lord God is using a surprising, but telling

metaphor. "There were once two sisters," He tells His
prophet. "When they were young, living in Egypt, they lost
their virginity and became prostitutes. The older one was
Oholah (she represents Samaria), and the younger one was
named Oholibah (she represents Jerusalem)." "I married both
of them," God says, "and they bore Me children." And yet a
strange thing transpired: "Although she was mine, Oholah
continued to be a prostitute and was fullof lust for her lovers
from Assyria. They were soldiers in uniforms of purple,
noblemen and high ranking officers; all of them were
handsome young cavalry officers. She was the whore for all
the Assyian officers, and her lust led her to defile herself by
worshipping Assyrian idols. She continued what she had
begun as a prostitute in Egypt, where she lost her virginity.
From the time she was a girl, men slept with her and treated
her like a prostitute. So I handed her over to her Assyrian
lovers whom she wanted so much. They stripped her naked,
seized her sons and daughters, and then killed her with a
SWord.
The case of the younger sister He married turned out to be
even worse, the Lord God explains. "Even though her sister
Oholibah saw this, she was wilder and more of a prostitute
than Oholah had ever been. She too was full of lust for the
Assyrian officers - soldiers in bright uniforms and for the
–
cavalry officers, all those handsome young men. I saw that
she was completely immoral, that the second sister was as
bad as the first."
Surely, a husband whose powers to transform and set right
are as extensive as those of the Lord God could think up
some corrective. But what happens? God explains, with
more than a touch of helplessness and regret:
She sank deeper and deeper in her immorality. She was attracted by
the images of high Babylonian officials carved into the wall and
painted red, with sashes round their waists and fancy turbans on their
heads. As soon as she saw them, she was filled with lust and sent
messengers to them in Babylonia. The Babylonians came to have sex
with her. They used her and defiled her 'so much that finally she
became disgusted with them. She exposed herself publicty and let
every one know she was a whore. I was as disgusted with her as I had
been with her sister. She became more of a prostitute than ever,
acting just as she did as a girl, when she was a prostirute in Egypt. She
was filled with lust for oversexed men who had all the hustfulness of
donkeys or stallions.
That a husband who has the power to instantly bring them

back to fidelity should allow his chosen wives to persist in
such conduct is itself a surprise. As is the remedy that God
says He eventually adopted. He becomes angry with them,
and eventually He tells them, "Because I am angry with you,
I will let them [the lovers] deal
with you in their anger. They
will cut off your nose and your ears and kill your children.
Yes, they will take your sons and daughters [but they are as
much God's own children too) and burn them alive.."
He is their husband. He is the one who has chosen them to
be His wives. He is the onewho has all the power to bring
them back from sin in an instant. He is the one who does
not use this irresistible, incomparable and unique power,
and instead lets them persist in whoredom. But as for
responsibility, He pastes it all on the wives! He tells
Oholibah,
I willhand you over to the
people you hate and are disgusted with.
And because they hate you, they will take away everything you have
worked for and leave you stripped naked, expOsed like a prostitute.
Your lust and your prostitution bave brougbt this on you. You
were a prostitute and defiled yourself with their idols. You followed
in your sister's footsteps, and so Iwill give you the same cup of
punishnnent to drink..Because yotu forgot Me and turned your back
on Me, you will suffer for your lust and prostitution.
"And then they willknow I am the Lord"
277
God proceeds to describe all over again to His prophet their
infidelity and vulgarity. And then commands,
Bring the mob to terrorize them and rob them. Let the mob stone
them and attack tlhem with swords, kill their children, and bum down
their houses. Throughout the land Iwill put a stop to immnorality, as a
warning to every woman not to commit adultery as they did. And you
-
two sisterS I willpunish you for your immorality and your sin of
worshipping idols.
And what would have been accomplished?

Then you will krnozw that I amn the Sovereign Lord.10
One day, the Lord God tells His chosen prophet, "Mortal man
IHis customary way of addressing Ezekiel], with one blow I
am going to take away the person you love most." That
evening Ezekiel's wife suddenly dies. Now, Ezekiel had
done n0 wrong, much less his poor wife. What was the
purpose of killing her suddenly? The killing was strange
indeed. Once the person youlove most, dies, the Lord God
told Ezekiel, you will not mourn, you will not show any sign
of mourning either. People in general will do the same when
the Lord profanes the Temple, and brings other suffering on
them-they too will not mourn or show any sign of mourning.
"Then", the prophet explained, "I will be a sign to you; you
will do everything I have done." But what purpose will be
served by these twin demonstrations - of suffering being
brought on both, the prophet as well as the people, and
neither mourning in any way? The hapless prophet, whose
wife had just been killed, explained:
The Lord says that when this happens, you will krnow that He is the
Sovereign Lord.1
1°Ezekiel, 23.1-49.
11
Ezekiel, 4.15-24.
The Lord God has set many nations to destroy Jerusalem, and
kill His chosen people. The peoplè of Tyre are exultant of
course, we have only the Lord God's testimony for that.
"Jerusalem is shattered!", they exclaim. "Her commercial
power is gone! She won't be our rival any more," That
exultation, like almost everything other than His adoration,
sends the Lord God into His usual fury. "!, the Sovereign
Lord, am saying: Iam your enemy," He declares. And over
the next 2500 words He describes the ruin and devastation
He is arranging for Tyre. And what will be accomplished
after the city is laid low?
Then Tyre will know that I am the Lord12
And then He turns on Sidon: "I am yoUr eneny, Sidon," He

thunders, "people will praise Me because of what Ido to you.
They will know that I am the Lord, when I show how holy I
am by punishing those who live in you. I will send diseases
on you and make blood flow in your streets." When all the
nations - whom He had set upon His chosen people, and
who accordingly had inflicted the punishment He had
decreed - are laid waste, He says,
they will know that I am the Sovereign Lord 13
And then He turns on Egypt. Because you, the king of Egypt,

said that the Nile is yours and you made it, Godsays, Iam
your enemy. And He proceeds to decree devastation and ruin
on the king, the country, and all the people in it. Once it is
carried out, He says in anticipatory triumph,
Then you will know that I am the Lord 14
He elaborates the horrors He has decreed for Egypt for
12 Ezekiel, 26-28. 13 Ezekiel, 28.20-24. 14 Ezekiel, 29.9.

"And then they uill knowl am the Lord"
279
another 500 words, punctuating the gory description with the
refrain,
Wben I punish Egypt in this way, they will know that I am the
Lord.... I will scatter theEyyptians thrOugbout the world. Then they
2vill know that I am the Lord. When I make Egypt a desolate
wasteand destroy all wbo live there, they will knowthat an the
I
Lord 15
The fate that He will visit on Egypt will also remind His
chosen people how wrong they were in turning to Egypt for
help, He says,
Then Israel will know that I am the Sovereign Lord16
And then He turns on His chosen people. You do this wrong,

you commit that sin, He thunders, you worship idols.... And
so Iwill ruin your cities, I will kill every one in them..,
When I punisb the people for their sins and nake the country a
waste, then they will know that I am the Lord17
And then He turns on Edom and its people - another lot He

had set to kill and pillage His chosen people for worshipping
idols, etc. He is now furious with Edom and every one
residing in it, indeed with every one who may traverse its
mountains. The reason? That they became the enemies of
His chosen people, that they let His chosen people be
slaughtered! The usual blood-soaked punishments are
decreed: .Then you will know that Iam the Lord. Iwill
make the hill-country of Edom a waste and kill every one
who travels through it. I will cover the mountains with
corpses, and the bodies of those who are killed in battle will
cover the hills and valleys. I will make youdesolate for ever,
and no one will live in your cities again,
16Ezekiel, 29.16. 17 zekiel. 33.29.
15Ezekiel, 30.19, 26; 32.15.
Then you will know tht I am the Lord."18

More destruction...,
Then every one uvill know that I an the Lord.19
Having destroyed all others, He says, He will redeem His

chosen people. Why? The answer is the same as the
explanation for His inflicting such suffering on them! You
have disgraced My holy name, He tells the chosen people.
You have been ritually unclean like a woman in her monthly
period. You have worshipped idols. I, therefore, had to
punish you by scattering you the world over. But that had a
result He had not anticipated: "Wherever they went," the
Lord God laments, "they brought disgrace to My holy name,
because people would say, "These are the people of the
Lord, but they had to leave His land.' Tbat made Me
concerned for My boly name..."
So, I will rehabilitate you, He says, but remember, "What I
am going to do is not for the sake of you Israelites, but for the
sake of My boly name, which you have disgraced in every
cOuntry where you have gone. When I demonstrate to the
nations the holiness of My great name - the name you
disgraced among them - then they will know that I am the
Lord. I, the Sovereign Lord, have spoken. I will use you to
show the nations that I am boly..."20 He proceeds to describe
how He will gather them up and take them back to the land
from which He has expelled them, and how prosperity and
the rest willagain betheirs. He reminds them, "Israel, Iwant
you to know that I am not doing all this for your sake. I want
you to feel the shame and disgrace of what you are
doing...."
He is rehabilitating them to rehabilitate His holy name among
peoples among whom they have disgraced it by getting
dispersed by His decree. And there will be the boon:
18 Ezekiel, 35.1-9. 19 Ezekiel, 35.15. 20 Ezekiel, 36.16-23.

"And then they will know l am the Lord" 281
Then the neigbbouring nations that bave survived will know that I,
the Lord, rebuild ruined cities and replant waste fields..1
And I will help My chosen people become prosperous again,

their cities which are now in ruins – by His order- will teem
with people again, the land will be full of sheep,
Then they will know that I an the Lord2
The Lord God takes His prophet to a valley covered with dry
bones. He asks the prophet to repeat to the bones what He is
saying, "Iam going to put breath in you and bring you back to
life. Iwill give you sinews and muscles, and cover you with
skin. Iwill put breath into youand bring you back to life.
Tben you [the bones] will know that I am the Lord"23
His chosen people are like these bones, the Lord God tells
Ezekiel. He isgoing to take them up and bring them back to
the land from which He has turned them out. "When I open
the graves where My people are buried and bring them out,
they will know that I am the Lord. I will put My breath in
them, bring them back to life, and let them live in their own
land. Then they will know that I am the Lord."24
Iwill send Gog to kill My people, God declares. On the
day he invades them "Iwill be furious," God declares. And so
"I will terrify Gog with all sortsof calamities. I, the Sovereign
Lord, have spoken. His men will tun their swords against
one another. I will punish him with disease and bloodshed.
Torrents of rain and hail, together with fire and sulphur, will
pour down on him and his army and on the many nations that
are on his side. In this way Iwill show all the nations tbat I am
great and that I an boly. They will know then that I am the
Lord,"25S
22 Ezekiel, 36.37-38.
21Ezekiel, 36.24-36.
23 Ezekiel, 37.4-6. 24 Ezekiel, 37.11-14. 25 Ezekiel, 38.18-23.
He decrees further bloodshed, He decrees further death
and destruction. He commandsHis prophet,
Mortal man, call all the birds and animals to come from all round to eat
the sacrifice I am preparing for them. It will be a huge feast on the
mountains of Israel, where they can eat meat and drink blood. They
are to eat the bodies of the soldiers and drink the blood of the rilers of
the earth, all of whom willbe killed like rams or lambs or goats or fat
bulls. When I kill these people like sacrifices, the birds and animals
are to eat all the fat they can hold and to drink blood until they are
drunk. At My table they will eat all they can hold of horses and their
riders and of soldiers and fighting men. I, the Sovereign Lord, have
Spoken.26
What is the purpose of all this? The compassionate, merciful

Lord God of the Bible explains:
the nations see My glory and show them bow I use My

Iwill let
power to carry out My just decisions....27
And after all the carnage,
In order to sbow the many nations that Il am boly, I willbring My

people back from all the countries where their enemies live. Then
My people
will know that I am the Lord their God. 28
King Hezekiah is mortally ill. The Lord God sends the

prophet Isaiah to tell him to put his affairs in order as he is not
going to recover. Despondent, Hezekiah turns his face to the
wall. He prays to the Lord: remember that I have served You
faithfully and loyally, he says, I have always tried to do what
You wanted me to do.... The Lord grants hin fifteen years
more. And assures him, "I will rescue you and this city of
Jerusalem from the emperor of Assyria [whom the Lord has
Himself set upon them). Iwill defend this city...." Why? "For
the sake of My bonour and because of the promise I made to
My servant David "29
26Ezekiel. 39.17-20. 27Ezekiel, 39.21.

Z8 Ezekiel, 39.27-28. 292 Kings, 20.1-6.
"And then they uvill knowIam the Lord" 283
He is in rage again. This time all nations of the world are
the butt of His anger. He declares,
Now I vill act. I will shouw bovpowerful I am. You make worthless
plans and everything you do isuseless. My spirit is like a fire tlhat will
destroy you. You willcrumble like rocks burnt to make lime, like
thoms burnt to ashes. Let every one near and far hear whatI have
done and acknowedge My power30
The Lord chooses Cyrus to be king. He appoints him to

conquer nations, to strip other kings of their power. Why?
The Lord gives Cyrus, and through hinm us, the by-now
familiar answer:
lam the Lord: there is no other god.

Iwill giveyou the strength you need,
although you do not know Me.
Ido this so
tbat eveiy one
from one end of the 1uorld to the other
may kno1w that I am ibe Lod
and that there is no otber god...31
When He has decreed wvar, starvation, decimation at the
hands of the king of Babylonia, His chosen people are
distraught: the city will fall into the hands of the king of
Babylonia, they moan. But I have also decided, He tells His
prophet, Jeremiah, that, having afflicted them with all these
dire punishments, I am going to gather them up, and bring
them back to the land I have promised their ancestors. And I
will let them live in safety. And what would have been
accomplished by these endless rounds of suffering and
rehabilitation? The Lord explains,
Then they will he My people, and I will be their God. I will give them
a single purpose in life: to bonotur Me for al time, for their own
good and the good of their descendants. I will make an eternal
30Jsaiab, 33.10-13. 31
saiab, 45.5-6.
covenant with them. Iwill never stop doing good things for them,
and I will make them fea Me witb aththeir beart, so that they will
1never turn away fromMe..32
A consuming passion! An obsession! An obsession for wbat!

This is the Lord without accepting whoim, we are all
damned to eternal hell.
• It is for this Lordthat our missionaries are striving so hard
to hrvest our souls.
This is the Lord who is their Almighty improvement over
our Rama and Krishna...
SJeremiab, 32.36-41.
21
"Kill,"He commands, "Destroy",

they kill, they destroy,
He kills them for killing, for destroying!
Joshua defeats the Amorites, he has their kings dragged out

of a cave, and kills them himself. He wreaks the same
annihilation on Makkedah. Then on Libnah. Then on Lachish.
n
Then on Eglon. Then on Hebron. Then on Debir. Then on

Hazor. It isn't that he is particularly cruel. He inflicts this
carnage because the Lord bas commanded bim to destroy
these peoples and kill their kings.
But it isn't just that the Lord God has ordered this carnage.
He has so arranged things that the people He has asked
Joshua to annihilate, shall insist on putting themselves up for
slaughter! On the one hand the Lord God ordered Joshua to
kill them, and on the other, says the Bible, "The Lord bad
made them determined tofigbt the Israelites so tbat tbey
would be condenmned to total destruction and all be killed
without mercy...."»2
The people of one city after another are exterminated as a
result. But the Lord God deliberately spares five Philistine
cities and their people. Why? “So then", the Bible tells us,
"the Lord left some nations in the land so as to test the
Israelites wbo bad not been through the wars in Canaan. He
did this only to teach each generation Israelites about war,
of
especially those wbo bad not been in battle before." People of

those five cities, the Bible states, "were to be a test for Israel,
Josbua, 10, 11. Josbua, 11.20.

to find out wbether or not the Israelites would obey the

commands that tbe Lord bad given their ancestors througb
Moses..." To no avail! The chosen people settle among the
Canaanites and the rest, they intermarry, and, of course,
desert the Lord God, and revert to those hated idols !3 The
Lord their God is properly enraged, and unleashes the furies
on His chosen people..
He chooses people so that they will honour Him, and Him
alone. He arranges - for nothing happens except at His
command - that they fail to do so. He sets others to kill and
ruin them. Then He arranges to have these others killed for
having killed and scorned His chosen people. But He
contrives to leave some people as a test for the chosen
people. They fail the test. He then sets still others to kill and
pillage.. He then takes pity on His chosen people, and sets
the ones he had arranged to kill His chosen ones to instead
start attacking and killing each other...4
He chooses a prophet. The prophet's sons begin to sin.
The prophet admonishes them. They persist. Why? Because
the Lord God has decided to killthem. As the Bible explains,
"But they would not listen to their father, for the Lord bad
decided to kill thenm."5 Who then is responsible? The father -
in spite of the fact that he tried his best to wean away his sons
from the sins? The sons - in spite of the fact that they
continued to sin because the Lord God had contrived to
have them continue to do so?Or the Lord God Himself who
arranged it all?
The Lord God sets Baasha to annihilate King Jeroboam's
family, He commands him to spare none in it. And then He
has the entire family of Baasha annihilated, not just because
Baasha too reverted to those hateful idols and gods, "but also
because he killed Jeroboam's family. "6
The Lord God makes his prophets lie, He decrees murders,
Judges. 3. 1-6.
judges, 7.21-22.
51Samttel, 2.25. 1 Kings, 16.7.
"Kill, "He commands, "Destroy"
287
He beguiles devotees of other gods togather in the Temple
So that there He can have them slaughtered en masse....
His prophets pick up the habit from Him. King Ahaziah
falls off his balcony. He is seriously injured. Elijah, the
prophet, forecasts that the king will die. The king dispatches
his men to fetch Elijah. The men reach Elijah. "Man of God,"
the officer in charge of the men addresses him, "the king
orders you to come dovn." "If I am a man of God," Elijah
answers, "may fire come down from heaven and kill youand
your men." "At once fire came down and killed the officer
and his men," the Bible reports. The sequence is repeated
with the next batch." What wrong had the officer and his men
done?
Elijah passes away. Elisha is the prophet now. He is going
to Bethel. "On the way some boys came out of a town and
made fun of him," the Bible reports. "Get out of here baldy,"
they shout. "Elisha turned round," says the Bible, "and cursed
them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out
of the woods and tore forty two of the boys to pieces. "8 What
an example in tolerance!
As usual the one who has been made king by the grace of
the Lord God betrays Him and reverts to practices that are
designed to disgust Him. God now anoints Jehu as king. And
has the prophet convey the following message to Jehu:
Ianoint you king of My people Israel. You are to kill yourmaster the
king, that son of Ahab, so thatI may punish Jezebel for murdering My
prophets and My other servants. All Ahalb's family and descendants
are to die; I will get rid of every male in his family, young and old
alike. Iwill reat his family as I did the families of king Jerohoam of
Israeland king Baasha of Israel. Jezebel will not be buried; herbody
will be eaten by dogs....?
Notice, who will do all this? I will, says the Lord God, Iwill,
He declares again and again. But the moment it comes to
72 Kings, 1.9-12. 2 Kings, 2.23-24. '2 Kings, 9.6-10.

baring reponsibility for the murders, He executes a role

reversal! Here God unambiguously"acknowledges that He is
the one whobrought death on tothe family of Jeroboam: I
willtreat his family as I did the familis of king Jeroboam of
Israel" - and just a little earlier, as we have seen, He had
Baasha and his entire family killed for killing the family of
Jeroboam!
Jehu carries out the murders with zest, with messianic
cruelty. But in doing so he is just executing what has been
decreed by the Lord God. "Throw her down", he shouts at the
palace officials who are gazing at him from the palace
windows. "They threw her Jezebel] down," the Bible
records, "and her blood spattered the wall and the horses.
Jehu drove his horses and chariot over her body. Only then
did he say, Take that damned woman and bury her; after all,
she is a king'sdaughter."" The Lord God is quick to show that
it is His hand which is behind the proceedings: for
when the
men go to bury her they find "nothing except her skull, and
the bonesof her hands and her feet." When they report this to
Jehu, he tells them, "This is what the Lord said would
happen, when He spoke through His servant Elijah: Dogs
will eat Jezebel's body in theterritory of Jezreel. Her remains
will be scattered there like dung, so that no one will be able
to identify them. '"10
The killing of this queen is just the beginning. Jehu, the one
chosen by God, writes to the controllers of Samaria, “Bring
the heads of king Ahab's descendants to me at Jezereel by
this time tomorrow," he tells them. They kill all the seventy
descendants of Ahab, put their heads in baskets and send
them to Jehu, the one chosen by God for carrying forward His
plan. Jehu tells the people, "....The Lord bas done what He
promised through His prophet Elijah." Nor is that the end.
"Then Jehu put to death all the other relatives of Ahab living
12 Kings, 9.32-37.
"Kill," He commands, "Destroy"
289
in Jezreel, and all his officers, close friends, and priests; not
one of them was left alive," the Bible records. Jehu leaves
Jezreel to goto Samaria. On the way he encounters relatives
of the late king Ahaziah of Judah. Unsuspecting, they reveal
their identity. "Take them alive", Jehu shouts. They are
seized. "And he Jehu) put them to death near a pit there.
There were forty-two people in all, and not one of them was
left alive." Next, he encounters Jonadab, son of Rechab.
"Come with me and see for yourself how devoted I am to the
Lord," the Bible has him telling Jonadab. "And they rode on
together to Samaria," it says. "When they arrived there, Jehu
killed all of Ahab's relatives, not sparing even one of them."
"This is what the Lord had told Elijah would happen," the
Bible notes with evident satisfaction.!!
The conduct of the one who has been chosen and anointed
by the Lord Himself. Even if the killings had to be carried out
so that, what the Lord God had said would happen happened,
surely, no one is any wiser why the Lord made those dire
predictions in the first place, or heaped those dire curses on
the victims. Nor is it enough to say that all tlhis killing was to
punish people: the Bible has no explanation as to why the
Lord God did not cho0se some more direct method of
converting the victims to the correct path.
Nor does Jehu stop there. He calls the people together,
and tells them that, while Ahab had served the god Baal a
little, he, Jehu, would serve him a great deal more. He orders
them all– the people who believe in him, the prophets and
priests of Baal - to gather at their temple towitness a great
sacrifice to god Baal. And when they are all gathered, he
orders the guards, "Go in and kill them all; don't let anyone
escape." The guards go in, and kill all of them. And then they
go into the inner sanctuary of the Temple, bring out the
sacred pillar, and burn it. The Bible's account concludes with
112 Kings, 10.1-17.

a note of triumph: "So they destroyed the sacred pillar and the
Temple and turned the Temple intd latrine- which it still is
today."
Honourable conduct? Conduct worthy of one chosen by the
Lord? In any event, in this way, says the sacred Bible, the
worship of Baal is wiped out of God's chosen land.The verse
has but to finish, and Baal and others take their revenge! For,
having done all this on the command of God, that very Jehu
takes to worshipping gold bull-calves,sending the Lord God
into another bout of rage!12
Recall how the Assyrian emperor, Sennacherib, laid city
after city waste. Eventually he advances on king Hezekiah of
Judah. The emperor encircles the cities of Judah, and
conquers them. Hezekiah sends him tribute. Sennacherib is
not satiated. Hezekiah turns to the Lord God for protection.
The Lord reassures him. He misleads Sennacherib by
circulating a rumour. And "that night an angel of the Lord
went to the Assyrian camp," the Bible tells us, "and killed
185,000 Assyrian soldiers. At dawn, the next day, there they
lay, all dead..." The Assyrian emperor retreats, Judah is
Spared.
A
familiar demonstration of the Lord's power. But who had
set Sennacherib to destroy the cities in the first place? In
saying that Sennacherib's boast of his own prowess has been
wrong, the Lord God also incidentally discloses whothe real
author of that vast carnage had been. He tells the emperOr,
....You have been disrespectful to Me, the holy God of Israel. You
sent your messengers to boast to Me that with all your chariots you
had conquered the highest mountains of Lebanon. You boasted that
there youcut down the tallest cedars and the finest cypress-trees and
that you reached the deepest parts of the forests. You boasted that
you dug wells and drank water in foreign lands and that the feet of
your soldiers tramped the River Nile dry.
Have you never heard that Iplanned tbis long ago? Andnow Ihave
122 Kings, 10.18-31.

"Kill, " Hle comnands, "Destroy"
291
Caried it out. Igave you the power to turn forified eities into piles of
rubble... 13
"Keep watching the nations round you," the Lord tells His
chosen people, “and youwill be astonished at what you see.
I am going to do something that you will not believe when
you hear about it." Who is going to do it? On His own
testimony, He, the Lord God is going to do it. What is He going
to do? The Lord elucidates: T am bringing the Babylonians to
power, those fierce, restless people..."14 "T will punish the
people of Jerusalem and Judah," He declares. "I will destroy
the last trace of Baal there.... Ivill destroy anyone who goes
up on the roof and worslhips the sun, the moon, and the stars.
I will destroy those who worship Me, but then take oaths in
the name of the god Molech. I will destroy those who have
turned back and no longer follow Me or ask Me to guide
them."15 Who will? "I will," the Lord God affirns again and
again. "The Lord is preparing to sacrifice His people and bas
invited enemies to plunder Judah, " the Bible informs us. And
the Lord adds, "COn that day of slaughter, I will punisb the
officials, the king's sons, and all those who practice foreign
customs. I will punish all those who worship like pagans and
who steal and kill in order to fill their master's house with
loot."16 Not satisfied, He enlarges His resolve: "7 will bring
such disasters on mankind that every one will grope about
like a blind man. They have sinned against Me, and now their
blood will be poured out like water, and their dead bodies
will lie rotting on the ground.""7 He proceeds to state clearly
that He is going to mete havoc on the people of Moab, on
those of Ammon, then Sudan, Assyria..18
So, first God chooses one set as the people who will
always honour Him, and Him alone - why He is so obsessed
as having them do so is of course never explained. Then He
132 Kings, 19.20-26. 14Habakieuk, 1.5-6.
15Zephaniah, 1.2-6. 16Zepbaniab, 1.7-9.
17Zepbaniab, 1.17. IZepbaniab, 2.8-15.
"Kill, " He commands, "Destroy"
293
Corpses are piled high,
dead bodies without number
11en stumble over them!
Nineveh the whore is being punished.
The Lord Almighty says,
Iwill punish you, Nineveh!
I will strip you naked
and let the nations see you,
see you in all your shame.
Iwill treat you witlh contempt
and cover youwith filth....21
Where else do we find such celebration of piles of corpses?

Perhaps in one set of books alone - Islamic histories of the
Islamic conquest of India.
Buteven that is not the end. Having laid waste those whom
He had set to lay His own people waste, the Lord God sets
the stage for the next round of carnage. "I have wiped out
whole nations," He says, "I have destroyed their cities and
left their walls and towers in ruins." Notice both: the "who
will?"", "I will" point-counterpoint, as well as what appears to
be pride and satisfaction at the destruction He has caused. In
a moment, it tuIns into self-pity! "The cities are deserted," the
-
Lord notes, "the streets are empty no one is left. I thought
that then My people would have reverence for Me and
accept My discipline, that they would never forget the lesson
Itaught them. But soon they are behaving as badly as ever. »22
His remedy is the familiar one: "Just wait", He screams.
"Wait for the day when I rise to accuse the nations. I have
made up My mind to gather the nations and kingdoms, in
order to let them feel the force of My anger. The whole earth
will be destroyed by the fire of My fury..."»23
Pride and longing apart, even the threat turns out to have
been an empty one: the Lord God is not the only one who is
2i Nabunn, 3.1-7. 2Zepbaniab, 3.6-7. 23Zepbaniab, 3.8.

contrives their mentality in such a way that they will not do
so. For their sin, He sends in the armies of sundry cities to
crush them. These armies and kings do so. Then He
dispatches the Assyrian emperor.and his armies to reduce
those cities to rubble. Then He plants pride in the heart of the
emperor. And for that pride in the heart of the emperor, He
kills off 185,000poor soldiers - who are not even alleged to
have had any pride or other vice. In the course of chastising
the emperor, God iscloses that He, and not the emperor, has
been the author of the devastation which has been inflicted
far and wide. That being the case, the emperor is hardly the
one who ought to be punished. His soldiers certainly are not.
And yet, the soldiers are killed, the emperor is...
Soon, far from feeling any sense of responsibility for the
horrors by which vast numbers have been successively
crushed, He is celebrating the fall of Nineveh, the capital of
the Assyrians! "The Lord God tolerates no rivals," the Bible
tells us, "he punishes those who oppose Him," - surely, not
just those who oppose Him but also, indeed specially those
who carry out His commands – "in His anger He pays thenn
back."19 The Assyrians having done the work He has
assigned to them, He declares, "I am your enemy. I will burn
up your chariots. Your soldiers vill be killed in war, and I wil!
take away everything that you took from others."20 He
breaks into song:
Doomed is the lying, murderous city,

fullof wealth to be looted and plundered.
Listen! The crack of the whip,
the rattle of wheels,
the gallopof horses,
the jolting of chariots!
Horsemen charge,
swords flash, spears gleam!
19Nabun, 1.2. 20 Nabum, 2.13.

reverenced today, and yet "the whole earth" has not been
destroyed!
We get an even clearer account of the sequence of events,
and of where the responsibility for them rests in Isaiah. The
Lord God frets and fumes at the faithlessness of His chosen
people. He decides to wreak havoc on them. He, as the Bible
records, "has stirred up their enemies to attack them." His
fury is such that it is not going to be assuaged soon, we learn:
"And so the Lordwill not let any of the young men eScape,
and Hewill not show pity to any of the widows and orphans,
because all the people are godless and wicked and
everyihing they say is evil.."24 Other things apart, does this
-
not speak to God's total ineffectiveness that of His chosen
people "all the people are godless and wicked and
everytbing they say is evil"? In any event, hunger, pestilence,
war - He decrees them all. Indeed, He curses the people to
such extreme hardship that they are eating their children.25
That fate the Lord God visits repeatedly on His people, and
all for that singular aim, that they honour Him and Him alone:
the Lamentations are an extended wail about what has been
visited on the hapless people,
Those who died in the war were better off

than those who died later,
who starved slowly to death, with no
food to keep them alive.
The disaster that came to My people
brought hoor;
loving mothers boiled their own
children for food.26
Notice the tone: the disaster is spoken of as something that

has descended on the benighted people of its own accord,
and not by the agency of the Lord God! But, fortunately
2'Jsaiab, 9.11-17. 25
saiab, 9.19-21. 26 Lamentations, 4.9-10.
Kill, "He conmands, "Destroy" 295
from the point of view of our seeing His nature, the Lord
God is too possessive to let the credit for the suffering lie
unappropriated! So, we soon hear Him proclaiming again,
...You His chosen people] have folowed the customs of other

nations. And so I, the Sovereign Lord, am telling you I am your
tht
eneny. Iwill pass judgment on you where allthe nations can see it.
Because ofall the things you do that I hate, Iwill punish Jerusalem as
I have never done before and willnever
do again. As a result,parents
in Jerusalem will eat their children, and children wil eat theirparens.
I vill punish you and scatter in every direction any
who are left
alive...27
And whom does He decide to use for carrying out His plan?
"Assyria', He announces, "I use Assyria like a club to
punish those with whom I am angry. I sent Assyria to attack a
godless nation, people who have made Me angry. Isent them
to loot and steal and trample the people like din in the
streets."25 The emperor and armies of Assyria proceed to do
just this. hie the people are being trampled, while they are
reduced to eating their children, what is our Lord God's
preoccupation, what is His concern?
He is upset that the emperor is claiming that he, the
emperor, is the author of the havoc, that he, the emperor, is
the one who has power. It is to this that the Lord addresses
Himself: "Can an axe claim to be greater than the man who
uses it?," Hedemands. "Is a saw more important than the man
who saws with it? A club doesn't lift up a man; a man lifts up
a club,»29
Infuriated with His own people, the Lord God has set the
Assyrians to trample them. Now He tells His people, reeling
as they are under the Assyrian heel, "Do not be afraid of the
Assyrians, even though they oppress you as the Egyptians
used to do. In only a little while I will finish punishing you,
27 Ezekie, 5.8-10. 28 Isaiab, 10.5-6. 29

saiab, 10.15.
and then I will destroy them. I,
the Lord Almighty, will beat
them with My whip as Ibeat the pople of Midian at the Rock
of Oreb. Iwill punish Assyria as I punished Egypt.."30
"I will bring disaster on the earth," He shouts, "and punish
all the wicked people for their sins. I will humble everyone
who is proud and punish everyone who is arrogant and cruel"
- but who can equal Him in pride, in arrogance, most of all in
cruelty? "Those who survive will be scarcer than gold. I will
make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out
of its place on that day when I, the LordAlmighty, show My
anger."31 True enough. But how comne the One who can
make the heavens tremble and the earth shake out of its place
cannot get puny litle men to honour Him? HoW come He
is so ineffectual, so repeatedly a failure in getting
these
ordinary, timorous mortals to obey His dictates?
Incensed, the Sovereign Lord turns on Babylon and its
people - thevery ones He has set upon the people of Judah.
"The foreigners living in Babylon will run away to their own
countries. Anyone who is caught will be stabbed to death.
While they look on helplessly, their babies will be battered to
death, their houses will be looted, and their wives will be
raped.... Iam stirring up the Medes to attack Babylon.... With
their bows and arrows they will killthe young men. They will
show no mercy to babies and take no pity on children.
Babylon is the most beautiful kingdom; it is the pride of its
people. But I, the Lord, will overthrow Babylon as I did
Sodom andGomorrah. Noone will ever live there again..." "I
will attack Babylon and bring it to ruin," He exults. "I will
leave nothing – no children, no survivors at all. I, the Lord,
have spoken. I will turn Babylon into a marsh, and owls will
live there. I will sweep Babylon with a broom that will
sweep everything away..»32
30Zsaiab, 10.24-27. 31 Isaiab, 13.11-13.

32
Jsaiab, 13.14-22; 14.22-23.
Kill " He commands, "Destroy" 297
And then on Moab: "..Yes, there willbe a bloody slaughter
of everyone left in Moab," He declares.33
And then on Damascus and the people of Syria.
And then on Sudan and its people who too have committed
the sin of obeying His design and pillaging His chosen
people.
And then on Egypt.
And then on the tribes of Arabia.
And of course once again on the people of Jerusalem...
And then on Tyre and its inhabitants. Then on Sidon and its
inhabitants,34
And then on the entire earth, on all nations: "The Lord is
angry with all the nations and their armies. He has
condemned them to destruction. Their corpses will not be
buried, but will lie there rotting and stinking; and the
mountains willbe red with blood. The sun, moon, and stars
will crumble to dust. The sky will disappear like a scroll
being rolled up, and the stars will fall like leaves dropping
from a vine or a fig-tree...."35
It isn't just that He causes such enormous, endless
suffering. He is proud that He, and no one else has caused it.
Amidst the fire and brimstone of Jeremiah, we read,
..You people have rejected Me;

you have turned your backs to Me.
So Istretched out My hand and crushed you
because I was tiredof controllingMy anger.
- what a reason!
In every town in the land
Ithrew you to the wind ike straw.
Idestroyed you, My people,
Ikilled your children
because you did not stop your evil ways.
33
Jsaiab, 15.1-9. 34 Isaiab, 15-34. 35Isaiab, 24; 34.
There are more widows in your land

than grains of sand by the sea.
Ikilled your young men in their prime
and made their mothers suffer.
Isuddenly struck them
with anguish and terror...
Iwill let your enemies kill
those ofyou who are still alive.
1, the Lord, have spoken 36
What an achievement! Can there be any doubt about who

is culpable? Who is guilty of heaping such unspeakable
suffering on such vast numbers?
Notice too that each turn of cuelty is premeditated. It
isn't just that the Lord God owns up to the cruelties in
retrospective passages as the foregoing. He announces them
to and through His prophets as afflictions He will be sending
down in the future:
I,the Lord, the God of Israel, say that the houses of Jerusalem and the
royal palace of Judah will be torn down as a result of the siege and the
attack. Some will fight against the Babylonians, who will fill the
houses with the corpses of those whom Iam going to strike down in
My anger and fury...37
The endless, relentless cycle
"Who carn be compared to Me?" He demands, in the Me

Tarzan mode. Who would dare challenge Me? What ruler
could oppose Me?"3* He tells Babylonia, "Babylonia, you are
My hammer, My weapon of war."
Iused you to crush nations and kingdoms,

to shatter horses and riders,
toshatter chariots and drivers, to kill men and women,
to slay old and young,
to kill boys and girls,
36Jeremiab, 15.6-9. 37
Jeremiab, 33.4-5. 38Jeremiab, 50.44.
"Kill, " He comnands, "Destroy" 299
to slaughter shepherds and their flocks,
to slaughter ploughmen and their horses,
to crush rulers and high officials,39
Whoused whom? I used you, " the Lord is telling Babylonia.

And in a moment, Babylonia is being destroyed. The Lord is
shouting, "Run away from Babylonia. Run for your lives. Do
not be killed because of Babylonia's sin. I am now taking My
revenge and punishing it as it deserves...»40 «You will see
Me repay Babylonia and its people for all they did to
Jerusalem," He vows. "Babylonia, you are like a mountain
that destroys the whole world, but I, the Lord, am your
enemy. I will take hold of you, level you to the ground, and
leave you in ashes. None of your stones will ever be used
again for building. You willbe like a desert forever. I, the
Lord, have spoken."41
He contrived and set Babylonia to wreak havOc on
Jerusalem, and suddenly, He is saying that He is going to
destroy Babylonia and its people for what they have done to
Jerusalem! He speaks to the people of Jerusalem to console
them, and repeats this version: "I will take up your cause,"
He tells them, "and will make your enemies pay for what thbey
did to you. I will dry up the source of Babylonia's water and
make its rivers go dry...."42
By His command and design, Babylon is soon captured. He
is in raptures. "....The whole country will be put to shame,
and all its people will be killed. Everything on earth and in
the sky willshout for joy when Babylonia falls to the people
who come from the north to destroy it. Babylonia caused the
death of people all over the wvorld, and now Babylonia will
fall because it caused the death of so many Israelites. I, the
Lord, have spoken."n43
He causes Edom to turn one more notch the handle of His
39Jeremiab, 51.20-23. 0Jeremiab, 51.6. Jeremiab, 51.24-26.

12Jeremiab, 51.36-39. 43Jereniab, 51.47-49.
cruel cycle. And then He pronounces the most ferocious

curses on Edom and other nations. With glee and contempt",
Hesays, "they captured My land and took pOssession of its
pastures. "% He is all fire and fury at them now:
On the day I punish Edom,

I willdestroy their clever men
and wipe out all their wisdom...
Because you robbed and killed
your brothers, the descendants of Jacob,
you will be destroyed and dishonoured forever...
The day is near when I, the Lord,
will judge all nations.
Edom, what you bave done
will be done to you.
You will get back wbat you bave given.
My people have drunk a bitter cup of punishment
on My sacred hill.
Butall the surrounding nations will drink
a still more bitter cup of punishnment;
they will drink it all and vanish away.45
And then Gog, the ruler of the nations of Meshech and

Tubal. The Sovereign Lord sends His chosen prophet to
direct Gog on His behalf,
Now while My people Israel live in security, you will set out from
your place in the far north, leading a large, poweful army of soldiers
from many nations, all of them on horseback. You will attack My
people like a stom moving across the land. When the time comes
will send you to invade My land in order to show the nations who I am,
to show My holiness by wbat I do through you. You are the one I was
talking about long ago, when I announced through My servants, the
prophets of Israel, that in the days to come, Iwould bring someone to
attack Israel,46
44
Ezekiel, 35; 36.5. 45Obadiab, 8-10, 15-16.
46Ezekiel, 38.14-17.
"Kill, " Hecommands, "Destroy"
301
Even as He is asking His prophet to convey this command to
Gog, He tells the prophet,
On the day Gog invades Israel, I will be furious. I deckare in the heat of
My anger that on that day there will be a severe earthquake in the
land of Israel... Mountains will fall, cliffs will crumble, and every wall
willcollapse. Iwill terrify Gog with all sorts of calamities... 47
The Lord God Himself sends king Nebuchadnezzar of

Babylonia to smother Judah. He, the Almighty Lord, the Bible
specifically tells us, "let him capture king Jehoiakim and
seize some of the Temple treasures.."48 He tells His chosen
people, "I willgive you back what you lost in the years when
swarms of locusts ate your crops. It wVas I wb0 sent tbis army
.
against you.." He recounts what He has visited on the
chosen people through several nations, and in the same
breath declares, "I will destroy them because of all they bave
done to you. »49
Having got the varied nations to execute His plan, He
VOWs,
I willgather all the nations

and bring them to the Valley of Judgment.
There I will judge them
for all they bave done to Mypeople.
They have scattered the Israelites in foreign countries
and divided up Israel, My land.
Tbey threw dice to decide
who would get the captives.
They sold boys and girls into slavery
to pay for prostitutes and wine, 50
"What are you trying to do to Me, Tyre, Sidon, and all the
regions of Philistia?," He demands of the very people He has
47Ezekiel, 38.18-23. 48Daniel, 1.1-2.

9Joel, 2.25, 20. 50Joel, 3.2-3.
used to kill and pillage. "Are you rying to pay Me back for
Something? If you are, I willquickly pay you back. You have
taken My gold and silver and carried My rich treasures into
your temples. You have taken the people of Judah and
Jerusalem far from their own country and sold them to the
Greeks. Now I am going to bring them out of the places to
which you have sold them. I will do to you wbat you bave
done to them. I will let your sons and daughters be sold to the
people of Judah, they will sell them to the people of far-off
Sabeans. I, the Lord, have spoken."1
He goes down the list of each of the peoples He has used,
and vowS revenge:
....Egypt will become a
desert,
a
and Edom ruined waste,
because theyattacked the land of Judah
and killed its innOcent people.
I willavenge those who were killed:
Iwill not spare the guilty..2
Put He, the Lord, is the one who has caused the killing. If
anyone is guilty it is God: it isn't just that He acknowledges in
several places that He is the one who set these peoples to
smother the chosen ones. On the claim of the Bible
absolutely nothing - for good or for ill - happens except at
His command. Hence, if the deeds of anyone deserve to be
avenged, they are the deeds of the Lord God.
Having gathered several nations to attack His chosen
people, He tells the latter that they should proceed to
Babylon, but that they should not be afraid as He, the Lord -
the very one who has set other nations to attack them will
help them. "Many nations have gathered to attack you," He
announces. "They say, Jerusalem must be destroyed! We
will see this city in ruins!' But these nations do not know what
is in the Lord's mind. They do not realise that they have been
SlJoel, 3.4-8. S2joel, 3.19-21.

"Kill," He commands, "Destroy" 303
gathered together to be punished in thesame way that corn is

brought in to be threshed, "53
And our Christian missionaries denounce Krishna and
Rama as being inferior gods!
Having instigated other nations to attack the people in
Jerusalem, the Lord God inflames the latter. “People of
Jerusalem," He hectors, "go and punish your enemies. I will
make you as strong as a bull with iron horns and bronze
hoofs. You will crush many nations, and the wealth they got
by violence you will present to Me, the Lord of the whole
World, "
The Lord God is therefore responsible for not just a few
killings,not just for killing a few hundred thousand at a time,
but for round upon round of massacres: Heleaves His chosen
ones in such an ambivalent position that they drift back to
other gods; hence, He decrees that they be killed; to execute
His punishment, He sets several nations on the chosen ones;
those killings done, He gathers the enemies of His people
together so that they may be massacred wholesale that much
more easily; and to execute this round of punishment, He
whips up His chosen ones. And what does He want at the
end? That His chosen ones plunder the wealth that the others
have accumulated - by His design, at His specific direction -
and present it to Him, the Lord of the whole world!
That apart, why does the creator of the universe, the Lord
of everything need such a mundane thing as plundered
wealth?
He is the one who sets the time for everything, the Bible
teaches us in a famous and majestic set of verses – for binh
and for death,for planting and for pulling up, for killing and
for healing, for tearing down and for building, for sorrow and
for joy....54 "I know that everything God does will last
forever," the prophet remarks reflecting on the futility of our
puny efforts. *You can't add anything to it, or take away
53 Micab, 4.11-12. 54 Ecclesiastes, 3.

anytbing awayfrom il. And one thing God does is to make us

stand in awe of Him. Whatever happens or can happen has
already happened before. God makes the same tbing bappen
again and again"55
"Does disaster strike a city unless the Lord sends it?," the
Bible inquires in another celebrated set of verses. 56 Again
and again, the Lord proclaims Himself to have been the
author and cause of the suffering that has befallen mankind,
in particular the hapless people He has chosen as His own:
Iwas the one who brought famine to all your cities, yet you didnot
Come back to Me. Iheld back the rain when your crops needed it
most. Isent rain on one city, but not on another. Rain fell on one field,
but another field dried up. Weak from thirst, the people of several
cities went to a city where they hoped to find water, but there was
not enough to drink. Still you did not come back to Me.
Isent the scorching wind tco dry up your crops. The locusts ate up all
your gardens and vineyards, your fig-trees and olive-trees. Süll you
did not come back to Me.
I sent the plague on you like the one Isent on Egypt. I killed your
young men in bate and took your horses away. Ifilled your nostrils
with the stink of dead bodies in your camps.Still youdid not come
back to Me.
Idestroyed some of you as I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Those
of you whosurvived were
like a burning stick saved froma fire. Still
youdid not come back to Me....So then.... Iam going to punish you.
And because I am going to do this, get ready to face My judgment.
Notice what He is afflicting His people with all the time.

Notice what He is looking out for as He does so, and as they
are suffering and dying before His eyes: has this last affliction
been sufficient to turn them to Me? - that is His concern.
Is He not the one who deserves the punishment He is
inflicting on mankind?
55 Ecclesiastes, 3.14-15. S6Amos, 3.3-8. 57Amos, 4.6-12.

22
Ever the unrequited lover
"They love to turn away from Me," the Lord God

complains, "they will not control themselves. So I am not
pleased with them. I will remember the wrongs they have
done and punish them because of their sins." Do not ask Me
tohelp these people, He tells His prophet. Even if Moses and
Samuel were standing here pleading with Me, I would not
spare them, He declares. That is typical of Him: He never
forgets such wrong as others may have done - the serntence
should actually read, He never forgets things others may
have done which He has convinced Himself are wrong.
So muçh so that He violates the laws that He has Himself
laid down. Sons shall not be punished for the sins of their
fathers, He declares at great length. Each shall be held
accountable for his own deeds alone. But in His own case,
He follows the opposite rule:
I, ,
the Lord, am a God who is full of compassion and pity who is not
easily angered [! and who shows great love and faithfulness. I keep
My promise for thousands of generations and forgive evil and sin; but
I will not fail to punisb children and grandchildren to the tbird
and fourtbgeneration for the sins of their parents3
And He applies this rule. As we have seen, king Josiah of
judah was one of the few who did what pleased the Lord
God. He smashed to bits - the exact words – the altars which
were being used for pagan worship. He killed every single
Jeremiah, 14.10-11; 15.1.

2Ezekiel, 18.1-31. B
Exodus, 34.6-7.
307
some undefined, indefinite future - His recurring
promise
being the most conspicuous example, the promise that He
will ultimately bring the people He has chosen as His own to
the land He once promised their ancestors.
These two traits - of never forgetting the Wrongs He
imagines He has been done, and of never forgetting the good
He has convinced Himself He has done combine to
produce an entirely predictable psychological condition: in
His eyes He is forever the one who has been wronged.
My own people have abandoned Me, He is forever
lamenting. "They did not care about Me," He groans, "even
though Irescued them from Egyptand led them through the
wilderrness, a land of deserts and sand dunes, a dry and
dangerous land where no one lives and no one will even
travel..." "No other nation has ever changed its gods, even
though they were not real," He wails even as He is
demanding that the people He has chosen change their gods
and worship Him! "But My people have exchanged Me, the
God who has brought them honour, for gods that can do
nothing for them." "You deserted Me, the Lord your God," He
moans, "while I was leading you along the way."7 At every
turn,the same complaint: I have done so much for them, they
do not even do this one little thing I want of them –that they
Worship Me and Me alone!
He cannot, of course, deny the unspeakable calamities He
has brought down on His people. But for each of these, He
says, the blame lies squarey on them. "Ipunished you, but it
did no good," He says, "You would not let Me correct you. "3
"Whenever I want to heal My people Israel and make themn
prosperous again," He laments, "al! I can see is their
wickedness...." "I wanted to saue them, " He maintains, "but
their worship of Me was false..." "Even though Iwas the one
who brought them up and made them strong, they plotted
Jeremiab, 1.16; 2.5-6, 11, 17.

SJeremiah, 2.30. 9Hosea,7.1.
priest who had been conducting such worship - he made

sure that they were killed on the very altars at which they had
been conducting the worship. He burnt human bones at
every altar. He took the symbol of the goddess, pulverized it,
burnt it to ashes, and scattered the ashes over the public
burial ground. But even this did not assuage the anger of the
Lord God - forgiving and compassionate and full of pity
though He is! Why not? Because of the sin that Josiah's father
had committed, the Bible explains - the sin, of course, was
the familiar one of not destroying pagan worship!?
Those who do good shall be rewarded, He explains. Only
those who do evil are to be punished, they are to be punished
only for the evilthey do themselves.5Yet in a moment, He is
shouting to His prophet, "Mortal man, denounce Jerusalem.
Denounce the places where people worship. Warn the land
of Israel that I, the Lord, am saying: I am your enemy. Iwill
draw My sword and kill all of you, good and evil alike. I will
use My sword against every one from north to south..."»6
In a word, He never forgets what He has decided is the
Wrong others have done. So much so that He thinks it right to
kill wantonly-good as well as evil, those who have not done
the wrong about which He is in rage, as much as those who
are guilty of it.
But as far as His own case is concerned, He can never
forget, and He will not allow anyone else to forget for a
moment the good He has done! I rescued you from slavery,
He keeps reminding them. I guided you through the desert,
and across the sea, He keeps reminding them. Iforgave you
when you..., and I forgave you when you..., He keeps
reminding them. I crushed your enemies, He keeps
-
reminding them invariably omitting to mention that He is
the one who had set the enemies to crush the people in the
first place. Ever so often the good He takes credit for consists
of nothing more than a promise to do them some good in
'2 Kings, 23.1-20, 26., 5Ezekiel, 18. 6Ezekiel, 21.1-4.

against Me. They keep on turning away from Me to a god that

is powerless. »10 - powerless that other god must be, but he
does seem to have the power to always turn God's own

people away from Him!
Not only is He the one who is forever wronged, He sees
Himself as the one who is doubly cursed: He is eternally
wronged, and yet He cannot give up loving His unfaithful
flock! So sincere and steadfast does He see Himself as being!
He breaks into song at His plight:
When Israel was a child I loved him,

and called him out of Egypt as My son.
But the more I called him,
the more he turned away from Me.
My people sacrificed to Baal;
they burnt incense to idols.
YetI was the one who taught Israel to walk.
I took My people up in My arms,
but they did not acknowledge that I took care of them.

I drewthem to Me with affection and love.
Ipicked them up and held them to My cheek;
Ibent down to them and fed them.
They refuse to return to Me, He weeps. And so I must send

them back to Egypt, I must have Assyria crush them. They
insist on turning away from Me, He cries.!" Ihave to punish
you, but, and He breaks into another song of self-pity,
How can Igive you up, srael?

How canIabandon you?
How could Idestroy you asI did Admah,
or treat youas I did Zeboiim?
My heart will not let Me do it!
My love for you is too strOng.
I will not punish you in My anger:
I willnot destroy Israel again.
For Iam God and not man.
1°Hosea, 7.13, 15. 1"Hosea, 11.5, 7.

309
I, the Holy One, am with you.
I will not come to you in anger.'
The self-pity: "My heart will not let Me do it! My love for you
is too strong"! The protestations which are the complete
opposite of His unvarying record: "I will not punish you in
My anger.... Iwill not come to you in anger." His view of
Himself as the mother who does so much for her children and
yet whom they disregard! If only He were an ordinary
mother, some therapist would instruct Him that a mother who
is forever reminding her children of the things she has done
for them, is sure to lose their affection! But who can counsel
therapy to the Almighty?
So extreme is this psychological complex that, having
sworn eternal and inexhaustible love for His children, in a
moment the Lord God is driven to denouncing them in gaudy
metaphors! "You are like a wild camel on heat," He charges,
"running about loose, rushing into the desert. When she is on
heat, who can control her? No male that wants her has to
trouble himself; she is always available at mating time..."
"Look up at the hilltops," He says. "Is there any place where
you have not acted like a prostitute? You waited for lovers
along the roadside, as an Arab waits for victims in the desert.
You have defiled the land with your prostitution." The
accusation, invariably followed by another bout of self-pity:
Israel, I wanted to accept you as My son
and give you a delightful land,
the most beautiful land in the world.
I wanted you to call Me father,
and never again turn away from Me.

But like an unfaithful wife,
you have not been faithful to Me.
I,the Lord, have spoken...3
12Hosea, 11.1-4, 8-9.

13Jeremiab, 2.23-24; 3.2, 19-20.
Youwere born of an Amorite father and a Hittite mother, He

tells His chosen people - "choser in the sense, as will be
clear by now, that He has chosen this particular lot to ensure
that He willbe worshipped. And He hs picked them up for
this purpose, He reminds them, even though they were born
to an Amorite and a Hittite - people who the Israelites
despised as debased idolaters. No one bothered to cut off
your umbilical cord, no one bothered to even wash you when
you were born. Iam the one who did all this. I raised you, I
made you strong. "You grew strong and tall, and became a
young woman," He reminds them, drawing a picture in His
mind. Your breasts were well-formed, and your hair had
grown, but you were naked,"
"AsI passed by again, I saw that the time had come for you
to fall in love," the Lord God recalls. "I covered your naked
body with My coat, and promised tolove you. Yes, I made a
marriage covenant with you, and you became Mine."
The Lord God continues with His word-picture:
Then I took water and washed the blood off you. Irubbedolive-oil on
your skin. I dressed youin embroidered gowns andgave you shoes of
the best leather, a linen headband and a silk cloak.
Iputjewels on you–bracelets and necklaces. I gave youa nose-ring
and earrings and a beautiful crown to wear.
You had ornaments of goldand silver... Your beauty was dazzling,
and you becamea queen. You became famous in everynation for
your perfect beauty,becauseIwas the one who made you lovely.!4
Little need to put too fine a point on such accounts, but three
things willbe obvious. Were someone other than the Lord
God painting such word-pictures, he would be pulled up for
dressing and undressing someone with his mind's eye! And
what would one say of a husband who is forever reminding
-
his wife of the gifts he has bought her not forgetting even
the linen scarf, and the pair of shoes? What would one say of
14Ezekiel, 16.3-14.
311
a husband who does not see
the natural loveliness in her but
proclaims that the beauty for which she has become famous
is lustrous only because be has dressed
her up?
And then come the accusations against the "wife" He has
so –
done much for the other side of these being self-pity of
having been wronged. The metaphors He uses for both- the
people as well as for Himself - are telling: the people are
the unfaithful wife, and He the aging, trusting, cuckolded
husband!
"But you took advantage of your beauty and fame," the
Lord God tells His chosen "wife", "to sleep with everyone
whocame along. You used some of your clothes to decorate
your places of worship, and just like a
prostitute, you gave
yourself to everyone." And then a cut so unkind, He moans in
self-pity,
Youtook the silver and gold jewelry that I had given you, used it to
make male-images, and committed adultery with them. You took
the embroidered clothes Igave you and put them on the images, and
youoffered to the images the olive-oil and incense I had given you. I
gave you food-the best flour, olive-oil, and honey-but you offered
it as a sacrifice to win the favour of idols. Then you took the sons
and
daughters you had borne Me and offered them as sacrifices to idols.
Wasn't it bad enough to be unfaithful to Me, without taking My
children and sacrificing them to idols?
The question at once springs to mind: with the unfaithful wife

going to such lengths - sacrificing their children, nothing less
why is it that the omnipotent Husband stood by, wallowing
in self-pity instead of immediately using His limitless power
to put an end to the sacrifices, the infidelities? Another of His
incomprehensible mysteries. But to proceed with the Lord's
lament,
During your disgusting life as a prostitute you never once

remembered your childhood- when you were naked, squirming in
your own blood.
But in the Lord's reckoning, it wasn't just addiction to

fornication that drove His wife to sleep with every passer-by,
she did this with a definite purpose the "purpose" that
every self-pitying person sees in whatever others do: you did
all this to burt Me, He claims:
You are doomed! Doomed! You did all that evil, and then by the side
of every road you built places to worship idols and practice
prostitution. You dragged your beauty through the mud. You offered
yourself to everyone who came by, and you were more of a
prostitute every day. You let your lustful neighbours, the Egyptians,
go to bed with you, and you used your prostitution to make Me
angry.
And so, says the Lord God, the forgiving compassionate Lord
God, I have no alternative but to raise My hand to punish you.
And what form will the punishment take? Were anyone else
to describe it the way and at the length at which the Lord
does, literary critics would say that the author is injecting
sexual allusions gratuitously:
Because you were not satisfied by the others, youwent running after
the Assyrians. You were their prostitute, but they didn't satisfy you
either. You were alsoa prostitute for the Babylonians, that nation of
businessmen, but they didn't satisfy you either....
You have done all this like a shameless prostitute. On every street
you built places to worship idols and practice prostitution.
But it isn't just that you have had an insatiable appetite, the
Lord God tells His wife", it isn't just that you have been a
prostitute. Among prostitutes, you have been one of a
specially depraved kind:
But you are not out for money like a common prostitute. You are like
a woman who commits adultery with strangers instead of loving her
husband. A prostitute is paid, but you gave presents to all your lovers
and bribed them to come from everywhere to sleep with you. You
are a special kind of prostitute. No one forced you to become one.
You didn'tget paid; you paid them! Yes, you are different.
Ever the unrequited lover 313
By now the Lord God is in full flight:
You stripped off your clothes and, like a prostitute, gave yourself to
your lovers and to all your disgusting idols, and you killed your
children as sacrifices to idols. Because of this I willbring all your lovers
together- the ones you liked and the ones you hated. I will bring
them round you in a circle, and then will stripoffyour clothes and let
them see you naked.
What would one say of a husband who subjects his wife to

such treatment? The Lord God proceeds:
Iwillcondemn you for adultery and murder, and in My anger and fury
willpunish you with death. I will put you in their power, and they
will tear down the places where you engage in prostitution and
worship idols. They will take away your clothes and leave you
completely naked.
They wil stir up a crowd to stone you, and they will cut you to pieces
with their swords. They will burn your houses down and let crowds of
women see your punishment. I will make you stop being a prostitute
and make you stop giving gifts to your lovers. Then My anger will be
over and I will be calm. I will not beangry or jealous any more....b
Any husband who, having complete power to rectify the
conduct of a wayward wife, does not use it will normally be
taken to be deliberately letting things proceed so that he can
inflict such colourful punishments on her! Moreover, notice
that in the eyes of the Lord God, idolatry and prostitution are
one,What then is one to say of those who are among the most
ardent idolaters today - the Roman Catholics?
We have already encountered God's depiction of Himself
as the old husband- the one who married two sisters, Oholah
and Oholibah. They had already lost their virginity in Egypt,
and had become prostitutes. Even so He married both of
them. Not content with Him, they fell for the handsome
young men from Assyria and Babylon, men with glittering
red uniforms,and the rest. 16 That long lament is also saturated
15For the foregoing, Ezekiel, 16.9-43. 16Ezekiel, 23.

with self-pity, with blaming others. And thence, outrage and

untold punishments being flung athe sisters....
Prostitutes, prostitutes, prostitutes - that is His favourite
description of the people He, in His infinite wisdom has
chosen to be His special people. 17 Were it someone else, an
observer would certainly infer that he has prostitutes on his
mind. The observer would certainly question his judgment -
the judgment which so consistently leads him to rest his
hopes on a bunch so incorrigibly unfaithful. Reminded of the
innumerable times the chosen people have reverted to other
gods and their idols, the observer would counsel Him to
examine His own conduct and worth - why is it that the
people gravitate back to those other gods so persistently?
May be He should learn something from tbem, may be they
have some secret power which He, in spite of His high
opinion of Himself, does not have...
Alas!, as He is the Lord Almighty God, no therapist dare tell
Him any of this.
And so all the guilt lies witb them

In a word, the theme of the Bible is twofold: the Lord God
is always wanting to confer boons on the people He has
chosen; wayward prostitutes that they are, they are always
betraying Him.
The result is just! All guilt lies with the people who had the
misfortune to have been chosen by the Lord God to have the
privilege of worshipping Him and Him alone.
In Nehemiah we hear the Prayer of Confession, in which
the poor chosen people acknowledge that all the blame lies
with them, that the Lord God has always been yearning to
shower blessings on them, but their cussedness and
perversity have been such that they have repeatedly broken
their promises to Him, betrayed Him, and thereby compelled
17Hosea, 4.12; 9.1.

Ever the unrequited lover 315
Him to visit even more painful punishments on thenm.... Read

the verses and decide what the mental state of people in
whom guilt has been driven so deep is liable to be. The
prayer recounts the infinite boons the Lord God has gone on
conferring on the people, and proclaims,
But Yourpeoplerebelled and disobeyed You;
they turned their backs on Your Lawv.
They killed the prophets who warned them,
who told them to turn back to You.
They insulted You time after time,
so You let their enemies conquer and rule them.
In their trouble they called to You for help,
and You answered them from heaven.
In Your great mercy You sent them leaders
whorescued them from their foes.
When peace returned, they sinned again,
And again You let their enemies conquer them.
Yet when they repented and asked You to save them,
in heaven You heard, and time after time
Yourescued them in Your great mercy.
You warned them to obey Your teachings,
but in pride they rejected Your laws,
although keeping Your Law is the way to life.
Obstinate and stubborn, they refused to obey.
Year after year You patiently warned them.
You inspired Your prophets to speak,
but Your people were deaf,
so You let them be conquered by other nations.
And yet, because Your mercy is great,
Youdid not forsake or destroy them.
You area gracious and merciful God..
And the people accept this thesis! They reply in chorus,

O God, our God, how great You are....
Remember how much we have suffered!
You have done right to punish us;
You have been faithful even though we have sinned...8
18Nebemiab, 9.26-31, 32-33.

The complexes that will afflict people who internalize such
a view of life and existence need hardly be elaborated. Why
is it so fullof sin?, the innocent Ramalkrishna is said to have
asked when the Bible was read to,him!
The Lord God is forever full of indignation at what His
chosen people have made Him do to them! In His way of
looking at things He is the one who has been, and is being
made to suffer! "Do you think I sent My people away like the
man who divorces his wife?," He demands, and asks for
proof: "Where, then, are the papers of divorce?" "Do you
think I sold you into captivity like a man who sells his
children as slaves?" "No", He thunders, "you went away
captive because of your sins; you were sent away because of
your crimes." "Why did My people fail to respond when I
went to them to save them? Why did they not answer whenl
called? Am Itoo weak to save them?," He demands, "I can dry
up the sea with a command and turn rivers into a desert, So
that fish in them die for lack of water. I can make the sky turn
dark, as if it were mourning for the dead"19 - the sort of things
that every polluting factory can do today.... In any case, that is
exactly the point: You, the Almighty, could have done all this,
You could have set the people right, yet You allowed Your
people to continue to sin.
The Lord God repeatedly reminds His chosen people of
the ruin and devastation He has visited upon their ancestors.
He tells them to heed the fact that the cities He ruined are still
in ruins. I ruined them, He says, "because their people had
done evil and had made Me angry." In what way did they do
evil, by doing what did they make Him angry? "They offered
sacrificesto other gods," the Almighty explains, "and served
gods that neither they nor you nor your ancestors ever
worshipped." He pastes the responsibility thicker on the
badgered people: “And so, I, the Lord Almighty, the God of
Israel, now ask why y0u are doing such evil thing to
19
saiab, 50.1-3.
Ever the unreguited lover 317
yourselves. Do you want to bring destruction on men,
women, children and babies, so thbat none of your people will
be left ? Why do you make Me angry by worshipping idols
and by sacrificing to other gods?..." Have you forgotten all
the wicked things that your ancestors, their wives, that you
and your wives have been doing?, Hedemands. And yet, He
complains, "to this day you have not humbled yourselves."
And what humbling would find approval with the Almighty?
The Lord explains, "You have not honoured Me or lived
according to all the laws that I gave you and your
n20
ancestors.
Why doyou Israelites want to die?," God asks His chosen
people - notice His consistency in pasting the responsibility
on the hapless people, "Why do youIsraelites want to die?"
"I do not want anyone to die," He claims. "Tell them", He
orders His prophet, "that as surely as I, the Sovereign Lord,
am the living God, I do not enjoy seeing a sinner die. I would
rather see him stop sinning and live. Israel, stop the evil you
are doing. Why do you want to die?"21 These are the clains of
the One who, on the testimony of the Bible itself, indeed on
His own testimony as contained in His own book, the Bible, is
responsible for many, many timesmore deaths and for much
greater ruin than anyone else mentioned in the account!
But such is the fear that He instills in His devotees that
they come to own the guilt! Yes, we are the ones who did
evil, they shout. Yes, You were only being just whern You
punished us, they acknowledge. Yes, we deserved the pain
and suffering You flung at us. They sing in chorus,
The Lord is merciful and will not reject us forever.
He may bring us sOrrow, but His love for us is sure and strong.
He takes no pleasure in causing us grief or pain....4
Quite apart from everything else, how does this abasement,
20Jeremiab, 44.3,7-10. 2i Ezekiel, 18.31-32; 33.11.

22 Lamentalions, 3.31-33.
this mea culpa square with what follows just two verses later?
That verse, in this very book of Almighty God, declares,
The will of the Lord alone is always crried out.
Good and evil alike take place at His command.23
Surely, the inference from that can only be that the guilt is His
more than that of anyone else. But through His book, He
makes the devotees internalize the exact opposite! "Why
should 'we ever complain when we are punished for our
sin?," they sing!24
Lamentations is entirely devoted to dousing believers with
guilt and blame. As are the monologues of Daniel. "I prayed
to the Lord, my God," Daniel says, "and confessed to the sins
of my people." He tells the Lord,
Lord God, You are great, and we honour You. You are faithful to your
covenant and show constant love to those who love You and do what
You command,
Why should He need to be flattered all the time with such

paeans of praise, "You are great, we honour You"? Why
should the love of the Universal Father be so restricted - to
those who love Him? Why should it be conditional - to those
who do what He commands? But to proceed with what
Daniel tells Him,
Wehave sinned, wehave been evil, wehave done wrong,. Wehave

rejected what Youcommanded us to do and have turnedaway from
what Youshowed us was right. Wehave not listened to Your servants
the prophets,who spoke in Your name to our kings, our rulers, our
ancestors, our whole nation. You, Lord, always do what is right, but zue
have always brought disgrace on ourselves..Our kings, our rulers,
Ourancestors have acted shamefully and sinned against You. You are
merciful and forgiving, although ve haverebelled against You..25
23 Lamentations, 3.37-38.
24Lamentations, 3.39. 25Daniel, 9.4-9.
319
What an abject condition for the Almighty Lord to reduce His
devotees to He chooses them - so that there may be people
!
who will worship Him, and Him alone. Then, though capable
of doing so, He deliberately does not instill this faculty – of
remaining steadfast in their worship of Him- in them. And as
they waver something which, like everything else, cannot
happen but by His command, He punishes them for
wavering. Next, He makes them internalize the notion that
they alone are to blame for what He is doing to them, that He
is doing no more than mete out justice, indeed in raining
down such suffering on them He is only being faithful to
them -in that He is faithfully executing the covenant He had
entered into with them.
The sequence has the predictable end: He does what
pleases His whim of the moment, and the people, though
crushed under His heel, feel grateful to Him for never
forgetting them. They wallow in the conviction that they
deserve wvhat is being done to them. They spend their nights
singing paeans to His justice...
The perfect crinme! The murdered man dies convinced he is
the murderer!
And the perfect precursor - to the Inquisition, to the
interrogations in Communist States. In these also, the
confessions almost invariably ended with the victim singing
praises of his tormentors – of the Church, in particular of
the Pope during the Inquisition; of the Communist Party,
in particular of Stalin and Mao in the Soviet Union and
Communist China!
23
All-powerful?
It is indeed a great mystery: in the face of the unvarying

record in the Bible of His consistent failure, of His unvarying,
persistent ineffectualness, how has the Church, and God
Himself, been able to sustain the notion that He is Al]
powerful? From beginning to end the narratives of the Bible,
written overa thousand years, testify to one thing alone: He
instructs people to worship Him alone, they swear to do so,
and in less than no time revert to worshipping other gods and
their idols, He brings down the harshest punishments on
them, yet at the first opportunity theyy revert to those gods
again. How does this record amount to the Lord God being
All-powerful?
And this repeated cycle does not trigger even the trace of
introspection! Not in God, not in the Church!
What does the Bible say was the effect of God's own,
unremitting efforts to ensure the one objective which is of
concern to Him - to have the people worship Him?
When Joshua is alive, the people worship the Lord God.
He dies. They relapse into worshipping the Baals and
Asherahs. The Lord becomes furious, He sends enemies to
Crush them,
He sends leaders to His people So that they may overcone
the enemies, and at last return to worshipping Him. Most of
the leaders, the people do not obey. Some they heed - but
the moment the leader is dead, they revert to worshipping
Baal and Asherah.2
Judges, 2.6-15. Judges, 2.16-20.

All-poueful? 321
God therefore does not drive out the nations who had
come and occupied the lands which He had reserved for His
chosen people. Instead of learning from this deprivation, the
people marry women of the enemy and take to worshipping
the gods and goddesses of the enemy.5 God gets furious
again..
The people are freed, but again they revert to worshipping
the Baals and Asherahs - this time they take to worshipping a
host of others too, the gods of Syria, of Sidon, of Moab, of
Ammon, of Philistia. Another bout of Godly anger ensues.
Enemies are sent forth. The chosen are conquered, crushed.
They are persecuted for 18 years. They repent, they throw
out the other gods, and start worshipping the Lord God
Almighty..5
God personally and directly warns Solomon: if your
people give their allegiance to any other god, Ishall abandon
the Temple.... Infatuated by his numerous wives, Solomon
allows them to continue to worship their pagan gods. He
himself begins to do so. God flies intoHis usual rage...6
Solomon's successor also takes to worshipping bull-calves.
God curses the king through His prophet. The prophet
himself disobeys God. God has him killed by a lion.
The king and his entire family are killed in accordance with
the decree of God.7
Solomon's son, Rehoboam, too builds places of worship
for gods other than the Lord, and puts up stone pillars and
symbols of Asherah..8
His son, Abijah, succeeds Rehoboam as king of Judah. "He
committed the same sins as his father and was not completely
loyal to the Lord his God." the Bible infoms us. But in his
case, God rewards him with a son to rule after him. God does
so "because David (Abijah's great-grandfather) had done
what pleased Him and had never disobeyed any of His
Judges, 2.21-23; 3.1-6. Judges, 10.6. SJudges, 10.15.

61Kings, 9. 71 Kings, 13. 81 Kings, 14.
commands, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite." By that

caveat hangs a typical scandal. "One day, late in the
afternoon," the Bible records, "David got up from his nap and
went to the palace roof. As he walkedabout there, he saw a
Woman having a bath. She was very beautiful. So he sent a
messenger to find out who she was, and learnt that she was
Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the
Hittite. David sent a messenger to fetch her: they brought her
to him and he made love to her. (She had just finished her
monthly ritual of purification.) Then she went back home.
Afterwards she discovered that she was pregnant and sent a
message to David to tell him."
By a series of manipulations, David had Uriah positioned at
the front in a battle, at a position where he was bound to get
killed. Uriah was in fact killed. "When Bathsheba heard that
her husband had been killed, she mourned for him," the Bible
Concludes. When the time of mourning was over, David sent
for her to come to the palace; she became his wife and bore
him a son. But the Lord was not pleased with what David had
done "10
Nadab succeeds Jeroboam. He too sins against God and
leads the chosen people to do so.1
Baasha finishes Nadab and his entire family. He too sins,
and takes to worshipping other gods.... He as well as every
member of his family is killed in accordance with God's
decree....12
Zimri who has executed Baasha and his entire family in
accordance with God's decree, the Baasha who in turn had
killed Nadab and every member of his family, is able to rule
for only seven days. But even in this fleeting period he sins
against the Lord! And meets with just reward – he perishes in
a fire.. 13
Zimri is succeeded by Omri. Omri sins more against the
91 Kings, 15.1-6. 102 Samuel, 11. "1Kings, 15.25-30.

121 Kings, 15.33; 16.1-6. 131 Kings, 16.18-19.
All-powerful? 323
Lord than any of his predecessors. He sins, he leads the
people into committing sin and idolatry.. 14
Ahab, son of Omri, becomes king. He himself worships
Baal, he himself puts up an image of Asherah.... God's anger
is aroused.... He hurls a terrible drought on the people....5
God's prophets emulate Him. Elijah is the current prophet.
He has 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah
brought. He asks them to ready a bull for sacrifice. He asks
them to pray to their god. They pray. There is no answer. He
mocks them and their god: "Pray louder," he tells them. "He is
a god. May be he is day-dreaming or relieving himself, or
perhaps he has gone on a joumey. Or may be he is sleeping
and you have got to wake him up...." The prophets pray
louder, they cut themselves with knives and daggers, "They
kept ranting and raving," says that epitome of tolerance and
broadmindedness, the voice of God itself, the Bible, but no
answer cones.. Elijah then prepares another altar. He
places wood on it. He cuts up the bull, and places it on the
altar. He asks the people to pour water on the wood and the
bull.
Elijah then prays to the Lord God, "prove now that Youare
the God of Israel and I am Your servant...." The Lord God,
who has the universe to run, obviously has nothing else to do
at the moment. He sends fire that burns up the sacrifice, the
WOod, the stones. The earth itself is scorched. Properly
impressed, the people throw themselves on the ground,
shouting, "The Lord is God; the Lord alone is God."
Seizing the moment, Elijah orders, "Seize the prophets of
Baal; don't let any of them get away." The people seized
them all," the Bible notes with satisfaction, "and Elijah led
them down to the river Kishon and killed them."16
Elijah is not done, though. He retreats to the wilderness,
and thence he proceeds to Mount Sinai. There he tells the
Lord that the people He has chosen to be His own have not
141 Kings, 16.25-26. 151 Kings, 16.29-33. 167 Kings, 18.18-40.

been faithful to Him. Accordingly, the Lord God decides to

kill all the people leaving alive only 7,000 - those who had
not bowed to Baal or kissed his idol....17
Ahab is king. He defeats the Syriarn king and army. He
enters into a treaty with the latter, and lets him go. As Ahab
has done so without consulting God, and contrary to His
wishes, God is furious. Ahab is now to be reckoned as
another disobedient, faithless man: "Because you allowed
the man to escape whom I had ordered to be killed," the Lord
God with little to do, it seems, except keep interfering in
West Asian politics, declares, "you will pay for it with your
life, and your army will be destroyed for letting his army
escape. »18
The Bible says that "there was no one else who had
devoted himself so completely to doing wrong in the Lord's
sight as Ahab- all at the urging of his wife Jezebel...."
Committed as He is to justice, the Lord declares that He will
exterminate Ahab and every member of his family as He
exterminated Jeroboam and Baasha and their families. When
Elijah conveys this verdict to him, the Bible records, "Ahab
tore his clothes, took them off, and put on sackcloth. He
refused food, slept in the sackcloth, and went about gloomy
and depressed."
That turns out to be enough for God! "Have you noticed
how Ahab has humbled himself before Me?," He asks His
prophet, Elijah. “Since he has done this, I will not bring
disaster on him during his lifetime; it will be during his son's
lifetime that Iwill bring disaster on Ahab's family."19
Ahab signs the treaty, and lets the king of Syria go. God
decrees that the army of Ahab be destroyed. What wrong had
the soldiers done that they are to be killed? Ahab did wrong in
the eyes of the Lord: why decree disaster upon the man's son
and all his family?
In any case, what is the net result of the fulminations of the
171Kings, 19.5-18. 181 Kings, 20.42. 191 Kings, 21.20-29.

gathering inside their temple. When they are assembled, he

has cach one of them butchered.24 God is mighty pleased. He
tells Jehu, "You have done to Ahab's descendants everything
Iwanted you to do. So Ipromise you that your descendants,
down to the fourth generation, will be kings of Israel."25
Not only is the omniscient Lord God ineffectual, once
again He has erred in His judgment! For, His book, the Bible
itself tells us, "But he [Jehu] imitated the sin of Jeroboam,
who led Israel into worshipping the gold bull-calves he set
up in Bethel and in Dan... "26
In the other half, a queen has an entire royal family
murdered. Only one litle son, Joash, escapes, hidden by an
aunt in the Temple of Yahweh. He ascends the throne. Idols
of Baal are smashed, the altars are pulverized, the priests
are killed at the altars themselves...27 God's glory is
demonstrated, His power proven.
Joash reigns. Throughout his life he does what pleases
the Lord, the Bible tells us. But alas!, he does not demolish
and erase all the centres of pagan worship...28 Another
demonstration of the power of someone-other-than-God-the
All-powerful!
In Israel, Jehu's son, Jehoahaz becomes king. The Lord is
not able to keep this king either from sinning against Him,
and perpetuating the example of Jeroboam.29
In judah, Joash is succeeded by his son, Amaziah. The
Almighty Lord is not able to get him either to be fully zealous
in exterminating pagan places of worship.30
Jeroboam II, the son of Jehoash ascends the throne in
Israel. In his case too the Almighty Lord God fails:Jeroboam
II, the Bible tells us, too "sinned against the Lord, following
the wicked example of his predecessor king Jeroboam....
who led Israel into sin.."»31
242 Kings, 10.18-28. 252 Kings, 10.30.
262 Kings, 10.29, 31. 27 2
Kings, 11.
282 Kings, 12.3. 29 2
Kings, 13.2.
3^2 Kings, 14.4. 312 Kings, 14.23-24.
Allpoweful? 325
Lord? Ahaziah, son of Ahab, becomes king. He rules for two
years. "He sinned against the Lord," records the Bible,
"following the wicked example of his father Ahab, his
mother Jezebel, and king Jeroboam, who had led Israel into
sin. He worshipped and served Baal, and like his father
before him, he aroused the anger of the Lord, the God of
Israel"20
Next, the Lord God orders murders. He sends one of His
prophets to search out the young Jehu, and has the following
command conveyed to him: "I anoint you king of Israel. You
are to kill your master the king, that son of Ahab, so that I may
punish Jezebel for murdering My prophets and My other
servants" – the same rule of evidence: guilty-by-association!
"All Ahab's family and descendants are to die; Iwill get rid of
every male in his family, young and old alike.."21 What
wrong had these poor wretches done to merit such cruelty?
Jehu accordingly proceeds to Jezreel. Seeing Jezebel at a
balcony, he orders some officers to throw her down. They
do, and the Bible notes with a sense of fulfillment, "They
threw her down, and her blood spattered the wall and the
horses, And Jehu drove his horses and chariot over her body,
entered the palace, and had a meal..." Thereafter all seventy
descendants of Ahab are killed, their heads are packed in
baskets and sent to Jehu, God's chosen king. And then forty
two relatives of Ahaziah are caught and killed, so that not one
relative or descendant is left alive,22
Jehu, racing away on his chariot, picks up a potential ally.
Jehu tells him, "Come with me and see for yourself how
devoted I am to the Lord." "And they rode together to
Samaria," the Bible records. "When they arrived there, Jehu
killed all of Ahab's relatives, not sparing even one."5 And so
Jehu's devotion is established, and God's will is done!
Next, this chosen of God, tricks the devotees of Baal into
201 Kings, 22.51-53. 212 Kings, 9.6-10.

222 Kings, 9.32-37; 10.7, 14. 282 Kings, 10.15-17.
Allpoweiful? 327
In Judah, Amaziah is succeeded by his son, Uzziah. He
does what pleases the Lord, but he too fails the test - of
erasing the pagan places of worship. And so God inflicts "a
dreaded skin-disease" on him...32
Shallum becomes king of Israel. On his way from Tirzah,
this man of God, completely destroys the city of Tappuah, its
inhabitants and the surrounding territory. Why? "Because the
city did not surrender to him," says the Book of God, the
Bible. *He even ripped open the bellies of all the pregnant
Women "33
Uzziah is succeeded by Menahem as king of Israel. In spite
of the Lord, he too sins against the Lord, and follows the
wicked example of Jeroboam.34
Menahem is succeeded by his son, Pekahiah. He too sins
against the Lord, he too follows the example of Jeroboam 35
In Israel, Pekah becomes king. He too sins against the Lord
and chooses to follow the wicked example of Jeroboam 36
Jotham becomes king in Judah. He does what pleases the
Lord, but in the end he too is found wanting as he too fails to
heed the Lord's command and destroy all pagan places of
worship thoroughly.37
Ahaz, Jotham's son, who succeeds him to the throne of
Judah, turns out to be even more beyond the power of the
All-powerful God. "Hedid what was not pleasing to the Lord
his God and followed the example of the kings of Israel,"
says the Bible. "He even sacrificed his own son as a burnt
offering to idols, imitating the disgusting practice of the
people whom God had driven out of the land.. At the pagan
places of worship, on the hills, and under every shady tree,
Ahaz offered sacrifices and burnt incense. »38
King follows king. The people continue to elude God the
All-powerful. God sets the Assyrians at them. Massacres,
destruction follow.. Manasseh, still just twelve, becomes
322 Kings, 15.3-5. 332 Kings, 15.16. 3Á2 Kings, 15.17-18.
352 Kings, 15.23-24. 362 Kings, 15.27-28.
372 Kings, 15.32-35. 382 Kings, 16.3-4.
king of Judah. All the punishments God has hurled are as if

nothing. For he too sins against the Lord. Not just that - he
rebuilds the pagan places of worship, he restores the altars of
Baal, he makes an image of goddess, Asherah! Indeed, he
builds pagan shrines, and installs the image of Asherah right
in the very Temple in which God has said He Himself would
reside! He sacrifices his son as burnt-offering. He practises
divination and magic and consults fortune-tellers, even
mediums. "He sinned greatly against the Lord," says the
Bible, "and stirred up His anger."39
And what is God's response? Another fusillade of total
destruction, another totally ineffectual fusillade of total
destruction - aimed, as usual, at poor people who have done
nothing to deserve it. "King Manasseh has done these
disgusting things.." the Lord God fumes, "and with his idols
he has led the people of Judah into sin. So, I, the Lord God of
Israel, willbring such disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that
every one who hears about it will be stunned... I will wipe
Jerusalem clean of its people, as clean as a plate that has
been wiped and turned upside down. I will abandon the
people who survive, and will hand them over to their
enemies, who will conquer them and plunder their land.."40
To no avail again! Manasseh is succeeded by his son,
Amon. Of Amon, the Bible reports, "Like his father
Manasseh, he sinned against the Lord; he imitated his father's
actions, and he worshipped the idols that his father had
worshipped. He rejected the Lord, the God of his ancestors,
and disobeyed the Lord's commands."41
Eight years old, Josiah becomes king of Judah. He does
away with pagan worship. He desecrates altars all over the
country, the Bible records with approval, he smashes the
idols, he kills the priests at the very altars at which they have
been worshipping. One of the very rare successes of the
Lord!12
392 Kings, 21.2-9. 02 Kings, 10-15.

12 Kings, 21.20-22. 422 Kings, 23.1-20.
All-pouerful? 329
Alas!, Josiah's reign comes to an end. Joahaz becomes
king. And everything is back where it has always been:
"Following the example of his ancestors," says the Bible, "he
sinned against the Lord.."3 Accordingly, the Egyptians
invade Judah. Joahaz is taken prisoner, and carted off to
Egypt. There he dies.
Jehoiakim becomes king of Judah. As usual, "Following the
example of his ancestors, Jehoiakim sinned against the Lord,"
we learn from the Bible. God sends hosts of Babylonians,
Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites to destroy Judah. Not so
much because of Jehoiakim, it would seem: "This happened
at the Lord's command," the Bible explains, "in order to
banish the people of Judah from His sight because of all the
sins that king Manaselh had committed, and specially because
of all the innocent people he had killed."4
First, banishing people from His sight is surely an
impossible task: as He sees everything everyone every
where, where will they be banished so as to be out of His
vision? Second, the punishment is being ineted out in the
reign of Jehoiakim who succeeded Joahaz who succeeded
Josiah who succeeded Amon whose father Manasseh is the
one God is ostensibly upset with: justice so delayed is
misdirected, surely. Third, the punisment is for the sins of
Manasseh: why is it being inflicted on the hapless people?
They would surely have themselves suffered at the hands of
a ruler like Manasseh. Fourth, the deed of Manasseh over
which God is particularly incensed is that he killed a number
of innocent pers ons: how does putting an even larger
number of innocent people to the swords of Babylonians,
and then of the Syrians, and then of the Moabites, and then of
the Ammonites constitute justice for Manasseh's murders?
Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin. He continues
the well-entrenched tradition of the line. For we learn,
"Following the example of his father, Jehoiachin sinned
against the Lord...." The Lord sends the formidable and
132 Kings, 23.32. 442Kings, 24.3-4.

Not even the people He has chosen as His own, the people
He has chosen with the express purpose that at least by them
He will be worshipped, that by them He alone will be
worshipped.
"I, the Lord, ask you, why you refuse to listen to Me and to
obey My instructions," He says in an almost imploring tone.
"Jonadab's descendants have obeyed his command not to
drink wine, and to this very day none of them drink any. But
I have kept on speaking to you, and you have not
obeyed
Me. have continued to send you all My servants and
I
prophets, and they have told you to give up your evil ways
and to do what is right. But you would not listen to Me or pay
attention to Me. Jonadab's descendants have obeyed what
their ancestor gave them, but you people have not obeyed
Me.... "50
And again, after another bout of inflictions has failed to
have any lasting effect: "In spite of everything that has
happened, they have not returned to Me, the Lord, their
God.....»51
And yet again, "I have wiped out whole nations; I have
destroyed their cities and left their walls and towers in ruins.
The cities are deserted; the streets ae empty – no one is left.
Ithought that then My people would have reverence
for Me
and accept My discipline, that they would never forget the
lesson I taught them. But soon they were behaving as badly
as ever...."52
And yet, All-powerful He remains!
Tbat is His real mystery!
Throughout, and till the very end of the Old Testament,
God is wailing and raving at the infidelity of the people He
has chosen as His own, He is forever and till the very end
moaning about His not having been able to persuade or beat
them into venerating Him and Him alone.
S0Jeremiab, 35.12-17. 51 Hosea,

7.10. S2Zepbaniab, 3.6-7.
cruel armies of Nebuchadnezzar to pillage Judah. All the
important personages are carted off as prisoners to Babylon.
Nebuchacdnezzar makes Jehoiachin's uncle, Mattaniah, king
of
Judah. While doing so he decrees a new name for the man,
Zedekiah. To what effect? "King Zedekiah sinned against the
Lord as King Jehoiakim had once done," laments the Bible,
and adds, "The Lord became so angry with the people of
Jerusalem and Judah that He banished them from His sight."45
God now hurls the kings and armies successively of
Babylon, Syria, Sudan, Egypt.. on the people He has chosen
as His Wn. They rape, kill, loot... God's aim is the same
old
one: to inflict such cruel punishments on His
people that they
shun other gods, and worship Him alone. But now another lot
has to be punished- thepeoples He has hurled at His chosen
ones! Sometimes, as in the case of the Assyrian hordes, while
God is pleased at the devastation they have wrought, He gets
furious when He sees that the king of Assyria has started
thinking that he, the king, rather than He, the Lord, is the
author of the devastation. On other occasions, God is upset at
these other peoples and kings for having done so much harm
to His chosen and beloved people, albeit they have done it at
His express command. Chapter after chapter in Isaiah sets out
the dire fate which is visited upon these unwitting
instrumnents of God's oWn design.
Scarcely a king keeps his word to the Almighty Lord God.
Not one nation does either. "The time is coming," He roars,
"when I will punish the people of Egypt, Judah, Edom,
Ammon, Moab, and the desert people... All these people are
circumcised, but have not kept the covenant it symbolizes.
None of these people and none of the people of Israel bave
kept My covenant."*0 The Book of Amos recounts that each
and every one of the people of Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom,
Ammon, Moab, and of course the people of Judah and Israel
have repudiated Him, that they have sinned against Him.
152 Kings, 24.8-20. 6Jeremiab, 9.25-26.

All-poweiful? 331
"Here is a wine cup filled with My anger," God tells His

faithful prophet. *Take it to all the nations to whom I send
you, and make them drink it. When they drink from it, they
will stagger and go out of their minds because of the war I am
sending against them." Every nation on the face of the earth
has to drink from it, we are told. "Tell the people that 1, the
Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, am comnmanding them to
drink until they are drunk and vomit, until they fall down and
cannot get up, because of the war I am sending against
them.... I will begin My work of destruction in My own city.
Do they think they will go unpunished? No, they will be
punished, for I am going to send war on all the people of the
earth. I, the Lord Almighty, have spoken."*7
"But I, the Lord, am tearing down what I have built and
pulling up what I have planted," He proclaims. "I will do
this to the entire earth.... I am bringing disaster on al!
mankind.. »48
"I am going to destroy everytbing on earth, all buman
beings and animals, birds and fish," God declares. "I will
bring about the downfall of the wicked. I will destroy all
mankind, and no su rvivors will be lefi. 1, the Lord, have
spoken." "Iwill bring such disasters on mankind that every
0ne will grope about like a blind man," He continues. "They
have sinned against Me, and now their blood will be poured
out like water, and their dead bodies will lie roting on the
ground.»49
One feature that is enough to turn one inside out is the
wanton, endless, extremne cruelty. The other is the object to
attain which this extreme suffering is hurled - just to make
people worship Him. But equally telling is the fact that on His
own telling, on the telling of His own book, the Bible, there is
notone people whom He is able to get to do His bidding! Not
one nation that takes to worshipping Him, and Him alone.
Jeremiab, 26.15, 26-29.

HJeremiah, 45.4-5. 9Zepbaiah, 1..2-3, 17.
All-powerful? 333
The Church puts a gloss on this, a gloss ihat, to pluck

Macaulay's phrase for our scriptures, "would move laughter
in girls at a (Vedantic!) Boarding House"! In Dei Verbum,
Vatican-Il explained the leitmotif of the Old Testament as
follows:
In carefully planning and preparing the salvation of the whole human

race the God of infinite love, Iby a special dispensation, chose for
Himself a people to whom He vould entrust His promises. First He
enteredinto a covenant with Abraham (see Gen. 15:18) and, through
Moses, with the people of Israel(see Ex. 24:8).To this people which
He had acquired for Himself, He sco manifested Himself through
SVOrds and deeds as the one true and living God that Israel came to
know by experience the ways of God with men. Then, too, when
God Himself spoke to them through the mouth of the prophets,
Israeldaily gained deeper and clearer understanding of His ways and
made them more widely known among the nations see Ps. 21:29;
(
95:1-3; Is. 2:1-4; Jer. 3:17). The plan of salvation foretold by the
as
sacred authors, recounted and explained by them, is found the true
Word of God in the books of the Old Testament: these hbooks,
therefore,written under divine inspiration, preserve a lasting value:
for whatever was written in former days was written for
our
instruction, so that by steadfastness and the encouragement of the
Scriptures we might have hope (Ro, 15:4),53
That is the thread that runs through the Old Testament,

according to the Church! That the cruelties of the Old
Testament God speak to His "infinite love"!That the cruelties
were designed to give His chosen people the opportunity "to
as a result of
know by experience the ways of God"! That
these cruelties the chosen people actually "gained deeper
and ciearer understanding of His ways"! That the whole
arrangement, and the successive bouts of crushing cruelty
suffuse us with hope!
on 18 November,
5Dei verbum, Dogmatic Constittion Divine Revelation,
1965, 14.
And there is a purpose to these round about methods

of education! That purpose is explained by the Church as
follows:
The principal purpose to which the plan bf the old covenant was
directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all
and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this COming hy prophecy
(see Luke 24:44; Jobn5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning
through various types.... God, the inspirer and author of both
Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in
the Old and that the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though
Christ established the new covenant with His blood (see Luke 22:20;
1
Cor. 11:25), still the books of theOld Testament with all their parts,
caught up into the meaning of the proclamation of the Gospel,
acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see
Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 3:14-16) and in turn
shed light on it and explain it.4
On the other hand, the principal purpose of the Bible, says
Allah in the Quran, was to forecast the coming of the final
Prophet, Ahmed-that-is-Muhammad!
Which of these rival, mutually contradictory claims should
we believe?
5
Jbid. 15, 16.
The Almighty displaced
24
The ascent of Jesus
All His devices having failed to get the people to worship

Him and Him alone, God contrives a peculiar stratagem.
He sends down His only Son.
To suffer and be killed.
And to thereby redeem the world - that is, all who are
living at that time as well as all who are to come later - of sin,
of the sin, that is, of not worshipping Him as the one and only
God.
That this is a stratagem is made absolutely and repeatedly
clear in the New Testament. This is stated directly on several
Occasions. And many features of the accounts testify to the
same effect. Events that transpire- and of which
the Gospels
are said to be a record are said to proceed strictly along the
course that has been ordained by Him. Jesus is fully
aware
that he is an instrument for God'splan. He sayS SO again and
again, indeed his anxiety always is that everyone should see,
and acknowledge him as such. He repeatedly forecasts
his rejection by the people, his betrayal, his death, his
resurrection. At every turn he takes one course rather than
another even though he knovs that it will invite hardship,
suffering, and eventually death, because, he says, ancd so do
the compilers of the Gospels, doing so alone would fulfill
what has been written in the scriptures.
What is cited from the scriptures as the forecast which
has to be fulfilled is a sentence here, a few words there.
In the original scriptures themselves - the books of the
Old Testament which we have been going through - that
sentence or those fev vords have not becn lit up in any way.
Nor do the stray words and sentences string into any pattern.
A thousand other words or sentences could as well have been
chosen for being fulfilled. Had they been selected, the
pattern of Jesus' life could have been very different.
In any event, the expectation which forms the leitmotif of
the Old Testament is the belief that the Lord God expresses
repeatedly - that the people will one day come to worship
Him and Him alone. As we have seen, this is the one,
singular, exclusive, overriding aim of God. It is the one
forecast He lets out again and again. It is the one
Consummation He longs for.
Yet that central object, that most prominent of forecasts is
not the one which is chosen for being fulfilled during the
events which the New Testament records. Instead, a
sentence from this Book, a few words from another one
including, as we have seen, mis-translated word: "virgin"
a
–
for “young woman" are chosen for fulfillment. One is left to
wonder: which is the cause, which the effect? Is it that those
sentences having been written in the Books of the Old
Testament, Jesus' life proceeded along one course? Or is it
that Jesus' life having proceeded along one trajectory, rather
that the compilers having made it proceed along one
trajectory in their narratives, they read a special significance
into those particular words and sentences?
In any event, the instrument God has chosen is thoroughly
Convinced that he is an instrument, that the privations he is to
undergo, including and specially the cruel and unjust death
which is to be visited upon him, are essential to God's plan,
that it is through these privations being visited upon him, that
through them alone will the people come to believe that they
must worship God and Him alone. Moreover, like God, Jesus
is convinced that the suffering and death that he shall
undergo will succeed in turning the people to God. Jesus is
certain - nodoubt on the authority and say-so of God- that
the people willcome to worship God and God alone, that
Tbe ascent ofJesusS
339
they will come to do so soon, that the Kingdom of God wvill
break out within the lifetime of those vho are seeing and
hearing him. Were he a member of Stalin's CPSU or Mao's
CCP, it vould certainly be said
that Jesus was not just an
instrument in their plan, but that he was a thoroughly brain
washed instrument.
Being Al-poverful, being the Almighty, God could have
even now chosen the direct route: He could have instilled
the
requisite faith in people directly, immeliately. But, as is IHis
wont, He once again chooses an Adam Smithian round-about
method of attaining His objective. He is being consistent in
one sense, and innovative in another. As has been His
practice throughout the Old Testament, He chooses to bring
the people round by inflicting suffering. The innovation is
that this time round, instead of subjecting to pain the people
whose homage He is panting for, God makes His own Son
suffer. Indirection squared.
By witnessing the humiliation and cruelties to which the
Son is subjected, by coming to realize that they have
themselves had a hand in inflicting those cruelties, the
people, God reckons, will at last acquire faith in Him, the
Father.
That to get them to worship Him, He is subjecting His own
Son to cruelty anddeath is projected as proof-positive of His
being full of compassion! Indeed, of compassion twice-over.
First, instead of subjecting the target people to suffering, He
is confining the suffering to His Son. Second, the fact that
He is subjecting His own Son to such extreme cruelty just
-
to redeem the people of their sin the sin, that is, of not
Worshipping Him - proves how much He feels for the
unredeemed wretches.
As we know from what has happened since, like al! the
devices that God had deployed earlier, this one too has
proved just as ineffectual: many times more do not worship
that one God today than was the case at the time He put His
Son through cruelty and death. The Kingdom of God which

was to break out within the lifetimes of those around Jesus
seems even farther away.
But the device - of sending the Son bas had far-reaching
Consequences of another kind.
In the New Testament, in contrast to the Old, God recedes
intothe background. Almost all talk is now of the Son.
Second, the Son is progressively identified with God.
Initially the assertion is that only through Jesus can one reach
God, only through Jesus can one obtain God's benediction.
Soon, as we shall see, the claim becomes that to Worship
Jesus is to worship God.
Next, those who propagate Jesus' name, his message, in
particular the Church, are super-imposed on Jesus, sOon they
are identified with hin: those who honour the missionary, the
Church, the thesis now runs, honour Jesus; those who
dishonour the former, dishonour Jesus.
And thereby God.
And are therefore consigned to eternal damnation.
Just as Jesus' sonship is assured by having God proclaim it,
the Church's exaltation isensured by having Jesus proclaim it.
God
Except for having thought up a new device, God in the
New Testament remains what He has been in the Old.
He remains the Jealous God. Jesus warns the Pharisees,
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with
me scattereth abroad.
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall
not be forgiven unto men.
And wihosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall he
forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it
The ascent ofJesus
341
shall not be forgiven hin, neither in this world, neither in the world
to come.!
God's singular concern remains the same - that is, to ensure

that He, and He alone is worshipped. "But the hour cometh,
and now is," Jesustells the woman from Samaria, "when the
true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in
truth: for the Fatber seeketb sucb to worsbip Him. "2 The
addition that the New Testament entails is that the believer
must worship God via Jesus alone. Just as God is anxious that
everyone recognize that He is the Almighty Lord, Jesus too is
anxious that everyone recognize that he alone is the emissary
of God, that God is the one who has chosen him and sent him
to mankind, that all mankind know that he - Jesus - loves
God.
Jesus has a special compassion for Mary Magdalene, the
one who anointed him and wiped his feet with her hair. So,
when Mary and her sister Martha, rush to tell him that their
brother, Lazarus, is mortally sick, Jesus is moved. But he at
once sees that there is a purpose to the death and illness. He
says, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of
God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby" - that is,
the sickness has been brought about so that he, Jesus, may
perform a miracle, that of reviving Lazarus from the dead,
thus getting the people to see that he is from God. And so
while Jesus knows that Lazarus is dead - he tells the sisters
plainly, "Lazarus is dead" - he adds, "I am glad for your
sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe;
nevertheless let us go to him." Lazarus has been buried for
four days. When Jesus reaches the cave in which tlhe grave is,
'Matthew, 12.30-32; Mark, 3.28-29, to the same effect; see also Luke, 11.23.
The practice among the other People of the Book, the Muslims of course is
quite the opposite! In Islam, as is well known, all are cautioned: Ba Khuda
diivana bash o' ba Mubamnad hosbiyar.
Jobn, 4.23.
The ascent ofJestus
343
And this life is eternal, that they migbt know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, ubon thou bast sent..."° Jesus tells
God who he is praying for- something to which we shall turn
in a moment - and explains the purpose of his doing so: *That
they all may be one," he says, "as thou, Father art in me, and
I in thee, that they also be one in us:
that the world may
believe that thou bast sent me.... I in them, and thou in me,
that they may be perfect in one; and that the ivorld may know
tht tbou bast sent ne, and hast loved them, as thou hast
loved me. »7
This addition apart, things remain the same. God remains
All-powerful. Nothing happens without His command- even
a sparrow does not fall to the ground but
for His having
decreed that should.8 God remains the All-knowing: in the
it
New Testament too He continues to "seeth in secret"9, here
also He continues to "knoweth what things ye have need of,
before ye ask Him, "10
And He continues in His old ways. God continues to inflict
punishments on one generation for sins – the usual sins of not
wOrshipping Him, of not honouring Hisemissaries - that their
ancestors have committed: recall God's admonishment of the
teachers of law - your ancestors killed prophets, and you
build tombs for them; that shows that you approve of what
they did, God tells them; "So the people of this time shall be
punished for the murder of all the prophets killed since the
creation of the world," God proclaims, "....Yes, I tell you, the
people of this time shall be punished for them all."11
He continues to inflict suffering so that His emissary may
relieve it, and thereby the people may worship Him. He
makes a man blind so that a miracle may be performed, and
the people impressed. Jesus is walking. He sees a man who
has been blind since birth. His disciples ask him whether this
Jobn, 17.1-3. Jobn, 17.21, 23.

$Matthe, 10.29. OFor example, Matthbew, 6.18.
10For example, Matthew, 6.8. "Luke, 11.47-51.
and asks that the stone be removed, Martha tells him "Lord,
by this time he stinketh, for he has been dead four days."
Jesus tells her, "Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldst
believe, thou shouldst see the glory of God?" And he lifts his
eyes, and thanks God, "Father Ithank thee that thou hast
heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but
because of the people wbich stand by I said it, that they may
believe that thou bast sent me."3
"Let not your hearts be troubled," Jesus tells his followers,
"Ye believe in God, believe also in me." "I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by
me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father
also: and from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen him."
A disciple tells Jesus, show us the Father, and that will
suffice, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou
not known me, Philip?," Jesus asks. "He that bath seen me
bath seen the Fatber: and how sayest thou then, Shew us the
Father?" "Believest thou not that I am in the Fatber, and the
Fatber in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of
myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, be doeth the
L0orks." "Believe 1me," Jesus exhorts his followers, "that I an
in the Father, and» the Father in ne: or else helieve me for the
very works' sake. 4
As the final days approach, Jesus tells the companions
what is going to transpire, and explains, "And now I have told
you before it come to pass, that, wben it come topass, ye
migbt believe. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the
prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But tbat
the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father
gave me comnmandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go
hence... "5
"Father, the hour is come," Jesus says, lifting his eyes to
heaven, "Glorify thy Son,that the Son may also glorify thee....
Jobn, 11.4, 14-15, 17, 39-42.

Jobn, 14. 6-11. SJobn, 14.29-31.
man had sinned or his parents had tht he has been punished
with blindness. Jesus answers, "Neither hath this man sinned,
nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made
manifest in bim."12 And he proceeds tO spit on the grournd,
mix the spit in clay, and anoint the eyes of the man with the
clay. The man goesand washes his eyes as Jesus has asked
him to do, and is cured of blindness...3 Similarly, as we have
seen, God has Lazarus fall sick and die, so that His Son may
raise him, and thereby turn the people to Him.14
He certainly continues to be different from what He
demands that people be! We must love even those who hate
us, Jesus instructs mankind. What is virtuous in loving those
wholove us?, he asks. “For if ye love them which love thee,
what reward have ye?," Jesus instructs in a ringing passage.
"Do not even the publicans the same?" "And if ye salute your
brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the
publicarns so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect."15 But what does God do? Is He
perfect by Jesus' standard?
God's conduct is certainly conditional. Recall the words in
which Jesus exhorts mankind to forgive others: “For if ye
forgive nen their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you: But fye forgive not men tbeir trespasses, neither
will your Father forgive your trespasses." And His mercy is
strictly circumscribed! "And His mercy is on them that fear
Him fiom generation to generation."lb Not Jesus' standard,
certainly!
Jesus describes Him in the well-known, glowing words,
AndI say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
find; knock, and it shal be opened unto you.
Foreveryone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and
to him tlhat knocketh it shall be opened.
12Jobn, 9.1-3.
13The Sadchucees and Pharisees continue to doubt the miracle, and so, the
Gospel instructs us, their sin continues: Jobn, 9.40-41.
15 Matthew, 16Luke, 1.50.
Jobn, 11.4,42. 5.46-48.
The ascentofJesus
345
Ifa son shall ask bread of any ofyouthat is a father, will he give hima
stonc? Or if he aska fish, wvill he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg,vill lhe offer him a scorpion?
Ifye then, being evil, knov how to give good gifts unto your clhildren:
how much more shall your heavenly father give the Holy Spirit to
them that ask Him?17
Does the description fit God in the slightest?!

Yet you must hail Him as being Merciful, as being suffused
with tender mercy" - as the Virgin Mary does in her song of
gratitudel, as Zachariah does while delivering his prophecy
about Jesus.19
God remains All-knowing and Mercy itself - yet our
suffering continues as before. He remains All-powerful- and
as ineffective as before. Jerusalem continues unrecon
structed. In the Old Testament, God was forever proclaiming
His love for Jerusalem, in the New Testarment we have Jesus
crying out his love for the place, and also affirming vhat we
heard so often from God- that while He was yearning to help
Jerusalem, the city would not let Him do so. The Pharisees
warn Jesus to leave town immediately as Herod is out to kill
him - a bit of a change there: for, as we have seen, at almost
every other turn, the Gospels make out that the Pharisees in
particular and the Jews in general are the ones who are out to
kill Jesus. Jesus tells them that he has to work miracles for the
next two days, and that it is on the third day that he shall be
"perfected". Yet, he says, he must walk for the three days
as a prophet cannot perish except in Jerusalem. And he
laments, as God has before him,
Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets, you stone the

messengers God has sent you! How many times have I wanted to put
my arms round all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under
her wings, but you would not let me. And so your Temple will be
17Luke, 11.9-13. 18 Luke, 1.46-55. 19Luke, 1.67-79.

abandoned. Iassure you that you will not see me until the time comes
when you say, 'God bless him who comes in the name of the Lord. 120
And, as we know, to the end Jerualem and its people

continue unredeemed: if the Gospels are to be believed, they
are the ones, and not Plate, who kill Jesus, the Son God has
sent down.
As ineffectual
Moreover, God continues to remain as ineffectual in the

Gospels as He has been in the Old Testament. After all, the
central feature of the Gospels is the decision of God to send
His one and only Son to redeem the world, to wash it of its
sins. How often this is stressed, how often Jesus himself is
made to affirm this!
Even as the angel informs Joseph that his virgin wife is
pregnant, he tells him that the name of the child shall be
Jesus, "for he shall save his people from their sins.»21
In the course of instructing his disciples, Jesus himself tells
them, "And whosoever will be chief among you, let him
be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life as a
ransonm for many., "22 At
the final supper, Jesus takes the
bread, blesses it, breaks it, and gives it to the disciples, and
says, "Take, eat: this is my body." Next he takes the cup and
passes it round. Alldrink from it, Jesus tells them, "This is my
blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."45
In John, of course, this is one of the threads that runs
through the entire Gospel. Explaining the very purpose of
God in sending His Son down, John says, "For God so loved
the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have
20 Luke, 21 Matthew, 1.21.
13.31-35.
ZMattheu, 20.27-28; Mark, 10.44-45 similar.
23 Mark, 14.22-24.
The ascent ofJesus
347
everlasting life."24 "I am the living bread which came down
from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for
ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, wbich I
will
give for the life of tbe world. "25 "I am the good shepherd,"
Jesus explains, "and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
As the Father knoweth me, even so I know the Father:
and I
lay down my life forthe sheep." "The hour
26 is come that the
Son of man should be glorified," Jesus tells his disciples as the
multitude presses to see him. Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth
alone: but if it die, it bringeth forh much fruit."27 And so on.
In a word, God sent His one and only Son to suffer so that
humanity may be redeemed of its sins. Either in the sense that
it begins to sin less, or in the sense that it has been washed of
its sins, that it has been pardoned for what it has been doing.
God's stratagemn has most certainly failed to reduce the
quantum of sinning. As for Jesus' death washing our sins,
even after two thousand years' effots to explain how this is
possible the Church has not been able to carry conviction.
Jesius ascends
On occasion, the Gospels have Jesus proclaim that he is

subordinate to God: "Ye have heard how I said unto you,
Jesus tells his disciples as they are distressed at his imminent
departure, "I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved
me, ye would rejoice, because Isaid, I go unto the Father: for
my Fatber is greater than I."28
But such subordination is the exception. Step by step,
Jesus is placed at par with, and eventually identified with
God. This has an immediate, ineluctable consequence: as
Jesus is one with God, you can't believe in God and not
believe in Jesus. But first the steps.
2iJobn, 3.16. 5Jobn, 6.51. 2Jobn, 10.14-15.

2Jobn, 12.23-24. 28Jobn. 14.28.
The ascent begins in the synoptic Gospels themselves, it

reaches its apogee in John.
As a first step, of course, the Gospels instruct us that Jesus
has been sent by God, and that what ha says and does is to be
reverenced as it is strictly in accordance with God's plan, His
specific instruction and inspiration.
Jesus has performed another of his miracles. He has done
so on a Sabbath. The Jewish priests are therefore triply
incensed: because of the miracles Jesus is continuing to
perforn, their followers are flocking to Jesus; in this instance,
he has broken one of their rules - of no work being done on
a Sabbath, this way the people will become disregardful of all
rules, they feel, and that will cripple their power, and on top
of it all, Jesus is comnmitting blasphemy upon blasphemy by
putting himself at par with God. They seek to slay him. Jesus
explains to them:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but
what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these
also doeth the Son likewise.29
Notice the extent of identification even here: Jesus isn't

just saying that whatever he is doing is what God has asked
him to do, he is saying that what he has seen God do, he too is
doing. At one level, it means that he has seen God dogood on
a Sabbath, and so he is curing people too on a Sabbath. At
another, that he too has the authority and capacity to do what
God does. Jesus continues:
Forthe Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that Himself
doeth: and He will shew him greater works than these, that ye may
marvel.
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so
the Son quickeneth whom he will30
But even that much would mean only that God had made
2Jobn, 5.19. Jobn, 5.20-21.

The ascent of Jesus 349
Jesus capable of doing all which God Himself does. People
could therefore approach God or Jesus. The words that
follow foreclose the fomer route. Little use in approaclhing
God directly, wve are told, as God has delegated His power
and function entirely to Jesus! John has Jesus proclaim,
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment unto the Son.
And He has done this for a specific purpose:
but hath committed all judgment unto the Son that all men should
.
bonour the Son, even as they bonour the Father. He tbat

bonoureth not the Son bonoureth not the Fatber wbich bath sent
bin..
For as the Father has life in Himself: so hath He given to the Son to
have life in himself;
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he
is the Son of man.1
Jesus has pardoned the sinful woman of her sins. The

Pharisees are arguing with him. "Ye judge after the flesh," he
tells them, "ljudge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is
true: fOr I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me."
That distinction -between him and the one who has sent him
- lasts buta moment. Jesus explains to the Pharisees, "Ye are
from beneath: Iam from above; ye are of this world: I am not
of this world. I said therefore unto you that ye shall die in
your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He ye shall die in
your sins. "32
As Jesus proceeds, there is the same mixture: he is
claiming merely to be doing what God has taught and
instructed him to do, and simultaneously that he is
indistinguishable from Go:
When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am
He, and that Ido nothing of nmyself; but as my Father hath taught me,
Ispeak these things.
3Jobn, 5.22-23, 26-27. 3john, 8.23-24.

And He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for
Ido always those things that please Him.3
Jesus has reached Jerusalem for the. final moment. The

people are out in the lanes to greet him. The Pharisees are
incensed: "Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing?," they warn
each other, "Behold, the world is gone after him." Jesus' soul
is troubled. "Father, save me from this hour," he exclaims,
"But for this cause came I untothis hour." Father, glorify thy
name," Jesus exhorts God. And God answers, with the
unabashed directness and confidence that befits Him, Ihave
both glorified it, and will glorify it again" - as we would
expect from His unvarying record, glorifying His name
remains His overriding concern.34
The people hear the Voice, some say it is thunder, it is an
angel say others. "This voice came not because of me," Jesus
tells them, "but for your sakes" - that is, not because Jesus
needed to be convinced but so that the people may have
faith 35
The exchanges continue, many still do not believe, at the
least they do not own up to their belief- "For they loved the
praise of men more than the praise of God," John tells us.36
Jesus cries out - words that reinforce the identification- He
that believeth on ne, believetb not on me, but on Him that
sent me. And he that seeth me seetb Him tbat sent me. »37
Jesus continues to explain the purpose of his having been
sent, and emphasizes again that what he is saying and doing
is not of his own volition but in accordance with the
commandment of God 38
We see already several strands of claims being
interwoven: that whatever Jesus is saying and doing is at the
behest of God; next the claim that God has given him powers
to do what God does; the further claim that some functions -
39Jobn, 8.28-29. Jobn, 12.19, 27-28.
35Jobn, 12.29-30. Jobn, 12.43.
37Jobn, 12.44-45. Jobn, 12.49-50.
The ascent ofJestus
351
in particular, the all-important function of judgingmen- have
been completely delegated by God to Jesus; the claim that
Jesus is a stand-in for God: that those who see him, see God,
that those who honour him, honour God.
But those are just incidental to the main claim of which we
have already seen glimpses: "I am He." John asserts this
identity repeatedly, and in several ways. The very opening
of the Gospel instructs us, "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." What
happened as far as we earthlings are concerned? John
answers: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us, and we beheld bis glory, the glory as of
of grace
theonly begotten of
tbe Fathe, full and truth. "39 So, like God, Jesus has
existed from before creation. Soon Jesus himself reiterates
the identity - that he is the pre-existent Word. He has
pardoned the woman accused of adultery. An argument is
going on between him and the Jews, in particular the
Pharisees and scribes. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see
my day," Jesus tells them, "and he saw it and was glad." The
Jews retort, "You are not yet fifty years old, and hast thou
seen Abraham?" "Verily, verily, I say unto you," Jesus tells
them, asserting the identity which in their eyes is blasphemy,
"Before Abrabam was, I an. "The Jews take up stones to hurl
at him....41
Another miracle, another set of exchanges. Jesus has been
forecasting his imminent death. Lest that lead people to
wonder how the one whom God Himself has sent can be
killed by mere mortals, and lest this lead them to doubt his
origin,Jesus explains that he has been sent precisely to lay
down his life for his sheep, that because he lays down his life
for them God loves him, that he is going to sacrifice his life so
39 Jobn, 1.1, 14.
10There was a similar progression in Islam. Nur-i-Mubammad came to be
regarded as having existed before Allalh could create the universe, and be
known as the Creator.
1! Jobn, 8.56-59.
that he might live again,that "No man taketh it from me, but I
lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again. This commandment I have received
from my Father." Some believe him,»some say he has the
devil in him, others that he is mad,. Jesus is now in Jerusalem.
The arguments are continuing. Jesus tells the assembled Jews
how they do not believe him because they are not his sheep,
that his own sheep hear his voice and believe him, that he in
turn gives them eternal life, that they shall never perish, that
no man shall pluck them from his hand. For they were given
him by the Father, and no man is greater than that Father. 7
and my Father are one, " Jesus telis them to seal the matter.
The Jews take stones to again stone him... But I have done
many good works, Jesus remonstrates with the Jews. We do
not stone you for those works, they say, but for the
blasphemy, because, though you are a man, you make
yourself out to be God. Jesus presents contrary arguments,
and exclaims, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me
not. But if Ido, though ye believe not me, believe the works:
that ye may know, and believe [the same anxiety as that of
God!]that the Father is in me, and I in Him,"42
Soon Jesus and his disciples are at the Last Supper. To drill
into them the manner in which they must care for each other
- for there have been the usual rivalries among them also -
Jesus washes the feet of his disciples. He tells them, "Ye call
me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then,
your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought
towash one another's feet. For I have given you an example,
that ye should do as I have done to you..."»43
Jesus tells them how one of them is about to betray him.
And he says he is doing so for a purpose: "Now I tell you
before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe
that I am He "44
The hour has come. Jesus is commending his disciples to
1Jobn, 10.1-38. 43 Jobi1, 13.12-15. Jobn, 13.18-19.

The ascent ofJesUS 353
God, he is praying for them, and for those who will believe in
him because of what these disciples will preach to them.
"That they all may be one..," Jesus prays. "And the glory
which thou gavest me Ihave given tlhem," Jesus assures God,
"that tlhey may be one even as ve are one."
It requires little inagination to sec that this ever higher
ascent causes several problems. Consider an elemental one:
after all, others have their own "matters of faith." How are
these assertions, this progressive identification of Jesus with
God, these notions - of Jesus having pre-existed in heaven,
of his being the Son of God- to be held in the face of contrary
notions that another faith regards as equally central? We need
go no further than the sister faith - Islanm - which in a sense
builds on the Old Testament.
As much a "maiter of
faith"
"O ye people of the Book," Allah warns in the Quran,
"overstep not bounds in your religion:and of God speak only
truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle af
God, and His word which He conveyed into Mary, and a
Spirit proceeding from Himself...ná6
"In blasphemy indeed ave they" Allah declares, *who say
'Verily God is the Messiah Ibn Maryam (son of Mary], Say:
Who then hath the least power against God, if He chose to
destroy the Messiah Ibn Maryam, and his mother, and all who
are on the earth together?"»47
"They do blasphene," Allah proclaims again, "who say
'God is the Messiah, son of Mary...3»48
"The Messiah, son of Mary," Allah says conclusively, "is
but an apostle; other apostles have flourished before him;
and his mother was just a person; they both ate food."
"Behold!", Allah tells the faithful, "how we make clear to
Jobn, 17.22. 6Quran, 4.171.

17Quran, 5.19. Quwan, 5.75.
them the signs! Then behold how they [the unbelieving

Christians, that is] turn aside."49
Thus Allah warns Jews and Christians, "O people of the
Book! Outstep not the bounds of truthin your religion.."50
"The Jews say, Ezra [Ozairl is a son of God, "" Allah
recounts, "And the Christians say, The Messiah is a son of
God." "Such the sayings in their mouth!," Allah scoffs. "They
resemble the sayings of the infidels of old! God do battle with
them! How they are deluded away from Truth,"51
*They take their teachers, and their monks and the
Messiah, son of Mary, for Lords in derogation of God, though
bidden to worship one God only," He says. "Fain would they
put out God's light with their mouths...." He shall halt them in
their tracks, Allah warns: "But Allah will not allow but that His
Light should be perfected, even though the unbelievers may
detest (it), "52
Now, the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, indeed the
progressive identification of Jesus with God and his Word, is
a central feature of Christian faith. On the other hand, that
these notions constitute nothing short of blaspheny, a crime
for which the punishment prescribed is death, is just as
central to the faith of a Muslim. Hence the problem. We have
seen that every single feature on the basis of which Jesus is
held to be special, on which the Bible is said to be special is a
matter of faith, it has to be taken on faith. But those very
features condemn the belief to be blasphemy.
And, as we have seen, there is a reason why the Christians'
belief is sinful, Allah states: "It beseemth not God to beget a
Son," He says.>
"Jesus is no more than a servant whom We favoured,"
Allah says, "and proposed as an instance of divine power to
the children of Israel.."54
Worse still, it is central to a Muslim's faith that what the
49Quran, 5.78. S°Quran, 5.80. 51Quran, 9.30.

Quran, 9.31-32. $$Quran, 19.35. SQuran, 43.59.
The ascent ofJesus 355
Christian regards as being the mission for which God sent His
Son-Jesus - down to earth, and for which He had him suffer
so much, that mission itself is a deliberate invention. In the
Quran, in the eyes of Islam, the function of Jesus is not to
deliver the conclusive message of God. He is pictured as just
a latter-day John. That is, his function is merely to forecast
the future coming of Prophet Mohammed. The Christians
deliberately suppressed this forecast of Jesus – says, not just
the average Muslim, but Allah Himself. For in the Quran,
Allah reminds us, "And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary,
saicd: 'O, children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent)
to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and
giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose
name shall be Ahmed." Even at that time these persons who
had turned their back on God, disbelieved Me, Allah says:
"But when he came to them with clear signs, they said, "This
is evident sorcery. 3* <Who does greater wrong than the
one who invents falsehood against Allah," Allah asks in
exasperation, "even as he is being invited to Islam?"55
It is precisely because this forecast is missing from the
New Testament, it is precisely because the Christians have
replaced altogether the purpose for which Jesus was sent by
a so-called mission which is nothing but their own invention,
that Allah charges them, that to this day Islam charges them
with having doctored and distorted the divine scripture.
Is the central mission as presented in the New Testament
itself a falsification? Obviously not, say the Christians.
Obviously, say the Muslims. Either way, entirely a "matter of
faith."
Allah's charge in the Quran goes further, much further. As
Jesus is but the son of Mary, as he is just an apostle like so
-
many others, the notion of the Trinity a notion that puts
-
Jesus and the Holy Ghost at par with God is nothing in
Allah's reckoning but blasphemy.
55Quran, 61.6-7.
356 Harr'esting Our Souls
"Believe therefore in God and his apostles," says Allah,

"and say not "Three' [that there is a Trinityl: Desist: it will be
better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far
exalted is He) above having a son.."9,
They surely are Infidels, who say, 'God is the third of
three,'" Allah proclaims. "For there is no God but one God;
and if they refrain not from what they say," He warns,
"grievous chastisement shall light on such of them as are
Infidels.,"57
These!", Allah warns, "they are veritable infidels! And for
the infidels have We prepared a shameful punishment."
"And those who believe in God and his apostles, and make
no difference between them - these! We will bestow on
them their reward at last...."8
In a word, the very belief which in a sense makes a
Christian a Christian makes him, in the eyes of the Islamic
Allah, an infidel, it makes him one out to blasplheme Allah
and His Prophet.
The nextstep cuts even deeper. Jesus as the Son of God is
OUt, the Trinity is out, but so is the very event which is the
heart of Christianity - the crucifixion.

Yet", says Allah, "they (the Jews] slew him (Jesus] not and
they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. "59
Nor are these affirmations in the Quran accidental. They
are central to the mission of the Prophet. For the dogma of
Islam is that Allah has sent many an apostle, among them
Moses and Jesus, but that the followers of these prophets
falsified their scriptures,and so He sent Mohammed, the final
one, the scal of prophets, to bring al humanity, including
those wvho for the time being have been misled into being
Christians and Jews, back to the true path.
"Among the Jews," Allah tells us, "are those who displace
the words of their scriptures, and say.... perplexing with their
5Quran, 4.171. 57Quran, 5.76.

SQuran, 4.140, 151. 5Quran, 4.157.
The ascent of Jesus 357
tongues, and wounding the faith by their revilings. .. n60
"O people of the Scriptures!," Allah announces, "Now is
Our Apostle come to you to clear up to you much that ye
concealed of those Scriptures, and to pass Over many
things... 61
Had God sent Jesus to hail the coming of the new Prophet,
Ahmed, or had He sent him to court death on the Cross and
thereby redeenn us of our sins? Each propsition is as
unprovable as the other, each is as much "a matter of faith" as
its opposite.
The matter is put beyond doubt by hadis. Thus we have the
Prophet reporting that Allah had told him that those who
maintain that He had a son abuse Him. The Prophet put the
matter across in very stern words indeed: the badis records,
Narrated Ibn Abbas: "The Prophet said, 'Alkah said, "The son of Adam
tells a lie against Me though he has no right to do sco,and be abuses
Me though he has no right to do so. As for his telling a lie against Me,
it is that he claims that Icannot recreate him as I created hinm before;
and as for his abusing Me, it is lis statement that I have offspring.""*62
The Prophet alsO maintained that Jesus would return, that

he would marry and have children, that he would rule, that he
Wouid break crosses and kill swine, that he would lead
Muslims in prayer to Allah, that he would remain for 45 years,
after which he would die and be buried along with the
Prophet in the latter's grave.o3 Each proposition no less
verifiable than propositions about Jesus' resurrection, his
Iiving presence in his new body, the Church...
In a word, on event after event, on feature after feature,
indeed on every event, every feature which makes Jesus
special, scholars have to acknowiedge that it is "a matter
of faith." And this acknowledgment itself brings the
'Quran, 4.46. ólQuran, 5.16.

62
abib a-Bukbari, Book 60, Chapter 10, badis 9.
6¢.f., Misbkat al-Masabib, Book 26, Chapter 6.
propositions and narratives into direct confrontation with

matters which are as central to the faith of other religions, in
particular the sister religion, slam.
But to proceed with our account.
As the needs of the Church intensify, the Son becomes the
Father Himself....
And from an earlier and earlier stage. The Old Testament
has used the appellation Son of Man, prophets in it have
forecast the coming of the Son of Man. Accordingly, in the
Gospels Jesus is said to speak of himself as the Son of Man.
As the needs of the new religion and of the Church demand a
thicker and thicker halo, the appellation becomes both
more exalted, and as being applicable to an earlier and
earlier stage in Jesus' existence. The Ogford Companion
traces tlhecourse: at first the titles - Son of Man, Son of God
are applied to "the post-Easter phase of Jesus' saving
activity"; soon, they are applied to his earthly life; soon, the
Son of God is used from the momernt of Jesus' birth, soon to
the moment of his being conceived.... The identification
proceeds - soon enouglh, as we have seen, the distinction
between the Father and the Son vanishes! Along two strands.
At first there are God and His Word" on the one hand, and
Jesus - at a dis cernible distance. Initially, The Oxford
Companion recounts, Jesus appears as a sage or wise man
whouses expressions and forms of speech from the Wisdom
literature. Soon he is projected as the final envoy of Wisdom.
And soon his person becomes identical with Wisdom.
Similarly, at first Jesus' exalted status commences from his
birth.Soon Jesus is laimed to have existed in heaven before
his birth: the emphasis now shifts to the Father having sent
His Son - an expression that naturally must be taken to imply
that the Son existed alongside his Father before being
sent down via Mary. Expressions which had been used
functionally to denote a historical mission, says The Oxford
Conpanion, now acquire "a metaphysical sense". And soon,
The ascent ofJesus
359
the culmination: Jesus begins being called God - specially,as
we have seen, in the Gospel of John.°4
But Jesus is not the only one who ascends, and nudges the
Almighty aside.
AFor the foregoing, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M.

Metzger, Michael D. Coogan, editors,Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993,
Pp. 361-63.
25
The ascent of theChurch
To begin with, as we saw, the Article of Faith was: believe

in the one Lord God that the Bible specifies. Next, as that God
sent His only Son down, as that Son is in fact the same as God,
the Article of Faith became: believe in that one Son - in his
miracles, in stories about him contained in the Gospels. Soon
this Article too was made more specific.
John instructs in effect that God is known to us only as a
word, only on the say-so of others, the only onewe know for
a fact and have seen is Jesus: "No man hath seen God at any
time," the Gospel procaims, "the only begotten Son, which is
in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him,"!
Therefore, only to the extent that we can trust Jesus can we
take God to be a fact: to believe in God you must first believe
in Jesus.
The belief in Jesus is not only necessary, it is sufficient. For
the Gospels have Jesus himself aver, "He that believeth on
me, believeth not on nme, but on Him that sent me. And he that
seeth me seeth Him that sent me. »2
Jesus has been telling his disciples of the final events that
are about to commence, and which shall result in his being
taken away from them. They are troubled. "Let not your heart
be troubled," Jesus assures them. "Ye believe in God, believe
also in me." He continues, T am the way, the truth, and the
life: n0 man cometh uto the Father, but by me."What scope
does that leave for recognizing that other paths to God too as
valid?
Jobn, 1.18. Jobn, 12.44-45.

The ascent of the Church 361
And Jesus points again to the sufficiency of having known

him and having faith in him: "If ye had known me, ye should
have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know
Him, and have seen Him." Just show us the Father, the
disciple says, that will be enough for us. Jesus presses the
identity, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? He tbat hatb seen me batb
seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the
Father?... "3
By now, therefore, the steps are: you must believe that
God sent His Son, Jesus; Jesus is indistinguishable from God
as he is God Himself; no one knows God, no one has seen
Himexcept Jesus; Jesus is not just a way to God, he is the
only way to Him.
This progressive exaltation is next extended to those who,
after Jesus, show mankind that one exclusive way. "He that
receiveth you, receiveth me," Jesus is said to have told the
disciples he is said to have charged with the task of spreading
his message, "and he that receiveth me receiveth Him that
sent me." Jesus gives his twelve disciples "power and
authority over alldevils, and to cure diseases." He asks them
to journey forth and preach the Kingdom of God. Have faith,
take nothing for your journey, he says. "And whatsoever
house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart," Jesus
tells them. "And whosoever shall not receive you, when ye go
out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a
testimony against them."5
Soon, Jesus is spelling out more vividly the consequences
for those who demur at the message the missionaries bring.
"And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat
such things as are set before you: And heal the sick that are
therein, and say unto them, The Kingdom of God is come
nigh unto you. But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they
receive you not, go your way out into the streets of the same
Jobn, 14.1, 4-11. 'Mattheuy, 10.40. SLuke, 9.4-5.

and say, Even the very dust ofyour city, wbich cleaveth on us,
we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of
this,that the Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. ButIsay
unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for
Sodom, than for that city. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto
thee, Bethsaidal for if the migbty works bad been done in Tyre
and Sidon, wbich bave been done in you, they bad a great
wbile ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and asbes. But it shall
be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than
for you. And thou, Capernaum, wbich at exalted to beaven,
shalt be thrust down to bell. "6
Any roOm left in that for ecumenism? Any more room than
in the Old Testament?
And then the identity, not just of Jesus with God, but of the
Church and its missionaries with Jesus and there through with
God! Jesus is said to have told those who are to carry his
message,
He that beareth you heareth me; and be that despisetbyou
despisetb me and be that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent
ne7
In John, as we have seen, the identification is carried farthest.
But that Gospel does not neglect to assert the next super
impositions: God-is-Jesus-is-the-Church-cum-missionary.
Having once again told the disciples that one of them is going
tobetray him – "He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up
his heel against me"- Jesus affirms, "Now I tell you before it
COme, that, when, it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am
He," and extends the reverence that is due to him to cover the
missionary: “..Verily, verily, I say unto you, be that receiveth
wbomsoever I send receivetb me; and he that receiveth me
receiveth Him that sent me."8
To instill fortitude into his disciples and those who will
(Luke, 10.10-15. 7Luke, 10.16. 8Jobn, 13.18-20.

convert others, and to have them continue to repose faith and
hope in Jesus, the Gospels have him say,
But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to COuncils;
and in the synagoguesye shallbe beaten: and ye shall be brought
before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
He eXonerates them from every blame even more

comprehensively, and enables them to put an even nobler
construction on what they do,
If the world hate you, ye know that it has hated me before it hated
you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but
because ye are not of the world, but Ihave chOsen you out of the
world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I
said unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord. If they have
persecuted me,they will also persecute you; if they have kept my
saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do unto
you for my name's sake, because they know not Him that sent
me.. 10
They will soon throw you out of the synagogues, the time is
coming when those who kill you will feel that they are
serving God,Jesus says. "And these things they will do unto
you, because they have not known the Father, nor me."»11
Such passages, coming as they do along with those that link
God and Jesus and the missionary in the way we have seen,
do not merely instill fortitude, they instill self-righteousness:
when something he is doing is called in question, the
missionary remains unaffected - 0, that is how they taunted
and persecuted Jesus too; 0, they are doing this only because
I am working for the cause and name of Jesus; O, they
oppose me only because they know neither the Father nor
the Son....
9Mark, 13.9. 10Jobn, 15.18-21. "Jobn, 16.1-3.

Wbat aperture is left for tolerating other patbs?
It isn't just that there is just one God, and you must believe
in Him and Him alone. You must believein the one version of
that one God, the version which is given in the Bible. Second,
as He has had only one Son, as that one Son is in fact
indistinguishable from God, you must believe in him also.
Third, as the Son is the only way to God, unless you embrace
that one'way you cannot reach God. Indeed, unless you do
so, you are guilty of sin in the eyes of the Father, and,
therefore, destined to ever-lasting hell.
One consequence, of course, is that, when some other
person has another Book, also given by Almighty the Lord
God, precisely because you do any of these things - precisely
because you believe in the version of God which is given in
the Bible rather than in, say, the Quran; precisely because you
believe in the Son of God rather than in, say, the final prophet
of God, Muhammad; precisely because you think that Jesus is
the one and only way to God rather than the one indicated in
the Quran and exemplified in the sunnab of the Prophet -
you are guilty of unpardonable sin!
The other consequence is within the tradition: there is no
scope for, there can be no scope at all for holding other
traditions in any regard. Indeed, every teaching that urges
some different path is a deliberate conspiracy to lead men
into sin. And, must, for that reason, be fought to extinction.
"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt
thou serve," that is the commandment, Jesus tells the Devil as
he tries to tempt Jesus.2
Jesus tells his missionaries that when they go into a house,
"let your peace come upon it." But if the residents are not
worthy, if they do not agree to accept the message, that is,
"let your peace return to you."15 Tolerance?
12Mattbetu, 4.10; Luke, 4.8. 13 Mattbeu, 10.13.

The ascent of
the Church 365
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men," Jesus
declares, "him will I confess my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my Father which is in heaven."14 Tolerance?
Moreover, when this is the position he takes, how does
Jesus measure up on his own criterion? –"For if ye love them
which love thee, what reward have ye? Do not even the
publicans the same?"
Jesus goes even further in pressing exclusivity. If any
man comes to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
vife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever does
not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my
disciple."1> And again, "He that loveth father or mother more
than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or
daughter more than me is not wothy of me. And he that
taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of
me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his
life for my sake shall find it. "16 And then the Church and the
missionaries are slipped in: "He that receiveth you receiveth
me, and he that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me."17
"Allthings are delivered unto me of my Father," Jesus says,
"and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither
14Mattheu, 10.32-33; Luke, 12.8-9, to the same effect.

15Luke, 14.26-27.
lMattheu, 10.37-38. Similar words are ascribed to Jesus in Mark though
on a different occasion, and they have a sharper edge to them: both in the
rebuke Jesus administers to Peter – "Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou
savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men" as-
well as in the words he uses for the laity "Whosoever therefore shall be
ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of
him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of
his Father with the holy angels." Mark, 8.33-38; Luke, 9,26 to the same effect.
17Matthew, 10.40. In Mark, tlhe purpose is achieved in a slightly different
way: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose
his life for my sake and the Gospel's, the same shall save it." Mark, 8.35.
Maharshi, Gandhiji – all excluded by that one rule of
admission!22
Jesus proceeds to explain the purpose for which he shall
be lifted up, and in doing so also specifies that salvation is
strictly limited to those wvho believe in him, and what he says
his mission to earth is about:
And as Moses lifted up his serpent in the wilderness, even so the Son
of man must be lifted up:
That wbosoever believeth in bim should not perish, but have eternal
life.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
wbosoever believeth in bim should not perish, but have ever-lasting
life.
For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world througb bim might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but be that believetb
not is condemned already, because be bath not believed in tbe
name of the only begotten Son of God?3
Ecumenism in the face of such declarations? That salvation is

available to "whosoever believeth in him," that it is available
only through him, that he who does not believe in Jesus is
already condemned..
John has Jesus go further. Jesus assigns a reason on account
of which disbelievers do not believe:
22Recall Gandhiji's jest at the Polish Professor of Philosophy: Gandbiji:

"..I read and get all my inspiration from the Gita. But I also read the Bible
and the Koran to enrich my own religion. I incorporate all that is good in
other religions." Krzenski: "That is your goodwill." Gandbiji: "That is not
enough." Krzenski: "But I have great respect for you." Gandbiji: "Not
enough. IfIwere to join the Catholic Church you would have greater respect
for me." Krzenski: "Oh yes, if you became a Catholic you would be as great
as St. Francis." Gandbiji: But not otherwise? A Hindu cannot be a St.
Francis ? Poor Hindu!" Krzenski: "But may I take your photograph?"
Gandbiji: "No, surely you don't care for materialism! And it is all
materialism, isn't it?" The Collected Works of MabatmaGandbi, Volume 64,
pp. 202-04.
3Jobn, 3.14-18.
knoweth any nan the Father, save the Son, and be to

wbomsoever the Son will reveal Him. "18 As Buddha and
Adi Shankracharya were not amnong those to whom the
Son revealed the Father, as Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and
Ramana Maharshiare not among them, as the Dalai Lama's
creed does not even acknowledge the Father or the Son in
those roles, how may the faithful even conceive that these
personages may have something of value to teach?
"He that is not with me is against me," Jesus declares much
in the fashion of the Father, "and he that gathereth not with
me scattereth abroad.. »19
Do not let anyone call you Master, do not regard anyone
else as Master, Jesus tells his disciples and the multitude that
has gathered to hear him, for you have but one Master, and
that is Christ. Do not look upon anyone as Father, except that
one Father in heaven, Jesus tells them.20
As the needs of the Church for differentiating its product
intensify, Jesus is made to declare that not only is the boon
limited to those who believe in the God of the Bible, and in
him, it is strictly restricted to those who have been through a
particular ritual - but for them who go through that ritual the
Kingdom of God is assured! A Pharisee, Nicodemus, is a
"ruler of the Jews." We know that you are a teacher who has
come from God, he tells Jesus, for no one can do these
miracles unless God is with him. Verily, verily", Jesus
answers, "I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he
cannot see the Kingdom of God." That leaves the literal
minded Nicodemus perplexed: "How can a man be born
when he is old?," heasks, "Can he enter the second time into
his mother's womb, and be bon?" 4Verily, verily, I say unto
thee," Jesus is declared to have said, "Except a man be bon
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of
God,"21 The Buddha, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, Ramana
18Matthety, 11.27; Luke, 10.22. 19Matthew, 12.30; Luke, 11.23 similar.

20
Mattbeu, 23.8-10. 21 Jobn,
3.1-5.
And this is the condemnation that light iscome into the world, and
men loved darkness rather than light, ecause their deeds u'ere evil.
For eveiy one that doeth euil bateth ligbt, neither cometh to the
ligbt, lest bis deeds should he reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be
made manifest, that they are wrought in God...24
Thus, those who disbelieve in Jesus fail to do so because they

are guilty of evil, and those who do believe in him do so
because they "doeth truth"!
And what is truth-doing? The Gospel provides the answer.
Jesus has fed five thousand from just five loaves and two fish.
Apprehensive that they may anoint him king, he leaves for
the mountain. By the time he returns, his disciples have left in
the ship to cross the sea. He treads over water and joins them.
Next day the people who saw the ship leave without him are
astonished to see him on the other shore. How come?, they
want to know. Jesustells them that they seek him not because
of any genuine hunger for the ever-lasting life but because
they were so well-fed in spite of the food being so little.
Devote yourselves to the ever-lasting life, he counsels. What
shall we do that we might work the works of God?, they ask.
"This is the work of God," Jesus answers, "that ye believe
on bim wbom He bath sent. » 25
The exchanges continue, some continue to doubt, sOme
believe. "I am the living bread which came down from
heaven," Jesus tells them. *If any man eat of this bread, he
shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh,
which Iwill give for the life of the world." But how can this
man give us his flesh to eat?, the Jews ask among themselves.
"Verily, verily, Isay unto you,"Jesus answers, "Except ye eat
tbe flesb of tbe Son of man, and drink bis blood, ye bave no
»
life in y0u. 26
Hence, not only must you believe in the version of God
that the Bible contains, not only must you believe in Jesus
24Jobn, 3.19-21. 5Jobn, 6.29. 26Jobn, 6.51-58.

The ascent of the Churcb 369
being what the Gospels claim hinm to be, not only imust you
believe in those who are propagating that story, you must
observe the rituals that the Church has devised - baptism, the
eucharist, "eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus".
Is each step in this not entirely a matter of faith? Is the basis
for any of the steps better grounded than the corresponding
steps and admonitions in Islam that one must believe in Allah,
in Muhammad, in the ba, namaz, paying zakat, etc.?
"I am the true vine," Jesus proclains, "and my Father is the
husbandman,"27 "Abide in me, and I in you," Jesus says. "As
Ibe branch cannot bear fiuit of itself, except itabide in the
vine; no more can ye, excepi ye abide in me. Iam the vine,
ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and Iin him, the
same bringeth forth much fruit: for witbout me ye can do
notbing. " "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a
branch, and is withered," he warns, "and men gather them,
and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." On the other
hand, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall
ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. "28 To believe
or not in the propositions is entirely a matter of faith.
Either way, this being the dogma - "If a man abide not in
me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men
gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned"
which of the two is legitimized: regard for other faiths, or
the Inquisition? History provides the answer: this very verse
used to be cited as the foundation for the Inquistion!
Jesus settles the matter beyond doubt. "If I had not come
and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they
have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my
Father also. If I had not done among them the works which
none other man did, they had not had sin: but now they have
both seen and hated both me and my Father. "29 Jesus
reiterates the warning: it is good for you, he tells his
disconsolate disciples that I go away, for if I do not go, your
2Jobn, 15.1. 28Jobn, 15.4-7. 29 Jobn, 15.22-24.

next Comforter shall not come; but having gone, I will send
him; "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgment," Jesus says; and what
is the sin for which the Comforter will bring the world to
book?;"Of sin, because they believe not in me, " Jesus
declares.30
The Vedas teach us to pray for the well-being of every one
and everything – inanimate as well as animate without
distinction. And what is the prayer Jesus sends up to God as
his earthly journey draws to a close? "I pray for them [his
disciplesl: Ipray not forthe word, but for them which Thou
hast given me; for they are Thine. And all mine are Thine,
and Thine are mine: and I am glorified in them." He enlarges
the circle a little later, and yet strictly circumscribes it:
"Neither pray I for these alone," Jesus tells God, "but for them
also wbich sball believe on me through their word.."31
Broad-minded? Ecumenical? Tolerant?
Indeed, the question is not only: is this broad-minded,
ecumenical, tolerant? But can it be any of these?
3Jobn, 16.8-9. 31Jobn, 17.9-10,20.

From "our brethren" to"rapacious wolves"
inone short leap
26
Deification-at-second-remove,
its uses and consequences
This deification-at-second-remove, so to say, of the Church

continues to our times. The decrees of what is widely
regarded as the most liberal of Church-Councils, the Second
Vatican Ecumenical Council, themselves provide ample
evidence of this.
TheGod-at-band, the Jesus-at-band
The principal decree on the subject that the Council passed

was the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church."1 In
accordance witlh His divine plan to raise man, the Council
proclaimed, God had "predestined before time began" that
Jesus would proceed forth, the image of God. Moreover, "He
[God] determined to call together in holy Church those who
should believe in Christ. Already present in figure at the
beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in
marvelous fashion..."2 The Son, accordingly, came, sent by
the Father who, before the foundation of the world, chose us
and predestined us in him for adoptive sonship... "3 In a
word, while in the Gospels, Jesus is the one who has existed
before creation as the Word, according to the Church, the
Church has existed from the very beginning of the world! It
has existed since then by the express design of God!
Not just that. God continues to be present in the Church,
'Lumen Gentium, Dognatic Constitution on the Cburch, 21 November,
1964.
2[bid., 2. 3 [bid., 3.
and to actively guide and direct it, "The Spirit dwells in the
Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple," the
Council declared. In them He prays, it said, and bears witness
to their adoptive sonship. He guides the Church in the way of
all truth, it said, He unifies her in communion and in the
works of ministry, He bestows upon her varied hierarchic
and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her. He adorns
her with His fruits. He renews her constantly. He leads her to
perfect ùnion with her Spouse, Jesus. [And for each of these,
as for the assertions which follow, the Council cited - as
proof! - fragments of lines and passages from Romans,
Corintbians, Galatians, etc., the very documents one of the
principal functions for composing which had been to assert
these very propositions!!
The Church is righty described by the many names which
are used for it, the Council said: the house of God in which
His family dwells, the dwelling place of God among men,
and, especially, the holy temple. The Church has been
correctly likened to the New Jerusalem, it said, "the holy city
which is seen by John as it comes down from out of heaven
from God when the world is made anew, prepared like a
bride adorned for her husband." The Church has been called
"that Jerusalem vhich is above," it recalled approvingly, and
"our mother", as "the spotless spouse of the spotless lamb."
"It is she whom Christ 'loved and for whom he delivered
himself up that he might sanctify her," the Council declared.
"It is she whom he unites to himself by the unbreakable
alliance, and whom he constantly 'nourishes and cherishes
It is she whom, once purified he villed to be joined to
himself, subject in love and fidelity,..and whom, finally, he
filled with heavenly gifts for all eternity.. "4
The head of this body is Christ," the Council asserted
on behalf of the Church. And all it does is at his express
direction: "He continually provides in his body, that is in the
Church, for gifts of ministries through which, by his power,
4Ibid., 6.
Deification-at-second-remove, its uses and consequences
375
we serve each other unto salvation, so that, carrying out
the
truth in love, we may through all things grow unto him who is
our head,"5He has suffused the Church with his Spirit,
and it
is this Spirit "which gives life to, unifies and moves the whole
body." Moreover, "Christ loves the Church as his bride..."6
"The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here
on earth his holy Church.... through which he communicates
truth and grace to all men...."7
To establish the Church'sauthority, tomake accepting that
authority to be an over-riding article of faith, the Council
deployed a typical circularity. "The Church... is held, as a
matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy," it said. On what basis?
"This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father
and the Spirit is hailed as 'alone holy' loved the Church as his
Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her..., he
joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the
gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God..."$ But that is no
"reason" -every knot in that string is just an assertion, another
series one must take on faith.
Having positioned itself as the Jesus-at-hand, the Church
fosters another superimposition. After all, the strong human
urge for worshipping the mother-goddess has ensured that it
isn'tjust Jesus who is venerated. The cult of Virgin Mary has
acquired enormous force over the centuries. Unable to erase
it, the Church, as we have seen, has appropriated it - with
caveats. But as it isthere in any case, the Church has put it to
use in another way. We are the Mary-at-hand, it has declared!
Thus we have Vatican-II superimposing the Church on
Mary also in itsdecree, Lumen Gentium,
By reason of the gift and role of her divine motherhood, by which she
isunited with her Son, the Redeemer, and with her unique graces and
functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the
Church...
5Tbid., 7. G1bid., 7.
7Ibid., 8. #Ibid., 39.
The Church indeed contemplating her hidden sanctity, imitating her

charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father's will, by receiving the Word
of God in faith becoms herselfa nmother. By preaching and baptism
she brings forth sons, who are conceived of the Holy Spirit and born
of God, toa new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps
in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse.
Imitating the mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit,
she keeps intact faith, firm hope and sincere charity..?
The Church's indissoluble relationship to the Holy Spirit

and Jesus having been asserted, the next step is as inevitable
as it is predictable. "Basing itself on scripture and tradition,"
the Council declared, "it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim
now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is
mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his
body which is the Church. He himself expressly asserted the
necessity of faith and baptism..., and thereby affirmed at the
same time the necessity of the Church which men enter
through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be
saved wbo, knowing that the Catholic Cburch was founded as
necessary byGod tbrougb Cbrist, would refuse either to enter
it, or tO remain in it " 10
First there is nothing but God. And His Word, He makes His
Word flesh, that is He sends Jesus down to earth. Jesus the
Son becomes the Word, thence God. The Church is his body,
his bride, the one he loves, and guides, whose cause he
Oversees and advances. As Mary comes to be venerated on
her own, she becomes the Mother of the Son, then the first
among the members of the Church, then the Mother of the
faithful, and soon the Church becomes the Mother-at-hand.
The Church wrests Authority via another route also. All
millenarian ideologies take five steps to total control. They
assert that there is but one fount, one ultimate Authority: a
single, solid, incomparable, undifferentiable God, or, as in
9lbid., 63-64. 10Jbid., 14.

Deification-at-second-remove, its uses and consequences 377
Marxism-Leninism, History; that one Authority has revealed

the truth toone man; that one man has put that truth down in
one Book – the Bible, the Quran, the works of Marx-Lenin
Mao; that Book is very difficult to understand; knowing this,
that one ultimate Authority has given the faculty of
understarnding and interpreting that one Book to one entity
alone, and hence we are in dire need of that intermediary -
the Church, the Ulema, the Party.
The Church, like the Party in Communist and Nazi States,
asserts the last step with as much vehemence as any of the
other steps. The sacred tradition and the sacred Scripture,
declared Vátican-II in Dei verbum, "fom one sacred deposit
of the Word of God." And this Word has been "committed to
the Church." It emphasized that "the task of authentically
interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on,
has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of
the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of
Jesus Christ." Each of the two words deserve attention
individually and together: "entrusted" - the implication being
that God and Jesus have entrusted this responsibility to the
Church; as well as, "exclusively" - that no other organization
has been similarly charged with that responsibility.
By a typical sleight of words, in the garb of declaring its
subordinate role, the Church asserts its unquestionable, over
riding authority: "This teaching ofice is not above the Word
of God," Dei Verbum declared with becoming modesty, "but
serves it, teacbing only wbat bas been handed on, listening to
it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it fully in
accord with a divine commission and witb the belp of the
Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything
which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."l1 Notice,
the effect: what the Church teaches is "only what has been
handed on," it is the Church - alone - which is "listening to it
11
Jbid., 10.
devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, explaining it faithfully;"

-
for this it - alone has "divine comission", for this it -alone
has “the help of the Holy Spirit."
The operational implications are as immediate as they are
exclusive. "It is clear, therefore – notice the "therefore", as
if the preceding passage had consisted of evidence and logic,
rather than a string of assertions – "that sacred tradition,
sacred scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in
accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined
together that one cannot stand withbout theotbers, and that all
together and each in its own way under the action of the one
Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."12
That is, without the third component – the teaching authority
of the Church - even the Word of God is of no avail!
True, the sacred Scripture was transcribed by human
hands;true, it has to be interpreted; true, scholars may devote
themselves to this task - but within limits: "For all of what has
been said about the way of interpreting Scripture," Vatican-II
proclaimed, "is subject finally to the judgment of the Chuch,
which carries out the divine commission and ministry of
guarding and interpreting the Word of God."13
Of all the Scriptures, the Council declared, even among
those constituting the New Testament, the Gospels "have
a special preeminence." "The Church has always and
everywhere held, and continues to hold, that the four
Gospels are of apostolic origin," it specified. "For what the
Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ,
afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the
inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on tous in writing: the
foundation of the faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel,
according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."l4 Notice, the
attempt at balancing: the Council has to steer clear of
attributing the Gospels to the Apostles - hence, the
ambiguous, "afterwards they themselves Ithe Apostles] and
apostolic men;" similarly, the concession that some among
12 Jbid., 13 Jbid., 12.
10. 14Jbid., 18.
Deification-at-second-remove, its 1uSes and consequences
379
these - the Apostles or apostolic men - wrote the Gospels
balanced by the assertion that they did so "under the
inspiration of the divine Spirit."
Either way, the Church continues to maintain that every
statement in each Gospel is vholly correct. "Holy Mother
Church," Vatican-II pronounced, "has firmly and with
absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four
Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church
unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ,
while living among men, really did and taught for their
eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven
(see Acis 1:1-2). Indeed, after the ascension of the Lord the
Apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and
done. This they did with that clearer understanding which
they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious
events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of
truth... »15
Vatican-II affirmed that not just the four Gospels but the
epistles of Paul and other apostolic writings which were later
accepted as being part of the New Testament were
"composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."l6
In a word, the Gospels have God as their author, they were
transcribed by human hand but in this too the hand moved
"under divine inspiration," the Gospels are therefore
historical documents, they set out facts, each incident or
expression they narrate is the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. Thatclaim is not just something that was
reaffirmed a hundred and thirty years ago by Vatican-I, it is
the claim of the Church today.
And in practice wbo is the Cburch?

But, the Church is not a disembodied abstraction. In
practice it is the Pope and the hierarchy he appoints. Hence,
the Council repeatedly asserted its faith in "the primacy of the
15
Jbid., 19. 16Jbid., 20.
Roman Pontiff and bis infallible teacbing office. "It stressed

again and again that this "must be firmly believed by all tbe
faitbful. "17 It declared that it is "the Holy Spirit wbich
appointed them [the bishops, etc.]to shepherd the Church of
God," that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the
place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise
that wboever listens to them is listening to Christ and wboever
despises ihem despises Christ and Him who sent Christ," that
"though seated at the right hand of God the Father, he Jesus]
is not absent from the assembly of his pontiffs; on the
contrary indeed, it is above all througb their signal service that
he preaches the Word of God to all peoples and administers
without cease to the faithful the sacraments of faith:
that througb their paternal care be incorporates, by a
supernatural rebirth, new members into this body; that,
finally, througb their wisdom and prudence be diects and
guides the people of the New Testament on their journey
towards eternal beatitude...."18
Ensuring power for the Church

At every opportunity the Church stresses that all the
people of God have an ineluctable missionary obligation.19
The practical effect of this, of course, is that every Christian is
putto work for aggrandizing the kingdom and power of the
Church. But there is always a danger even in useful things!
After all, as each has a missionary obligation, many can
conclude that they shall discharge the obligation in the
manner they - themselves - deem best. The Church balances
its exhortations, therefore, by seting up banks within which
the duty is to run.
First, God speaks through "Christ in Church", the Church
17]bid., 18. 18Jbid., 20.
19See, for instance, Ecclesiae sanctae II, Norns for implementing the
Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity, 6 August, 1966.
Deification-at-second-remore, its uses and consequences
381
keeps dinning into the faithful. This assertion is slipped in
almost subliminally, but repeatedly and with conclusive
force: "It is necessary, therefore, - especially in today's
circumstances, " the Synod of Bishops told the faithful in
Ratione babita, its pronouncement On Dangerous Opinions,
"that the faith with which man makes his response to God,
who speaks througb Christ in the Church, be constantly
cultivated and strengthened.."20 And just a little later again,
"Allthe faithful, in any case, are to be taught clearly, and in
ways adapted to the present mentality, about the filial
obedience and sin cere adberence owed to the declarations of
the teaching authority in the Church, all according to the
different nature of the differernt pronouncements..." It is "a
personal and immediate relationship with Christ in tbe
Church which, the Church says, "should still for the faithful
of today sustain their whole spiritual lives. "22 In a word, a
person just cannot be faithful unless he is faithful to the
Church, the Church declares:
Tlhere is, therefore, a very close connection between Christ, the
Church and evangelization. During this 'era of the Church' the task of
evangelization is entrusted to ber. Tbis task cannot be carried out
without ber, and much less in opposition to ber. It is expedient to
recall this truth because in these days we hear, not without grief,of
men, in good faith, as we like to believe, but certainly misguided,
who frequently declare that they are willing to love Christ but not the
Clhurch. The absurdity of this distinction appears clearly from those
Vords of the Gospel: 'He who rejects you rejects me'. How can
anyone claim to love Christ without loving his Church in the face of
that most striking testimony given by St. Pau: Christ loved the
Church and gave himself up for her'23
Synod of Bishops, Ratione habita, On Dangerous Opiuions, 28 October,

1967, 2.1.
21
Jbid., 2.1.
ZSynod of Bishops, Ultinis temporibus, The Ministerial Priesthood,
30 November, 1967, I.2.
23Paul VI, Evuangeli nuntiandi, 8December, 1975, 16.
From "God", to "God in Christ", to "Christ in the Church" in

one short leap!
Similarly, recall the declaration on indulgences. As is well
known, indulgences have been a source of much power for
the Church, and much lucre. Were the elements that underlie
the practice true - that merits are transferable, that we can
liberate ourselves as well as others - including those who
have died - from the consequences of their sins through
indulgences, these indulgences would, in a sense, make it
possible for an individual to exempt himself as well as others
from the consequences by doing the acts of penance himself.
But that would cut out the intermediary And so, even as it
!
reiterates all the suppositions underlying the practice as if

they were proven facts, the Church is careful to slip in
assertions to ensure that power remains in its hands.
"However, the belief was not that individual members of the
Church worked for the remission of their brethren's sins by
their own merits alone," it stresses, "but that the whole
Church as a single body united to Christ its Head was bringing
about satisfaction,"24 It asserts that the bishops made a
prudent judgment about the ways in which and the extent to
which a Christian could secure remission for his sins and
those of others -for instance, the dead. As proof, as authority,
it quotes - of allthings! - Pope Clement VI's Bull,
God's only-begotten Son... has won a treasure for the militant

Church.... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of
heaven, and to his successOrs whO are Christ's vicars on earth, so that
they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may
apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented
for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit
completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal
punishment due to sin in a general as in specialways (insofar as they
judge it to be fiting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed
24Pope Paul VI, Indulgentiarum doctrina, Apostolic Constitution on the

Revision of Indulgences, 1 January, 1967, 6.
Deification-at-second-rennOve, its 1uses and consequences
383
Mother of God and of allthe elect.... are known to add further to this
treasure. 25
Not only is there such a reservoir, not only can merits from it
be transferred so that sins of others are remitted, not only
does the Church have the power to transfer the merits, not
only does it alone have the power to do so, the obtaining of
the indulgence itself becomes the occasion to reinforce
obedience to the Church! For the Pope declares,
we ought not to forget that when they try to gain indulgences the
faithful submit with docility to the lawful pastors of the Church.
Above all, they acknowledge the authority of the successor of
Blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven. To them the Saviour
himself entrusted the task of feeding his flock and ruling his
Church....26
At the pinnacle
And at the apex sits the Pontiff of Rome - so that all

these assertions culminate in establishing his overriding,
peremptory authority. Having asserted repeatedly how it is
through the signal service, the paternal care and through the
wisdom and prudence of the collectivity of the bishops that
Jesus acts, the Council declared, The college or body of
bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the
Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial
authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful,
remains its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his
office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as the pastor of the
entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over
the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise
unhindered..."27
Specifically, "The Roman Pontiff... enjoys this infallibility
in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher
of all the faithful.... he proclaims in an absolute decision a
25
Jbid.. 7. 26 Jbid., 10. 27 Jbid., 22.
doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... For that reason his

decisions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very
nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as
much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy
Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself;
and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the
approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other
tribunal... "28 For all the changes which had occurred since, in
this regard Vatican-II asserted to the dot what had been
claimed on behalf of the Pope by Vatican-] - the Ecumenical
Council convened by Pius DX in 1869-1870. That Council had
proclaimed that when the Pope spoke ex catbedra - that is,
when he prescribed the doctrine regarding faith or morals
which the entire Church must hold - he was infallible.
The position of the Pope is supreme, declares the Vatican
again and again, and that it is in accordance with the
command of Jesus, it maintains. A notable feature of all such
assertions is their self-serving nature. There was no formal
Church in Jesus' lifetime. He did indeed gather a handful of
disciples, but he did not organize them into any hierarchical
organization. Over the centuries the Church has built its
position, assertion by assertion:
•
Jesus chose the apostles;
From among them, he chose Peter to be the principal
one;
• As
the Pope is the successor of Peter, he is supreme!
Here isa typical formulation of the position - this one by the
Pope himself, in his Evangelii nuntiandi,
The universal Church has been called to preach the Gospel...
First we may recall with what earnestness the Lord enjoined on the
apostles the task of
proclaiming the message... He chose them.... He
appointed them and sent them forth as witnesses and teachers.... And
the twelve in their turn sent forth their successors who, following in
the footsteps of the apostles,continued to preach the Gospel.
28 1bid. 25.
It is therefore by tlhe will of Christ [notice the leap]that the successOr
of Peter is endowed with the pre-eminent responsibility of teaching
revealed truth. How often doestheNew Testament represent Peter
as being filled with the Holy Spirit when he spoke in the name of all.
So also St. Leo the Great says of him that he merited the primacy of
the apostles. it is for this reason likewise that the solemn declaration
of the Church has affirmed that the Supreme Pontiffis the supreme
head- in apice in specula-of theapostolate. The second Vatican
Council has declared that 'Christ's mandate to preach the Gospel to
the whole creation (cf. Mk 16,15) is directed prinarily to the bishops
vith Peter and in subordination to Peter."29
In thisstatement, because of the conclusion it can extract –

namely, primacy for the Pope - the Church makes out that
the command of Jesus to preach the Gospel was "directed
primarily to the bishops with Peter and in subordination to
Peter." On other occasions, as we shall see in a moment, the
focus is reversed: when the occasion demands that every
Christian be impelled to convert, the Church declares that the
command of Jesus is meant for every single Christian.
Not only is the Pope supreme, he is infallible - that is not a
creed of the middle ages, it is the article of faith for today. In
his declaration Credo of the People of God, the Pope states,
...TheHoly Spirit unfailingly assists her (The Church- the bride and
body of Christ.] in her charge of guarding, teaching, explaining, and
spreading that truth which was foreshadowed in the prophets and
which God fully and completely revealed to men in the Lord Jesus.
{So muclh for the identical claim made on behalf of Muhammad and
the Quran!! We believe all that is contained in the word of God,
whether written or handed down, and which the Church propOses for
our belief as being divinely revealed either through a solemn
declaration or by the ordinary and universal magesterium. We
believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the Successor of Peter when he
speaks ex cathedra as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, an
2Pope Paul VI, Evangelii nuntiandi, Evangelizatio in the Modern

World, 8 December, 1975, 66-67.
infallibility which the whole Episcopate also enjoys when it exercises

with him the supreme magesterium.*
So, every word of the Bible is literally tFue, and every verdict
that the Pope hands down on matters of doctrine and
interpretation is literally infallible, and therefore beyond
challenge.
The perèmptory duty of helievers
Now, the propositions that the Church is but the body of

Jesus, that it is suffused with Jesus, that all it does is at the
express direction of Jesus and the Holy Spirit,that the Church
is the Pope and the bishops, etc., he appoints, that together
they are infallible -
this cascade of assertions yields,
ineluctably, the lemma: that the faithful must obey them
absolutely. The lemma finds full emphasis and elaboration in
the decrees of Vatican-II.
Those who believe in Christ and the doctrines which have
been set afoot in his name are, of course, the people who
have been chosen by God Himself: the Vatican-II decrees
refer to them as the People of God," as "the holy People
of God." That being so, and the Pope and the hierarchy of
the Church under him being the representatives of God
and Jesus, the legatees of Peter, "Bishops who teach in
communion with the Roman Pontiff [Note the qualifying
phrase: "who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff"
those who stray from the Party-line are automatically
excluded!] are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and
Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit
to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in
matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready
and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of
0Pope Paul VI, Solen ni bac liturgia, The Credo of the People of God, 30
June, 1968.
Deification-at-second-rem0ve, its uses and consequences 387
the will and intellect must be given, in a special way to the
teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak
ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching
authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent
be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his
manifest mind and intention..."31 All the more, "when the
Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together wh him,
definea doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with
revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to
which they are obliged to submit; and this revelation is
transmitted integrally either in written form or in oral tradition
through the legitimate succession of bishops and above all
through the watchful concern of the Roman Pontiff himself -
and through the light of the Spirit of truth it is scrupulously
preserved in the Church and unerringly explained..."32
The Council conceded that occasions may arise when
believers may need to put their concerns and needs to the
Church. They may do so, it said. But within a narrow pen: “If
the occasion should arise this should be done through the
institutions established by the Church for that purpose and
always with truth, courage, prudence and with reverence and
charity towards those who, by reason of their office,
represent the person of Christ." Hence, "Like all Christians,
the laity should pronmptly accept in Christian obedience what
is decided by the pastors who, as teachers and rulers of the
Church, 'represent Christ. In this they will follow Christ's
example who, by his obedience unto death, opened the
blessed way of liberty of the sons of God to all men." The
faithful must not just obey these persons who occupy offices
of the Church, the Council decreed: "Nor should they fail to
commend to God in their prayers those who have been
placed over them, who indeed keep watch as having to
render an account of our souls, that they may do this with joy
and not with grief... "33
31 Lumen Gentium, op, cit., 25. 32]bid., 25. 331bid., 37.

Evangelize, you nnust, but under the Church!
Even while asserting that it is the duty of every Christian to

evangelize, even while declaring that the test of whether his
conversion has been genuine or not is whether the ne
Convert in turn converts others, the Church insists that the
every
duty to evangelize is that of the Church. That is,
individual Christian, every Christian organization should
evangelize, each of them should bring non-Christians for
Conversion – but all of them must do so under the overall
authority and seal of the Church: the cause of Christianity, in a
word, must not be pursued in such a way that the cause of the
Church is diluted!
Accordingly, the Church comes down sternly on those who
preach the Gospel but criticize the Church for being
"institutional", on those who claim that in preaching the word
",
of God they “shall act on their own." "...The work of

evangelization is not an individual activity," the Church
stresses, "it is essentially ecclesial. Accordingly, when the
humblest preacher, catechist or pastor is preaching the
Gospel, be is acting on bebalf of the Church.. He must
exercise bis function in closest communion with the Church
and ber pastors." "It is.... the whole Church which
evangelizes," the Church emphasizes. "Therefore, both for
the whole world and for every part of it, it is the Church
wbich bas the responsibility of spreading the Gospel. "34
What does all this leave for Ecumenism?

"Only the God of JesusChrist is the living God," writes the
present Pope in his Crossing the Tbresbold of Hope. And he
italicizes the words.35 And Jesus alone is the way to that one
3ÁPope Paul VI, Evangelii nuntiandi, Evangelization in the Modern

World, 8 December, 1975, 58-60.
35Pope John Paul 1I, Crossing the Thresbold of Hope, edited by Vittorio
Messori, Alfred A Knopf, Nev York, 1994, p. 28.
Deification-at-second-renove, its uses and consequences
389
God: he cites as authority the Pastoral Constitution: On the
Church in the Modern World decreed by Vatican-II. "The
Church firmly believes that Christ, who died and was raised
up for all, can through His Spirit offer man the light and the
strength to measure up to his supreme destiny," the Council
had declared. "Nor bas any otber name under the beaven
been givento man by wbich it is fitting for bim to be saved.
She also believes that in her most benign Lord and Master can
be found the key, the focal point and the goal of man, as well
as of all buman bistory.... n30 Jesus is unique, the Pope asserts
again and again. Socrates, Buddha, Mohammed come
nowhere near him, he says. "He is the one mediator between
God and bumanity, " says the Pope - again italicizing the
words,37
Given these two propositions, what regard can the Church
have for other religions? Its public relations machinery in
countries such as India has, of course, made much of Vatican
II. Churchmen here inveigle that Vatican-II recognized
that
there are many ways to salvation, that because of decisions
taken at the Councilthe Church now looks upon all religions
with the same high regard.
In fact, that is not, and was never the case. Vatican-II stated
the position of the Church in regard to other religions in its
declaration, Nostra Aetate. "The Catholic Church rejects
nothing that is true and holy in these religions," it declared. As
meaningless a statement as it is harmless! For it concedes
nothing. For the question is: in the reckoning of the Church,
what exactly is true and holy in other religions? And the
answer to that remains the old one: that in which these other
religions conform to what the Catholic Church holds to be true
and holy! The Council's elaboration was condescension itself:
"She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though
Gaudium et spes, proclaimed by Pope Paulon 7 December, 1965, 10.
And Crossing the Thresbold ofHope, op. cit., pp. 29-30.
7Crossing the Threshold of Hope, op. cit., pp. 42-44.
Harvesting Our Souls
390
differing in many aspects from the gnes which she holds and
sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Tiuth which
same breath,
enlightens all men." The Council added in the
"Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, 'the
way, the truth, and the life'(Jobn, 14,6), in whom men may
find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled
"38
all things to Himself.
It is this passage which the present Pope emphasizes
it is -
only this condescending acknowledgment which he allows:
that the Church accepts that which is true in other religions.
But what exactly do these other religionscontain? The Pope's
answer puts them in their place, as it should all who trumpet
were the
the new spirit of the Church as ecumenical! As if this
soul of broad-mindedness, the Pope says, "The words of the
Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of
the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the
Word), present in all religions." That is all that Hinduism and
Buddhism might at best have: seeds of the Word, of the Word
which blossomed in full in and only in Christianity to which -
he, the Pope, and only he is the infallible guide!
Indeed, even this acknowledgment, the Pope regards as
reflecting not so much an intrinsic truth as proof of the
Church's universalism! And universalism has a very special
meaning for him and the Church. It doesn't mean that there is
no difference in the eyes of God between the believer and
the non-believer, to say nothing of the eyes of the Church.
It
doesn't mean that all religions are paths that lead equally
efficaciously to God. It only means that the Church is anxious
to save all in the universe by bringing them round to Jesus! As
the Pope puts the point,
In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina
a
Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace
3Nostra Aetate, Declaration on the relation ofthe Church to non-Christian

religions, 28 October, 1965, 2.
Deification-at-second-remove, its uses and consequences
391
common path against the backdrop of the needs of the
Contemporary world. We can affirm here that the Council is inspired
by a truly universal concern. The Church is guided by the faith that
God the Creator wants to save all bumankind in Jestus Christ, the
only mediator between God and man, inasmuch as he is the
redeemer of all humankind. The Paschal Mystery is equally available
to all, and, through it, the way to eternal salvation is also open to all.3
And for that act of kindness and grace of the Church we must
be forever grateful!
What is valid in Islam, therefore, are those elements which
it has retained from, or at the least has in common with
Christianity.0 What is valid in Judaism is that the beginnings
of the faith and election of the Church of Christ "are found
already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets,
and in that "the salvation of the Church is mysteriously
foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land
of bondage. n41
The fundamental position remains unaltered, unyielding:
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."42 So, while the Council
expressed "esteem" for the Muslims, this is subject to its
repeated declarations that the revelation given to Jesus was
the final one! "Now God, in order to establish peace or the
communion of sinful human beings with Himself, as well as
to fashion them into a fraternal community," the Council
declared, "did ordain to intervene in human history in a way
botb new and final by sending His Son, clothed in our
flesh, in order that through Him He might snatch men from
the power of darkness and Satan..."43 Similarly, in Dei
Verbum, its Declaration on Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation, the Council decreed, "The Christian dispensation,
therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never
pass away and we now awail no further public evelation
39Beyondthe Thresbold of
Hope, op. cil., pp. 80-81.
40Nostra Aetate, op. cil., 3. 411bid., 4.
12The expression from Epbesians, 4:4-5, was often invoked by Vatican-iI.
Ad Gentes, Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church, 3.
392
before the glorious manifestation of our LordJesus

Christ.... n44 When the first and fundamental article of faith of
-
the Muslim is so resolutely put down for he believes that
the revelation to Muhammad was the final one what worth
is the "esteem" the Church professes for him?
Indeed, what is for the Church the very basis for its
existence leaves little scope for what we understand
tolerance to mean. The singular objective of missionary
activity is to gather in an ever larger harvest of souls for Jesus.
The Church asserts that this activity "derives its
reason from
come
the will of God, 'who wishes all men to be saved and to
to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one
mediator hetween God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ,
who gave Himself as a ransom for all' (1 Tim. 2:4-5), 'neither
is there salvation in any other' (Acts 4:12). Therefore all must
be converted to Him, made known by the Church's
preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by
baptism, and into the Cburch wbich is His body. For Christ
Himself 'by stressing in express language the necessity of
faith and baptism..., at the same time confirmed the necessity
of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, wbo thougb aware that
God, througb Jesus Christ, founded the Church as sometbing
necessary, still do not wisb to enter into it, or to persevere in
it.".." That being the will of God, "though God in ways
known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the
Gospels to find that faith without wbich it is impossible to
please Him.., yet a necessity lies upon the Church.., and at
the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And
hence missionary activity today as always retains its power
and necessity." "By means of this activity," the Council's
decree continued, "the Mystical Body of Christ unceasingly
gátbers and directs its forces towards its own growtb.. The
44Dei verbum, Declaration on Dogmatic Constitution on Divine

Revelation, 4.
members of the Church are inmpelled to carry on such
missionary activity by reason of the love with which they
love God and by which they desire to share with all men the
spiritual goods of both this lifeand the life to come."45
That being the case - that no one who does not embrace
the Church can be saved, and that the Church is bound by
diviñe command, as well as by its love for those who need to
be saved, to convert everyone – "ecumenism", "dialogue"
and the rest can only be devices: devices to prise away
followers of other religions.
Yes, the division isa scandal, but

...
However, many Christian communions present

themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ,"
Vatican-II noted in Unitatis Redintegratio, its Decree on
Ecumenism, "all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord
but they differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ
Himself were divided." "Certainly", the Council affirmed,
"such division openly contradicts the will of Christ,
scandalizes the world, and damages the most holy cause, the
preaching of the Gospel to every creature. "4% The Council
acknovledged that for the divisions "men on both sides
were to blame,,"4/ and it proposed a series of measures
"dialogue", etc. – to bring the differing denominations'among
Christians closer together.
But in this very decree, the Church of Rome asserted its
primacy, it asserted more than once that it is the one, true
way. "It is through the faithfuil preaching of the Gospel by the
Apostles and their successors - the bisbops witb Peter's
Successor at their bead - through their administering the
sacraments, and through their goverming in love, that Jesus
45Ad Gentes, Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church, 7 December,
1965, 7.
46Unitatis redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, 21 November, 1964, 1.
47 1bid., 3.
Christ wishes His people to increase, under the action of the

Holy Spirit..."48 Even as it affirmed that men
on both sides
were responsible for the divisions that took place, even as it
professed "respect and affection" for those who had broken
away, the Council inveigled the primacy of the Catholic
Church: “. It follows that the separated Churches and
communities as such, though we believe they suffer fromthe
defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived
of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
as
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them
means of salvation wbich derive their efficac from the very
fullness ofgrace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."
The sentences that followed nailed the point:
as
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered
individuas or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that
unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom he
to
hasgiven new birth into one body,and whom he hasquickened
newness of life-that unity which the Hoy Scriptures and the ancient
Tradition of the Church proclaim. Forit is througb Christ 's Catholic
Church alone, wbich is the universal belp towards salvation, that
was to
the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It
we
the apostolic college alone, of wbicb Peter is the head, that
believe our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant,
in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into wbicb all
those sboeid be fully incorporated wbo belong in any way to tbe
people of God.49
Itisn't just that only through Jesus is salvation possible, each
denomination converting in the name of Jesus insists that it is
only through its variant of Christianity that salvation is
possible. Now that sectarian divisions have become, as the
Church says, a scandal in the eyes of the world, it is careful to
clothe its claim to superiority in verbiage of "compassion"
and "lOve", but it never misses an opportunity to stress the
superiority. Indeed, to fail to stress that fact, it declares,
49
48 1bid., 2. 1bid.,3.
Deification-at-second-remove, its uses
and consequences 395
would be a dereliction of duty- for it would leave
people in
doubt about which is the real path, it would expose
them to
the risk of choosing the wrong path and thereby
on being saved. "The CatholicChurch missing out
isalso assiduous in her
solicitude for those Christians who are not in
fullcommnunion
with her," the all-important proclamation on
evangelization
declares, "she seeks to establish with them that unity
Christ desired and it is her aim toachieve this
which
unity in truth.
She appreciates that she would be failing gravely in
ber duty
she did not bear witness to them of thefullness revelation if
of of
wbich sbe is the depository...."0
A telling anxiety
Ecumenism, yes, but not at the cost of our market-share
that seems to be the doctrine. Notice how anxious the Church
is about marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics.
After all, if all paths, in particular all Christian paths lead to
God, how does it matter if the children of such marriages, or
for that matter the Catholic who enters such a marriage
observes one set of rituals or another? But that is enmphatically
not the way the Church sees the outcome.
In his declaration on the matter the Pope stresses, "such a
marriage is by its nature an obstacle to the full spiritual
communion of the married parties." And that, therefore, "the
Church, conscious of her duty, discourages the contracting of
mixed marriages, for she is most desirous that Catholics be
able in matrimony to attain to perfect union of mind and full
Communion of life." Unless the marriage is preceded by
obtaining a dispensation from the Church, such a marriage is
invalid, he declares. And he lays down a stern condition:
The faithful should therefore be reminded that the Catholic party to a

marriage has the duty of preserving his or her own faith; nor is it ever
SOPope Paul VI, Evangelii nuntiandi, 8

December, 1975, 54.
396
it.
permitted to expose oneself to proximate danger of losing
a
Furthermore, the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage is obliged,
not
as as to see
only to remain steadfast in the faith, but also, far possible,
that the children be baptized and brought
up in that same faith and
Church
receive all those aids to etemal salvation which the Catholic
provides for her sons and daughters.
on which alone
The Pope accordingly lays down conditions
a dispensation shall be given for a mixed marriage. Among
these, for example, are the following:
an
4. To obtain from the local Ordinary dispensation from
to
impediment, the Catholic party shall declare that he ready
is
remove dangers of falling away from the faith. He is also gravely
power to have all the
bound to make a sincere promise to do all in his
children baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.
5. Atan opportune time the non-Catholic party
must be informed of
so it is clear
these promises which the Catholic party has tomake, that
on the part of the
that he is cognizant of the promise and obligation
Catholic...51
Does such anxiety about market-share show any openness?

Does it show that the Church actually believes that salvation
is possible through other paths as well,
even other Christian
paths?
Declarations vis á
vis reality
Subsequent events have accordingly proceeded along two

routes. On the one side, joint declarations between the Pope
and heads of other Churches have been signed, meetings,
dialogues, etc., have come to be held with increasing
frequency. On the other, inter se competition has intensified.
on
SFor the foregoing, Pope Paul VI, Matrimonia mixta, Apostolic Letter
the
Mixed Marriages, 7 January, 1970. See also, Sacred Congregation for
on Mixed
Doctrine of the Faith, Matrimonii sacramentum, Instruction
Marriages, 18 March, 1966.
Two typical news items will be enough to give a glimpse of
what is going on in spite of the joint declarations and
dialogue.
The first appeared in the Houston Chronicle of 13
October, 1992. Entitled, "Pope says he must shield church
from 'wolves' of Protestantism," it was by Cecile Holmes
White:
Pope John Paul II (in the Dominican Republic) said that he must
protect his flock from the 'wolves' of evangelical Protestantism
wooing Latin Americans away from the Roman Catholic Church...As
shepherd to Latin America's 395 million Catholics, the Pope said he
must ´take care of the sheep who have been put in my care and
protect them from rapacious wolves.'
And for that metaphor too the Pope had precedent in the
scripture. For does Matthew not warn, "Beware of false
prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves"?52
The second item is from the Wasbington Post of
24 January, 1999. Entitled, "Pope moves to reverse
Catholicism's decline in America," it was filed by Molly Loore
and John Ward Anderson:
The document (On Americas) marks an evolution in the church's

approach to the Americas and attempts to instill some of the very
principles that have drawn its followers to burgeoning Protestant
evangelical faiths... (The Pope) has presided over massive
defections from the Catholic Church in the Americas, home to more
than half of the world's one billion Catholics. In Mexico, evangelical
churches and other faiths have siphoned offas much as 10 percent of
Catholics in recent decades...In the southernmost state of Chiapas,
site of the Zapatista rebel uprising in 1994, an estimated 30 percent
of the population is now Protestant. We feel invaded by the
avalanche of groups that are coming from north andeast,' said Bishop
52Mattbew, 7.15.
398
Trinidad Gonzales Rodriguez,who is bsed in Mexico's second-most
populous city, Gudlajara. 'Now we are not only facing evangelism
East.'
and Protestantism, but a high tide of NewAge religions from the
Such competition amidst cOoperation? Wolves in the garb of

brethren?
A
few things to do
27
A
few things to do
As the campaign for the 1999 Lok Sabha elections

intensified, two other incidents of alleged attacks on Christian
missionaries hit the headlines - one in Orissa and the other in
Bihar. Christian groups, and the secularists with even greater
zeal, at once painted them as the handiwork of raving Hindu
fundamentalists.
A mob of tribals armed with bows and arrows was reported
to have killed one Reverend Arul Doss on the night of 1
September, 1999. The murder took place in a remote village
located deep inside a forest area. As the priest had been
attacked while he was asleep, and as the tribals burnt the
thatched hut which housed the church, it was quickly
assumed that Dara Singh had been at the root of this murder
also. From that, propagandists jumped to the usual theory:
raving Hindu fundamentalists murder priest.
The Home Secretary of the Orissa Government was quoted
by a Calcutta daily as having observed that "Catholic priests
are trying to separate families after converting tribals and
others which is leading to social tensions." Instead of
-
reflecting on what the official was saying his assessment
reinforced what Justice Wadhwa had been told about the
disruption conversion visits on communities and families
secularists and Christian missionaries pounced on the Home
Secretary, and demanded that he be removed from his post!
In the next incident a nun, Sister Ruby, was reported to
have been abducted from an auto-rickshaw in Chhapra, North
Bihar, on 20 September, 1999. Her abductors were said to
have tried to rape her, and, having failed, they were said to
was
have forced her to drink a bottle of their urine. An FIR
filed. The Church again ascribed the abduction to Hindu
fundamnentalists. Secularists flew ino their accustomed rage.
"Outrage at Chhapra", thundered The Statesman in its
editorial on 30 September, 1999. "After MP, Gujarat and
Orissa it is now Bihar," the editorial began. "The abduction
and shameless vulgarity perpetrated on the person of
a
Catholic nun near Chhapra by 'unidentified miscreants' bears

a disconcerting resemblance to attacks on missionaries
elsewhere. Although the Bihar police say that the attack was
the work of 'small-time criminals' and not the RSS, Bajrang
Dal or other 'communal outfits', which are supposed to have
no presence in the area, the available evidence strongly
suggests that religious intolerance was the motivating factor.
The attackers asked the nun why she and others of St.
Joseph's convent were still in Chhapra and not back in
Pondicherry. They threatened that she would be taught the
'lesson of her life' for converting Hindus and that this could
even 'cost her her life'. She was then stripped, forced to
drink their urine which was followed by attempted rape..."
The Pioneer examined the nun's story. It found that the
report of even the team which the Congress() had sent had
"come as a dampner to efforts to paint the incident as part of
a wider conspiracy against Christians." The team seems to
have taken the nun's version at face value, and proceeded on
the premise that the incident had indeed occurred, But it had
concluded that the assault was a symptom of growing
lawlessness in Bihar - yet another instance of what had
become an endenmic feature of Bihar, crimesagainst women.
The Director General of Police, K.A. Jacob, too said that the
police did not detect any political or communal angle to the
crime. He told the paper, "We have identified the criminals.
They have no political connection."
Inquiries of The Pioneer itself yielded results which were
even more telling. While reporting the allegations of the
sister and one Father Cajetan of the Bettiah Diocese the paper
A few things to do
403
observed that the sister "spoke in Tamil and her words were
translated by Father Cajetan." Its report proceeded to note,
The Sister was all along briefed by a couple of Fathers who were not
initially willing to let her speak. "Didn't they try to rape you
and fail?,"
Father Cajetan asked her. The Sister reeled out some incoherent
words in Tamil. "She said they tried to rape her and did not succeed,"
Father Cajetan said, adding that her hancds were tied at the back. "It
was when they failed to rape her that they forced
her to drink urine,"
the Father added.
The FIR lodged by Sister Ruby also has the same version. After
narrating how she was waylaid and stripped, the Sister said she was
asked the following questions:
1. Isyour convent still running in Jalalpur?
2. How many Sisters are there?
3. How many people have you converted to your
religion?
4. What is your mother tongue?
5. Who asked you to come and work here?
6. Don't you know we have kidnapped, murdered
and raped
many people like you? Yet you have not learnt your lesson.
However, there are several questions that remain unanswered. Sister
Ruby filed an FIR three days after the incident. According to her
report she was forced to answer the questions after being tied. She
had also said that her abductors were speaking in Hindi and Bhojpuri.
How could Sister Ruby,who spoke inTamil and claimed not to know
Hindior English, understand her captors?
That Sister admitted to have understood the questions and
remembered them in order indicates she has a complete command
overHindi and Blhojpuri, and a very retentive memory. Her failure to
even identify the place where she was reportedly taken after being
waylaid does not quite jell with her graphic recounting of the incident
itself. On September 24, the police spent an entire day going around
with her. But she failed to spot the site even though the incident had
taken place around 10 am...
There are glaring contradictions in a press release issued by the
Secretary of the Bishop of Bettiah and Sister Ruby's FIR. While the
nun said she was forced to dink urine after her abductors failed to
rape her, the release said she was threatened with rape if she refused
to drink the urine. It is inconceivable how a frail woman couldescape
rape when she was stripped and tied.
Haivesting Our Souls
404
more heinous is being
People, therefore, are wondeing if sorgething of SisterRuby's
coveredup. It becomes allthe more relevant in view
was disturbed both
delay in fiing the FIR. The nun claims that she Bettiah
physically and mentally and had also to consult the Bishop of
House at Bettiah
before going to the police. Incidentally, the Bishop
Ihas two telephones and is barely 60 km from Chhapra.
even admitted that the Bishop
To confound matters, Sister Ruby
came to Chhapra a day after the incident. Presumably, the Bishop
took another two days to discuss the matter with his superiors before
take
lodging the FIR. It is difficult to imagine why the Church should
case to the police. Didn't
three days to allow a vicim to report the
any one realize that the culprits could have escaped in the
intervening period?
men in
The excuse given by the Sister has failed to convince the
story.
uniform. "Somehow we are not entirely sure about the whole
Something is missing," said a police officer at the spot..."
we had encountered
Quite literally a replay of the story
was
earlier, "Orissa nun raped in moving car"! But the story
was on
all over the newspapers, it was On Internet, it
television channels!
In a word, we should be alert to the fact that missionaries
us
have but one goal- that of harvesting for the Church, and
that they have developed a very well-knit, powerful,
extremely well-endowed organizational network for
attaining that singular goal. Their "spiritual" quest, their quest
are all
for power and control, their commercial interests -
entwined with, they are in fact dependent on that one goal
conversion.
In the last few decades, another goad has erupted.
Converts who were enticed into Christianity by promises that
it is free of notions like caste, are astir. They have been
calling the Church to account for the lure it held out. To
contain their restlessness, the Church is seeking to
externalize the problem. As "Dalits" within the Church have
begun to vent their disillusionment at the way the Church
1The Sunday Pioneer; 3 October, 1999.

A few things to do 405
itself has continued to discriminate against them, the Church
has begun to espouse demands directed- ostensibly on their
-
behalf at the State. "Reservations for Christian Dalits," has
been its latest campaign.
As in other campaigns it has launched, the Church bas not
thought twice of pressing all sorts of devices including -
fraud - to advance this one. At the height of their campaign,
they circulated a letter they said Mother Teresa had written to
the then Prime Minister endorsing their demand that
reservations be extended to "Christian Dalits". Mother
Teresa's office denied that she had done so!
This recent campaign is quite a turn-around, and a typical
one. For five hundred years, missionaries have denounced
Hinduism for harbouring the notion of caste. One of their
main selling points has been that there are no distinctions in
Christianity, and that, therefore, by converting to Christianity
the lower-caste Hindus would break out of social barriers.
And what has been the reality? The testimony of Christians
themselves, testimony spread over seventy-eighty years,
gives the lie to the claim.
What difference did conversion make?

In a memorandum they submitted to the Simon
Commission, the Christian Depressed Classes of South India
described what the Untouchables had achieved as a result of
conversion to Christianity. They said,
We are by religion Christians, both Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Of the total population of Indian Christians of the Presidency the
converts from the Depressed Classes form about sixty per cent....In
spite, however, of our Christian religion which teaches as
fundamental truths the equality of man and man before God, the
necessity of charity and love for neighbours and mutual sympathy
and forbearance,we, the large number of Depressed Class converts
remain in the same social condition as the Hindu Depressed Classes.
Through the operation of several factors, the nmore important of them
being the strong caste retaining Hindu mentality of the converts to

Christianity,and the indifference, powerlessness and apathy of the
Missionaries, we remain today what we were before we becanne
Christians- Untouchables - degraded by the laws of socialposition
obtaining in the land, rejected by Caste Chrištians, despised by Caste
Hindus and excluded by our own Depressed Class Hindu brethren.
The small proportion of the Christians of South India, whose
representatives are found in the Legislative Council, say, in Madras,
are caste Christians, a term which sounds a contradiction, but which,
unfortunately, is the correct and accepted description of high caste
Converts from Hinduism, who retain all the rigour and exclusiveness
of caste. Particularly in he Mofusil parts and the villages, they who
ought to be our fellow Christians follow all the orthodox severity and
unreason of caste exclusion; they damn us 'Panchamas or Pariahs'
and ignore our Christian claims and in the fullness of their affluence,
power, prestige and position exclude us poorer Christians from
society.. Frequent outbursts of anti-Panchama activity are the
scandalof South Indian Christian life, and the least attempt on our part
to better our ot, forward our progress and assert our elementary
rights call down tlhe wrath and fury of every man- official and non
official-Christian or Hindu,who claims a foolish superiority of birth.
Denying the very foundations of Christianity, contrary to all love and
charity and brotherhood, our 'fellow-Christians' treat us even in the
Churches as Untouchables and Unapproachables, and relegate us to
separate accommodation removed from their precincts and
barricade their portions by means of iron rails and walls and fencings.
There are several such churches.
In the matter of the reception of sacraments, a most ridiculous
segregaticon is practised to avoid pollution; our claims to educate our
children and train them for life are ruthlessly denied and through
sheer prejudice our children are denied access to schools, convents,
hostels, lboarding houses, or if admitted, are assigned an ignominious
accommodation. Tracing his descent from high caste Hindu
progenitors the caste Christian looks for social status and position and
finds favVOur in the eyes of his fellow caste-nen, the Hindus. He treats
the Depressed Class Christians in the same way as the Hindu
Depressed Classes are treated by the Hindu Caste people.
Writing his essay, "The condition of the convert," in 1938,

Ambedkar reproduced the paSSages as an accurate
description. "This is a terrible indictment," he remarked. "It is
4 few tbings to do 407
a relief to know that it does not
apply to all parts of India nor
does it apply to all denominations of Christians. The picture is
more true of the Catholics than of the Protestants. It is more
true of Southern India than it is of the Northern or even
Central India. But the fact remains that Christianity has not
succeeded in dissolving the feeling of caste from among the
converts to Christianity. The distinction between touchables
and untouchables may be confined to a corner. The Church
School may be open to all. Still there is no gainsaying the fact
that caste governs the life of the Christians as much as it does
the life of the Hindus. There are Brahmin Christians and Non
Brahmin Christians. Among Non-Brahmin Christians there are
Maratha Christians, Mahar Christians, Mang Christians and
Bhangi Christians. Similarly in the South there are Pariah
Christians, Malla Christians and Madiga Christians. They
Would not intermarry, they would not inter-dine. They are as
much caste ridden as the Hindus are.... »2
That was in 1938. ive decades later, Reverend John C.B.
Webster cited a host of empirical studies by scholars which
showed that discrimination was continuing within the
Christian community. Separate places of worship, separate
seating inside the Church, separate burial places, patronizing
-
attitudes of Caste Christians, social segregation use of one
well for the converts from lower castes, use of caste names
when addressing them, denial of services of the village
barber, separate utensils for them in restaurants, marriage
within caste.... Equally telling, he cited a number of studies
that showed that caste continued to play a determiningpart in
church politics, in church elections, in promotions within the
church hierarchy. Studies showed that while progressive
policies existed on paper, they were not better implemented
within the church than they are in the rest of society....
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Selected Speeches and Writings, Volume V,

Governmnent of Maharashtra, 1989, pp. 445-78, at 454-56.
John C.B. Webster, The Dalit Christias, A History, Indian Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, Dellhi, 1992, 1994, 1996, pp. 179-87.
on
That was in the early 1990s. The National Consultation
Mission that was held in 1994 in Pune acknowledged "the
sinful neglect" of the lower castes within the church. Writing
as
around the same time, Bishop Nirmal Minz reported
follows:
Dalits had thought that Christianity as an egalitarian religion would

solve their problems. Therefore many embraced Christianity. 75% of
the Christians of India vere drawn from Dalit socio-religious
background. But to the uter dismay of the Dalit Christians, they have
not been treated as per their expectations.
The Christian doctrine of original sin which has been inherited from
the first sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden had a very adverse effect
on Dalit Christians. It is somewhat comparable to the doctrine of
Karma in Hinduism..
The Christian culticpractice has done enough damage to Dalit life.
Priesthocod, though open to all, yet the post and hierarchy of Christian
priesthood cannot be held by Dalit Christians in corresponding
proportion to their numerical strength in the churches. This could not
take place even after more than one hundred years of Christianity in
this community. There are instances of discrimination in seating
during worship services, and in serving communion in the
rear
Congregation of some churches. The Dalits are made to sit at the
seats and they are served communion after the high caste converts to
Christianity have received communion.
Social discrimination in the church appears in subtle forms. In some
churches voting systems, and candidates for election to some posts
are skillfully maneuvered by the wealthy and clever high caste
Christians. Marriage relationships between the high caste and Dalit
Christians are rare. Even after death Dalits are buried in a separate
section of the graveyard in some churches.
Religion in its creedal, cultic and cultural expression had made Dalits
victims of Hinduism and Christianity. In fact,Christian Dalits are twice
alienatedand the women among them thrice.
The above discussion does not mean that Christianity did not do any
good to the Dalits. It did. But it did to some individuals, anda few
families only. But they to) were cOopted by the caste Christians.
Dalits on the whole face the consequences of their being twice
alienated..4
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of India had to devote an

anxious session to this reality at its 1998 session in Varanasi.
Bishop George Punnakottil observed,
In recent years the problem of the Dalit Christians is brought to the

attention of the church and the state. It seems that the church has
not offered opportunities to the Dalit members to come up
educationally and socially. As a result even after hundreds of years of
their existence in the church, they remain on the periphery of the
community.There are few priests and leacders of the church from the
Dalit section. In the states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa,
Bihar where majority of Christians are Dalits this problem is seriously
felt. According to the reports, 70% of the Tamil Nadu Catholics are
Dalits. It is reported that out of 14 Bishops in T.N. only one is Dalit.
The percentage of Tamil priests is only 4%.
There is no significant step taken by the church ill recently to lift the
socio-economic condition of the Dalits. Vocation from Dalit Christians
have not been encouraged. A Dalit priest's feelings have been
expressed in the following words: We do understand that vocation is
from God, but it boggles our mind why He should choose His priests
from non-Dalits only. Is God too casteist? Does He also practice
untouchability?..
To illustrate the internal condition of the Church the Bishop

quoted the following observations of a Christian scholar about
the Church in Tamil Nadu,
The Catholic church in Tamil Nadu is a lighly caste-conscious

organization. It is organised around caste structures, identities and
interests. Caste is ubiquitous in all the structures of social relationship
Bishop Nirmal Minz, "Daits and Religion", in Dalit Solidarity, Bhagwan

Das and James Massey, Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
Delhi, 1995, pp. 137-44, at 141-42.
in the church, and forms the core of the language of social

intercourse. Power, authority and patronage, all flow from the caste
a
pipeline. The non-Dalits vho are a minority in the church, create
system of social closure by means of which they monopolize all the
access to
positions of power and privilege in the church, and restrict
resources and opportunities to the majority, the Dalit Catholics, who
form 70% of the total Catholicpopulation inTamil Nadu. There are
are
people who say the Tamil church is plagued with casteism. We
injected skillfully with fear, inferiority complexes, servility,
subservience, helplessness, despair and abasement."
"Coming to the Church, the lower castes had hoped to find

their dignity and rights as human beings," we are told. “But it
proved to be an illusion.."5
A terrible indictment, as Ambedkar said. An unchanging
picture over the entire century. And that on a matter which
has all along been one of the principal selling points of the
church to its target peoples. Resentment within the Church
has become rage. All the more so because of something the
Church has been doing for the last two decades: to widen
the fault-lines wvithin Hindu society, the Church has been
patronizing those Scheduled Caste "leaders" who have been
the most abusive in their denunciations of our society, those
who have struck the most extreme positions in regard to it.
Their activities and hectoring have been projected as the
rising consciousness of Dalits.
But whatever has risen, has not remained confined to
Scheduled Castes within the Hindu fold. It has also inflamed
those who had left Hinduism in the hope of breaking out of
discrimination. Accordingly, there has been a near-implosion
within the Church. To deflect the wrath of these millions
whom it has disillusioned, the Church has sought to
>Bishop George Punnakottil, "The role of the church in the context of the
church in India today," in Rport of the CBCI General Body Meeting,
(Varanasi, March 21-28, 1998), Catholic Bishops' Conference of India,
New Delhi, pp. 186-202, at pp. 197-202.
externalize the problem: deflect the demands the "Dalits"

within the Church are making by converting them into
demands on the State - that has been its device.
We must, therefore, be vigilant to this new impulse. It is
not compassion for the downtrodden which has led the
Church to suddenly espouse the cause of "Christian Dalits".
It is the fear that unless they are seen to be doing so, the
converts would begin deserting themn. And the calculation
thatonce they can assure the potential convert that he would
not lose any of the benefits that State policies now confer on
him, they would have another argument that would help
wean him away from Hinduism.
Consequences of ignoring the law

A lesson of an entirely different order is brought home
most forcefully by Justice Wadhwa's findings in regard to the
Orissa law that bears on conversions. As has been noted
earlier, Orissa passed a law in 1967 to regulate conversions.
It is known as –theas Orissa Freedom of Religion Act. Its
constitutionality well as that of the allied lavw in Madhya
Pradesh - has been upheld by a five judge Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Reu. Stainislaus v. State of
Madhya Pradesb [AIR 1977 SC 908]. Among other things, the
law provides, "No person shall convert or attempt to convert,
either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious
faith to another by use of force or by inducement or by
any fraudulent means, nor shall any person abet such
conversion." Anyone doing so, the Act provides, shall be
punished by imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of
Rs. 5,000. In case the offence relates to a minor, a woman or
a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Tribes, the
punishment shallbe double.
To prevent misuse, the Act provides that the offence shall
not be investigated by an officer below the rank of an
412
Inspector of Police, and that no prosecution shall be instituted

or an
without the sanction of the Magistrate of the District
equivalent authority.
were not
The ACt was passed in 1967. Rules under it
framed till November, 1989, Justice Wadhwa notes. The
Rules are salutary, and will repay moment's attention:
a
a
3i) Each District Magistrate shall maintain list of religious
institutions or organizations propagating religious faith in his district
and that of persons directly or indirectly engaged for propagation of
religious faith in the district.
a
(ii) The District Magistrate, if he thinks fit, may call for list of
persons
or
with the religious faith, receiving benefits either in cash in kind
from the religious organizations or institutions or from any
person
connected therewith.
a declaration
4. Any person intending to convert his religion shall give
before a Magistrate, 1st Class, having jurisdiction prior to such
conversion that he intends to convert his religion on hisown will.
5) The concerned religious priest shall intimate the date, time and
place of the ceremony in which conversion shall be made along with
the names and addresses of the persons to be converted
to the
concerned District Magistrate before fifteen days of the said
ceremony.
(ii)The intimation shall be in Form A and shall be delivered either
personally by the Priest to the concerned Distict Magistrate or sent to
him by registered post with acknowledgment due.
6. The District Magistrate on receiving the intimation from the priest
shall sign thereon stating the date on which and the hourat which the
intimation has been delivered to him or received by him, and shall
forthwith acknowledge the receipt thereof in Form B.
7. The District Magistrate shall maintain a register of conversion in
Form Cand shall cover therein particulars of the intimation received
by him.
8.Any person who contravenes the provisions of Rule 5 or6 shall be
liable to a fine of Rupees one thousand.
9. The District Magistrate shall by the 10th of each month send to the
State Government a report of intimations received by him during the
preceding month in Forn D.
One reform is obvious at once. Under the Act, penalties
for disregard and violation are so minor that they cry out
to be multiplied manifold. As conversions are triggering
such intense tensions, what is the rationale for limiting
punishments to fines of a thousand or five, to imprisonment
of one or two years?
The more serious lesson lies in what Justice Wadhwa
reports about what this law means on the ground. He records,
Noone was aware of the Freedom of Religion Act or the Rules framed
thereunder in the State at least in the districts of Mayurbhanj and
Keonjhar. These provisions of law were lying dormant and [had]
never beenl put into operation for the last many years. Admittedly,
there were conversions to Christianity in these two districts. No
person intending to convert his religion ever gave a declaration
before a Magistrate prior to such conversion of his intent to convert
his religion on his own will which was the requirement of Rule 4.
Similarly also the religious priest did not give intimation of such
conversion as per Form A under the Rules. District Magistrate did not
maintain a register of conversion as per Form prescribed. Since they
did not make any record of conversions,theyy did not send any report
of conversion to the State Government.
Mr. Balakrishnan, District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj and Mr. Saurabh
Garg, District Magistrate, Keonjhar were examined to know if any
action (had been] taken under the Freedom of Religion Act and the
Rules framed thereunder. They expressed ignorance of the
provisions of the law relating to conversion and said they had
become aware of these only after the incident at Manoharpur on the
night of 22/23.1.1999. To me, it appears tlhat even now they do not
understand the full scope and intent of the provisions of the Orissa
Freedom of Religion Act and the Rules. These are salutary provisions
and prohibitconversion from one religion to another by the use of
force, inducement or by any fraudulent means. Even any abetment
to such conversion has been made an offence. If these provisions of
law,in my view, are strictly followed no one can have any grievance
to contend that gullible and innocent tribals are being converted.
The Commission asked the Advocate General for a report on

prosecutions under the Act. From 1967 to 1990, the Advocate

General informed the Commission, the Act was not enforced
as its constitutional vires had been challenged. Since then
that is, in nine years - 10 cases had been registered. In
one
case, the accused had been discharged. In one case, he had
been acquitted. In regard to two the Final Report had been
submitted. And six were pending trial.
The lesson - a cruel one - leaps at us: as this is the attitude
of the State machinery to law, the Dara Singhs will continue to
become heroes with the local population.
Thus, we should have an Orissa-type law throughout the
country to regulate conversions. And we should ensure that
all adhere to it strictly.
The basic lessons
But the basic lessons go beyond these. That those officials

in Orissa did not even know the law is but a symptom of a -
State that has become too enfeebled to even attempt to attend
to the probiems that confront it.
Large parts in the Northeast are being inundated by
Bangladeshis. But the State can do nothing: therefore, instead
of rounding up the infiltrators, it pounces on the distinguished
Governor of Assam, a former Deputy Chief of Staff of the
Army no less, when he sends a report to the President that
the inundation has assumed such proportions that it now
constitutes a threat to the security of the country.
Justice Wadhwa reproduces statements of officers
testifying to the fact that Dara Singh was being looked upon
as a hero by the people of the area. Instead of paying heed to
the warning, instead of finding out why the peopie of the
area have come to look upon one who is taking such
murderous steps against missionaries as a hero, activists
launch a campaign attacking the judge!
When in the wake of the murder Reverend Arul Doss the
Home Secretary of Orissa says that tension had risen in the

area as Catholic priests were "trying to split families after
converting tribals" and others, instead of paying heed to the
warning, activists begin shouting that the Home Department
be taken away from the officer!
To maintain their hold over their flock, aggressive leaders
of Muslims make the shariat an instrument in their politics of
separateness. Instead of defanging them, the State makes not
abiding by the constitutional directive for a common civil
code a principle.
In Kashmir, Pakistan orchestrates the rhetoric of separate
ness into the shriek of separation. Instead of taking steps to
integrate the region further into India, the State makes it a
principle that it will not abide by the constitutional expect
ation of doing away with Article 370.
Those officers of Orissa typify not just the State, but also
society - a people who have been totally confused by fifty
years of perverted propaganda: the combined result of the
near-stranglehold over the media of secularists on the one
hand, and of the slavishness of the Indian intellectual class on
the other. Sodeep has been the effect of this combination that
our literati hesitate to endorse steps required even to crush
terrorists. They typify a society that has lost the capacity to
face the truth, of a State that has lost the strength to enforce
the laws it as enacted.
Contrast this cravenness in the face of fabrications by
missionaries and the media regarding "atrocities" On
missionaries with the position in Islamic countries. There no
Christian missionary may attempt to convert a Muslim. Have
you encountered our progressive intellectuals censuring this?
Similarly, compare the condition we have encountered in this
survey with the following news item from Israel:
CNN Networks
31 March 1998
Web posted at: 03:23 GST, New York Times (23:23 GMT)
50 Christian groups promise no missionary activity in Israel

groups
JERUSALEM (AP) Representatives of 50Christian evangelical
have agreed to make an unprecedented joint statement promising
not to carry out missionary activity in Irael,
As a result, Israeli legislator Nissim Zvili said Monday he would drop
his sponsorship of an anti-proselytizing bill that has drawn
protests
from Christians around the world.
a
"Thisisbetter than a law," Zvili told TheAsSOciated Press, "This is
very big accomplishment."
In the statement, the Christian groups say they "rejoice in th
presence of the Jewish people in this country of their ancestors" and
agree to avoid "activities which... alienated them from their tradition
and community."
Missionary activity touchesa particularly raw nerve in the Jewish
state, home to 300,000 Holocaust survivors. Some Jewish groups
have accused Christian churches of apathy or complicity in the Nazi
attempt to exterminate European Jews.
Clarence Wagner, director of the evangelical foundation Bridges for
Peace, said the joint statement was an important step toward
understanding between Jews and Christians. "We don't believe that
we have been or are in any way a threat to the Jewish people," he
said. The proposed anti-proselytizing bill would have banned
some
possession of any written material that proselytizes which
Christians feared could be used to ban posession of the New
Testamnent.
Zvili said he had proposed the billafter receiving a proselyizing tract
in the mail.
Or, contrast the pounding we are subjected to in spite of the

freedom that missionaries are accorded in India with what the
law is in China in this regard.
On 31 January, 1994, China promulgated its Decree,
"Regulations governing the religious activities of foreign
nationals within China." The Decree declares its object to be
"to protect the freedom of religious belief of foreign nationals
in China and to safeguard the public interest." It allows
foreign nationals to participate "in religious activities",
adding that they may participate in such activities "in
religious venues". They may discuss the scriptures and
preach, it says, but "at the invitation of a religious body at or
above the provincial, autonomouS region or municipality
level." Foreign nationals may hold religious activities, the
Decree says, but for other foreign nationals"! And only
"at venues recognized by the Bureaus of the People's
Government at or above the cOunty level. "
When they enter China foreign nationals may bring printed
materials as wel! as audio and visual materials and other
religious items, the Decree says, adding that they are allowed
to bring these for their personal use." If the materials are
brought in quantities which exceed what is required of
personal use, it says, the materials "will be dealt with
according to the relevant Chinese customs regulations."
Moreover, materials of this kind wbose content is barmful to
-
the public interest are forbidden" and, of course, it is the
State which shall determine whether the material is liable to
harm the public interest or not.
Article 8 of the Decree specifies,
Foreign nationals who engage in religious activities in Chinamust

respect Chinese laws and regulations. Tbey are not permitted to
establish religious organizations, liaison offices, and venues for
religious activities or run religious schools and institutes witbin
China, they are not allowed io recruit believers among Chinese
citizenry, appoint clergy or undertake otber evangelistic activity.
Article 9 is just as unambiguous, just as stern:
The Bureaus of Religious Affairs at or above the county level or other

offices concerned should act to dissuade and put a stop to
religious activities of foreign nationals vbich violate this
regulation. If the violation constitutes an immigration offence ora
matter of public security, tbe public security organs will dispense
penalties according to the lau, if the violation constitutes a crime,
the judiciary will investigate to determine wbere criminal
responsibility lies.6
(For the text of the Dectee see, CharlesD. Paglee, Chinalaw Web, http://
www.qis.net/chinalaw/prclaw109. htm.
418
on
And that is just the formal law The "situation the ground,"
as the phrase goes, is much harsher: yet none of the persons
traduce us in India, and certainly no
and organizations that
China in this
progressive of ours so much as Bleats about
regard!
Therefore, the basic lesson of this survey is: clear the
national mind, develop a strong and purposeful State.
survey,
To clear our society's mind on the subject of this
important things are ones each of us can do on his own.
the
Just read the publications of the missionaries.
In particular, read the Bible.
Read what is common knowledge about it in Europe. Make
that known all across our country.
At each opportunity, question the missionaries about
what is Contained in the Bible, and about what scholars in
advanced Christian countries have written about it.
us,
This little bit, a bit that lies within the reach of each of
will by itself be a substantial enough antidote.
Index
Index
To conserve space,as passages fron the Old and New Testaments are cited
througbout the book, pages on wbich they appear bave not been listed bere.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali: on God being Bethlehem: was Jesus born in?: 88
held to have begotten a son: 171 90

Ad Gentes, Decree on the Mission Bible: claim of Vatican I and
Activity of the Church: on right Vatican II that God is author of:
and duty toconvert: 35-39; 81-83; continuing creation of:
Christian revelation final: 391; 180-82; evolution and
Jesus'alone saves: 392; Church authorship of: 191-205; effect of
impelled to harvest souls: 392 pre-determined purpose on: 85,
93 89-90, 112, 126, 148-49, 151-52,
Allahabad: concotion about a 154, 209-19; Gospels filtered
Christian "doctor" and his clinic: through illiterate memories" of
8 devotees: 206; limit to
Ambedkar, B.R.: on conversion not discovering stemma of Gospels:
having brought promised 206-07; errors and aiterations
upliftment: 406-07 while making copies: 207-08;
Anointing: Vatican on when ít winnowing of Books for
heals, and why it does not: 139. inclusion in New Testament:
42 215-16; tlhe endless cycle of
Apostles: identity of Mark, events in: 255, 298-304,337
Matthew, Luke, John: 196-201;
Wrote tO a pre-determined Calcutta: targeted: 31-32
purpose: 209-19; "somewhat Cambridge Companion to the
free way" in which apostles Bible, The: on powers of Jewish
used sources and situations: council: 120-21; on Jesus'
210-11; slhape quotations to fit appearances after death: 132;
aim: 212-13 on interpolation and overwriting
to get over unfulfilled
Baripada: story about alleged rape prophecies: 187-88; on
of nun: 8-10 accumulation of Old T'estament:
422
192-93; on criteria for selecting 280-81; God on their ingratitude:
New Testament Books: 195-96; 305-19; accept they are guilty:
on identity of "Mark": 197; on 314-19
identity of "Matthew": 198-99; Christian Depressed Classes of
on identity of "Luke": 199-200; South Irndia: memorandum to
on identity of "John": 200-01; on Simon Commission: 405-06
evolution of Gospels: 202-03; Christianity: matters to be taken on
on apostles having written faith: 142-47
propaganda: 209; on each Church: waning attendance, etc., in
apostle modifying narrative to Europe, US: 25-26; on its right
achieve his particular aim: 211 and duty to convert: 35-39; on
12; on Matthew shaping its absolute dedication to
quotation to fit aim: 212-13; on expansion of Christianity: 42; on
tensions between Church and obligation to preach Gospel: 42
Judaism effecting narrative: 213; 43; circular "proofs" of: 150-57;
on Church's need effecting continuing creation of Bible
post-resurrection narrative: 213 and "interpretations": 180-90;
Catholic Dbaran ka Pracharak: trims sails on inerrancy: 208; its
on harvesting the dying: 56 requirements effecting Gospel
Catholic Encyclopaedia narratives: 209-19; gloss it puts
Dictionary: asserts devotion to on God's repeated failure to
Mary differs from idolatry: 168 have His chosen people
Chambers's Encyclopedia: on worship Him alone: 333-34; on
differences in accounts: 152; principal purpose of old
spin on resurrection: 155-56; not covenant: 334; exalts itself: 373
necessary to carry "historical 79; ensures powver for itself: 379
skepticism" too far: 157; on 83; on primacy, infallibility of
anticipatory saving of Mary: 169 Pope: 379-80, 383-86; on its
China: law regarding missionaries: relation to Christ: 380-83; on
416-18 duty of believers to obey, and
Chosen people: God on purpose in evangelize under its direction:
choosing them: 272, 283-84; 386-88; excludes ecumenism:
relapse repeatedly to 388-93; on divisions within it:
worshipping other Gods: 232 393-95, 396-98; on mixed
34, 262-65, 275-77, 293-94, 309 marriages: 395-96; laity may in
19, 320-32; God convinced they exceptional circumstances raise
do so to insult, hurt Him: 248, point, but through prescribed
251, 252; God holds them channels, and ultimately obey:
responsible: 235-36, 248, 265-67, 387; laity must pray for office
285-304, 306-19; sacrifices, holders in Church: 387;
offerings they must make to condescension towards other
Him: 268-71; God on purpose in religions: 388-93
punishing them: 272-74; God on Circular "proofs": examples of:
purpose in rehabilitating them: 150-57
lndex 423
Constituent Assembly: and Jesus: 95-97; exchanges with
freedom to convert: 49-51 Jesus about who he is: 103-04;
Conversion: missionaries claim why unable to cure a child: 105
right to: 1; disruptive effects of: 06; argument about primacy
1-2, 20-21; Swami Vivekananda among: 106-07; exchanges over
on: 2; India targeted: 26-33; expensive ointment used to
Vatican on right and duty to anoint Jesus: 107-09; incidents
convert: 34-41; obligation of after one disciple hacks off ear
each Christian to convert: 39-40, of soldier: 115
42-43, 380; to do so under Durant, Will: on date of birth of

direction of Churclh: 386-88; Jesus: 88; on "suspicious
conversion genuine only if accuracy" of Jesus' serene
convert brings in other converts: words at end: 129; on Gospels
48-49; Constituent Assembly having reached us through
and: 49-51; Supreme Court on: "illiterate memories" of
51-53; religious command vis á devotees: 206
vis our law: 70-72; supposed
command of Jesus for: 69, 79-80 Ecclesiae sanctae ll, Norms for
Court, John M.: on "literary implementing Decree on
epilogue" in John'sGospel: 131, Church's missionary activity: on
on shifting emphasis in missionary obligation of every
apostles' accounts: 148-49 believer: 380
Economnics Times, Tbe: on
Dangs: incidents at, and conflicting incidents in and around
reports about: 13 Ranalai: 12-13
David, King: reasons for and Ecumenism: condescension
difficulties in claiming Davidic towardsother religions: 37;
descent for Jesus: 89-90; accommodation to principles of
acquires Bathsheba: 321-22 other religions emphatically
Dead Sea Scrolls: 204-05 ruled out: 43-44; Christianity
Dei verbum: Dogmatic constitution alone leads to salvation: 44-45;
on Divine Revelation: Christian non-Christians consigned to
revelation final: 391-92 eternal fire: 45; Church's duty to
Depressed castes: on how enlarge: 45-46; wrong to think
Conversion has not brouglht Vatican-IIdiluted claim or goal:
them promised upliftment, on 46-49; test of genuineness of
continued caste discrimination converson is tO Convert: 48-49;
within Chuich: 404-11 Gospels leave no scope for:
Dialogue: missionaries on purpose 359-69
of: 61-62 Eli: sons sin, consequences: 243-44
Disciples, of Jesus: after Elijah, prophet: has prophets of
crucifixion: 73-78; and other Gods killed: 323-24
resurrection of Jesus: 78-80; Elisha, prophet: reaction to
when and how gathered by children'staunt: 287
424
Encyclotpedia Anericana: on the Encyclopaedia of Religion: on cult
Passion narrative: 126; faults of Mary: 166-68
those who see difficuties in Evangelica testificatio, Apostolic
anticipatory saving of Mary: Exhortation on the Renewal of
169-70; on Gospels being Religious Life: on Church's
precipitates: 194; on the Dead absolute dedication to
Sea Scrolls community: 204; expansion of Christianity: 42
says Dead Sea Scrolls do not Evangelii nuntiandi,
anticipate notions central to Evangelization in the Modern
Christianity: 205 World: on duty to preach
Encyclopaedia Britannica: on Gospel: 42-43; accommodation
conflicting genealogies of Jesus: to principles of other religions
85; on how the story of virgin emphatically ruled out: 43-44;
birth carne about: 87; reason for Christianity alone leads to
claiming Bethlehem as salvation: 44-45; Church's duty
birthplace of Jesus: 89-90; on to enlarge: 45-46; wrong to think
uncertainties about number of Vatican II diluted claim or goal:
times Jesus visits Jerusalem: 95; 46-49; test of genuineness of
on dating of Last Supper: 111 conversion is tO convert: 48-49;
12; on unreliability of accounts limits for secular examination:
Jewish authorities having
of
161; exalts Church: 381-82;
held Jesus guilty: 119-20; on exalts Pope: 384-85; endorses
Passion narrative being unity but asserts fullness of
"theological": 126; plays down revelation deposited only in
importance of historicity: 154 Catholic Church: 395;
55; on spirit having ceased evangelization essentially
writing after Book of Malachi: ecclesial: 388
179-80; on selection of Books of Ezekiel, prophet: exchanges with,
New Testament: 193-94; on commands from God: 249-52;
identity of "Mark": 196-97; orn reason God takes away his
identity of "Matthew": 197; on beloved wife: 277
identity of "Luke": 199-200; on Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, of
identity of "John": 200-01; on Orissa: provisions: 411-13;
continuing attribution of words Justice Wadhwa on ignorance
to Jesus: 210; on apostles having of officers about: 413; non
written to a purpose: 210-11; on enforcement of: 413-14
"somewhat free way" in which Freedom to propagate: all have: 1;
apostles used situations: 210-11; Supreme Court on what it
on how it is difficult to wvrite means: 51-53
authentic life of Jesus: 216-17;
on "theological" motives Gajendragadkar, ustice P. B.:
influencing Gospel narrative: difficulty in leaving question of
216-17 what is essential religious
Index 425
practice to religious authorities: He relents on oCcasion: 250-51;
70-71 says He deliberately allows
Gandhi, Mahatma: question to people to do what disgusts Him:
missionaries: 4; on Church's 251, 261-62; has others destroy
attitude to non-Christians: 367 His chosen people, then
Gaudium et spes, Pastoral pulverizes them for carrying out
constitution on Church in the His command: 253-54; His
Modern World: Jesus the only paranoia of, and commands to
living God, only Saviour: 388-89 destroy idols and altars of
Gharbandbu: on purpose of others: 255-67; powerless: 262
schools: 54 65, 293-94, 305-19, 320-32, 346
Gideon: God has him cut forcesso 47; Church's gloss on His
that credit for victory goes to repeated failure: 333-34;
God: 241; God's command on sacrifices and offerings He
what to do with idols and altars demands: 268-71; His purpose
of others to: 261-62 in choosing a people: 272, 283
God, of Bible: opinion of Himself: 84; His singular aim in inflicting
224-26, 305; His singular terrors and suffering: 272-74;
concern, and afflictions He His purpose in rehabilitating
hurls when people do not fulfill Israelites: 280-81; His
that: 226-34, 340-44; one unrequited love: 305-319, 345
argument which works with: 46; punishes contrary to Own
234-40, 324; says people He rule: 305-06, 329, 331; doesn't
chose as wife, betray Him as a let anyone forget good He has
prostitute: 232-33, 275-77, 309 done: 306-10; all devices having
14; laments that people do not failed, He sends His son: 337
return in spite of calamities He 40; in New Testament: 340-47;
has sent: 233-34; ensures credit Jesus progressively identified
for victory goes to Him: 241; with: 162-64, 347-53; eventually
ensures credit for crushing His eclipsed by Jesus: 347-53;
chosen people goes to Him: Quran on this identification
242-43; declares He has being blasphemy: 353-57
decided to kill sons of Eli: 243 God, claimed author of Bible: 81
44; Condition for consecrating, 83; inerrancy confined to lost
accepting Temple: 244-46; original autograph: 208
Solomon lapses, trail of Goldziher, Ignaz: on "pious fraud"
devastation that follows: 245-48; of manufacturing Hadis: 209-10
pastes responsibility for His Good Neus Bible, Today's Englisb
deeds on others: 235-36, 248, version: on three different
265-67, 285-304, 306-19; endings of Gospel of Mark: 76
convinced people honour 77; on Jesus' words on the
others in order to hurt and Cross: 127-28; on "Kingdom of
insult Him: 248, 251, 252; reason God is within you": 182; used
for Old Testament citations: 224 Huminum dolores, Rite of

Gospels, God as author of: 81-83, Anointing and Pastoral Care of
378-79; discrepancies in: 69-80, the Sick: 139-42
83-133; ascent of Jesus in: 142 Houston Chronicle: Pope on
45, 162-64, 347-53; Mary in: 171 "rapaious wolves" of
72; Kingdom of God in: 182-87; Protestantism: 397
as precipitates: 193-96, 202-04;
identity of Mark, Matthew, Luke Idols and altars, of others: God's
and John: 196-201; bearing of commands to faithful regarding:
Dead Sea Scrolls on: 204-05; 255-67
apostles wrote to pre India: Church's need to focus on
determined purpose: 209-19; India: 25-26; "unreached
peoples" of 26-27, 30-32;
:
parallels to manufacture of
Hadis: 209-10; effect of Church "People of India" Project: 33;
Judaism tensions on Gospel Consequences of a weakened
narrative: 213; leave no scope State, confused society: 414-15
for ecumenism: 360-70; Church Indian Express, Tbe: on alleged
on their pre-eminence, divine rape of nun in Baripada: 9
authorship and inerrancy: 378 Indulgences: Vatican on their
79 efficacy: 147
Govindlalji us. State of
Rajasthan: Indulgentiarum doctrina,
70-71 Apostolic constitution on
Revision of Indulgences:
Harvesting the dying: Catholic efficacy of indulgences: 147;
Dbaram ka Pracharak on: 57; sins remitted only through
practice in Mother Teresa's Church vorking asa single
Order: 57-58 body: 382; relies on Pope
Harvey, A.E.: on whether Jewish Clement VI's Bull: 382-83; to
authorities held Jesus guilty of secure benefit believers must
blasphemy: 119 submit to Church with docility:
Herod: differing accounts about 383; attributes supremacy,
Jesus' birth and: 91-92 universal power, infallibility to
Hindus: (Christian) God's longing Pope: 383-84
to have them under His fold: 58; Israel: Christian groups pledge to
their numbers lopped off: 58; desist from missionary activity:
residing abroad targeted: 59; 415-16
Hindu beliefs which can be
worked to advantage: 59; Jesus, life of: crucifixion,
"theological blocks" which resurrection: 72-80; conflicting
impede drives to convert them: genealogies of: 83-85; virgin
59-60 birth of: 86-87; uncertainties
Hindustan Times, The: purveys about year of birth of: 87-88;
story about Jhajjar nuns: 7-8 uncertainties about place of
Hitchens, Christopher: 57-58 birth of: 88-90; reasons for
Index 427
claiming Davidic descent for: multitude again: 102; on giving a
89-90; on claiming sign or not: 102-03; restores
simultaneously he is Son of sight to blind: 104; heals
God and descendant of David: possessed child: 104-06; infirm
90; who come bearing gifts?: 91; man walks: 121-22; his miracles
incidents after birth: 91-92; said to alarm Jewish authorities:
baptism by John: 92-94; 121-24; restores sight: 123
COmmencement and duration Jesus, commands of: counsel
of ministry: 94-95; entry into missionaries should have
Jerusalem: 110-11; visit to heeded: 3-4; commands
Temple: 110-11; last meal: 111 missionaries say he gave them:
12; betrayal of: 112-15; arrest of: 69, 79-80; command weighed
114-16; Jewsprogressively against our law: 70-72;
blamed for death of: 116-21; continuing attribution of words
Jews portrayed as having been to: 209-10; possible inability
out to kill Jesus from outset: converted to decision: 211-12;
121-24; interrogation of: 116-17; Church on its relation to Jesus:
trial by Pilate of: 116-21; trek to 380-83; the only living God and
Golgotha: 126, crucifixion, Saviour: 388-89
exchanges with bandits, and last Jesus, prophecies of: about Judas
words: 127-29; events in wake betraying him: 112-15; about his
of death: 129-31; resurrection, own suffering: 181-82; about
forecasts and facts: 131-32; resurrection: 131-32; about
once events are shorn of the imminence of Kingdom of God:
miraculous: 150-57 182-90
Jesus, ministry of: commencement Jesus, as "figure of faith": 137-61
of: 94-95; when and how initial Jesus, and God: progressive
disciples gathered: 95-97; identification: 162-64; all
miracles of: 97-106; on giving a devices having failed, God
sign or not: 102-103; inquires sends him: 337-40; Jesus
.what men say of him: 103-04; eclipses God: 347-53; Quran on
on sitting to his right and left: this identification being
107; exchanges when sinful blasphemy: 353-57
Woman anoints: 107-09 Jews: blame for Jesus' death
Jesus, miracles of: significance and progressively shifted on to: 116
use made of: 97-99; cures leper: 121; progressively portrayed as
99; cures centurion's servant: having been out to kill Jesus
99-100; exorcises spirit or spirits: from outset: 121-24; effects of
100; cures man of palsy: 100; tensions between Church and
revives a dying or dead girl: 100 Judaism on Gospel narratives:
01; cures woman of 213-14
uncontrollable bleeding: 101; Jhabua: rape of nuns: 7
feeds multitude: 101; incident as Jhajar: concoction about assault
he walks on water: 101-02; feeds On nuns: 7-8
John: identity of: 200-01, 203-04 dty of every Christian to

John, the Baptist: and baptizing of Convert: 39-41; on cult of Mary:
Jesus: 92-94 173-74; exalts Church: 373-79;
on primacy, infallibility of Pope:
Joln Paul II, Pope: Jesus sole living
God: 388-89; condescension 379-80; Bishops must teach in
towards other religions: 390-93; communion with and loyally
on "rapacious wolves" of submit to Pope: 386-87; on how
Protestantism: 397 laity may raise a question but
Joshua, prophet: commands of through prescribed channels,
God implemented by: 259-61 and eventually obey: 387; on
Judas: objects to costly ointment duty of laity to pray for those
being used for anointing Jesus: holding office in Church: 387
109: differences in accounts of Luke, identity of: 199-200
betrayal by: 112-14; whether he
identifies Jesus: 115 Mark, identity of: 196-97
Mary, Virgin: differing accounts in
Kandhamal: murder of girl and Gospels of birth of Jesus: 86-87;
boy: 10-11 mistranslation converts "young
Kingdomn of God: interpretations woman" into "virgin": 86-87;
contrived to explain away Jesus' progressive ascent: 164-67:
forecasts: 182-90 consequences: 167-72; Vatican
Kings: one after the other, they on cult of: 172-75; "ever Virgin":
lapse: 244-48 171-72
Koester, Helmut: on place of birth Matthew, identity of: 197-98
of Jesus: 89; on Last Supper: Medical work: object of: 64
112; on limit to discovering Minorities Commission: its version
stemma of New Testament: 206 of Ranalai incident: 12; Justice
07; on alterations and Wadhwa on: 12-13; on activities
corruptions in making copies: and concerns of Graham
207-08; on Gospel narratives Staines: 15-16, 19
having no relationship to Missionaries: stories of assaults on
historically reliable information: them examined: 7-24, 401-04;
214-15 reasons for being cautious
about atrocity stories: 13-14, 29
Law: conversions differentiated 30; operational conclusion from
from propagation: 49-53; atrocity stories: 30-33; command
religious command vis á vis our they say Jesus gave them: 69,
law: 70-72 79-80; a religious command in
Lourdusamy, Archbishop D. relation to our law: 70-72;
Simon: circular on inventive arguments to explain
indigenization: 27-28 away facts: 147-50
Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Missionaries: claim right to convert:
Constitution on the Church: on 1; their denunciations of our
right and duty to convert: 34-35; Gods and scriptures: 3; Jesus'
Index 429
counsel they should have 90; test of what is valid in other
heeded: 3-4; Jesus' words religions: 391
exalting: 361-63
Matrimonia mixta, Apostolic letter Observer of Business and Politics,
on Mixed Marriages: Church's The: investigates story about
anxiety about and guidelines on Jhajjar nuns: 7-8
mixed marriages: 395-96 OM Publisbing: activists witlh
Matrinonii sacramentum, Staines: 16-17; telling acronym:
Instruction on Mixed Marriages: 17; its publication: 27
396 Operation World: targets for
Minz, Bishop Nirmal: on conversion: 26-27; sections to
continuing problems of lower be targeted: 63-64; object of
castes within Church: 408-09 medical work: 64; using radio:
Mixed marriages: Church's anxiety 64
and guidelines on: 395-96 Oxford Companion to the Bible,
Moses, prophet: arguments by The: on conflicting genealogies
which he persuades God to of Jesus: 85; on uncertainties
relent: 237-40 about Jesus' visits to Jerusalem:
Mysterium filii Dei, Errors 95; on exchanges at Last
Concerning mysteries of Supper: 112; on Jesus' forecasts
Incarnation and Trinity: 159-60 about resurrection having been
about people of God, not
National Consultation on Mission: himself: 132; on number of days
on "sinful neglect" within Jesus was on earth after
Church of lower castes: 408 resurrection: 133; on faith and
Nazareth: was Jesus born in?: 88-90 healing: 141; asserts "multiple
New Indian Fxpress: pastes attestation" for an account: 150;
remarks on DGP about Staines' Last Supper "may well have
killers: 21-22 taken place": 151-52; circular
Neuw Universal Library: on pre reasoning in: 153-54; on Jesus'
determined purpose having prophecies not being
influenced Gospel narratives: "necessarily after the fact": 156
217 57; failure of nerve: 157-58; on
Niyogi Committee: on primary parallels to cult of Mary: 167; on
purpose of missionary activity: interpolation and overwriting to
54-55; Gharbandbu on purpose get past unfulfilled prophecies:
of schools: 55; use of 188; on claim that God authored
orphanages: 55; Catholic Bible: 191; on identity of
Dbaram Ka Pracbarak on "Mark": 197; on identity of
harvesting the dying: 56, 98 "Matthew": 197-98; on identity
Nostra aetate: declaration on of "Luke'": 199; on identity of
relation of Church to non "John": 200; on evolution of
Christian religions: Bible: 201-02; on signifiance of
condescension of Church: 389 Dead Sea Scrolls: 205; on
430
inerrancy claim being shifted: Ram Swarup: 28-29
208; on lhistorical evolution of Ranalai: tussle between Hindus
canon: 215-16; on "theological and Christians at: 11-13
interests" shaping Gospel Ratione babita, On Dangerous
narratives: 217-18; on Opinions and Atheism: on
appellations – son of God, etc.
- proper role of scholars: 160-61;
on Christ speaking through
being applied to earlier and
earlier phases of Jesus' life: 357 Church and duty of faithful to
58 obey: 381
Responsibility: God shifts it on to
Paglee, Charles D.: 417 others: 248, 265-67, 285-304,
Paine, Thomas: on the two 306-19; Hischosen people
contradictory genealogies of accept guilt: 314-19
Jesus: 85; on silence of apostles Resurrection: Jesus' forecasts were
regarding cataclysmic events: for corporate resurrection of
130-31 God's people, not his own: 132
"People of India" Project:
missionaries see God's hand in: Sacrifices and offerings: God
33 demanding and finicky about
Pilate, Pontius: and trial of Jesus: what people must give Himn as:
116-121 268-71
Pioneer, Tbe: Surya Prakash's Scholars: their contribution, and
articles on conversions in: 51; failure of nerve: 157-58; Vatican
investigates story of nun's on their proper role: 158-61
"rape" in North Bihar: 402-04 Shields, Susan: on practice in
Pope: Church on primacy, Mother Teresa's Order about
infallibility of: 379-80,383-86; baptizing the dying: 57-58
Pope Jolhn Paul II's Solemni bac litugia, Credo of the
condescension regarding other people of God: Chistians go to
religions: 391-93; Pope John eternal life, non-Christians
Paul IIon "rapacious wolves" condemned to eternal fire: 45;
of Protestantism: 397 example of assertions advanced
Punnnakottil, Bishop George: on as facts: 145-47; on proper role
continuing problems within of research: 158-59; advances
Church cof lower castes: 409-10 new construction for "Kingdom
of God": 188-90; Pope infallible:
"Q": source common to Mark, 385-86
Matthew, Luke: 203; "somewhat Solomon: completion,
free way" in which used: 210-11 consecration of Temple,
Quran: argument of fittingness: Solomon lapses, consequences:
171; on regarding Jesus as God 244-46
or son of God being Staines, Graham: brutal murders of
blasphemy: 353-57 sons and: 14-15; WadhVa
Index 431
Commission on: 15-24; 148-49, 151-52, 154, 217-18;
missionary activities and what the euphemism means: 85,
concerns of: 16-19; dispatches 89-90, 179
about tension in area: 20-21 Tidings: ispatches of Graham and
Stainislaus vs. State of
Madbya Gladys Staines in: 16-18, 20-21
Pradesb: 51-53
Statesman, The: on alleged rape of Udaygiri: tribals' attack at: 11
nun in North Bihar: 402 Ultimis temporibius, Ministerial
Students: targeted: 63 priesthood: Christianity alone
Supreme Court of India: on leads to salvation: 45; on Christ
freedom to propagate as distinct in-Church which sustains: 381
from freedom to convert: 51-53 Unitatis redintegratio, Decree on
Surya Prakash: points out vital Ecumenism: divisions in Church
judgment: 51 a scandal, but full revelation
Syedna Taber Saifuddin Sabeb: only in Catholic Church: 393-95
1962 judgment, since
superseded: 70-71 Varanasi: missionary group's claim
about effort in: 32
Telegrapb, The: on alleged rape of Vatican: on right and duty to
nun in Baripada: 9 convert: 34-41; condescension
Teresa, Mother: on being neutral: towards other religions: 34-35,
56-57; practice in her Order 37; obligation of every Christian
about baptizing the dying: 57-58 to convert: 39-40, 42-43; on
Thailand Report on the Hindus: when anointing heals, and why
(Christian) God's longing to it does not: 139-42; a
have Hindus under His fold: 58; representative example of
chops off a third of Hindus: 58; assertions as facts: 145-47; on
targets Hindus living away from efficacy of indulgences: 147; on
India: 59; identifies Hindu proper role of research
beliefs which can he worked to scholars: 158-61; on cult of
advantage: 59; on four Mary: 172-75; advances novel
"theological blocks" which Construction about "Kingdom
impede conversion drives: 59 of God": 188-90
60; its instrumental approach: Vivekananda, Swami: on
60-61; on potential of radio and Conversion: 2
TV for evangelism: 61; on
purpose of dialogue: 61-62; on Wadhwa, Justice D.P.: on alleged
targeting through prayer: 62; rape of nun in Baripada: 8-10;
targeting women: 62-63; on murders in Kandhamal: 10
targeting students: 63 11;on attack by tribals at
"Theological objectives": said to Udaygiri: 11; on tussle in
explain differing contents of Ranalai: 11-13; on Minorities
Gospels: 85, 89-90, 112, 126, Commission's findings about
432
Ranalai: 12-13; on Staines' Webster, Rev. John C.B.:
murders: 15-24: secularists' Continuing caste discrimination
denounce: 15; on non within Church: 407
enforcement of Orissa law: 407 Women: targeted: 61-62
10
Wasbington Post: Catholic Zephaniah: exchanges with,
Protestant tussle in Americas: commands of God,
397-98
devastations that follow: 252-54

Harvesting Our Souls - Arun Shourie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harvesting Our Souls - Arun Shourie

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harvesting Our Souls - Arun Shourie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Missionaries, Their Design, Their Claims

© Arun Shourie 2000

No part of this publication may be reproduced

The Book they bave, and we don't

Their Almighty improvement over our Gods

17. An extreme condition 241

PDF created by Rajesh Arya - Gujarat

Every one in India has the fullest freedom to preach his

denounce gods and rituals in which he has grown up, to do

IThe Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta,

regard, and the consequences which are bound to follow

measure ye mete, it shall be measured tayou again.

If only missionaries had remembered these words while

If you had been in India in late 1998-early 1999, and the

as an Editor of an afternoon paper in Delhi - that nuns in

types on helpless Christians. The medical examination

Investigations found that there was in fact no rape of Sister

"Ultimately investigation revealed that the crime was

Committee consisting of reprasentatives from both

the way place. Manufacture an occTrence at this place: "Nun

The Staines killings

The murders of Graham Staines and his young sons were

of the Supreme Court, Justice D.P. Wadhwa. The Judge

in preaching of Christianity leading to conversion in

at Raika... It was an excellent time and SOme young people who

The typical concerns of a typical missionary - harvesting

But as far as the Minorities Commission is concerned,

The Australian missionary organization which was

In a word: conversions were taking place; this had caused

It would thus appear that 51 persons underwent the agony of going

«The question then arises in view of the contradictions which

Commission concludes, "The Commission has scrutinized the

go on converting Hindus to Christianity. Tensions mount as a

PDF created by Rajesh Arya - Gujarat

The central premise of the Church, thus, remains that only

difficulies in recruiting priests, nuns, and ancillary staff to

concusion of the Anaphora. (4) Kissing of objects may be adapted to

An evangelical Internet site exults in how that ministry

flock to cough up money has been to paint our people and

years," a site informed potential danors through the Internet

The one operational conclusion!

Conclusion: give because India is in the grip of Satan; give

opportunity to save souls for the Lord; give because Christians

the site of the AD200Omovement reports. An estimated 35

others is contributing to the same cause, the site informs the

PDF created by Rajesh Arya - Gujarat

Is the Vatican also unknown?

The right of the Church, the divinely ordained duty of the

'Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 21

Apostles themselves, on whom th Church was founded,

The Counci! proceeded to remark, "Thus, missionary

7Ibid., 26. 8Lumen Gentium, op. cit., 17.

"Besides this apostolate which belongs to absolutely every

..Therefore,even when occupied by temporal affairs, the laity can,

The same goal that we encountered in the proclamations of

1°Lume2 Gentium, op. cit., 33. 11]bid., 33.

organizations which the irate Congress(I) MP refused to

PDF created by Rajesh Arya - Gujarat

Their singular objective