© 2015 by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

ISBN 978-1-943507-01-6
Ebook ISBN 978-1-943767-24-3
Produced by Global Mission Center for South Asian Religions
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Series Editor: Richard McEdward
Cover and Interior Text Designer: Ellen Musselman
 Dedicated to
My wife Anuradha
and my in-laws both immediate and extended
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1: God’s Mission to the Nations and Hindus

CHAPTER 1: God’s Mission to the ‘Nations’

CHAPTER 2: God’s Mission to the ‘Nations’ of Today

SECTION 2: God’s Mission Through Relationships

CHAPTER 3: God’s Mission Through Relationships
CHAPTER 4: Joseph & Daniel: Relational Mission in Challenging Contexts

CHAPTER 5: Should I Not Be Concerned? A Call for Relational Mission in

the Hindu Context

SECTION 3: God’s Mission Through Power

CHAPTER 6: God’s Mission Through Redemptive Power
CHAPTER 7: God’s Power to Use Dreams and Visions in Mission

CHAPTER 8: Coming to Faith Through Other’s Power Encounters

CHAPTER 9: God’s Mission Through Patient Encouragement
FINAL CALL

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 FOREWORD
F ROM A VERY EARLY AGE AND LONG BEFORE most young
people become interested in mission to the nations, Andrew Tompkins
showed a deep concern for those countries and peoples that did not know
Jesus Christ. During his undergraduate work at Andrews University,
Andrew took classes that would prepare him for mission. But he wasn’t
interested in just learning about peoples and cultures; he wanted to put into
practice and test what he was learning. As a result he spent one summer
teaching Bible at a school in India where the majority of the students were
Hindus and another summer studying Arabic in Lebanon and also teaching
the Bible to interested students at the university. These two summer trips
were major learning experiences for him on how to interact with people
from other faith backgrounds.
Andrew also spent a year as a short-term missionary in India teaching
Bible at a school, but soon his job description was changed to working in
the surrounding village churches and training lay pastors. It was during
this assignment that he began to encounter Hindus on a regular basis and
learn more about devotional Hinduism. It soon became apparent that the
traditional ways of presenting the gospel were not always effective,
prompting Andrew to re-evaluate and search for better ways to engage
Hindus with the gospel message.
After returning to Andrews University, he again took additional
mission classes to better understand Hinduism and even petitioned to take
a seminary graduate class in Christian Witness and World Religions. He
had a burning desire to continue to work in Indian villages among Hindu
peoples after finishing his undergraduate studies.
After graduation, Andrew was able to return to the same location in
India where he worked for an additional two years as a self-sponsored
volunteer, building up the work among village churches and training and
pastoring in the villages. This contact with village Hindus again motivated
him to reflect and seek to better understand how Hindus lived, worked, and
worshipped. He sought to understand what Hindus believed, what was
important to them, and how he could better present the biblical message to
them in understandable ways. His Indian wife Anu and the lay leaders and
lay pastors helped him grapple with the cultural and worldview issues that
seemed to present obstacles for Hindus accepting the Bible message.
Andrew returned to Andrews University to take a master’s degree in
Religion with an emphasis in Mission Studies, again focusing on how the
biblical themes can be best presented to people from the world religions.
His thesis looked at Old Testament narratives in order to discover biblical
principles and practices in the encounters between God’s chosen people
and people in the surrounding nations with their pagan beliefs and
practices.
Immediately after completing his MA degree, Andrew and his family
returned to India where he has been the Associate Director for the Global
Center for South Asian Religions located in Pune, India. His focus has
again been on training and leading a group of Indians from to reach out to
Hindus. He and his students and other young people have planted two
Bible study groups in urban settings, and he has led out in the development
of a network of people who are currently involved in ministry to Hindus.
For the past ten years Andrew has grappled with the issues that
encourage or hinder people in the world’s religions from learning about
Jesus Christ and committing their lives to Him. Andrew’s passion that
Hindus would come to a saving relationship with the biblical God comes
through these pages again and again. As you read this book may Andrew’s
passion encourage and strengthen your own desire to be used by God to
help Hindus find a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

BRUCE L. BAUER, CHAIR

Department of World Mission
Andrews University
June 2015
 PREFACE
T HE PAGE TOTAL OF THIS BOOK DOES NOT BEGIN to tell of the
amount of time and energy that many different people have put into the
thoughts found here. Its roots are in India where I learned many things
about myself, the Bible, and God over the span of several years. As I
engaged with a new culture and new religions it led me to reflect more
carefully on what I believed about other religious traditions and what the
Bible said about them. Eventually I was led to study many Old Testament
stories through a new lens, which eventually resulted in a master’s thesis at
Andrews University and now this small book.
It is incredible how many of today’s issues are not really new issues
but simply the same challenges in different garb. The Bible has once again
proven to me that it has answers to the challenges of today’s world,
including the challenge of pluralism in the area of religion. Many of the
narratives found in this book are common, often told stories that have
increased faith and brought hope to many. In this book the narratives may
play a new role, a more mission-focused role, a role that many may not
have recognized in them before. There is no doubt that the pluralism of
today poses serious questions for the believer in God; what may surprise
some is that the Bible itself may have some of the answers in unexpected
places.
There are numerous people who have had a major influence on my
journey of which this book is a part. First and foremost is God, who has
patiently helped me recognize some of my many ethnocentrisms and
helped me see my need to be a continual learner of other cultures,
religions, and most importantly Scripture. I must also acknowledge my
wife Anuradha, who God led me to in India and who has since provided
insight into all things Indian more than any other person in my life. This
book would never have been written without her explanations and patient
repetition of key cultural and religious aspects of India.
There are many others in India who deserve to be recognized for
providing me with valuable insights into their culture and religion. I list
some of them here, Bublibabu Chadalawada, Venkatrathnam
Chadalawada, the pastors, and lay leaders in many villages of Andhra.
Space does not allow me to enter all their names here but without them
there would be no book.
There were also a number of mentors and professors who guided me
along my journey of research and writing. Bruce Bauer, the chair of the
Department of World Mission at Andrews University, has been a
wonderful inspirer, thought-provoker, editor, and encourager through this
whole process. Richard Davidson, Old Testament professor at Andrews
University, has been willing to sit and talk about a wide variety of Old
Testament questions I brought before him, which was enriching and
influenced this manuscript to a great degree. Others who were willing to
read the manuscript and give very helpful insights and ideas were Jon
Dybdahl, Lester Merklin, and Clifmond Shameerudeen. I am also indebted
to Rick McEdward who allowed me time to work on this in the midst of
many other projects that I was doing. He has also been a great encourager
of all things mission and has helped push my thinking in the area of
mission and world religions to new heights. Due to lack of space the many
other mentors, professors, friends, and family members who have had an
impact on this book will remain nameless but not forgotten.

ANDREW TOMPKINS
Spicer Adventist University
March 18, 2015
 INTRODUCTION
W HEN GOD CREATED HUMANITY, He did so in such a way as to
forever link Himself with us. Humanity is created in God’s image, all of
humanity, there is no race or group of people that is outside this scope.
Along with creating us in His image He desired to communicate with us
and interact with us. In short, He desired a perfect relationship with us. Sin
has created a horrific tear in this relationship, but God has not left us
without hope. The Word of God is clear that Jesus came to save us and to
heal the broken relationship. In fact, the entire Word of God tells the story
of God’s interaction with humanity, focusing on His attempts, through
various methods of mission, to draw us back to Him.
This book is an attempt to help us see more clearly God’s mission as
presented in Scripture, especially through Old Testament narratives. The
narratives have been chosen intentionally, each one featuring an encounter
between believers in Yahweh, the God of the Bible, with someone from
outside of God’s chosen community. I have chosen to label these as
interreligious encounters. Each narrative will reveal often-unnoticed
principles on how God does mission.
The world is and always has been a place where a variety of views and
understandings of God exist side by side. Today, these various views are
separated with the term “world religions.” As a believer in the God of the
Bible, I believe it is my privilege to be able to share who He is with all
those around me who may not know Him. This includes adherents of other
religions. This book is specifically designed to help the reader see certain
aspects of God’s mission as found in Scripture and apply them today,
especially in the context of the religious pluralism of today.
There are nearly 1 billion Hindus throughout the world today. A
majority are in India but there are ever-increasing groups in the diaspora as
well. For various reasons the Gospel has struggled to penetrate the Hindu
context, and so this book is an attempt to help the reader move in a more
appropriate direction in engaging Hindus, to help us better present the
gospel in a meaningful way.
This book is born out of my experience as well as the experience of
others. God desires to work among Hindus, and He has given the blueprint
for this in Scripture. It is our duty to study the Scriptures and learn better
how we can interact with our fellow human beings.
The book is divided into three major sections with chapter nine tying
the sections together and developing an appropriate attitude of patience in
the missioner. Section one develops an understanding of God’s mission as
developed in the Old Testament and sets the stage for the chapters that
follow. Chapter two (which is part of section one) takes the concepts of
chapter one and shows why comparing the “nations” of the Old Testament
with Hindus of today is an accurate analysis.
Section two is focused on the most essential aspect of God’s mission as
found in several Old Testament narratives, namely the development of
genuine relationships with those from other religious backgrounds.
Leading off this section is the main chapter (chapter 3) and it is
supplemented with a few other chapters which build the case for the
building of relationships. These include discussions of the chosen Old
Testament narratives as well as application to the present day Hindu
context.
Section Three focuses on God’s use of power in mission, specifically
in the context of interreligious encounters as seen in several Old Testament
narratives. This is set up much like the first section with the initial chapter
setting the tone for the rest of the section. Again the principles learned
from the narratives are applied to the Hindu context.
Chapter nine attempts to draw the sections together by looking more
carefully at the narrative found in 2 Kings 5 about Elisha and Naaman.
This chapter should help the reader better understand the need for patient
encouragement as they engage with their Hindu friends.
The sections of this book have been carefully selected because of their
relevance for the present. The principles of Scripture have proven to be
timeless as I have witnessed their application in the Hindu context of the
present. What is needed in our mission to Hindus is the building of better
relationships; along with these it has become apparent that God often uses
His power to help Hindus understand more clearly who He is. As will be
seen this is a fully affirmed method of mission according to Scripture.
Several of the chapters end with a short case study. These are taken
from my experience in South Asia and are meant to help the reader see
real-life situations in which the scriptural examples are affirmed or made
clearer. This is done to help make this book more practical and to
strengthen the argument that the chosen narratives are relevant for mission
today.
This book is meant to be a tool to aid the practitioner in their
engagement with Hindus specifically but also more broadly in the
engagement of all religious traditions. May God bless you as you read
through the examples found in Scripture and apply them missionally.
 CHAPTER 1
GOD’S MISSION TO THE ‘NATIONS’
THE TASK
I N ORDER TO HAVE A MORE APPROPRIATE MISSION among
Hindus, there needs to be a fresh look at God’s mission as portrayed in the
Bible, specifically a look at Old Testament stories in which there is an
encounter between a believer in Yahweh and a person/people from the
surrounding “nations.” It is the attempt of this chapter to motivate the
reader to look carefully at who the “nations” of the Old Testament were
and what God’s relation and mission to them was. This exercise will make
it possible to find similarities with God’s mission to the “nations” as
compared to God’s mission to Hindus today.

GOD’S MISSION FROM THE BEGINNING

The title of this chapter starts with “God’s mission.” Before developing
a human understanding of mission, it is imperative that mission be
recognized as God’s. God’s mission is an attempt by God to restore the
lost relationship between God and humanity as seen in Genesis 3. It is
done through His initiative, through His kindness, through His power,
through His encouragement, and through His love. All true mission starts
and ends with God. We must recognize that this has not always been
properly acknowledged or highlighted throughout the history of missions.
So what is God’s mission? There is a vast amount of literature that
deals with this question for those who want to dig deeper. God’s mission is
often described as His desire to bless humanity through His work of
salvation/redemption. In order to better understand what God’s mission
entails we must ask another question.
When did God’s mission get under way? Timothy Tennent in his book
Invitation to World Missions makes the valid point that mission does not
begin with the resurrection or even the “Great Commission” (Tennent
2010: 77). The starting point of God’s mission has been debated by many
scholars and missiologists alike. While it would seem most scholars agree
that the plan of salvation was at least hinted at in Genesis 3:15, they often
separate this from the call to mission, which is often linked with God’s
calling of Abraham in Genesis 12, where there is a specific promise of
blessing for the “nations.” However, Roger E. Hedlund makes the
excellent point that God showed Himself to be a missionary when He
came searching for Adam and Eve after they had sinned (Hedlund 1997:
10).
As a result of Adam and Eve’s sin, there was a terrible disconnect
between God and humanity. Hedlund states: “The Old Testament reveals
the heart of God who yearns after those made in his image” (Hedlund
1997: 2) From that point forward God’s mission takes on a redemptive
character, which is universal in scope; the message of the Old Testament is
a message for the whole world (Filbeck 1994: 46).
Genesis 12:3 is deemed by many as the most important mission text in
the Old Testament. It is in light of the “nations” that we must read God’s
call to Abram in Genesis 12:3. Abram is called to be a blessing to the
“nations.” C. J. Wright has summed up this passage well when he says,
“Blessing for the nations is the bottom line, textually and theologically, of
God’s promise to Abraham” [emphasis in original] (Wright 2006: 194-
221).

THE NATIONS
So who are these “nations” and what is their relation to God? In
Genesis 10 there is recorded a genealogical list of Noah and his sons’
offspring. It is in chapter ten that the “nations” are first mentioned, as
Noah’s sons disperse and multiply throughout the earth and separate
themselves based on language, family, and “nation” (Genesis 10:5, 32). A
detailed account of this dispersion and why it occurred is found in Genesis
11 in the story of the Tower of Babel.
Up to this time God’s mission could not have been to the “nations”
because there were no “nations.” It is not that God did not have a mission,
rather God’s mission was to all the earth’s inhabitants who had not yet
been divided into separate “nations.” Once the population of earth grew
and dispersed, based on language and family, then God’s mission to the
“nations” as emphasized in Genesis 12:3 began.
The “nations” in this case are not to be compared with what is today
known as a nation. These were not countries with political boundaries,
although eventually they often became that. In Hebrew the word used in
Genesis 10:32 means something more like “a body or group of people
bound together by such common identities as language, religious belief,
and geographical location” (Filbeck 1994: 53). This is much more akin to
what some would call a “people group.” From the above definition one
specific trait should be highlighted, religious belief. An important item to
keep in mind here is that biblical Hebrew “lacks a word for ‘religion,’”
(Block 2004: 44) therefore we can assume that the term “nations”
describes more than just a group of people, but also the religious beliefs of
those people.
Daniel I. Block makes the observation that Near Eastern nations
(during the time of the Old Testament) had a “three-dimensional nature.”
He uses a triangle to illustrate his point, with each apex representing one of
the three dimensions. The apexes are as follows: deity, land, and people.
He then goes on to say, “Consequently . . . it is impossible to examine the
relationship of a god and his/her subjects in isolation from the ties of both
deity and population to the land. Furthermore, a people’s ties to its
homeland cannot be understood without reference to some measure of
divine involvement” (Block 2000: 18-20). This is important to keep in
mind when thinking about the present-day Hindu context which is much
the same in makeup.

THE CHOICE OF THE ‘NATIONS’

There is another important distinction that the Bible makes in regard to
these nations. After the “Tower of Babel” dispersion, it would seem many
of the “nations” chose to follow new paths of belief. Romans 1:20-23
(NKJV) gives insight into the paths the “nations” chose to follow:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes

are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did
not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became
futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were
darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools, and
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed
 animals and creeping things.

Many of the “nations” went this route, choosing to develop and

worship their own gods and goddesses from the created order, rather than
the true Creator God.
They rejected the living God who had created them and given them
their very existence, and replaced Him with created replicas. Wright puts it
well when he says, “Idolatry dethrones God and enthrones creation. . . . A
great reversal happens: God who should be worshipped becomes an object
to be used; creation, which is for our use and blessing, becomes the object
of our worship” (Wright 2006: 164-165).
In fact, God called Abram out of such a nation. The Bible indicates
that Abram’s family background included idol worshippers (Joshua 24:2,
14). For whatever reason Abram had decided to follow the one true God,
and God called him out to be the father of many “nations.” The reality was
that most “nations” had either forgotten the true God or had deliberately
chosen to follow other gods.
Throughout the Old Testament there is a great struggle surrounding
humanity’s choice of whom to worship. Even Israel, the very nation God
chose to be a blessing to the other nations, struggled with this same choice.
Deuteronomy 4:19 tells us that God was concerned about the nation of
Israel falling prey to what other nations had already fallen for, namely, the
worship of the celestial stars, planets, and the sun. These objects of
worship were real things that could be seen. The problem was that they
were created things and not the Creator, therefore unworthy of worship.
Israel worshipped the created order, imitating the nations around them,
despite God’s warning not to (Deuteronomy 4:19). This occurred most
likely through the influence of the “nations” surrounding Israel (2 Kings
17:16; 21:3). As an example of a nation worshiping the created order, one
is reminded of the Egyptians who held their sun god Atum in very high
esteem; in fact, almost all the major nations around Israel viewed the
celestial order as divine (Walton 2009: 201, 447). At times even humans
were elevated to the level of deity. An example of this is the King of Tyre
as portrayed in Ezekiel. It was common for emperors and kings to claim
divine status in the ancient world. Deuteronomy 32:17 states that
sacrificing to other gods can also be classified as sacrificing to demons.
Idols were often man-made objects, and as a result were mocked as
powerless images by both Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 44:12-13; Jeremiah
10:3-5). Wright points out that one of the problems with much of the idol
worship of the nations was that it failed to differentiate between humans
and other living things and often struggled to define any dividing line
between good and evil (Wright 2006: 165).
Wright observes that one problem with polytheistic worship is that the
worshipper is often left in fear and doubt as to whether or not the deities
are pleased. He points out that Godly fear remedies this by emphasizing
that there is only one God to “fear” therefore you need not stress about all
the others (Wright 2006: 168-169). The nations were living in constant
fear, attempting to appease their gods with all sorts of rituals, lest they be
subjected to the wrath of the deities (Leviticus 18:21; 19:26-28; 1 Kings
18:26-28).
There is much more that could be written on the topic of worship
directed away from God. Suffice it to say that the nations outside of Israel,
more often than not, were guilty of directing their worship away from the
God of heaven, and as a result their very behavior and actions were
affected in a negative way. The goal here is not to point out all the
negative aspects of the “nations” in order to condemn them, but rather to
simply show the reality as described in the Bible. So what was God’s
relationship to the “nations” in light of the above description?

GOD’S RELATIONSHIP AND MISSION TO THE ‘NATIONS’

GOD AS SOVEREIGN OVER THE ‘NATIONS’
God’s relationship and ultimately His mission to the “nations” rested
on His sovereignty over them regardless of whether or not the “nations”
recognized Him as such. The fact is that all the “nations” of the entire
earth were nothing more than “a drop in a bucket” to God (Isaiah 40:15).
Job makes the point that it is God who is behind all that the “nations” do or
accomplish (Job 12:23). The psalmist tells us that God’s eye is on the
“nations,” and they are under His power (Psalms 47:8; 66:7). God clearly
is concerned about the “nations” of earth resulting in constant reference to
them throughout the Old Testament. His concern makes sense in light of
the fact that it was He who created the “nations” in the first place.
Through His very act of creation God must be recognized as
Sovereign. Even the nations had life because of God. The Bible seems to
imply that, while Israel was chosen in a way different from other nations,
the other nations were still under the surveillance of God. This can be seen
in Amos 9:7 where even the Ethiopians, Philistines, and Syrians fall into a
similar category as that of Israel. An even more striking passage can be
found in Isaiah 19:18-25 which ends with these words, “Blessed is Egypt
My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”
Clearly God desired all the nations to recognize that He was Sovereign
over them.

GOD’S DESIRE TO BLESS THE ‘NATIONS’

God not only wanted to be recognized as Sovereign over the nations
but He also wanted to bless the nations. As has already been noted above,
God’s desire to bless the nations is first articulated in Abraham’s call.
Michael W. Goheen summarizes the thrust of this call: “God will pursue
his purposes for all creation through Israel, first making Abraham into a
great nation and then blessing all nations and all creation through that
nation. The nation that comes from Abraham is to live as a contrast people
in the midst of pagan idolatry, embodying God’s creational intentions as a
sign of where redemptive history is going” (Goheen 2011: 49). Abraham
was just the first in a long line of individuals who God would attempt to
partner with as participants in His mission.
God’s mission to the “nations” was His primary goal in calling Abram
and eventually establishing His covenant with the nation of Israel. As a
nation they were set aside not simply on a whim, but specifically to be a
people God would channel His mission through to the rest of the world.

THE BLESSING IS SALVATION

Most importantly God’s mission to the “nations” was a mission of
redemption and salvation; this is the blessing promised to Abraham.
Genesis 12 can be seen as the launching of this mission to the “nations.”
This calling is affirmed in Genesis 22:18: “In your seed all the nations of
the earth shall be blessed” (emphasis supplied). This promise comes in the
context of Abraham and Isaac on Mt. Moriah, where the symbolic sacrifice
of the ram so clearly pointed to Christ. Here again, like in Genesis 12:3,
Abraham is told that all the nations will be blessed. The difference is the
direct connection made between the blessing that the nations receive and
the salvific work of God on behalf of all humanity.
It must be remembered that the redemption of the Old Testament looks
forward to the death and resurrection of Jesus, the supreme act of God’s
mission. Yahweh in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament
are one and the same being. Therefore Jesus is very much present in the
OT and working on behalf of the “nations” long before His death and
resurrection.
God’s desire was that all the nations would come to a knowledge of
Him and worship Him as the one and only God, and that the relationship
that had been lost would be restored (Psalms 22:27-28; 86:8-10; Isaiah 2:2;
61:11; 66:18-24; Micah 4:2; Zechariah 2:11; 8:22-23; Malachi 3:12).
Solomon vocalized this very idea in his dedicatory prayer for the temple:

Moreover, concerning a foreigner, who is not of Your

people Israel, but has come from a far country for Your
name’s sake (for they will hear of Your great name and
Your strong hand and Your outstretched arm), when he
comes and prays toward this temple, hear in heaven Your
dwelling place, and do according to all for which the
foreigner calls to You, that all peoples of the earth may
know Your name and fear You, as do Your people Israel,
and that they may know that this temple which I have built
is called by Your name. (1 Kings 8:41-43)

This prayer is clear that it was a desire of God and His true followers
that all people, even those outside of Israel, would rely on Him for all their
needs. God’s mission is to show people who He is with the hoped-for
result that all who come to know Him will desire a relationship with Him.
It would appear that there is a connection between the prayer of King
Solomon and the original call to Abram. Somehow through the generations
there had been kept a sense that Israel was more than a special nation; they
were a chosen channel of God’s mission.

GOD’S CALL FOR PARTICIPATION IN HIS MISSION

This leads into the last portion of this survey of God’s mission to the
nations in the Old Testament. Solomon mentioned in his prayer that he
wanted the nations to know God as Israel knew God. It has already been
seen that God called Abraham to be a blessing and that this continued on
as a responsibility of Abraham’s offspring—the nation of Israel. If it is
truly God’s mission, then why this calling of a man and a nation? What
was their role in this mission?
The answer to this question depends on what we understand mission to
be. Based on the biblical story, mission appears to be the privilege
humanity has to participate in God’s mission to the world. God has chosen
to work through human agents rather than simply do all the mission work
Himself. This is why God called Abraham and Israel, because He is a God
who desires participation in His mission.
Throughout the Old Testament, God used individuals and corporate
groups as participants in His mission. Reviewing the stories of Abraham in
Canaan, Moses in Midian and Egypt, the two spies and Rahab in Jericho,
Naomi and Ruth, David among the Philistines, Solomon’s interaction with
Hiram King of Tyre and the Queen of Sheba, Elijah and the widow of
Zarephath and his encounter with the priests of Baal and Ashtoreth on Mt.
Carmel, Elisha’s interaction with Naaman and later the Syrian army,
Jonah’s mission trip to Nineveh, Daniel as a foreigner among the
Babylonians and Medo-Persians, Esther in the court of Xerxes, as well as
others, will be very instructive in gaining a more accurate understanding of
how God’s mission has proceeded in the past. Many of these stories are
ignored in presentations concerning mission as found in the Bible. As has
been shown God’s mission to the "nations" is a prominent theme of the
Old Testament, and one that should inform us in our attempt to understand
God’s mission to the "nations" of today.
 CHAPTER 2
GOD’S MISSION TO THE ‘NATIONS’ OF TODAY

T HIS CHAPTER WILL ATTEMPT TO DRAW PARALLELS between

God’s mission to the nations in the Old Testament and God’s mission to
the world religions of today, looking more specifically at the Hindu
context. First, it must be established that Hindus are comparable to the
non-Israelite “nations” of the Old Testament. Next, it must be established
that God’s relation to Hindus is similar to that of His relation to the non-
Israelite nations as demonstrated in the previous chapter. Once these have
been established it is possible to move toward a more biblical approach to
Hindus based on principles learned from the biblical stories.

THE REALITY OF PLURALITY

Since the time the “nations” were first formed to the present there has
been a plurality of religious practices and beliefs throughout the world. We
find ourselves in a world today that is no different, with a global plurality
unknown in the past. It is no longer acceptable to decry this reality; instead
it is appropriate to accept it and deal with it from a biblical perspective.
In the previous chapter it was established that a “nation” as found in
the Old Testament is intricately tied to religious beliefs. There were no
“nations” that were religiously neutral, and most, while perhaps sharing
some similarities, held different beliefs. If one compares the Egyptian
pantheon with the Babylonian pantheon, one soon realizes that while there
may have been some similarities, there were also vast differences. We live
in a similar world today, where there is a plurality of religions, some of
which share certain traits, but none of which are exactly the same.
While it has become popular today for certain scholars to argue that all
religions lead to the same place, along with other ideas of religious
pluralism, this book moves away from that type of thinking. Stephen
Prothero, a best-selling author, writes the following in his book God Is Not
One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World:
No one argues that different economic systems or political
regimes are one and the same. Capitalism and socialism are
so obviously at odds that their differences hardly bear
mentioning. The same goes for democracy and monarchy.
Yet scholars continue to claim that religious rivals such as
Hinduism and Islam, Judaism and Christianity are, by some
miracle of the imagination, essentially the same, and this
view resounds in the echo chamber of popular culture
(Prothero 2010: 1).
This book assumes, in harmony with Prothero’s assessment, that the
various religions are not different paths going up one mountain and ending
at the same summit.

HINDUS AND THE ‘NATIONS’

The world’s religions, and especially Hinduism, are comparable with
the “nations” found in the Old Testament. In order to make this clear, it
must be understood what is meant by Hinduism, keeping in mind that this
is not an in-depth study of Hinduism.1
First of all, the word Hinduism is a fairly modern term developed by
Orientalist academics to describe what they saw in India. The following
definition will help the reader to understand the challenge one faces when
attempting to study and understand Hinduism:
The religion now known as Hinduism encompasses a vast
range of practices and beliefs. It has no one founder and no
centralized organization. Hindus throughout history have
expressed multiple perspectives on the nature of divinity or
ultimate reality: monotheism, polytheism, monism, even
henotheism (belief in one god without denying the
existence of others). The richness and diversity of
Hinduism mean that we cannot expect to find one list of
specific beliefs or practices that would necessarily apply to
all Hindus, nor one text that defines all of Hinduism.
Generally, Hindus have tended to see diverse views as
complementary rather than contradictory. . . . Different
aspects of Hinduism may seem to be connected or even
contradictory, but many Hindus assert that there is an
 underlying unity amidst the diversity (Rinehart : 1-2).
This cogent definition makes it clear that Hinduism is quite complex
and not easily defined or understood. Because of this it is imperative that
our study be narrowed even more to avoid dealing with too broad a
subject.
Much of the literature concerning Hinduism deals specifically with the
philosophical side of the religion. There is no doubt that the philosophies
developed by countless Hindus over the centuries are important in order to
help one understand Hinduism. However, a majority of Hindus fall into a
strain of Hinduism that is less philosophical labeled “popular Hinduism.”
Because most Hindus fall into this category, this study will focus more on
“popular Hinduism.”
C. J. Fuller, an anthropologist who has spent many years observing
Hindu traditions in India, has put together a book that deals specifically
with “popular Hinduism.” Fuller defines it this way: “By ‘popular
Hinduism,’ I [Fuller] conventionally refer to the beliefs and practices that
constitute the living, ‘practical’ religion of ordinary Hindus” (Fuller 2004:
5) It is this form of Hinduism that seems to be the most comparable to the
“nations” of the Old Testament (Witzel 2003: 68; Mittal and Thursby
2004: 37; Chaudhuri 2003: xviii; Flood 2003: 68).

THE SIMILARITIES
Can it be said that some Hindus have followed the “nations” in
worshipping the created order instead of the Creator? If so, then is God’s
relation and mission to Hindus the same as it was toward the “nations” of
the Old Testament?
To attempt to describe the various ways and means that Hindus’
worship is far beyond the purpose of this paper, it is important that this
question be approached with humility. Because we are coming as outsiders
to the religion, caution must be used, and avoiding overly dogmatic
statements about Hindus or Hinduism is appropriate protocol.

THREE EXAMPLES
There are three specific areas of Hindu devotion and worship that
deserve to be touched on here. First, many Hindus “believe that every
aspect of creation has an individual spirit,” (Huyler 1999: 74) so aspects of
nature are important and often viewed as divine by many Hindus. Second,
there is a prevalent use of images among many Hindus which are man-
made, but worshipped with the belief that the divine has inhabited the
image. Third, there are the god-men who are human beings that have been
elevated for various reasons to the level of deity. Each one of these
categories falls under the broad concept of worshipping created things,
even to Hindus, and are therefore relevant to our discussion.

NATURE
To start with, there are three specific aspects of nature that are
often viewed as sacred by many Hindus: the sun, rivers, and trees (Eck
1998: 36). A brief description of the worship and deification of each of
these follows.
The sun god is better known as Surya, and is worshipped
throughout India. There is a festival of the sun held twice a year known
as Chhattha, at which time the sun is especially worshipped for its
believed “omniscient clarity and his healing power” (Huyler 1999:
190-191).
Rivers are also considered to be extremely sacred to most Hindus.
This is especially true of the river Gaṅgā (also known as the Ganges),
which is considered, by many, to be a manifestation of the goddess
(Eck 1998: 65-66; Bhardwaj and Lochtefeld 2004: 492; Huyler 1999:
22-24). Daily, thousands of Hindus can be found bathing in this river,
which they believe can wash away their impurities. George James
writes this about the rivers of India: “Indian religious traditions regard
all rivers as sacred, and on the banks of such rivers we still find ancient
temples in which a deep piety toward the river is expressed” (James
2004: 346).
Trees are often also made into sacred shrines and worshipped as
divine. Stephen P. Huyler dedicates a section of his book on Hindu
devotion to photographs and a lengthy description of a particular
village that has no temple, but instead uses an ancient tree as its center
of worship (Huyler 1999: 103, 104, 107-110). While this is a particular
example, the tulasi tree (a type of basil tree) is an example of a
plant/tree being worshipped as the goddess Lakshmi throughout India
and the Hindu diaspora. I have witnessed, on numerous occasions, the
early morning rituals of many Hindus that combine the worship of all
three of these aspects of nature.

IMAGES
 A few remarks about images as objects of worship are important.
The following sentence sums it up well: “While the image of the deity
may be made of earthly material, Hindus from many traditions believe
that this is the real body of the deity” (Narayanan 2004: 458; Eck
1998: 52). Images take on a variety of forms, such as the linga of
Shiva, or the life like statues of many gods and goddesses available in
roadside shops. Even pictures of the deities are considered to be
endowed with the power of the deity and can be used as a way to
connect with the divine (Eck 1998: 38, 43-44, 48). Most Hindus
believe that the image is only a channel which the deity inhabits, but
that the deity itself transcends the image and is not limited to it.

HUMAN BEINGS
Beyond the aspects of nature and the many images one can also
find many holy persons throughout the history of India who have been
deified as well. There are far more of these so-called “saints” than can
even be known who would fall into this category. An example of this
phenomenon is a Hindu man who recently passed away, known as
Sathya Sai Baba. He had a following that spanned the globe, and
included people from all levels of society. He “was believed to be god
incarnate on earth by his devotees and worshipped as such. Much
about his life is a secret but one thing is clear, he had been elevated to
the level of deity, not simply by his own recognition, but by the
recognition of millions of devout followers who believed he was
deserving of their worship” (Babb 1986: 159-204; Fuller 2004: 178-
179; Llewellyn 2004: 224-225).
As can be seen there are some very interesting similarities between
the nations of the Old Testament who also elevated the created order
with modern-day popular Hinduism. If the two are alike in practice,
then it would seem natural to assume that the results of the nation’s
choice to worship the created rather than the Creator would also be
similar. The fear and resulting need to appease the deity are still very
much alive today. In the festival for the local village goddess
Yellaramma (which I witnessed in Andhra Pradesh, India), several
goats were sacrificed in an attempt to placate the goddess, lest she
become angry. This is done in countless villages throughout India to
this day (Fuller 2004: 85; Babb 1975: 223). And even though most
Hindus may not participate in such sacrifices, there are other aspects of
 their lives that exhibit a fear of the divine. For instance, even certain
days or months can be considered inauspicious, therefore it is of the
utmost importance that a Vedic almanac or priest be consulted before
choosing the dates of important events such as a wedding so as to
avoid negative repercussions. As noted in the previous chapter the
“nations” surrounding Israel also had many rituals connected to a need
for appeasing the deities.
Strangely, in the Old Testament God rarely directly confronts the
nations concerning their idol worship. Instead God desired Israel to be
an example of a better way and give a clearer understanding of Him to
the nations. It is then a safe assumption that God’s relation to Hindus
must be similar to His relation to the nations in the Old Testament.

GOD’S MISSION TO HINDUS

GOD AS SOVEREIGN
If the above is accurate, then what does that mean concerning God’s
relationship with Hindus? First of all, it means that just as God was clearly
the Sovereign Lord over the nations of the Old Testament even though
they often did not recognize Him as such, He is also the Sovereign Lord
over all Hindus. Lesslie Newbigin underscores this very point in his
discourse on the gospel and world religions when he writes, “We know
that as the ascended Lord, at the right hand of the Father he reigns over all
and there is no limit to the reach of his gracious work” (Newbigin and
Weston 2006: 179).
God is the Creator of the whole universe and this includes Hindus. If
He is the Creator then it would seem natural for Him to desire that Hindus
recognize Him as Sovereign. The point here is simply to recognize that
even though Hindus have chosen to worship contrary to God’s ideal, this
does not mean they are beyond His Sovereign rule as Creator. Just as God
desired the nations of Egypt and Assyria (Isaiah 19:18-25) to come to
recognize Him as Sovereign Lord, so He desires for Hindus today to
recognize Him as their Sovereign God.

GOD’S DESIRE TO BLESS HINDUS

But like the nations of old there is more to it than just recognition that
God is Sovereign. God wanted to bless the nations (Genesis 12:3), and He
wants to bless Hindus today. God’s call to Abraham is still being fulfilled,
and will continue to be as long as people are on this earth.
 Hindus desire a blessing from their deities. In fact, that is one of the
main reasons a Hindu will go to the temple. A Hindu has darshana, which
is defined as an “exchange of vision” between the deity and the worshiper,
in order to gain a blessing from the deity (Fuller 2004: 59-60; Eck 1998).
When this occurs, for a moment it is believed that the deity and the
worshipper have become one. Once the puja has finished, (which are all
the various acts of worship), then the worshipper receives the prasada,
which is usually food that has been offered to the deity and is now returned
to bless the worshipper when eaten (Fuller 2004: 74). It is believed that in
order to retain the blessing one must repeat these acts of puja regularly,
even daily if possible (Fuller 2004: 74-75). There is no doubt that many
Hindus perform these rituals because they desperately want to experience
the blessings of God.
While God’s call was to a particular person (Abraham), theologically it
was universal in application. God called Abraham, and out of his “seed”
the nation of Israel was born, which was to continue the mission to bless
all nations. This in turn is a universal calling, and is not limited to the Old
Testament as can be seen when reading Paul’s letter to the Galatians
(Galatians 3:8). Therefore, God’s call to bless the nations is applicable in
the present. Since it has been established that Hindus today look very
much like the “nations,” then would not the call to bless the nations refer
to Hindus as well?

GOD’S DESIRE THAT HINDUS HEAR OF HIS SALVATION

Clearly, Hindu worshippers desire a blessing and clearly God desires
to bless them. Beyond this, it has been recognized that God desired that all
nations would come to a knowledge of His saving ability. God wants to be
in relationship with Hindus just as much as He did the nations of the Old
Testament. God wants to bless Hindus by providing them with a
knowledge of His salvation. A better understanding of God’s relationship
to Hindus is needed, with the underlying foundation being God’s desire
and mission to save all humanity regardless of one’s religious background.
Once this has been done, it becomes much easier to be open to interaction
with Hindus.
God can reveal Himself to Hindus in a variety of ways. He may give
Hindus dreams and visions of Himself in a way that they can understand.
There may be other supernatural means God can and will use to reveal
Himself to Hindus. But His primary means of revealing Himself is through
willing human participants.

TOWARD A MORE BIBLICAL APPROACH

Much has been written on how to reach out to the adherents of various
world religions. However, there is room for even more research and study
that ties the biblical view of God’s mission as it pertained to the “nations”
long ago to God’s mission of today. It seems that the biblical examples of
interreligious encounters have been greatly neglected. This is especially
true of the encounters found in the Old Testament.
This chapter has attempted to connect the nations of the Old Testament
with modern-day “popular Hinduism.” Goheen makes the point that,
Few books on the missional church spend much time in the Old
Testament. Yet there is remarkable continuity between the people of
God in the Old Testament and those in the New. The fundamental
relationship established in the Old Testament story between the people
of God and the nations remains operative for the church. . . . We too
are chosen for the sake of the world (Goheen 2011: 192).
This book attempts to move toward a view of God’s mission in the Old
Testament in connection with His mission of today. There is no doubt God
is Sovereign over all peoples, including Hindus. But more than that, He
desires to bless the Hindu, just as He commissioned Abraham so long ago.
He desires that all people, including all Hindus, come to know about His
salvation and redemption.
Mission studies have all too often overlooked the biblical examples of
interreligious encounters found in the Old Testament. It would be wise of
us to take those examples, study them more closely, and learn from them.
The next step is to take the principles gleaned and see if they are
applicable to the modern-day challenge of the Hindu context, thus moving
toward a biblical approach to present-day Hindus.
The rest of this book will attempt to do that, by looking at specific
instances where God, through His own actions and through human agents,
plays out His mission to the “nations.”

ENDNOTES
1 There is no precise date or time that Hinduism can be traced back to its beginning; however, the
ṚgVeda, which is the oldest known sacred writing within Hinduism, has been dated to have
been written between 1500 B.C.E and 1000 B.C.E. See Michael Witzel, “Vedas and
Upaniṣads,” in Flood, The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, 68; Laurie L. Patton, “Veda and
Upaniṣad,” in Mittal and Thursby, The Hindu World, 37; Chaudhuri, The Hinduism Omnibus,
xviii. Listen to this interesting fact, “The ṚgVeda must have been more or less contemporary
with the Mitanni texts of northern Syria/Iraq (1450–1350 B.C.E); these mention certain Vedic
gods (Varuna, Mitra, Indra, Nasatya) and some forms of early Sanskrit.” Flood The Blackwell
Companion to Hinduism, 68. Not only does this date Hinduism possibly to the time of Moses,
but based on the above quote it may tie Hinduism directly to some of the “nations” we read
about in the Old Testament.
 CHAPTER 3
GOD’S MISSION THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS

G OD’S MISSION THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS is of the utmost

importance because, as was noted in the first chapter, it is the aim of God
to renew the relationship that was broken between Him and humankind.
This renewal is accomplished through God’s own actions and is then
reciprocated through the actions of individuals toward others. This chapter
lays the foundation for this type of mission by looking more closely at the
biblical narrative of Ruth, which features relationships throughout.
The story of Naomi and Ruth is more than just a story about
relationships. It is a story about a relationship between a believer in
Yahweh, the God of Israel, and a Moabitess who was from a land that
worshipped Chemosh, the patron deity of Moab. Therefore, this narrative
is an ideal narrative to gain insights on what relationships between a
believer in the God of the Bible and a Hindu should look like.

THE BOOK OF RUTH: THEME AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this section is not to provide an in-depth analysis of
Ruth and its theme and purpose. There has been much good scholarship
that should be consulted to gain such an understanding. However, it is
imperative to at least touch on the theme and purpose of Ruth to lay the
foundation for the theological concept that will be highlighted in this
study.
Attempting to decipher the theme and purpose of Ruth has challenged
scholars for decades, and there is still a lack of consensus on the issue.
While few scholars have been able to distinguish one overarching theme,
there are several sub-themes that are repeatedly pointed out. Rather than
attempt to comment on all these themes, this section will focus on the
relevant themes for this study.
ḤESED
While many have argued that genealogy and the need of an heir is the
main theme of interest to the narrator of Ruth, others have argued that
“ḥesed is justifiably hailed by interpreters as one of the book’s most
important themes” (Harris, Brown, and Moore 2000: 303). The Hebrew
term ḥesed is a “word that no one English word can begin to convey
accurately,” (Younger 2002: 393) and that would seem to be best
understood as encompassing all of the following: “loyalty, generosity,
traditional family duties, and openness to foreigners [emphasis added]”
(Hubbard 1988: 38) Daniel Block elaborates extensively on this concept as
it is found in the book of Ruth. He says that it is a “strong relational term”
and that it encompasses “all the positive attributes of God” (Block 1999:
605). The term itself is found only three times in the book (Ruth 1:8; 2:20;
3:10), but the concept is found throughout the narrative.
For Block, ḥesed is not just words of kindness, but is primarily
expressed in action (Block 1999: 606). Between the four main characters
of the narrative (God, Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz) there is a constant flow of
ḥesed, in both word and deed.1 What is even more remarkable is that Ruth
is a foreigner, in a land that worshipped a god other than Yahweh, and yet
she is the receiver of ḥesed. It is just as worthy to note that she is a giver of
ḥesed just as much as she is a receiver.
If ḥesed is clearly a major theme of Ruth then what is the purpose of
this theme? While commentators have various views, it would seem the
underlying purpose of ḥesed, as portrayed in this narrative, lies in the
normalcy of the narrative. In other words, the narrative found in Ruth is
strangely void of any sort of supernatural display of God’s power. This is
highly unusual among Old Testament narratives; rarely is there a story told
that does not somehow connect a supernatural occurrence with the
sequential events. Yet this narrative, while clearly involving God, does so
in a unique way.
God is behind the events of the narrative; clearly He is recognized as
Sovereign, and yet the main actions of the narrative are played out by
human beings involved in everyday life struggles. It would seem this is
precisely the point of the narrator, and one of the reasons this book is in
the Canon. It is a rare example of the positive outflow of a life lived for
God and others aside from any sort of supernatural exhibition.
The kindness, graciousness, and loyalty the narrator is so careful to
point out is meant to be an example for the reader to follow. Block notes
that “it is striking that no one in the book prays for a resolution of his own
crisis. In each case a person prays that Yahweh would bless someone else”
(Block 1999: 612-613). This is key to understanding the Naomi/Ruth
relationship, and is an example that can be followed by Bible-believing
men and women as they interact with adherents of other religions,
including Hindus.

NAOMI AND RUTH

Naomi and Ruth are the most prominent characters in the narrative.
Before analyzing the interaction between Naomi and Ruth, a brief synopsis
of these two characters is required. Based on this synopsis it will then be
possible to evaluate their interaction and gain a working theology that can
be applied missionally.

NAOMI
Some scholars claim that Naomi, not Ruth, is the main character of the
story. There is no doubt that her role is prominent and vital to the
narrative. She is the only character that is found at the very beginning of
the narrative and at the very end, highlighting her prominence (Ruth 1:2;
4:16).
Naomi is a constant exemplar of the noble trait of ḥesed keeping within
the theme (Ruth 1:8; 1:11-13; 2:20; 2:22; 3:1-4; 3:18; 4:16). This is even
more incredible when viewed in light of Naomi’s life situation. She was a
widow who had lost her sons, who was too old to marry again, and who
felt that God had embittered her life (Ruth 1:21). Yet in the face of all this
she still finds it within her heart to constantly put others above herself,
seeking their needs over her own.
The dialogue in the narrative sheds light on Naomi’s worldview and
theology. Naomi explicitly recognizes the God of Israel as Sovereign over
the land of Israel (Ruth 1:6) by crediting Him with visiting His people and
giving them food. But she also recognizes God as Sovereign beyond the
territory of Israel when she asks God to bless her two daughters-in-law in
Moab (Ruth 1:7). This was often not the common view of the time period
when god(s) were thought to be relegated to their own territory (Carpenter
2005: 26, 30). Beyond this, while Naomi does blame God for causing her
suffering she also would appear to understand that God is a God of
lovingkindness. This is mainly understood through her actions which
cannot be explained outside of her profound faith in the God of Israel.
“Kindness is something that grows out of faith in the promises of Yahweh,
the God of Naomi’s ancestors” (Harris, Brown, and Moore 2000: 305).
When connecting this with the overall mission of God as explained in
chapter 1 of this book, it is clear that Naomi was aware of God’s
sovereignty and, at the same time, was aware of His love toward her,
which was then reciprocated in her love toward others. Whether purposely
or not, Naomi’s actions blessed a person who was part of the “nations,”
thus in a way fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.

RUTH
The book is named after Ruth, and with good cause. While Naomi is
arguably the narrative’s main character, Ruth is no doubt of extreme
importance. While the beginning and end of the narrative feature Naomi,
the center debatably features Ruth.
Again, like Naomi, Ruth is an exemplar of ḥesed throughout the
narrative (Ruth 1:10; 1:14; 1:16-18; 2:2-3; 2:10; 2:18; 3:5-15). Again this
is incredible when one understands Ruth’s life situation. She was a
widowed foreigner from Moab who chose to leave her land and religion to
live with a widow, leaving her little hope of a better life. She gleaned in
the fields all day in order for her and her mother-in-law to survive. Yet in
spite of her hardships she was constantly worrying about the well-being of
her mother-in-law over her own well-being.
As stated above, Ruth was from Moab, a neighboring nation of Israel,
east of the Jordan River. Moab is mentioned several times in Scripture,
rarely positively. In fact the roots of Moab are found in Genesis 19:37
where Lot’s own daughters get him drunk and sleep with him in order to
become pregnant. It was out of this despicable situation that the nation of
Moab was conceived. The Bible says that Moab did not serve Yahweh, but
rather had its own patron deity known as Chemosh (Numbers 21:9), as
well as other deities (Judges 10:6).
Outside of the book of Ruth there is very little positive written about
Moab or Moabites. During the wilderness sojourn Moab led Israel into sins
of sexual immorality (Numbers 25); during the time of the judges they
oppressed Israel (Judges 3); both Saul and David fought against them
during their times as king (1 Samuel 14:47; 2 Samuel 8:2); Solomon
married a Moabite woman who worshipped Chemosh, which led to many
being influenced to worship Chemosh in Israel (1 Kings 11); after Ahab’s
death, Moab “rebelled” against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3); and Moab fought
against Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20:22). Deuteronomy 23:3 even goes so
far as to ban Moabites from the “assembly of the LORD” all the way up
through the tenth generation. All this highlights the importance of Ruth
and her inconceivable decision to follow Yahweh.
While we have limited knowledge of Chemosh, the god of Moab, the
Bible does shed some light on this deity. Solomon built a high place in
honor of Chemosh, implying that the worship of Chemosh involved image
worship of some kind (1 Kings 11:7). Chemosh is also referred to as the
“abomination of Moab” in 2 Kings 23:3. Beyond this the Bible has little to
say about Chemosh or the other deities of Moab; however, it is clear that
the biblical view of Chemosh was not positive. This was most likely the
deity Ruth had grown up not only seeing worshipped, but worshipping
herself. Her worldview was no doubt influenced by the worship of
Chemosh and all that entailed.

WORLDVIEW CHANGE
Naomi and Ruth came from different religious backgrounds. Naomi’s
and Ruth’s interaction must be viewed with an understanding that they did
not, at least originally, view the world through the same religious filter.
Based on the text, Naomi and Ruth were together about ten years prior
to the main portion of the narrative (Ruth 1:4). It is sometime after this
period that Naomi decides to return to her native country and town. Her
daughters-in-law go with her up to a certain point, at which time Naomi
attempts to persuade them to turn back and remain in Moab (Ruth 1:7-13).
Orpah, Ruth’s sister-in-law, listens to Naomi and returns to Moab. But
Ruth “clings” to Naomi and refuses to leave her. It is at this point that Ruth
expresses her desire to stay by Naomi’s side in one of the most courageous
and unique speeches in Scripture (Ruth 1:16-17). Ruth not only refuses to
return but verbally commits to leaving her god and culture behind in favor
of following Naomi’s God and becoming a part of her culture.
This decision took an unfathomable amount of courage. Ruth must
have known that there was a high chance she would not even be accepted
by the people she had chosen to join. Studies on worldview have shown
that altering one’s worldview is not an easy thing to do. While it may be
true that the cultural layout of Moab and Israel shared some similarities, it
is equally true that they had major differences as well, mainly in the area
of religion. Ruth made a major decision toward transforming her
worldview, and she made it without any real earthly benefit to prompt it.
REASON FOR WORLDVIEW CHANGE
The question is, why would Ruth make such a life-altering decision?
At first the answer may appear elusive; there is no information about Ruth
prior to this decision. Therefore, it would seem there is scant data to give
insight into Ruth’s decision. This, however, overlooks the evidence found
later in the book of Ruth. While little is known about Naomi’s and Ruth’s
relationship prior to this point, it is possible to develop an understanding of
what it looked like based on their relationship after this point.
It is the theme of ḥesed that gives clues as to why Ruth made this
decision. Naomi was a model of ḥesed; no doubt this was true even during
her sojourn in Moab. It was this kindness, loyalty, and extreme caring
attitude that had so impressed Ruth through the years. Now that the time
had come to make a decision to leave land and culture, Ruth chooses to
leave. Not because of any monetary or material gain, but because she had
seen something in the lifestyle of Naomi that she did not want to be
separated from. This included Naomi’s acts of ḥesed which cannot be
viewed separately from her religious beliefs.
It must be made clear that nowhere does the text imply that Naomi had
the conversion of Ruth and Orpah as a goal. In fact, she seems to be
oblivious to this type of thinking, as demonstrated in her attempts to
persuade them both to return not only to Moab, but to their god(s) (Ruth
1:15). Ruth chose to follow Naomi out of her love for Naomi and what she
stood for. Naomi had lived a life of ḥesed not to convert others, but simply
as an outpouring of her faith in God. One could even say that she was
fulfilling the promise given through Abraham that the nations would be
blessed.

THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
In a book where God is seemingly relegated to the sidelines is found
this account of a non-Israelite becoming a follower of God. At first glance,
this appears odd and unlikely. With closer examination, however, it makes
sense.
Ḥesed, as noted above, encompasses all “the positive attributes of
God.” Therefore any act of ḥesed cannot be viewed outside of the
influence of God. While the narrative of Ruth focuses primarily on human
actions and relationships, it ultimately is about the God who influences
those actions and relationships. This is made clear in Boaz’s words to Ruth
(Ruth 2:12), “May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full
from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to
seek refuge.” Boaz gives God all the glory for taking care of Ruth, even
though the narrative is oddly silent about God’s direct role. Clearly God is
working through these individuals. As a result Ruth is willing to leave her
home and religion, and beyond that exemplifies the very ḥesed she has
been shown. The narrator leaves the reader with the feeling that “God is
one who cares for people of all nations” (Hubbard 1988: 67).
A theology of ḥesed cannot be separated from the purposes of God’s
mission. God is Sovereign, and He desires to bless humanity. One of the
means for doing this is through acts of ḥesed both from God toward
humanity and from humanity to each other.

MISSIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
It seems odd that the book of Ruth, which features an encounter
between a believer in Yahweh and an adherent of another religion, is so
rarely mentioned in literature about mission. This section of the chapter
will attempt to begin the discussion of Ruth as it pertains to mission in
hopes that the discussion can grow and be enlarged and deepened. The
discussion that follows will primarily use the Ruth narrative as a
framework for relationships between believers in the God of the Bible and
Hindus; however, it should be made clear that this narrative has
implications that could be applied beyond the Hindu context to any other
religious entity that does not claim the God of the Bible as their deity of
worship.

UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT

In order to better understand the importance of ḥesed as it relates to
Hindus, the context of mission to Hindus must first be understood. In other
words, up until now there have been numerous methodologies expounded
on and various attempts to bring Hindus to Christ. The fact remains that
few of these approaches have been successful, and, more importantly, have
often proved harmful and instrumental in breaking down relationships
between believers in the God of the Bible and Hindus rather than build
them up.
A theology of ḥesed as it is exemplified in the narrative of Ruth
appears to be a more appropriate approach to Hindus than many of the past
methodologies and attitudes. The implications of ḥesed as found in Ruth
deserve a book of their own, but the purpose of this study is to draw
attention to the richness that Old Testament narratives contain for mission
issues today. Two key concepts drawn from applying a theology ḥesed to
modern-day relationships will be studied in order to shorten the study.
First, the narrative of Ruth focuses on relationships, even between
believers of different religions, as being built on the foundation of ḥesed.
This is not a means to an end. Naomi does not live a life of ḥesed in order
to convert Ruth and Orpah, but rather she lives a life of faith representing
the God who exemplifies ḥesed. This however does not negate the need for
the intentional going out in mission and leads to the second concept.
Naomi is genuine in her faith; she believes in God and does not
conceal her faith. Ruth knew who Naomi believed in and that Naomi’s
actions were a result of her belief. From these two points it will become
clearer that a theology of ḥesed fits into the overall mission of God and is
applicable in the present context.

ḤESED AS THE FOUNDATION FOR INTERRELIGIOUS

RELATIONSHIPS
The dawn of the modern missionary era was built on the foundation
that there was a world being lost, and the only way it could be saved was
through gospel propagation. This was the rallying cry across Europe and
America which led to the great missionary movements of the nineteenth
century. Oftentimes these efforts were combined and confused with
imperialism. This was especially true in India where large numbers of
missionaries went. There is no doubt that the desire for converts often
stemmed from a belief that Western civilization was superior and therefore
its religion must also be superior. Still in India today there is a tangible
feeling among many Hindus that Christians are only interested in
converting people but not in developing meaningful relationships.

HISTORICAL REALITIES
All religions outside of Christianity were often thoughtlessly
grouped into one large category called pagan/heathen. There was little
room for developing relationships with adherents of another world
religion. Adherents of the world religions were first to come out of
their religion, cutting themselves off from it, joining a new community,
and leaving behind their old relationships. Missionaries who
maintained close relationships with Hindus, Muslims, or any other
non-Christian outside of attempts to convert them often had their
sincerity questioned.
While using the terms pagan/heathen has been struck from mission
vocabulary, the concepts often remain. It is still common to read and
hear about the necessity to develop methods that will convert
nonbelievers in the God of the Bible into believers without much
regard for the development of relationships (Richard 2011: 27-40).
Public evangelism among Hindus often reiterates this by its impersonal
call to conversion (Hoefer 2001: 119; Bharati 2001: 26).2 The massive
spread of literature also appears to have had little effect and shows a
lack of genuine desire for friendship with Hindus (Hoefer 2001;
Kannan and Kannan 2011: 87).3 As a result, Hebert E. Hoefer has
deduced that “reading of Christian tracts, literature, and even the Bible
seem to have little significant impact on Hindus and Muslims. . . .
Personal experience is what reaches the heart. Thus our Christian
literature must be considered with the mass media as more superficial
medthod [sic] of outreach” (Hoefer 2001: 79).

PRESENT REALITIES
Hoefer in his groundbreaking study,4 conducted in Chennai, India,
among Non-Baptized Believers in Christ (NBBC), discovered that
genuine relationships were repeatedly affirmed as being most
important for NBBCs. On the questionnaire that was handed out, there
was a section which asked the participant to choose which listed option
had given them the best opportunity to learn about Jesus. The option
with the highest percentage was through “individual Christians”
(Hoefer 2001: 78). This led Hoefer to write: “Clearly it is the personal,
intimate, real-life contacts, which have the deepest impact on people’s
minds and hearts” (Hoefer 2001: 78). Repeatedly the study affirms that
many Hindus desire to meet and talk with believers in God rather than
attend large meetings or read Christian literature.
It has been noted that one of the main reasons more Hindus have
not openly expressed their faith is because they fear ostracism from
their community of relations (Hoefer 2001: 51; Richard 2011: 35).
George David observes that “Hindus are very sensitive to sense the
difference between communication that is personal, genuine and
spontaneous, and that which has the ring of religious propaganda”
(Jeyaraj 2000: 29). A working theology of ḥesed could help in
eliminating some of this fear, and instead help to develop strong faith-
 based relationships with Hindus inside their culture (Aghamkar 2000).5
Naomi was not out to convert Moabites to become Yahweh
followers. This is easily seen by Naomi’s attempt to persuade Ruth and
Orpah not to follow her back to Israel. And when Orpah chooses to
follow Naomi’s advice, there is no negativity between them. To
Naomi, Orpah had been just as much a daughter as Ruth. This helps to
show that she does not befriend Ruth as a means to an end. Ruth
chooses to switch her allegiance to the God of Israel, not out of force
but out of a genuine positive reaction to the ḥesed seen in Naomi’s life-
style. Ḥesed is the foundation for Naomi’s relationship to Ruth, not
simply a desire to get Ruth to convert.
Some have made a move away from the term “conversion” as it is
commonly understood today. There is a need for a better understanding
of conversion, what it means, and how it is accomplished. We must
constantly remind ourselves that conversion is the work of the Holy
Spirit; we are simply conveyors of God’s mission, attempting to help
those around us see and experience Him.

GENUINE ḤESED STEMMING FROM GENUINE FAITH

As missionaries began to have more interaction with adherents of non-
Bible-believing peoples, there began a shift in thinking. Many were not the
devil worshippers they had been portrayed as. In fact, many of their
religious traditions were recognized as being ancient and rich in ideas and
philosophy. This was especially true of Hindus, and as a result there was a
shift in thinking about them as well. This shift has gradually taken the
stance that it is no longer tenable for believers in the God of the Bible to
view these religious people as simple pagans/heathens. In fact, a large
body of literature can now be found which argues against any type of
evangelism and propagation among them at all.
But such a stance is primarily a reaction against the historical reality of
mission in the colonial era. While often this is a welcome alternative to the
superficial evangelism of the previous decades, it is often an over-reaction.
It moves toward “dialogue” between religions and other such concepts that
often are relegated to the academic world and rarely affect the average
Hindu or Christian. Meanwhile, the average person is left to decide on
their own what they feel is the best approach to the religious pluralism of
today. Often this leads to one of two extremes, either extreme isolationism
—“you don’t bother me and I won’t bother you”—or extreme tolerance,
not allowing for any type of genuine faith expression for fear of offending
people of other faiths.
The Ruth narrative is an example that lies somewhere in between the
two extremes. Naomi is not overly cautious in revealing the God she
worships and believes in. She is genuine in her faith, living it out both in
word and deed. The relationship between Naomi and Ruth is not a simple
dialogue in which Naomi recognizes all the good in Moabite religion and
in which Ruth does the same for the Israelite religion. On the contrary, it is
an example of an individual being true to the God she believes in, and this
trueness results in another individual desiring to follow that God. A
theology of ḥesed, if understood as shown in the narrative of Ruth, can be
a foundation for interreligious relationships that are deep and meaningful.
Various attempts have been made to move mission in this direction
among Hindus. H. L. Richard has promoted “friendship evangelism”
among Hindus as a more viable way of connecting with them. He lists
twelve points that he feels should help in bridging the gap between the two
extremes listed above. Several points on the list advise against
triumphalistic language which immediately puts the Hindu on the
defensive. At the same time, point eleven specifically highlights the need
for a genuine witness on the part of the believer in God. Richard puts it
this way: “To take these ideas merely as a strategy in evangelism but
ignore them in the rest of our life and thinking would be a sin against God
and could lead to nothing good” (Richard 2011: 126).
There is no doubt that a tension exists in the relationship between
genuine friendship as understood in the secular world, and a genuine
friendship lived out in the context of faith. Especially in the Western world
there has been a tendency to separate the sacred and secular. But this is not
the call of the Bible, and as the Ruth narrative points out it is possible to
live out one’s genuine faith, while at the same time developing a deep,
loving, and loyal relationship with someone who does not have the same
belief system. Hindus are not guilty of separating the two; for them,
religion and daily life are inseparably linked. As a result, Hindus are often
open and respectful of the religious views of others. They also find it
strange when a person is not honest about their religious faith and
understanding of God.

THE WORKPLACE AND NEIGHBORHOOD/VILLAGE

The normalcy of the story of Ruth is also important to keep in mind at
this juncture. Most of the interreligious connections being made today are
not in the academic realm, nor in churches or other religious centers. The
workplace and the neighborhood/village are the primary meeting grounds,
where ordinary people are those meeting each other. A genuine faith lived
out in the workplace and/or neighborhood/village fits the example of
Naomi and Ruth. It is there that most relationships are born and nurtured.
While the concept of kindness and loyalty to those of other faith
traditions has been promoted, there seems to be a stronger biblical
foundation for it than has often been cited. There is no doubt that Jesus
taught this concept repeatedly throughout His ministry on earth. We get
glimpses of it in the parable of the “Good Samaritan” and in Jesus’
discourse with the lady at the well (John 4). However, the Ruth narrative
has an added dimension that even the Gospels are missing. Jesus rarely
interacted in a developed relationship directly with non-Jews. While He
laid down the principles, it was not until after His ascension that the early
Church really began encountering other religions. But the Ruth narrative
gives an in-depth understanding of the principle of ḥesed at work beyond
the borders of Israel, between a believer in Yahweh and a Moabitess,
something that is basically absent in the Gospels.

SUMMARY
The narrative of Ruth as an example of positive interaction between a
believer in Yahweh and a non-believer needs to be studied and understood
in even more depth. While many have attempted to develop a theological
and missiological approach similar to what is exemplified in this narrative,
few have recognized that this narrative gives a strong biblical foundation
for their approach.
Ḥesed as understood from this narrative flows from God to humans
who are then expected to reciprocate it in their relationship with others,
regardless of religious background and faith. The goal is to bring people to
a knowledge of the God from whom ḥesed stems. This is accomplished
only through genuine, intentional relationships.
Bharati sums it up well: “Man is basically a person, a human being and
not merely a thing. So in all our efforts to communicate the gospel to our
neighbor we must approach him as a person” (Bharati 2001: 74). This
becomes even more meaningful when built on a strong foundation laid in
the ḥesed of God.
ENDNOTES
1 A survey of the book of Ruth reveals that the following texts express the concept of ḥesed in
one form or another; 1:6; 1:8-9; 1:10; 1:14b; 1:16-17; 2:4; 2:8-9; 2:11-12; 2:14; 2:15-16; 2:19-
21; 3:1; 3:10-13; 3:15; 4:1-13; 4:14-15. The book has only four chapters and, as can be seen, the
concept of ḥesed is found throughout the narrative.

2 Hoefer makes this comment about public evangelism, “The meetings are not really evangelistic
opportunities as much as nurture opportunities, for the vast majority of those in attendance are
people of faith already” (Hoefer 2001: 119). Dayanand Bharati, a Hindu who became a follower
of Christ, makes some poignant remarks about public evangelism and literature distribution in
India: “Generally the regular programme in a mission field is—Go out—meet lots of people—
distribute a lot of literature—conduct night meetings—share what you know (not what they
need)—then send reports and be satisfied (emphasis in original)” (Bharati 2001: 26).

3 In this survey of 53 Hindu converts, only one became acquainted with Christ through literature.

4 This study consisted of 84 “personal interviews” and statistical surveys conducted in

Chennai/Madras, India. Those interviewed were Hindu believers in Christ who, for various
reasons, had decided not to be baptized. These reasons are identified and detailed in the book
that was published as a result of this study. As a result of the study it was estimated that in the
city of Chennai alone there were 200,000 Non-Baptized Believers in Christ (Hoefer 2001: 79).

5 There was another more recent survey and study conducted on a smaller scale in the city of
Pune, India. It came to many similar conclusions as the study carried out by Herbert Hoefer in
Chennai. In fact, it was found that often Hindus preferred Christian neighbors because of their
kindness and hospitality (Aghamkar 2000).

CASE STUDY
Lakshmi* was a devout Hindu who was regular in her home and temple worship along with
her husband and daughter. She also was a teacher at a local school where an Adventist was
also employed. As time went by Lakshmi and this teacher became friends and began having
more open discussions about their personal lives. Eventually their conversations even
included religious topics of comparison and questioning. This, however, was nearly two
years after the relationship had started.

At first Lakshmi was very adamant about defending her belief system and way of worship.
Her friend respected that and refused to try and force her to accept her Adventist beliefs, but
still shared her beliefs in an open and genuine way. At times Lakshmi would attempt to prove
that her religious ways were superior to her friends but slowly began to ask more penetrating
questions about the Bible and the biblical way of life.

After a period of nearly four years Lakshmi started reading the Bible and a few other pieces
of literature that her friend provided for her. Now that their conversations on religion had
taken a slight change, Lakshmi was spending more time trying to learn rather than defend.
Up until this point the friend had not even invited Lakshmi to church but had invited her to
her home on several different occasions. These were not specifically for converting her but
rather out of the genuine friendship that had developed between them.

Eventually after nearly five years Lakshmi expressed interest in not only being part of a
church but also putting away her images that she had, at home for worship. Through her
friendship with her fellow teacher and through the Holy Spirits prompting she had slowly
come to know Jesus and wanted to have a relationship with Him. Today, Lakshmi and her
family attend church regularly and have continued to grow in their faith. Lakshmi is baptized,
while her husband has decided that he is still not ready for that step, but together they
continue to grow and learn about Jesus. At the same time they have also told many of their
relatives and friends about the experiences they have had.

*Note the names and places have been changed.

 CHAPTER 4
JOSEPH AND DANIEL: RELATIONAL MISSION IN
CHALLENGING CONTEXTS

T HE PREVIOUS CHAPTER LAID THE FOUNDATION for genuine

interreligious relationships especially in the normal everyday activities of
life. This chapter will build on that expanding this understanding through
the lens of two more Old Testament narratives that involve interreligious
encounters. While the Naomi and Ruth narrative gives a starting point,
there are many life situations different from the Ruth narrative. The
narratives documenting the lives of Joseph and Daniel will give another
perspective from a different life situation.
Scholars have regularly recognized the similarities between these two
narratives. Both men are taken to foreign lands against their will. Each one
is faced with very challenging temptations to put aside their faithfulness to
God in order to seemingly advance or enjoy the pleasures of their new
surroundings. Yet each one remains true to his God and at times this
causes serious repercussions, but always in the end God comes through on
their behalf and they end up rising above and beyond what is expected of
someone in their situation.
These concepts have all been analyzed and detailed in great length in
any number of commentaries and other works by biblical scholars. What is
often missing however is an intentional look at the fact that these two men
were not only in foreign lands but among people who had beliefs about
god(s) that were very different than their own. It is their interactions with
these people as adherents of different belief systems that this book seeks to
understand better.

THE RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

This is not the place to discuss in detail the religious beliefs and
understanding of god(s) that the Egyptians and Babylonians worshipped.
This has been done by scholars much more qualified than I am. In fact,
most readers readily recognize that Joseph and Daniel’s belief in and
relationship with Yahweh was very different than that of the Egyptian’s
and Babylonian’s belief system. As a result Joseph and Daniel alike found
themselves in situations where their witness was the primary way Yahweh
could interact with these people.
This chapter may be particularly relevant to individuals or small
groups of people who are a minority in their context. They may believe in
the God of the Bible while the surrounding culture they live in primarily
does not. These narratives can bring hope and better understanding of the
importance of genuineness for those who find themselves in such a
context. Joseph was alone in his situation, and Daniel along with his three
friends appeared to be an exceptional minority in their context as well.

THEIR REACTION
Joseph is taken to Egypt against his will and alone with no one to turn
to. He is left in Egypt, surrounded by a new culture and new beliefs about
God. What was his reaction to this new situation?
Genesis 39-41 records Joseph’s early time in Egypt, and right from the
beginning we get an idea how Joseph is going to deal with his situation.
We are not told how long it took, but eventually Joseph rose in status even
as a slave in Potiphar’s house. How was this possible? Genuineness.
Joseph was a genuinely hard worker who refused to allow his situation to
harm his relationships with those around him. We are not given details of
his interactions with Potiphar, but the text does give a glimpse of
Potiphar’s feelings toward Joseph. They were feelings of great trust and
recognition. It would appear that they had a very strong working
relationship that was built on Joseph’s genuine desire to work hard for
Potiphar. Remember that these two men came from very different religious
backgrounds.
This makes it even more striking that Potiphar recognizes that Joseph
is the way he is because of his God. The lifestyle Joseph lived was such
that it was obvious he believed in something/someone different than the
Egyptians around him. Potiphar was not oblivious to this fact and credited
Joseph’s genuineness to this very fact (Genesis 39:3). Somehow Joseph
had been able to maintain both a very positive relationship with Potiphar
while maintaining a semi-open if not fully open relationship with Yahweh.
Daniel appears to have had a similar relationship with some of the men
in Babylon who worked for the King. When a decree to kill all the wise
men went forth Daniel had enough influence to persuade Arioch, the
commander of the king’s guard to give him an extra night to see if God
would help them. When Daniel requested to see the king, claiming to be
able to interpret the dream, Arioch was more than willing to do this for
him (Daniel 2:24-25). It seems that Daniel also was able to live a genuine
life, which gained him the trust of those around him, even from different
religious backgrounds.
Even in times of great trial these men stuck close to their ideals
without showing disrespect to either the individuals they interacted with or
their gods/religious beliefs. Rather than denigrate the religious beliefs of
those they were amongst, they simply stayed true to what they believed
without the negative side of speaking out against the beliefs of the majority
around them. This is amazing considering that both these men found
themselves in situations that were unfair and beyond their control. Joseph
was imprisoned falsely, Daniel found himself in a lion’s den without real
cause. Yet in both instances these men cannot be charged with maligning
the beliefs of their tormentors. Instead they maintain a sense of integrity
and genuineness in their relationships. Joseph is promoted to watch over
all the prisoners and reveals two prisoner’s dreams which eventually gets
him out of prison. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew term hesed is
found in Genesis 39:21 flowing from God to Joseph, who then replicates it
to his fellow prisoners. Daniel survives his night in the den of lions and
comes out without bitterness.

ACCESS THROUGH GENUINENESS

As a result of their genuine hard work and positive outlook on life,
while at the same time openly remaining true to their beliefs in Yahweh,
they gained access to high levels of society. Joseph found himself second
only to Pharaoh, and amazingly Pharaoh is the first non-Hebrew in the
Bible that recognizes the Spirit of God in someone (Genesis 41:38). This is
an incredible testimony to the life that Joseph lived in front of his captors
who believed very differently than he.
For Daniel it was a similar story. He became advisers for three separate
leaders. First was Nebuchadnezzar, who greatly admired Daniel and his
three friends (Daniel 2:46-49; 3:28-30). Eventually he would even
recognize their God as the one true God (Daniel 4:1-3, 34, 35, 37). This
was only possible because Daniel maintained a very positive and genuine
relationship with Nebuchadnezzar. This becomes obvious in Daniel 4
where we find Daniel pleading with him to change his ways and repent
(Daniel 4:19, 27). Only a true friend who cared would express this the way
Daniel does to Nebuchadnezzar. This combined with the manifestations of
God’s power eventually convinced Nebuchadnezzar that Daniel’s God was
the Most High God. Darius may not have exclaimed this in quite as strong
a sentiment as Nebuchadnezzar, but he too recognized the genuineness and
specialness of Daniel and his God (Daniel 6:25-27).

IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY

Joseph and Daniel are wonderful examples of so many important traits
one must have in order to maintain positive interreligious relationships.
The implications for mission is obvious and yet so little has actually been
written connecting these narratives and interreligious encounters.
As we begin evaluating these two men and the narratives that make up
the biblical account of them several things jump out that are relevant to the
theme of this study. First of all, these men exemplify the call that God
made to Abram in Genesis 12:3. Both Joseph and Daniel live their lives
not for themselves but in order to bless others, specifically people who did
not believe in the God they believed in, citizens of the “nations.” Their
primary method of witness was not public proclamation nor was it simple
dialogue. It was much deeper and more relevant to everyday life than
either public proclamation or dialogue usually are.
These men lived lives that can be termed nothing less than genuine.
They worked hard, even when they were mistreated and wrongfully
accused. They refused to point out the bad and wrong of those around
them, even when it came to religious beliefs. They maintained strong
relationships with individuals who had very different worldviews than
them. As a result, kings began to recognize that there was more to these
men than simply hard work. They clearly served a Higher Power who
cared about them and it was this caring that they were reciprocating to
those around them. Their witness was not loud, nor was it quiet. Rather it
was the perfect pitch, and it brought many to a better knowledge of the
true God and His ways. Like Naomi, these individuals lived out a life of
ḥesed.

JOSEPH AND DANIEL IN THE HINDU CONTEXT

As we think about the world today and reflect on the narratives
surrounding Joseph and Daniel we should be struck by the contrasts to
what we often find being practiced today. Often mission in the Hindu
context has not taken the same approach as these two men. Witness among
Hindus has all too often either been too negative, denigrating Hindu
beliefs, or too accommodating, settling for academic dialogue and
tolerance that does not allow for genuine faith.
There is a better way, and it is exemplified by Joseph and Daniel in
their respective contexts. There are still huge swaths of the world where
believers in the God of Bible find themselves vastly outnumbered by
adherents to other belief systems. In the countries of India and Nepal,
Hindus vastly outnumber Christians, and at times this can feel
overwhelming. People who believe in the God of the Bible in these
contexts would be wise to reflect on these narratives and allow what they
read to sink into their own lives. Rather than shrink back into enclaves
which has so often been the case throughout history, would it not be better
to be genuine about one’s beliefs as openly as possible? However, this
must be done in such a way as to avoid unnecessary offense, in an attempt
to maintain real, genuine, and caring relationships with those around who
may have different beliefs. Spend more time in positive relationships with
those around you and with your God, rather than pointing out the mistakes
of the belief systems and the poor behavior of the others.

MORE THAN DIALOGUE

At the same time simply dialoguing around a table once a month does
not seem to be true to the biblical examples either. Joseph and Daniel did
not simply sit and discuss their beliefs with those around them. They knew
that the God they had grown up believing in and following was the one
true God. There was nothing that could take this belief from them. And
even when it would have seemingly been advantageous to put aside these
beliefs at least temporarily, they refused to lower their level of integrity
and stayed true to their beliefs (Genesis 39; Daniel 1). Their witness was
greatly strengthened by their unwillingness to compromise, making the
point that it is better to be genuine about what you believe and express this
fairly openly, most of the time, rather than hide your belief or simply put it
on par with the beliefs around you. Joseph and Daniel teach us that it is
possible for there to be a balance between genuine faith and genuine
relationship with those who believe differently than you.
GENUINE IN WORK AND FAITH
We will revisit these two narratives later in the book, but for now let us
take away a few main points. Hard work and genuineness in that work are
a virtue and are displayed so perfectly in these narratives. The result was a
clear and genuine building of relationship with people who believed
different than either Joseph or Daniel did. Secondly, these men both stayed
true to their beliefs and understanding in God despite being a minority and
facing possible persecution. This brought people into an encounter with
Yahweh in new and very real ways, resulting in some changing their
allegiance, while others at the very least recognized the uniqueness of
Yahweh.
What is needed in the interreligious encounters of today is more
genuineness. Working together with Hindus is a part of the world today,
but how that work is carried out is often not ideal. At best, often work
relationships are cordial without crossing into the realm of close
friendship. Even rarer is a real and open sharing of one’s beliefs with those
in the workplace. Often those who believe in God are seen by Hindus to
lack faith simply because they so rarely talk about God and there is no
visible rituals which show God in their lives. Joseph and Daniel are an
example of another more sound approach to interreligious encounters. Be
genuine in work and faith.
 CHAPTER 5
SHOULD I NOT BE CONCERNED? A CALL FOR
RELATIONAL MISSION IN THE HINDU CONTEXT

A S HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS TWO CHAPTERS,

sincere and genuine relationships are needed as the cornerstone of any
interreligious relationship. We limited ourselves to three separate
narratives in order to see what exactly this can look like. These three are
not the only examples found in the Bible, however. In this chapter we will
take a look at several more, including one example of a missed
opportunity.

JONAH: THE RELATIONSHIP THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

The story of Jonah is often cited as one of the few examples of true
mission in the Old Testament. One of the main reasons for this is because
it has the element of an Israelite border crossing which we find only in a
few other instances in the Old Testament. Jonah is viewed as a type of
precursor in some ways to the outward movement of the apostles found in
the New Testament. This study, however, would like to relook at this
narrative to see if there is more to it missiologically than has been
presented in the past.
There are two main sections of the narrative of Jonah that are relevant
to our study of interreligious encounters—the first between Jonah and the
sailors of the ship, the second Jonah’s encounter with the Ninevites and
their subsequent repentance and pardon. It is this second portion that
concerns us at this juncture.
The focus of this section of the book has been relationships between
Israelites and people outside of Israel who had different religious beliefs. It
is obvious that Jonah’s encounter with the citizens of Nineveh qualifies as
such an encounter. In light of the understanding we have developed thus
far concerning relationships we would expect to find Jonah engaging the
Ninevites in an encounter which then leads to a positive relationship. If
this had been the case he would have been in good company with other
prophets who preceded him.
Elijah crossed the border into the land of Sidon and not only engaged
the widow of Zarephath in conversation but actually lived under her roof
and developed a very caring and deep relationship with her and her son (1
Kings 17). Elisha became a friend of the great Syrian army commander
Naaman (2 Kings 5:1-19) and later found himself mediating mercy on
behalf of an entire army of Syrians (2 Kings 6:22-23). One should not be
surprised after reading these two narratives that we find Elisha receiving
respect and honor from Ben-Hadad King of Syria (2 Kings 8:7-15). These
prophets left a legacy of not only being willing to engage those outside
their own faith, but to develop lasting relationships with them. Surely
Jonah was aware of what these men had done not so long before his time.
Unfortunately, this was not the encounter Jonah chose to have. When
Jonah first reached the city he did as God had asked him to do. He warned
the inhabitants that they were doomed in forty days. The Ninevites’
reaction was incredible and comprehensive. The entire city recognized
their communal sin and repented in a very dramatic fashion, all the way up
to the king. This was now a golden opportunity to move this great city
from repentance to faith. All Jonah needed to do was develop his
relationship with them, to encourage them, and teach them the ways of
God.
As is well known, this was not the course Jonah chose, and, in fact, he
was quite angry at God for saving the citizens of Nineveh. The narrative
ends with a stinging question for Jonah and for all those unwilling to
develop a relationship with others who believe differently than they,
“Should I not be concerned about that great city?” Jonah 4:11b. God is
desperately searching for people who are willing not only to engage those
who believe differently, but to care about them. This requires the
willingness to develop relationships at a deeper level than is often
achieved across religious lines.

AN OPPOSING EXAMPLE
In the story of Joshua and Israel’s conquest of Canaan there is one odd
sub-story. The Gibeonite deception has received various interpretations
from scholars, but almost never has this particular sub-story been analyzed
for its missiological implications. Maybe that is because it just is not a
clearcut story. It’s hard to understand whether what the Gibeonites did was
a terrible thing, or whether their deceptiveness is overshadowed by their
recognition of Yahweh’s sovereignty.
While the Gibeonites undoubtedly chose a poor way of entreating
Joshua and the Israelites for mercy, they were genuine in their desire for it
nonetheless. They point out the fact that because of what God has done on
behalf of Israel in Egypt, what He did to the kings of the Amorites they
want a treaty. In essence they are saying we can tell your God is more
powerful than ours, and we want to be saved from His wrath. It would
have been better for them to admit who they were, and where they were
coming from along with their desire for a treaty. This worked for Rahab
who just a few verses earlier is shown saying very similar things, but not
in a deceptive way. She and her family were saved, which leads to the
conclusion that the Gibeonites would have experienced the same fate had
they been honest.
That aside I want to focus on the fact that, despite the deception, the
Israelites stayed true to their word and spared the Gibeonites. It is
interesting to note that as a result of the deception they were forced to
serve as woodcutters and water carriers for God’s house. In a sense it
seems that God was trying to draw them closer to Him, even in such a
fashion as forced labor.
The main point here is that an entire nation chose to change their
allegiance to Yahweh. Once they did this they were not rejected by Israel,
and in fact were not only accepted but brought close to the house of God.
This is an antithesis to the Jonah narrative. While we must be careful about
drawing too many similarities between the two narratives we can at least
admit that the outcomes are very different. Nineveh never experienced the
closeness to God that the Gibeonites did. Instead the Ninevites repented of
their evil ways but never were really able to develop their relationship with
God and His people to a deeper level. Eventually Nineveh was destroyed
as an evil and violent city (see the whole book of Nahum). The Gibeonites
on the other hand remained closely connected to Israel and when they were
mistreated by Saul God took their side and allowed them to have revenge
for their mistreatment (2 Samuel 21).

RELATIONSHIP GREATER THAN NON-INTERACTION

Often there is a tangible zeal on the part of Bible believers that is
similar to that of Jonah. They would rather not interact with others who are
of different beliefs. Those rare times when they do interact it is often in
such a way as to create a sense of inferiority in the mind of the other. They
refuse to recognize that God cares for all people no matter what religion
they belong to. As a result they not only fail to develop meaningful
relationships with people of other faiths, but they often have an attitude
similar to Jonah’s which is that God should not even be merciful to the
“pagans” of this world.
It is important to take advantage of every opportunity to develop
genuine relationships. The meeting between Gibeon and Israel did not get
off to an ideal start, but it was dealt with in such a way as to create a
longlasting relationship that brought an entire nation closer to God. This
should be the attitude of all who believe in God.

NUMEROUS EXAMPLES
Throughout the history of the people of God from Abraham onwards
we find examples of positive interreligious encounters that lead to deeper
relationships. Abraham himself became a well-respected and honored
patriarch in Canaan (Genesis 21:22-23). Amazingly, he was even willing
to mediate on behalf of the evil people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis
18:16-33). What a contrast to the attitude of Jonah. True, God still
destroyed the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, but this does not take
away from the appropriate actions of Abraham to mediate on behalf of the
nations.
There are several examples of followers of Yahweh who reached out
and developed relationships with those around them with different beliefs
previous to the time of Jonah. We have already seen in detail the stories of
Naomi and Ruth, Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, and the Gibeonites.
Some of the other relationships deserve to be mentioned in brief as well to
gain a more comprehensive concept of what they looked like.

VARIETY OF RELATIONSHIPS
UNUSUAL RELATIONSHIP
Sometimes the relationships, for example, were started under
adverse or unnatural circumstances, such as David among the
Philistines. When David was on the run from Saul he took refuge
among the Philistines of Gath where Achish was king. 1 Samuel 21:10-
15 describes this first encounter between David and Achish as not a
very pleasant encounter. David pretends to be crazy and Achish
appears to be indifferent, and yet it would appear based on later
narratives that this was the beginning of a genuine relationship. In 1
Samuel 27 we find David among the Philistines at Gath with Achish
again. Interestingly David lives a kind of double life where he lives
among the Philistines but defends Israel at the same time. 1 Samuel
27:12 tells us that Achish had come to trust David, showing signs that
a relationship of sorts had developed between the men.
What is most fascinating, however, about this relationship is found
in 1 Samuel 29 which again is a description of David’s time among the
Philistines. David finds himself in a sticky situation where it looks like
he may be asked to fight on behalf of the Philistines. In the end,
however, some of the Philistine soldiers do not trust him and convince
Achish that he should not be brought along to the battle. 1 Samuel 29:6
records the following words of Achish, “As surely as the LORD lives,
you have been reliable, and I would be pleased to have you serve with
me in the army. From the day you came to me until now, I have found
no fault in you, but the rulers don’t approve of you” (emphasis added).
Some may write it off as a coincidence that Achish refers to David’s
God here. At the very least, though, we can assume that David must
have been fairly obvious about the fact that he still served and believed
in Yahweh, not Dagan or any other Philistine deity. Whether or not
Achish came to a strong faith in God is not recorded, but there is no
doubt that through his relationship with David he at least came to know
more about this God.

A KING’S RELATIONSHIPS
Another example is Solomon’s encounters with individuals who
came from outside Israel and had their own religious beliefs.
Solomon’s relationship with Hiram King of Tyre, and the Queen of
Sheba are often simply viewed as political alliances and dialogues.
While they certainly had elements of both of these we should also
allow for the idea that Solomon was quite open about giving God the
credit for his wealth and wisdom. This seemed to impress both people,
especially the Queen of Sheba.
1 Kings 5:7 has these words of Hiram, “Praise be to the LORD
today, for he has given David a wise son to rule over this great nation.”
Hiram recognized that it was more than just Solomon behind the recent
successes of Israel, God was behind it all. 1 Kings 10:1 says that one of
the reasons the Queen of Sheba came to visit Solomon was his relation
to the Lord. After having all her questions answered and seeing the
lifestyle of Solomon, including watching a set of burnt offerings being
presented to the Lord (1 Kings 10:2-5; see also 2 Chronicles 9:2-4) she
could not help but exclaim: “The report I heard in my own country
about your achievements and your wisdom is true. But I did not
believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed,
not even half was told me; in wisdom and wealth you have far
exceeded the report I heard. How happy your men must be! How
happy your officials, who continually stand before and hear your
wisdom! Praise be to the LORD your God, who has delighted in you
and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the LORD’s eternal
love for Israel, he has made you king, to maintain justice and
righteousness” (emphasis added 1 Kings 10:6-9; see also 2 Chronicles
9:5-8).
I am not suggesting that these two individuals became ardent
followers of Yahweh. But it cannot be denied that they recognized a
special quality in the God of Israel and gave Him the ultimate credit
for Solomon’s wisdom and knowledge. One reason for this is that
Solomon was very open about giving God the credit. In fact, when the
Queen of Sheba came he even took her to witness the sacrificial
system. This should not surprise us when we remember his prayer at
the dedication of the temple in which he prayed, “As for the foreigner
who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant
land because of your name—for men will hear of your great name and
your mighty hand and your outstretched arm” (1 Kings 8:41-42). As
we noted in an earlier chapter this is closely connected to the call of
God to Abram in Genesis 12:3, and we find that Solomon was serious,
at least early in his reign, about adhering to this call as seen in his
relationships with Hiram and the Queen of Sheba.1
After Solomon the kings of Israel and Judah were unable to
develop the same type of relationships with the nations around them
that Solomon had. But there were prophets who succeeded where kings
failed. Both Elijah and Elisha were able to reach out and develop
positive relationships with non-Israelites who were no doubt believers
in other gods.

TWO PROPHET’S RELATIONSHIPS

 I will leave the narrative of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath for
the next section of the book, but it should be stated here that this
narrative exemplifies an incredible relationship between Elijah, a
follower of Yahweh, and what was most likely a follower of Baal.
They lived together and Elijah mediated on her behalf with a
tremendous passion (1 Kings 17:21-23). Elisha and Naaman will also
be analyzed in a later section of this book, but this narrative also hints
at a very positive relationship being developed. Another striking
example of an attempt at developing a relationship with non-Israelites
by Elisha is found in 2 Kings 6:21-23 where he mediates on behalf of
an entire army of Syrians and saves their lives. This appears to have
led to Elisha having a very good reputation among the Arameans,
because we find Elisha in 2 Kings 8:7-15 being consulted by none
other than Ben-Hadad, the King of Aram. Ben-Hadad refers to Elisha
as the “man of God” recognizing clearly that Elisha was a prophet of
Yahweh and that this was positive.
All these instances occurred before the time of Jonah’s foray into
Nineveh. Jonah had the shoulders of a pretty impressive group to stand
on, yet he refused to do so. Even people after him would follow these
men’s and women’s example, not only Daniel, but the narratives of
Esther and Nehemiah give a glimpse of post-exile relationships with
non-Israelites that had positive outcomes.
The difference between the above examples and Jonah can be
broken down into a basic formula. Those mentioned above, whether
they realized it or not, were living out the call of God to Abram in
Genesis 12:3. They believed in God, and they took that belief and the
blessings accompanying it and spread them beyond the borders of
Israel. They were, for the most part, open in their belief that God was
Sovereign, and at the very least those they encountered recognized that
God was powerful.
Beyond this they were willing to take their blessings and share
them with others. They developed meaningful, and in some cases,
longlasting relationships with those outside of Israel. While we are
often left to wonder whether or not those outside developed a saving
relationship with God, the important point the Bible seems to be
making is that it was the development of the relationship that is left as
our example. Some may believe, some may reject, but in the end it is
our duty and pleasure to respond to the call of God to Abram by being
 willing to develop relationships with those outside our own faith
communities.
So what if those outside refuse to recognize God or remain aloof to
relationship? While this cannot be avoided completely, the Bible
shows that God will use many methods to reach out to those who have
yet to accept Him. The next section will develop this further, building
off of the established understanding that good, genuine relationships
are the cornerstone for positive interreligious encounters.

A FINAL CALL
The final question of Jonah comes down to the present. The call to love
and serve Hindus is no different than Jonah’s call to reach out to the
Ninevites. God desires that genuine relationships be sought after and
developed among the many Hindus of this world.
We cannot guarantee that through our relationships Hindus will come
into a loving, saving relationship with Jesus. That is not our duty. Our duty
is instead, like Jonah’s, to proclaim the Lord’s way and allow Hindus to
have a chance to choose the God of the Bible as their guide. We must
remember the narratives we have read here, and pray that we will be open
to accepting Hindus who desire to come closer to God. We believe that
Jesus is coming back soon, with this hope in mind we should desire to be
in relationship with Hindus in order to share the hope we have.
Hindus are often more ready, than is often realized, to engage with and
develop meaningful relationships. We must avoid demonizing them or
fostering an attitude toward them that views them as inferior. This is often
done semi-subconsciously, so we must be on guard against the prejudices
that often seep into our minds concerning those from a different worldview
than our own. Jonah did not desire the best for Ninevites, and thus he
missed a tremendous opportunity. The narrative of Jonah has been
preserved to remind us that relationship building is a key to appropriate
mission among Hindus.

ENDNOTES
1 It is interesting to compare these encounters that Solomon had with the encounter of King
Hezekiah and the envoys from Babylon. Hezekiah failed to point the envoys toward God, and,
in fact, appeared to attempt to claim the riches of Israel as his own rather than giving God the
glory. As a result we do not find the Babylonians extolling the God of Israel like Hiram and the
Queen of Sheba do. See 2 Kings 20:12-21 for this narrative.

CASE STUDY
Venkatesh* was an attendee at an Adventist evangelistic series in India. He came from a
Hindu background but through some family members had been convinced to attend the
meetings. At the end of the meetings he decided that what he had heard made sense and he
requested baptism. His request was granted, and he was baptized very soon after that. His
knowledge of his new worldview was limited, and he desperately needed to be nurtured in
his faith.

In the local church where Venkatesh was from the members came from mostly Christian
backgrounds for several generations. They were not accustomed to having “Hindus” attend
or join their church. They believed that it was nearly impossible for a Hindu to “really”
accept Jesus without some sort of ulterior motive. As a result they were not open to
Venkatesh joining their fellowship and spent very little time with him. He was rarely visited,
and no one seemed interested in nurturing his faith. In fact, many believed that he was not
really a Christian and that it was not their responsibility to nurture him because he would not
change anyways.

Venkatesh attempted to maintain a steady attendance at church even though there was
pressure from his relatives to abandon this new faith. Unfortunately, he felt very alone
because those at the church did not spend much time with him either. In the end, he felt
abandoned from both sides which made it very hard for him to grow spiritually. As time went
by and Venkatesh faced various challenges in his life, he found himself returning to the belief
system he had grown up with. Before long Venkatesh was again attending temple puja as
well as attending church. While he has continued to attend the church he has struggled to
understand where he fits into God’s plan. .

*Note the names and places have been changed.

 CHAPTER 6
GOD’S MISSION THROUGH REDEMPTIVE POWER

T HE LAST SECTION SET THE FOUNDATION for interreligious

encounters; this section simply explores another avenue of God’s mission,
which should be understood in light of the previous section, not in place
of. All mission, and especially interreligious mission, should be done with
an attitude of ḥesed as explored in Chapter 3. This chapter, however,
explores an aspect of God’s mission that is more specific—God’s mission
through power.
In this section, several narratives which contain interreligious
encounters will be examined in order to gain a clearer understanding of
how God uses His power in mission to reach beyond Israel’s borders. By
doing this it is hoped that God’s power as mission is better understood as it
relates to His mission among Hindus today.

1 KINGS 17:8-24
First Kings 17:8-24 records two narratives that are relevant to the
concept of God’s mission through power and is an excellent starting point
for our discussion on God’s use of power in mission. Each story contains
the same characters: the prophet Elijah, a widow living in Zarephath, and
her son. In order to understand the relevancy of this narrative to the study,
an understanding of the contextual background is necessary.
Elijah announced to Ahab, King of Israel, that there would be no “rain
or dew” for three years. He then hid in a mountain ravine next to a small
brook where God provided for his sustenance miraculously by having food
brought to him in the mouths of ravens. The brook, however, dried up due
to the drought and so God told Elijah to leave the mountain ravine and go
to Zarephath.
Zarephath was a village that lay between the cities of Tyre and Sidon
in Phoenicia, Israel’s neighbor to the north. In fact, it was in the very
nation that Jezebel, the daughter of a priest of Baal, Ahab’s wife, was
from. Zarephath was in the middle of Baal worship territory. “In sending
Elijah there, God was teaching his people that his power was not confined
to the borders of Israel—that he was not just a god of the hills or plains (1
Kings 20:23), restricted to his home turf ” (Dillard 1999: 23). In other
words, this was an opportunity for God to “prove” His Sovereignty
through an act of power on the “turf ” of another “god.”
Elijah was sent to a widow who resided with her son in Zarephath. The
Bible does not record her religious beliefs in detail. However, it can be
assumed that since she was surrounded by Baal worshippers, she was
probably one herself. The text does imply that she was aware of the God of
Israel as her reply to Elijah’s request for bread reveals (1 Kings 17:12).
Interestingly, she refers to this God as the God of Elijah, not her God (1
Kings 17:12). This implies that she was not a follower of the God of Israel.
These narratives are then records of an encounter between the prophet of
the God of Israel and an adherent of another god/religion.
The encounter is divided into two separate narratives. The first is found
in 17:8-16 and the second in 17:17-24. Each encounter will be analyzed in
sequence, the first being closely tied to the second.
These two narratives contain miraculous events that cannot be
understood outside of the power encounter dynamic. It must be recognized
that there was more going on in these narratives than simply God
maintaining sustenance for His prophet. If that was all that was needed
God could have easily sent Elijah to a widow in Israel; the very fact that
God sent Elijah to foreign territory where another god was the patron deity
is fundamental to understanding the miracles.
Baal was the god of storms and fertility. It was Baal who was believed
to control the rain and dew. He was also considered the highest ranking
god below El in the Canaanite pantheon. It was into the heart of Baal-
worshiping territory that Elijah was sent, surrounded by adherents and
devotees to Baal. Scholars are almost unanimous in recognizing that these
narratives highlight God’s Sovereignty over the whole earth including
Baal’s “territory.” This was more than an interreligious encounter between
two humans; it was a power encounter between God and Baal, on Baal’s
home ground.
When Elijah arrived at the gate to Zarephath, he found the widow God
told him would be there. He found her in dire straits, gathering sticks to
build a fire in order to bake the last of her flour into bread (1 Kings 17:10-
12). After that she expects that both she and her son will die (1 Kings
17:12). The drought in Israel had affected Zarephath as well, which is
significant in light of the fact that Baal supposedly controlled the climate
in this territory. The widow is oblivious, at this point in the narrative, to
the cosmic power display, which has caused the drought in the first place.
Elijah makes what at first appears to be an unexplainable request that
the widow first bake him a small loaf of bread before she bakes bread for
herself and her son. This request is accompanied by the promise that she
should not fear because God (the God of Israel) will provide for her by
making sure her flour bowl is not exhausted and the jar of oil will not be
empty until the Lord sends rain. Amazingly, the widow, who is not a
follower of the God of Israel, does as the prophet requests. As a result, just
as Elijah had promised, miraculously her flour and oil do not run out. The
Bible does not record the reaction of the widow or her son to this miracle.
The second narrative picks up sometime after the first; the text does
not say exactly how much later. All that is revealed is that Elijah had been
given the upper room of the house as a place to stay (1 Kings 17:19),
which reveals that at the very least the widow was willing to show
kindness to this foreign man who believed in a different God. It also points
out that Elijah was willing to live with a foreigner who did not share his
worldview. This goes back to our previous section which noted the
importance of building genuine relationships. At this point the text is
unclear as to the widow’s understanding or feelings about the God of
Israel.
The narrative then records that the widow’s son dies, not from lack of
nutrition, but rather he succumbs to some other disease or affliction. The
cause is unknown, but the result is clear: The son has died. The widow
blames Elijah partly and herself partly. She feels that her own sins have
caused the death of her son, and that this man of God being in her house
has brought God and her sins into close contact, thus killing her son. Elijah
also seems to blame and question God in regard to the death of the boy.
This does not stop him from taking the boy up to his room and pleading
with God to restore the life of this poor widow’s son (1 Kings 17:20). He
then proceeds to stretch the boy out, lays down on the boy three times,
crying out to God as he does this, after which God restores the boy to life
at which time Elijah with the boy returns downstairs to the mother (1
Kings 17:21-23).
The final verse of the narrative is vital to understand the purpose of the
miracles performed in these two narratives. The widow states to Elijah:
“Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the LORD in
your mouth is truth” (1 Kings 17:24 NASB). After this second miracle of
divine intervention, in which the dead son is brought back to life, the
widow acknowledges without any doubts that the God of Elijah is a God
of truth. “The climactic note in the chapter lies not in the restoration of the
boy as much as in the testimony of the woman” (Fretheim 1999: 99). It
was this act of resurrection that contrasted the God of Israel with Baal,
rendering Baal impotent. Now the widow understands that the God of
Israel is the true God.
These narratives are an example of God using His supernatural power
to reveal Himself to an adherent of a world religion outside of Israel. For
this widow miraculous and powerful events were necessary for her to be
able to accept and believe in the God of Israel as the only God. God used
His power to reveal that He was Sovereign. Beyond that He used His
power to bless the widow, her son, and Elijah, even revealing His ability to
save the dead from death, revealing His salvific power. These narratives
are a prime example of God in mission using His power to accomplish His
missional goals as presented in Chapter 1.

THE MISSION IMPLICATIONS

There has been a growth in missiological literature over the last few
decades dealing with “power encounters” and their implications for
mission. Often these are found in the context of various tribal societies or
other groups who put a high value on the power of “spirits” or other
supernatural entities. Often the biblical foundation for the discussions
comes out of the four Gospels or the book of Acts, which record a number
of healing and/or other miraculous events.
Like the narrative of Ruth, the narratives involving Elijah and the
widow are rarely cited in missiological literature. This is bewildering
considering the nature of the encounter and its possible implications for
interreligious encounters. It is assumed in this study that the widow of
Zarephath is comparable with a Hindu who may have limited knowledge
of the God of the Bible but has not chosen to follow that God, nor to
believe that He is the one and only God.

HINDUS AND POWER

While it would be incorrect to lump all Hindus’ understanding of
power into one group, it is appropriate to state that power is of vital
interest to many Hindus. This section is primarily concerned with “popular
Hinduism’s” view of power, as it relates to a Hindu’s religious beliefs and
understandings.
There is no doubt that many Hindus turn to their deities for power.
This is done in a variety of ways and through a variety of rituals. This
section will not be comprehensive, but instead will isolate a few examples
that demonstrate the connection that some Hindus make concerning power
and their religious beliefs. First, a broad look at Hindus’ belief in
supernatural power will be undertaken, then, a more specific look at
Hindus and healing.

WHERE HINDUS FIND POWER

Temples are often a place where a Hindu will go in order to gain
access to the god/goddess, at which time they can then beseech the
god/goddess for power on their behalf. As mentioned in Chapter 1, one of
the main purposes Hindus go to temples is to perform darshana, seeing
and being seen by the god/goddess. As noted, this is done to receive a
blessing. It also provides a chance to partake of the deities’ power. Fuller
describes this encounter:
Shiva in particular is often represented with a third eye in
the center of his forehead, from which his fiery power flows
out, but on all divine images (as well as on men and
women) the mark above the bridge of the nose symbolizes
the third eye, the point from which power emanates. Thus
when devotees look at images they are also standing in the
field of the deities’ power and absorbing it like light
through their own eyes [emphasis added] (Fuller 2004: 59-
60).
This observation gives insight into the devotees’ understanding of
where they believe true power lies. It is found in the deity, but can be
accessed through darshana.
Goddesses are especially powerful and often feared as a result of their
uncontrollable Shakti or power. Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and
prosperity, is often worshipped in the home of devotees. In the book
Invoking Lakshmi it is noted that:
 The underlying purpose of performing a pūjā to any of the
Hindu deities is to generate power of auspiciousness. . . .
The Lakshmi pūjā is performed to arouse the power of śri—
a richness of being that enlivens health, wealth, beauty,
prosperity, longevity, happiness, harmony, well-being,
balance, glory, majesty, splendor, and luxurious bounty
(Rhodes 2010: 93-94).
The goddess can also be accessed in her temples, although often home
worship is preferred. These are just two examples of deities being
connected to power—a power that the Hindu believes is accessible.
However, in order to access that power, there are a number of set rituals
and procedures that one must do in order to have any chance of obtaining
power from the deity. Hindus believe that as a result of their diligent
performance of puja that “miracles can and do occur frequently” (Huyler
1999: 36)
Many of the Hindu festivals celebrated each year celebrate great acts
of power, performed by either a god or goddess. One example is
Navaratri, a nine-day festival that marks the terrible battle between the
demon Mahishasura and the gods. Mahishasura had become indestructible
and defeated the gods. Finally, the goddess/shakti came to save the day
and after nine days of battle killed the demon. The goddesses Durga,
Lakshmi, and Saraswati are worshipped during this festival as the
goddesses of immense power and strength (Maithily 2006: 111-116).1
This is only a sampling of the variety of connections that can be made
between Hindus, their deities, festivals, and power. There is no doubt that
many Hindus have a strong belief that there are supernatural powers that
interact with the beings on this earth. They often fear these powers, but at
the same time wish to obtain some of the power for their own benefit
through the various means as shown above.

HEALING POWER
In a more specific way Hindus often turn to the deities for healing
power. This is done, again, in a variety of fashions. As in all cultures and
religions there is often an elaborate system set in place to deal with ill
health, sickness, and disease. Whether this is done in a secular manner or a
more religious manner does not change the fact that humans desire to be
healed. It is no different with Hindus who face ill health; they desire to be
freed from it.
 The practice of ayurvedic medicine is an ancient practice, tracing its
origins to the Vedas, an ancient Hindu text. It has become a popular form
of healthcare far beyond the borders of India. It is not unusual to find
practitioners of ayurvedic medicine throughout the world, many non-
Indians included. David M. Knipe in his research on ayurveda medicine
has made some pertinent observations. The patients who come to the
ayurvedic doctor often have a variety of different ailments. Everything
from “sexual impotence,” to “loss of teeth” can be treated. While the
practitioner often does prescribe different forms of natural medicine, they
often also go beyond this. It is not uncommon for the practitioner to read
mantras from various ancient religious texts in the hope that these may
bring healing. This is often accompanied by exorcisms of some kind,
because often ill health is attributed to evil spirits or malevolent deities
(Knipe 1989). While not all practitioners use the same methods—some
avoid any type of connection to the supernatural—many others practice a
type of healing that requires a power beyond themselves or natural
medicines.
It is also quite common to find the sick and ailing being taken to the
local temple, before or sometimes in place of seeing a medical doctor. For
centuries, local village goddesses were believed to be the cause of major
sicknesses, like smallpox. As a result, when someone was sick that person
needed to perform some sort of appeasing act for the goddess in the hope
that this would lead to healing. This often has included animal sacrifices,
which can be seen to this day in some Indian villages.
Often misfortune is also attributed to malevolent spirits or deities.
There are diviners and exorcists who are called upon for dealing with these
spirits. Yet, as Fuller describes:
None of these ways of coping with malevolent ghostly
spirits is reckoned to be foolproof, and there is widespread
doubt about the competence of diviners and exorcists, as
well as about the efficacy of either relocating and
enshrining spirits, or abandoning and confusing them.
Spirits have an uncanny ability to repossess their victims
and, because none of them can ever be exterminated, even
by powerful deities, the risk of attack from old or new
predators is always present (Fuller 2004: 233).
This paragraph highlights the desire, but often helplessness, of Hindus
in gaining power to rid themselves of malevolent spirits.
To be fair, there are also many times when Hindus visit the deity at the
temple or a diviner and then the sick person gets well. This obviously is
then accredited to the deity/diviner as healer. An example is given in the
book Meeting God where a grandmother takes her granddaughter, who is
suffering from cholera, and puts her before an image of the goddess
Parvati. “Within seconds her fever has abated and she is entirely healed of
the disease” (Huyler 1999: 214). There are many more stories like this one
told by people of all ages throughout India.
This section has emphasized that many Hindus are believers in power
beyond the human realm. They adhere to a belief that this power can be
accessed and even at times can be attained for healing purposes. There is
an understanding that the deities, whether good or malevolent, play a role
in the well-being of all people, and that this power is dangerous but also
useful.

THE HINDU CONTEXT UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF THE

NARRATIVES
With the understanding that many Hindus respect the supernatural as a
relevant source of power it is then possible to apply the principles from the
narrative to the present Hindu context. This final section addresses the
possibilities as well as some of the dangers of power encounters as they
pertain to Hindus.
Research has shown that many Non-Baptized Believers in Christ
(NBBCs) have decided to follow Jesus because they believe that they have
received some sort of healing in response to prayers to Him. Hoefer makes
the following observation: “They [NBBCs] choose Him among the
plethora of gods and goddesses because they think He may have the
compassion and power to heal them now as He helped the sick and the
lame of His day” (Hoefer 2001: 58). He goes on to point out some key
characteristics of these healing situations. “People often experienced this
effective love of Christ through the prayers of his ministers” (Hoefer 2001:
59). In other words, these moments of healing came in the presence of a
believer in God.
The narrative of Elijah and the widow can provide a helpful framework
for understanding how a power encounter(s) can lead to a more complete
understanding of and faith in God. In the narratives of 1 Kings 17, a few
things can be observed that are significant. First of all, these miracles take
place in the presence of a believer in Yahweh. While the narrative is clear
both miracles are actions of God, they still happen in a context where a
believer in God is present. It would seem that in order for the widow to
really be able to understand and give credit to the God who deserved the
credit, these power encounter(s) had to occur in this type of context. The
widow could just have easily credited Baal with causing her flour and oil
to sustain her family and for bringing her son back to life if Elijah had not
been there and been vocal about the fact that it was Yahweh doing these
things. This seems to fit with the experience of Hindus as noted above. If a
Hindu has been prayed for by a believer in the God of the Bible and the
prayer is answered in a positive way, they often make the connection
between the believer’s prayer and their God.
Second, it took two miracles, and the second was an even greater
display of power than the first. It would seem that God used two displays
of power to make it clear to the widow who He was, partly because one
was not enough. These also were miracles that clearly portrayed Yahweh
as a God who cares, even for those whose station in life appears lowly and
insignificant. The miracles affirmed God as a God who is Sovereign and
who desires to bless.
In the context of an adherent of another religion, it was His caring,
miraculous power in the face of great suffering that mattered most. It also
proved that Baal was incomparable to this God, and therefore not worthy
of worship. This seems to fit Hoefer’s own observations in regard to
Hindus experiencing God’s power.
These people experienced the love and power of Christ in
their personal lives. . . . They face the real threat of
‘principalities and powers in high places’ in their lives, so
they need to know that Jesus is able and willing to care for
them. A god may have the power, but he may not have
love. Another god may have love but not power. A third
god may have both but not care about me. All three are
needed: God’s love, God’s power, and for me [emphasis in
original] (Hoefer 2001: 59).
Mission to Hindus may include similar types of power displays. Many
in the West have been reluctant to deal with the power they find in other
belief systems. But for a Hindu, power is important, and displays of power
by the deity reinforce the value of that particular deity. As the biblical
narrative has shown, God is willing to display His power in a meaningful
and caring way toward adherents of religions outside of Israel. But it must
be remembered that these miracles took place in the presence of a believer
in Yahweh. Therefore, it would seem that even today in order for a power
encounter to bring the Hindu into a greater knowledge of God, it needs to
take place in a situation where the Hindu is aware that it is God doing this
on their behalf. This will most likely occur in the presence of a believer in
God. At times, simply a lifestyle of ḥesed may not be enough to help the
Hindu understand who God is. But when they come into contact with His
power in a meaningful and caring way, this may be what is needed for
them to grow in faith.

PRAYER IS ESSENTIAL
Prayer must not be forgotten in this situation. Elijah prays fervently for
the widow’s son when he dies. In answer to this prayer, God resurrects the
son. Applying this means that anyone in a relationship with a Hindu must
take their life challenges seriously. When they are struggling, the believer,
like Elijah, should genuinely take their concerns to God. God does listen as
the narrative portrays, and in this type of situation, where the very faith of
the widow is at stake God answered the prayer in such a way as to not only
bring her son to life but also to strengthen the widow’s faith in Him. It may
be that one of the ways for Hindus to come into a more meaningful
relationship with God is through similar power encounters.
Tying the previous section’s emphasis on an attitude of hesed with this
chapter shows that God’s display of power combined with a relationship
built on genuineness is the kind of combination God is looking for.

ENDNOTES
1 For more on this festival and the rituals connected to it, see Jagannathan Maithily, South Indian
Hindu Festivals and Traditions (New Delhi, India: Abhinav Publications, 2006), 111-116.
 CHAPTER 7
GOD’S POWER TO USE DREAMS AND VISIONS IN
MISSION

W E WILL COME BACK TO MORE POWER ENCOUNTERS

similar to those pointed out in the previous chapter but before that we need
to consider another form of supernatural encounter that God used to
engage those from outside Israel. This form is primarily known as dreams
and visions of which there are numerous examples in Scripture. We will
limit ourselves to some examples involving people outside of Israel who
experienced dreams or visions that eventually brought them into a very
real encounter with Yahweh.
The two most prominent examples in the Old Testament of God using
dreams and visions take us back to Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon.
We looked carefully in Chapter 3 at these two individuals and their
interaction with their captors through genuine relationships. With that in
mind, we will now look more carefully at how God used dreams and
visions to draw these two kings closer to Him with the help of his servants
Joseph and Daniel.
Once again there are some similarities between the narratives found in
Genesis and in Daniel that can help us understand better God’s reasoning
behind using dreams and visions to enhance His presence among those
outside Israel. It is important to recognize these trends in order to better
apply them today as we interact with those in the Hindu context.

IMPORTANCE OF DREAMS AND VISIONS

First and foremost, it is very clear in the narratives of Genesis 40 and
41 as well as Daniel 2 and 4 that dreams/visions were recognized by the
Egyptians and Babylonians as manifestations that could be used by the
deities to communicate to humans. This is one reason why they had so
many magicians and astrologers on hand (Genesis 41:8; Daniel 2:2). It
must have been a fairly common occurrence for the pharaohs and kings to
have dreams that needed interpretation. Therefore, if God used dreams to
communicate with them He was working within their understood
paradigms of reason. He was not attempting to reveal Himself through an
unknown form of communication but rather used the accepted form
already in practice.
There was a caveat to this, however. While it was clear the dreams
God gave these men were from a supernatural source they were difficult to
understand. The wise men who normally interpreted the dreams were left
without satisfactory explanations, thus separating these dreams from the
average ones that the pharaohs and kings were used to having. God used
an accepted method of communication but in such a way that there would
be little doubt as to the source (Genesis 41:8; Daniel 2:2-11; 4:7).

DREAMING IN THE PRESENCE OF BELIEVERS

Looking more carefully at the way God used people to aid Him in His
mission is also of great importance. Joseph and Daniel had proven
themselves to be trustworthy, young men who clearly had a connection
with their God. Joseph had even interpreted dreams before while in prison,
both of which came true exactly as he had interpreted. It is clear that he
gave this credit to God and not his own ability (Genesis 40). Daniel had
proven to be wiser than all the other wise men in Babylon after going
through the three year training and surpassing all those around him.
Therefore, already before the dreams of these kings these two men had
distinguished themselves as wise men.
It is also interesting that these men were in close proximity to those
having the dreams, yet far enough away that they had to be called for
separately from all the other wise men and magicians. God used this to
emphasize their uniqueness from the rest of the wise men. Joseph was in
prison but had known the Pharaoh’s cupbearer in prison and so had a
contact right next to the Pharaoh. Daniel was already a part of the royal
court in some capacity and therefore was actually included in the decree to
kill all the wise men even though he had not been directly summoned to
give an interpretation.
Because of the close proximity and because of developed relationships,
these men were able to gain access to those having dreams. As already
mentioned, Joseph had correctly interpreted the dream of Pharaoh’s
cupbearer in prison. Daniel had a good relationship with Arioch, who was
appointed by the king to kill all the wise men. God had placed Joseph and
Daniel in situations where the relationships they built could lead to even
greater opportunities of witness for Him.
If God had sent these same dreams to Pharaoh and King
Nebuchadnezzar without Joseph and Daniel nearby, the results would have
been very different. But as we noted in the previous chapter, God usually
performs acts of power in the presence of a faithful believer in Him, in
order to help those who may not know Him to understand first that He is
Sovereign and secondly that He is concerned about them.

CREDITING GOD
Most importantly, once Joseph and Daniel gain access to those who
have had the vision they are very clear that they cannot interpret dreams.
This goes against all that the wise men of the day stood for, and normally
would result in demotion or worse. But remaining true to their belief and
faith in God these men immediately point to God as the source of all
interpretations, before they even begin to tell what the dreams meant
(Genesis 41:25; Daniel 2:27-28). They make sure to give the credit where
it is due, even in the face of those who do not believe in their God. This
lays the foundation for possible further development in the faith of the
dreamer.
Once they have made it clear that the interpretation is from God, they
then proceed to give the interpretation. In both cases, they give the facts as
God has revealed them, but do it in a very respectful way, recognizing the
authority of the Pharaoh and King. There is no sense of “we are better than
you” anywhere in these men’s speeches. Continuing their practice of
respecting the “other,” they proceed to give God’s message as clearly and
concisely as they can. In Joseph’s case, he is even willing to give a
possible solution to the impending problem that the dream implies
(Genesis 41:33-36). After Daniel gives Nebuchadnezzar the interpretation
of the dream of a tree cut down he pleads with the king to repent in order
to avoid disaster (Daniel 4:27). Both men receive accolades as does their
God for being able to accurately interpret the dreams. In fact, in the case of
Joseph, we find the first instance in the Bible where the Spirit of God is
recognized in someone (Genesis 41:37). What is even more fascinating
about this instance is that the recognition comes from the lips of Pharaoh,
not a fellow Hebrew but an Egyptian. Clearly, God was able to reveal
Himself through the dreams and visions as presented in Genesis and
Daniel.
God can and does use dreams and visions where they are useful in
revealing Himself. This is especially true in parts of the world where there
is a religious atmosphere that puts a high value on acts of the supernatural.
Much of the world recognizes that dreams can be more than indigestion
from the previous night’s meal or mere psychological occurrences with
little meaning. Many Hindus believe that dreams can have their origin in
the supernatural and often contain important meaning that affects their
everyday life.

HINDU UNDERSTANDING OF DREAMS

One aspect of Hindus belief that puts emphasis on visions is the
repeated chanting of god/goddesses name. It is believed and hoped that
through the ritualistic, repeated chanting of the deity’s name you will be
given a vision of that deity. This borders on the ultimate experience for
any devotee, to be able to see the deity in its real form. Bhakti or true
devotion often aims at this as a primary goal.
Many of the so-called holy men of India gain large followings after
they reveal the content of dreams and visions they have had of the deity.
Often they are able to recollect vivid descriptions and use deep
philosophical language to describe the essence of the deity they saw in
vision. Along with this they often fall into trances, and physically show
manifestations of being in vision. It is often these descriptions and
experiences that draw people to become their followers, in hopes that they
too will be given visions and experiences of the deity. Needless to say,
dreams and visions are various kinds are given high importance by many
Hindus.

GOD’S DESIRE TO USE DREAMS AND VISIONS TODAY

Could it be that God desires to use more dreams and visions in
interreligious encounters than realized? If so, what role does the believer in
the God of the Bible play? Clearly, the above two narratives give much for
thought in this often-neglected area. Those who are believers in the God of
the Bible should be ready and willing to become dream interpreters rather
than dream skeptics. This requires that the believer be in close proximity
to those who God may choose to reveal Himself in a dream. As noted
above, both Joseph and Daniel had first developed key relationships with
individuals who were outside their own faith traditions before God used
dreams to reveal Himself and His plan.

THE HAGAR EXAMPLE

There is a story in Genesis which involves God manifesting Himself to
someone who seems to reiterate His desire that human beings be involved
in the revealing of Himself. In Genesis 16, we read about Hagar running
away from Sarai and Abram but in the process having an encounter with
Yahweh. She was an Egyptian who would have come from a background
very different from the worship of Yahweh that was upheld in the camp of
Abram. It is clear in her encounter with God that this was a kind of ah-ha
moment. Verse 13 records Hagar’s reaction to the encounter by naming the
God whom she has just encountered. She says that God is the God who
sees, another way of saying He is real and that He cares about me.
What seems strange at first glance is the fact that she is immediately
told to return to a domestic situation that was unhealthy at best (Genesis
16:9). Relationally, things were not working between her and Sarai, so
why would God ask her to return at this point? One reason may have been
that now that she had seen God in a very real and unique way she needed
someone to help her develop a relationship with this God and guide her
through the process of faith building. Thus, God asks Hagar to return to
her master and mistress in the hopes that they will do a better job in the
future of sharing His character with her.
While we read later that Hagar eventually does leave it would seem
that she was at least brought into a somewhat clearer understanding of
God. There seems to be evidence in Scripture that the descendants of both
Hagar and Keturah did maintain some sense of Yahweh worship even
though they lived separate from Isaac’s descendants, which is exemplified
later among the Midianites who Moses lived among (Exodus 18; Isaiah
21:16; Matthew 2:1-12).
The main point here is that God revealed Himself in a supernatural
way to someone outside of the Hebrew group, but He still sent that person
back to the group rather than attempt to reveal Himself continually through
supernatural means. This appears to reinforce the concept that God uses
humans along with dreams to accomplish His mission. Even those who are
alone and experience God need to eventually be among a group who
believes in order to grow their faith.
Sadhu Sunder Singh is a very famous traveling Indian ascetic who, as a
young Hindu/Sikh man, had a vision of Christ which completely
transformed his life. He sought out Christians who guided him in his faith
walk and then eventually went out on his own as a traveling ascetic
teaching about Jesus. For him and for others like him, their journey with
Christ started through a dream (Boyd 1991: 86-109).
God is still willing to reveal Himself today through dreams and visions
and other similar types of encounters. Often though this is done in a
context where the receiver of the dream has already been in contact with a
believer in God or is able to find some believers nearby. This does not
guarantee however that they will grow in faith. God has put responsibility
on His followers to do their part in bringing people to a deeper level of
faith. Often His followers fall short of doing this appropriately and many
opportunities are missed as a result. There needs to be more openness to
these types of manifestations of God among those in the Hindu context
because this is often how God has chosen to reveal Himself in the past.

CASE STUDY
Rajesh is a young man who grew up in a high-caste Hindu home. Despite the fact that his
parents were devout Hindus, he had questions concerning their rituals and beliefs systems
that he struggled to find answers for. As he moved into early adulthood he began having
dreams about Jesus and Christians. As a result he went to the Internet in order to learn more
about these people he was dreaming about. Through his online searches, he eventually came
to some Adventist websites that he felt contained answers to many of his questions.

As a result he sought out the Adventists in his locality in Southern India. Eventually he found
a church and began attending and interacting with the members. There were a number of
members who befriended him and gave him Bible studies as well. It was not long after he
started attending that he decided to follow Jesus wholeheartedly. This has been a challenging
decision because his family has struggled to accept this decision. However, when he related
to them the dreams that he had and how that led him to find the Adventists they have shown
some interest in knowing more.

They were less interested in the beliefs and more interested in the experience he had and is
having as an Adventist. He has recognized that in order to witness relevantly for his faith he
needs to pray that those near to him would also have dreams that can lead them to Jesus.
Many have doubted his experiences inside the church while few from outside question it. He
has since studied theology and worked in a local church using his own experience as a
testimony for others.

*Note the names and places have been changed.

 CHAPTER 8
COMING TO FAITH THROUGH OTHER’S POWER
ENCOUNTERS

T HERE IS A PARTICULAR CHAIN OF EVENTS in the history of

Israel where God displayed His power in a very unique and memorable
way. The plagues of Egypt were clearly acts of power in the setting of an
interreligious encounter. Many scholars have commented on what appears
to be a direct confrontation on the part of God toward several deities of the
Egyptian pantheon. Along with this there are other key texts that show
God was not only attempting to separate Himself from the Egyptian gods
but also bring the Egyptians into a relationship with Him. The acts of
power were meant to show the world that God was Sovereign and that He
cared for those who trusted Him. It was first of all meant for the Egyptians
and Israelites, but as will be seen it created a lasting legacy that would
affect interreligious encounters for years into the future.
A number of scholars have dealt with the issue of each plague and its
connection with the gods of Egypt so I will not repeat those studies
unnecessarily here. It is important to remember as a backdrop that part of
God’s desire is for people to see Him as Sovereign and therefore it should
not be surprising that the choice of plagues would deem the gods of Egypt
inept at best. But there is more to these acts of power than simply an
attempt to degrade the Egyptian religion. God clearly desired that the
Egyptians understood He was God and then act on that understanding in a
more positive way.
There are a number of key texts that lead to this conclusion found all
throughout the narrative of the plagues. God first of all showed His power
in relation to the natural world in order to help the Egyptians recognize
Him as Sovereign (Exodus 9:14-16). This is done in basically all the
plagues. Another key component is that the plagues affect Egyptians but
do not harm the Israelites and the land they lived in (Exodus 8:22-23). This
fits with what has been stated in previous chapters that God’s acts of
power usually come in the context where He has His servants nearby to
represent Him. In this case, Moses is constantly representing Him, but at
the same time by not allowing the plagues to harm the Israelites the
Egyptians have no choice but to recognize that the God doing these acts is
the God of the Israelites. Therefore, if they want to know more about Him
or how to interact with Him, they must go through the Israelites and
particularly Moses (Exodus 10:7).

SLOW RECOGNITION
There are a few more interesting elements that can be detected in the
narrative as well. The tone of the people around Pharaoh as each plague
passes begins to change. At first the magicians can replicate the plagues
and therefore aid in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. But by the third
plague they are no longer able to do this, causing them to start to ask
questions (Exodus 8:19). Slowly even Pharaoh himself on a few different
occasions admits that he has “sinned,” although he is not genuine in his
repentance. Exodus 10:7 records that the officials around Pharaoh
eventually advised Pharaoh to be careful with Moses because it had
become clear that whatever he spoke came to pass. They moved from
doubters to believers, though not necessarily with faith and trust toward
God.
By Exodus 11:3 we find that many of the officials have come around
to the point of respecting Moses and His God. By the time Pharaoh lets the
people go it is implied in Exodus 12:38 that many Egyptians actually left
with the Israelites, which means after witnessing and experiencing the
plagues they had become convinced that the God of Israel was not
someone they wanted to be separated from. Even Pharaoh, who never
chooses to follow God, admits that God is real and even asks that Moses
pray for a blessing on his behalf (Exodus 12:32).
With the culminating act of parting the Red Sea, God’s action go down
through the ages as memorable acts of power and are heard about far
beyond the land of Egypt, which was actually one of the stated goals of all
these acts of power as found in Exodus 10:1-2. God most definitely used
these acts of power to make an impression on the Egyptians, but they were
also meant to reach beyond the Egyptians to the surrounding nations as
well.
DRASTIC MEASURES
What some may struggle with is the seemingly negative way in which
God used his power. The plagues caused a lot of harm and even death both
among animals and people. How is this possibly a part of God’s mission?
While questions like this often evade a definite answer there is no doubt
that God’s ultimate goal was to bring people into contact with Him. The
first step in doing that was making sure He was recognized as Sovereign
over the earth. Until that was established it would be very hard for anyone
to be able to take the further steps of developing a faithful relationship
with Him. In this particular case God saw the need for drastic measures to
ensure that His mission was accomplished. God may not use such drastic
measures today, although we need to be careful not to limit God to our
own constructs, but there is no doubt that He can and will still use His
power to reveal Himself to those who do not know Him.

THE LONG-TERM WITNESS

If we fast forward to the time of Joshua, we find that the events of
Egypt were still fresh in the minds of many of those who lived in the
surrounding nations. Rahab expresses a very real faith in the God of Israel
to the spies in her house in Jericho. Why does she make a statement of
faith? Because she and everyone else in the city have heard about what
God did to the Egyptians. Rahab did not even have to experience the
events firsthand to be greatly challenged by them. It sounds as though all
of Jericho was also thinking about these events. The difference between
Rahab and the rest is that she decided it was better to side with this God
than to simply be afraid of Him and hope that the gods of Jericho would
protect her (Joshua 2:9-11). One of the main reasons the Gibeonites
desired to make a treaty with Israel was because they too had heard of
what God had done in Egypt (Joshua 9:9). Clearly the acts of power
displayed in Egypt had far-reaching witnessing power and brought people
to God who may not have come to Him otherwise.
Even as late as the time of Eli and Samuel we find surrounding nations
still referring to these events that took place in Egypt. When the Israelites
decided to bring the Ark of Covenant into the camp to use for battle
against the Philistines it brought a great shout among the camp. When the
Philistines heard this, they became afraid and made the statement that they
were doomed now because the God of the Israelites was the same God
who had wreaked all that havoc on the Egyptians. This was hundreds of
years later and yet still those acts of power were meaningful, even if they
did not lead directly to faith (1 Samuel 4:6-9).
While God may not do something exactly like He did in Egypt among
Hindus, He may use another method that displays His power in ways that
leave no doubt about His involvement. Again we must be participants in
order for this to work. God displayed His power in a context where there
were believers in Him making it clear that it was God’s power. Are there
enough followers of God in and among Hindus for Him to do acts of
power that can then be understood by Hindus through His follower’s
guidance?
There are examples in the Hindu context of similar occurrences. It is
not uncommon for an individual or couple to have a dream or to
experience answered prayer in their lives and then share this with their
extended family. If the extended family is convinced that their experience
was real they too often desire to learn more about the God behind the
dreams or answered prayer. They do not need to have their own power
encounter with God; instead the testimony of those close to them is
enough, much like those who heard about God’s acts of power but were
not directly involved, and yet still chose to believe in Him.

GREAT CONTROVERSY
At the risk of leaving out a number of crucial interreligious power
encounters we will wrap up this section with an overview of the above as it
relates to the Hindu context of the present. What should be clear at this
point is that God has and can use His power as a tool of mission to draw
those who do not know Him into a relationship with Him.
As we have seen in other narratives that have been studied there are
often key texts that portray a person or group shifting allegiance away
from their former beliefs toward God. Part of God’s desire is that
allegiance be shifted, from following a false concept of God, usually
influenced by the work of Satan and his helpers, to a more accurate
understanding of who God is. This is often referred to as the great
controversy between God and Satan.
I am not implying that all those who are not following the God of the
Bible are following Satan outright. They usually are not, in reality they are
worshipping other gods/goddesses because that is what they have been
taught, never knowing there really is an alternative until they are
confronted by God. This also does not imply that Satan is not working; he
is working very hard and even during the biblical narratives he was
influencing these other systems of belief that led to a skewed
understanding of God.
It is in this context that God’s power can be better understood as a tool
to draw people away from their false understandings toward a clearer
understanding of Him. Notice I have purposely said clearer for we still
only see as though looking at “a reflection in the mirror” (1 Corinthians
13:12). His acts of power often are noticed by more than just these directly
affected, having a reach that no other act of mission can have.
In the first section, we began our foundation for God’s mission to
Hindus by taking a closer look at several Old Testament narratives which
exemplified God’s mission through relationships. This led us into this
section which carefully reviewed several narratives in which God’s
mission through power was displayed, especially in the context of an
interreligious encounter. As we contemplate our mission to Hindus, it is
these two elements, mission through relationships and mission through
power that need careful consideration and practical application. The final
chapters of this book will focus on the need for patience and diligence in
our mission, once again taking an example from the Old Testament as our
guide.

CASE STUDY
Pramod* is a teenager who has grown up a Hindu in a strong Hindu community. A point
came in his life when he began having serious issues with demon possession. His family took
him to the temple and asked local priests to help him but none of their efforts seemed to have
any long-term effect.

In Pramod’s community a group of young adult Adventists began visiting frequently to some
of his neighbor’s homes. They came every week and prayed at each house. Beyond that they
shared stories from the Bible and even had special activities for children.

One of Pramod’s neighbors alerted the group about Pramod’s condition and battles with
demon possession. They came and prayed for Pramod and since that time he has not had any
more trouble with the demons. His family is also very happy and as a result of this
experience his brother and sisters have shown interest in learning more from the young group
of Adventists. There are several other people who have started participating in the gatherings
because they have heard what God has done for Pramod. When asked why they have shown
so much interest even though they themselves have not experienced any direct miracles they
point to the experience of Pramod as an event that is equal to a miracle in their own lives.
Note the names and places have been changed.
*Note the names and places have been changed.
 CHAPTER 9
GOD’S MISSION THROUGH PATIENT
ENCOURAGEMENT

T HE PREVIOUS SECTIONS EXPLORED NARRATIVES that had

significant missiological implications. This chapter will explore one more
narrative that in many ways contains elements found in several of the
narratives already explored. Second Kings 5:1-19 is a well-known story,
taught even to children at an early age. It contains elements of genuine
kindness and caring as well as a power encounter scenario, which ties it to
the previous sections. Furthermore it contains practical guidance for the
missioner who is interacting with Hindus. For these reasons, this narrative
has been chosen as the final Old Testament example to demonstrate
another aspect of God’s mission.

UNUSUAL NARRATIVE
Second Kings 5:1-19 is an unusual and unique narrative in many
respects. There is no doubt that this narrative is somewhat complex, and
scholars have disagreed over the meaning of portions of it for centuries.
One thing is for certain though. This is yet another example of an
interreligious encounter in the Old Testament. Naaman is a Syrian, and
Syrians at this time worshipped Rimmon, not Yahweh.
Beyond this, there are other unique and peculiar events in the narrative.
A slave girl serves as the main connection between a powerful army
commander and the prophet of Israel. The other servants in the story play
key roles as well. Finally, after the healing of Naaman takes place, he
makes two peculiar requests, which Elisha answers in an odd and, to some,
shocking manner.
Rather than give a verse-by-verse analysis of the narrative, the focus
will be on certain portions of the narrative that are particularly applicable
in the context of a Hindu coming to faith in the God of the Bible. Verses
15-19 are especially significant for understanding God’s mission as it
relates to Hindus, therefore these particular verses will be the main focus
of this chapter. And from these verses a working theology that can be
applied missiologically will appear.

TWO REQUESTS
Naaman makes two interesting and controversial requests of Elisha
after he has been healed. These are presented as dilemmas concerning his
worship once he returns to his land. First, Naaman requests that he be
allowed to carry back to Syria two mule loads of soil (2 Kings 5:17).
Second, he asks for a pardon from Elisha (2 Kings 5:18). Why? Because
he knows that when he returns to his country the king is going to ask him
to enter the temple of Rimmon to worship. He will bow with the king but
in his heart he will worship the God of Israel. To these two requests Elisha
simply answers “go in peace.” Each of this requests are of interest to our
study and therefore will both be addressed.

TWO MULE LOADS OF SOIL

This request of Naaman must be understood in its context. Many
scholars have debated the real meaning behind this odd request, but there
are some basic points of consensus among scholars. It is recognized that
this request is made in light of Naaman’s statement that he will no longer
make sacrifices to any other god. This leads many interpreters to conclude
that the soil requested is in some way connected to sacrifices or an altar to
perform sacrifices on. This alone, however, still leaves some doubt as to
the motives of Naaman for taking Israelite soil.
Some scholars are reluctant to find much meaning in this request. They
pass it off as Naaman attempting to maintain a liturgical connection with
the land where he has first encountered Yahweh, but they refuse to see any
sort of syncretism or dual allegiance in his request. Others have found his
request as showing a total lack of true understanding of who God is. They
tie this request to the common tradition that deities were overseers of
particular land, and that once you passed out of a particular deities’
territory you were in the domain of a different deity. Therefore, it is
deduced that Naaman was of the mind-set that Syria was beyond the
territory of Yahweh, so in order to maintain contact with this powerful and
true God he must have some of the soil from Israel.
Based on the historical context and the textual context, there may be
some truth in both of these positions. It does appear that Naaman makes a
pretty strong statement in a belief that there is only one God, the God of
Israel. At the same time he is clearly still influenced by his Syrian
worldview that gods were territorial—this appears to be a major reason
behind his request for soil. This being the case, then Naaman did not have
a complete understanding of God as Sovereign over all the earth, even
though he may have begun to understand that there was no God like
Yahweh and that his own previous god(s) were not really god(s) at all.
If the above is true, which the text seems to support, then Elisha’s
answer “go in peace” may initially appear problematic for some. Here is
the prophet of God allowing a new convert to leave his presence with a
faulty understanding of God, and he does nothing to admonish or correct
him. If this were the only problem it may not be so bad, but Naaman’s
second request is in many ways more shocking.

BOWING TO AN IDOL
After Naaman’s first request, he goes on to make an even bolder one.
Naaman has clearly thought about what his newfound faith may mean
when he returns to his home country, which religiously is very different
from Israel. He recognizes that when he returns, the king of Syria, who has
shown much kindness to him in the past, will want him to come and
worship at the temple of Rimmon with him. This is not a question of
whether it will happen, but rather what to do when it happens. Naaman
knows for a fact that he will be asked to go to the temple with the king.
In Naaman’s mind, he must go. There does not appear room for
another option at this point in Naaman’s thinking. He is not asking Elisha
if it is OK to go, but rather, can he be pardoned for going and bowing
down. It is also clear that at least at first Naaman is not planning on telling
the king about his newfound faith. This is made clear when Naaman makes
the point that in his heart, not openly, he will worship Yahweh and not
Rimmon. In short, Naaman is requesting that he be pardoned for what will
appear to those all around him to be continued worship of Rimmon, who is
a false god and idol. Can idol worship ever be overlooked? Even “fake”
idol worship? Elisha’s answer “go in peace” implies in this situation that
Naaman’s request for pardon is granted.
As with the first request, Elisha has no rebuke or admonishment for
Naaman. He does not explain to him that he must speak boldly of his new
faith even if it means being cut off from his community or possibly death.
Is there theological significance to these two requests and Elisha’s answer?

IS NAAMAN BEING SYNCRETISTIC?

Some argue that Naaman’s questions reveal a weak understanding of
God. Some could go so far as to accuse him of “syncretism,” mixing his
false, pagan worldview of God with his newfound faith in God. What are
the implications of Naaman’s questions and Elisha’s answer of “go in
peace?” If this is a form of syncretism, can this narrative be a valid
example of a positive worldview transformation? The answers to these
questions inform the missiological outcome of this narrative.

SYNCRETISM
Over that last several decades, the term syncretism as become a key
term heavily used in mission literature, especially in connection with
contextualization and how far contextualization should go. Defining
syncretism, however, has not been easy for many, and continues to be a
fluid task. There are a variety of definitions extant, some which basically
call all non-biblical practices syncretistic; others look at it as a turning
away from clear biblical teaching back to a culturally unacceptable
alternative; and some have associated it with a lack of critical thinking on
the part of the one sharing the gospel while others would blame the
recipient. Because of this, “there is a growing recognition that syncretism
is not a simple process of conscious oil-and-water compromise” (Conn
1984: 184). If the definition is so ambiguous, it is difficult to be able to
take the Naaman narrative and check it for syncretism. What this narrative
may be able to do is highlight the futility of the syncretism arguments that
continue to surround the debate.

THE SOIL
There is no doubt that Naaman, by asking for soil from Israel, was
still thinking that God was territorial. The historical context leaves
little room for any other interpretation. The question is: Does this
qualify as syncretism? Or does it fall into a different, less-defined
category?
Naaman is not turning away from a clear biblical understanding of
God. He simply does not have a mature understanding of God, which
is to be expected since it has been such a short time since he has
known anything about Yahweh. While he has made a major decision
and recognized that Yahweh is special and the only one deserving of
his worship, he has not fully understood who Yahweh really is. To
many, this would qualify as a form of syncretism.
If syncretism is defined as “the blending of Christian beliefs and
practices with those of the dominant culture so that Christianity loses
it[s] distinctiveness,” (Van Rheenen 2006: 8) then Naaman’s request
and follow-up action could be classified as syncretism. But the
question deserves to be asked, Is Naaman expected to have a complete
understanding of God after such a short time? Few would expect that
of him, and it would seem even Elisha felt that this was not the
appropriate time to give Naaman a lesson on God’s complete
Sovereignty, therefore deeming the soil unnecessary. Worldview
transformation is no simple task accomplished overnight. It takes time
and considerable knowledge for a person to move from one view of the
world into an entirely different view. It may even take “multiple
generations” before a solid biblical foundation is accomplished
(Konkel 2006: 438). This would mean that a definition of syncretism
like the one starting this paragraph doesn’t seem to take into account
the overwhelming challenge of worldview transformation.

THE BOWING TO AN IDOL

The second request is in many ways similar to the first. But there
are some key differences that deserve comment. This second request
could also be considered syncretism by some. Naaman is willing to
continue a false practice in order to avoid certain repercussions. While
it is true Naaman was not actually worshipping the idol in his mind, no
one around him would have known that. It would not be so bad if it
were a simpler issue, but idol worship, something God is so clearly
against, seems a bit beyond the acceptable. Yet Elisha’s response is for
both of these requests, not just the first one.
The context again can help shed light on this seemingly syncretistic
request. It is important to note that the king was very close to Naaman,
and had even written a letter to his enemy on behalf of Naaman.
Therefore, Naaman had no doubt that when he returns the king will ask
him to worship in the temple of Rimmon out of thankfulness for his
healing. Would it be appropriate for Naaman to refuse this honest
request by the king? The king would not have been aware of Naaman’s
experience in Israel, and, for whatever reason, Naaman feels that this
would not be an appropriate time to fill him in on his newfound faith.
Fretheim is clear when he says: “This is not a lapse into syncretism,
but a recognition that the life of faith must be lived out in ambiguous
situations and away from the community of faith” (Fretheim 1999:
153).
Notice also that Naaman’s attitude is one of humbleness. He
recognizes that this is not the ideal by seeking pardon for his future
actions beforehand. He seems to understand that ideally he should not
be bowing to idols at any time, but that in this case he sees no way
around it. Again, it is important to understand that Naaman has very
recently gained a new way of looking at the world, and has made an
“astounding confession of monotheism” (Nelson 1987: 178). To ask
him to break all ties for his faith, and even possibly lose his life does
not seem appropriate to Elisha at this time. It is enough that he
recognizes that worshipping the idol is wrong, the social consequences
of which he must work out himself in his time. Konkel puts it this way:

Elisha’s assurance of peace to Naaman when he should

go the house of Rimmon in the service of his master is a
reminder that believers must be given freedom to
choose how they can best give witness to their faith.
The question is not whether believers should be faithful,
but how they most effectively give testimony to their
faith. Believers in hostile circumstances must make
decisions about what constitutes a situation where they
must be faithful to death (Konkel 2006: 441).

By responding “go in peace,” Elisha is not necessarily condoning

these two requests. Elisha understands the challenge that Naaman has
to face and therefore is careful to leave Naaman with a positive feeling
rather than laying guilt on him. He either felt that this was not the
appropriate time to illuminate Naaman on these topics or that Naaman
had a good enough grasp on the issue to make his own decision.
“Elisha does not expect Naaman to abandon the world or withdraw
into a ghetto where he can escape moral dilemmas and difficulties”
(Leithart 2006: 195). Elisha would seem to be putting Naaman into
Yahweh’s care, allowing God to lead him forward from this point
onward. Most important, though, is that Naaman left the presence of
Elisha encouraged rather than discouraged. This is the key
 missiological point to the encounter.

SYNCRETISM?
Syncretism deserves to be better defined before it can be used to
describe specific situations. This narrative proves this point very clearly. If
syncretism is simply the mixing of cultural beliefs with the new religious
ones, then clearly Naaman was syncretistic. Normally syncretism is a
pejorative term, therefore, if Naaman was syncretistic, then Naaman was
most likely in the wrong. It would seem to be more accurate to categorize
syncretism as something that occurs among longer-term believers, who
have had more time to understand better the faith they are a part of, yet
still choose to incorporate non-biblical practices that can be harmful. This
would, however, create many questions, since almost all groups of
believers have some sort of non-biblical practices evident in their faith
experience. With this in mind let us carefully look at two key concepts that
can be drawn from this narrative.

TIME
There has been some literature which has attempted to show that
the process of conversion is slower than many would hope it to be. It
has been recognized that sincere commitment and genuineness can be
accompanied with doubts, misunderstandings, and the slow process of
incorporating new beliefs into a host culture. This being the case, then
what often may appear to be a type of syncretism or dual allegiance
may actually be stages in the conversion process. In other words,
conversion is a process, not an overnight change.
Anthropology has helped to uncover the depths of what it means to
change a belief system and the complexity and slowness of the
processes involved. In fact, it would seem that syncretism as stated
above is actually unavoidable to a large extent, and that religious
change and growth will be accompanied by some aspects of
syncretism. It would hardly seem fair for God to reject a searcher for
not fully understanding Him from their first encounter. The first step of
recognizing that God is unique as a savior, whether from sin or disease,
in this case, is a sign that the seeds of the Word have been planted, but
it should be expected that those seeds will take time to bear fruit.
The narrative of Naaman appears to support this thesis. Naaman
has just recently become a believer in Yahweh. The requests he makes
indicate that he has not come to a complete understanding of God.
“Elisha’s enigmatic response may at least suggest that God is patient
with those who have just turned to him and gives them time to discover
what it means to worship him in ways that do not require an immediate
separation from their culture” (Effa 2007: 471). Looking back at the
Ruth narrative, we do not find Ruth making her declaration on the side
of God until she has been with Naomi for ten years, corroborating that
in these two narratives there is an understanding that worldview
transformation takes time.

DIRECTION
Another key issue that is pertinent to this discussion is the issue of
direction. In other words, where is the faith of the person in the
encounter directed? Are they moving closer to the biblical ideal or
moving away from it? Paul Hiebert in his work on different types of
“categories” or “sets” has dealt extensively with this concept.
These categories/sets have been well-defined by Hiebert already,
therefore the focus will be on a particular “set” (Hiebert 1994: 122).
The “centered” set as defined by Hiebert is “created by defining a
center or reference point and the relationship of the thing to that
center” (Hiebert 1994: 122). In “centered sets,” things that move
toward the center are considered “members” while those moving in the
opposite direction are not. Hiebert compares this type of set with
“bounded sets,” which have strictly delineated boundaries. Either you
are in or out of the bounded set; direction is irrelevant. The “centered
set” on the other hand has a well-defined center and develops well-
defined boundaries based on the relationship one has to the center.
“Centered sets” are more concerned about the relationship or direction
rather than the boundary itself.
In the realm of religion and Christianity, Hiebert applies this
concept by defining the center as a belief in Jesus and the Bible. Based
on Chapter 1 which emphasized a biblical understanding of God as
Sovereign and as the Savior who desires to bless all people, the center
can be defined as the Sovereign God who desires to bless humanity
with His salvation. Applying Hiebert’s concept further would mean
that those who are beginning to understand this view of God are
moving in the right direction, toward the center. This also allows for
recognition of the issue of time discussed above. As Hiebert put it,
“some are close to Christ in their knowledge and maturity, others are
immature and need to grow to attain adequate understanding” (Hiebert
1994: 126).
Hiebert lists a number of positive outcomes if this view is adopted
as a model for the church and Christianity in general. These include a
move towards better discipleship, recognizing that the first act of
conversion is only the beginning of the journey and not the final goal.
He also concludes that a “centered-set approach avoids the dilemma
between offering cheap grace that allows new believers to become
Christians but leads to shallow church or costly grace that preserves
the purity of the church but keeps them out of the kingdom” (Hiebert
1994: 127).
Based on the above paragraphs, syncretism as currently defined
cannot possibly describe Naaman’s situation, nor the situation of any
number of current people who are in the midst of transforming their
worldview. It is appropriate here to define a new term or terminology
that can better describe the Naaman situation.
Perhaps we can use the term “redemptive-movement encounters”
to explain the encounter that occurs between Naaman and Yahweh,
through Elisha. This encounter leads Naaman to pledge allegiance to a
new God and move in a new direction, but it is just the beginning stage
of his “redemptive movement,” not the final moments.
Elisha very well may have had this type of idea in mind when he
encourages Naaman as he leaves, rather than scolding him. Hiebert,
commenting on “centered sets,” said that this “emphasis . . . would be
on exhorting people to follow Christ, rather than on excluding others to
preserve the purity of the set. Salvation is open to everyone, no matter
who they are, what they know, or what baggage they bring with them”
(Hiebert 1994: 125-126). The concept of “redemptive-movement
encounters” encompasses this type of emphasis and fits perfectly with
the mission of God as explained in Chapter 1.
With this understanding, Hiebert defined syncretism as “moving in
the wrong direction, away from a fuller knowledge of the Gospel”
(Hiebert 2006: 44). This definition of syncretism is more defined and
logical. It leaves room for new believers to have less “maturity” in
their understanding of who God is and what He requires without
calling them syncretistic. It also defines how one does become
syncretistic, namely when a choice is made to become involved in
 thinking or practices that are known to be contrary to the gospel.
Elisha’s response to the requests of Naaman begin to make better sense
when understood in this paradigm. Naaman had begun to move in the
right direction, while still not fully understanding the center he was
headed toward. Elisha’s response creates an atmosphere of
encouragement that will help Naaman continue to move toward the
center rather than away from it.

APPLICATION
This narrative can be instrumental in providing a biblical example of
the required patience and encouragement needed when studying with and
interacting with someone who has a very different religious worldview
such as a Hindu. Practically speaking, how does this narrative inform the
present challenge of sharing the God of the Bible with Hindus?
Hindus may not grasp fully what it means to believe in only one God,
or that idol worship is an inappropriate way of worshipping God when
they first encounter the God of the Bible. For some time Hindus may
continue with certain rituals that appear unbiblical in nature. But at the
same time they may be very clear that they no longer are following their
former Hindu deities, but have replaced them with the God of the Bible.
What should be done in such a situation? It may be that there are times
when allowing them to continue, with words to encourage them in the
right direction, is more valuable than a rebuke. This does not mean that
they are simply left with an incomplete view of God. Rather this
encourages them to continue the journey, rather than discouraging them at
a crucial juncture.
In the same vein it may be better to avoid forcing Hindus to abandon
home and community in order to avoid the household puja or other
worship ceremonies. Like Naaman, they too will most likely recognize the
futility of such worship, but in order to maintain good relations with their
family members it may be appropriate to hold off on telling their family of
their changing perspective. This is especially true of many Hindu women
who have come to know Jesus but live in a household where the husband
is still a practicing Hindu. They often have to read their Bibles in private
when the husband is away and pray secretly, to avoid making the husband
angry which may lead to more dire consequences (Hoefer 2001: 23, 50,
198). This does not mean that a time may come when they will have to
choose to be more open, but in the end they need to make this decision;
others cannot make it for them. Ultimately, the goal should be to foster
continued growth in the biblical truth of God. However, it would also seem
advantageous to remain in the community as best one can so as to keep the
line of witness open.
Bharati calls for more patience and less pressure when working with
Hindus. “Allow them to make their own decisions. They may go wrong
initially, but if they do make mistakes we can correct them gently by
pointing it out under the light of Scripture” (Bharati 2001: 23). He goes on
to say that it is true that people need the whole gospel, but that no one can
understand the whole gospel in one sitting. He encourages the
development of good “rapport” and spending time discussing the needs
and challenges that the Hindu is facing. As in Naaman’s case, he advises
dealing with the present needs rather than delving into the deep things of
the gospel to start with (Bharati 2001: 34). In light of our first section this
makes good sense. If you developing a meaningful relationship with a
Hindu then you should be less worried about how much time it takes for
them to make decisions. Instead you should be focused on drawing them
closer to a more accurate understanding of God, patiently encouraging
them.
In dealing with Hindus, there will no doubt be times when aspects of
the new believers’ understanding and practice are not in complete harmony
with the Word of God. But an attitude of encouragement that works with
the Hindu in patience is needed, rather than a spirit of critical correction. I
think we all can agree that all of us are on a journey to learn and become
like Jesus, but that none of us have reached our final destination. This
helps us to recognize that a Hindu that has encountered God is also on the
journey, and simply may be at a different stage than us. We all struggle
with sin and temptation in various ways, it is no different for a Hindu
beginning their journey with Christ; they deserve to be given time and
encouragement as they work out their relationship with God.

SUMMARY
The narrative found in 2 Kings 5 is not easy to understand or explain.
The two unorthodox requests can seem especially troubling in light of
Elisha’s reply. While there is no doubt that there are unusual aspects to the
narrative, it is also a very useful narrative to guide those who are sincerely
working with Hindus. It can encourage better understanding of certain
principles that help new believers in their newfound journey of faith.
 All those engaging with their Hindu friends should be given some
“flexibility” by the church as they navigate the many challenges that a
change of faith entails. Special prayers for wisdom need to be constant
throughout the process of change. The focus is on encouraging the new
believer to continue in the direction that they have started in, moving
toward the center, which is an understanding of the Sovereign, saving God
who desires to continue to bless them.
Patient encouragement, allowing for the believer’s faith and
understanding to develop over time, is vital. Effa finishes an article on this
narrative with the following paragraph:

Finally, the community of believers needs to exercise patience in

allowing Gentile converts to discover the implications of faith in
Yahweh, while remaining contributing citizens within their respective
cultures. When a genuine turning to God has taken place, it may be
best to refrain from imposing the full burden of what the believing
community understands to be implicit in worshipping and serving God.
Instead, one should trust God to continue to lead that convert into
greater truth about God and the details of what it means to be a
follower. The faith journey is a process laden with tension, and the
struggle to integrate one’s faith with every aspect of life may take an
entire lifetime (Effa 2007: 472).

While Elisha’s answer “go in peace” may be troubling to some, it is

actually much more encouraging than troubling. It is important to
recognize that Jesus used Naaman as an example of faith in Luke 4:27,
thereby strengthening the argument that Elisha’s answer was the correct
one. This narrative gives a key to understanding the importance of
maintaining an attitude of patient encouragement even when the new
believer does not understand fully while taking the first faltering steps
toward the God of the Bible.
This narrative has combined both God’s desire for relationship and
God’s mission through power. God desperately desires that all join with
Him in His mission to Hindus by being available to develop relationships
with Hindus. He can then safely display His power in meaningful and life-
transforming ways among Hindus. As God does these things it is our
privilege to walk alongside those experiencing God, encouraging along the
journey, patiently pointing them to the God of the Bible.
CASE STUDY
Rani and Sumit* recently got married. They both come from a Hindu background but have
recently become Seventh-day Adventists after several months of Bible study. At this point in
their lives they have maintained very good relationships with their respective families. In
fact, the families have even respected their decision to become Adventists.

However, whenever the family has a gathering for the Hindu festivals or other religious
occasions, they expect Rani and Sumit to participate in the events, even though they do not
believe in the religious aspects. They are asked to do this so that the family can maintain their
social honor and respect in the community. Rani and Sumit have struggled to know best how
to handle these situations. In contacting their local pastor they were simply told it is wrong to
have anything to do with these festivals. While they understand the pastor’s point, they also
recognize that honoring their parents and attempting to maintain a good relationship with
their family is important. At the same time, if they refuse to participate, they will basically be
cutting themselves off from much of their immediate and extended family. How will they be
able to share Jesus with their family if the family ostracizes them? When there are two
biblical principles seemingly at odds with each other how do they choose between avoiding
other religious activities or honoring their parents? These are some of the questions they are
asking themselves and the church as they navigate this real-life situation.
*Note the names and places have been changed.
 FINAL CALL
A FTER READING THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS, I hope that it has
become clear that God’s mission examples in Scripture are valuable and
applicable to mission in the present. The narratives are familiar narratives,
but often not understood in the way they have been presented in this book.
I pray that the principles gleaned from them may aid you in your mission
to those around you.
God is working among Hindus even now; the fields are ripe both in
India and in the diaspora populations. There are people building real,
genuine relationships with Hindus, engaging them in meaningful ways that
are impacting their lives and drawing them to Jesus. God is using His
power to influence and draw Hindus into a better understanding of who He
is. Thank God for this and pray for those willing to partner with Him.
The opportunity in the diaspora is especially interesting. Reflecting on
the Naomi and Ruth scenario, it becomes clear that today there are many
similar opportunities to engage with Hindus right in our neighborhoods or
office buildings. How will those relationships develop? Will they become
deep and meaningful? If your experience with God has been real, like
Naomi’s was, then we must be open and genuine in our faith.
In places, such as India, where there may be animosity or
misunderstanding between followers of Jesus and the population around
them, a witness through hard work and respect becomes tantamount. While
the large public meetings have, in many places, become illegal or frowned
upon, the everyday workplace is still open for witnessing. It may not be as
obvious, and it may not be as grand like Joseph and Daniel, but the
influence may be greater and more lasting than any set of meetings.
What many may find hard to believe, is the reality that God still sends
visions and dreams, and He still performs miracles to draw people to Him.
Among Hindus today there are many testimonies of these things happening
and that it is the God of the Bible performing them. They are looking for
someone to help explain their experiences, their dreams, and their miracles
so that they can know and worship this God. This requires that followers
of God be among them, working with them, eating with them, maybe even
living with them like Elijah did. When this takes place, many who may not
experience the miracle directly will hear of God’s works and will respond
with open hearts much like Rahab and the Gibeonites.
Patience, encouragement, and guidance along the journey—these are
some of the character traits and duties of God’s followers as they partner
with Him in sharing who He is with Hindus. Can we allow Hindus to
develop and maybe even live with some misconceptions of God for a time
in order to strengthen and grow their faith? Will we be there to give words
of encouragement at those times when it is needed most? Is our own life a
model or an example that points to a better way? God is transforming
people, but it takes time and patience. The most important thing is that
people are moving toward Him in thought and action.
There are many more ripe fields that have been left unharvested. God
desires that many more workers join with Him in His mission. I pray that
you will be more willing to leave your comfort zones and reach out to
Hindus around you. I pray that you will take the examples of the narratives
found in Scripture to heart and apply them to your life. You will be
surprised at how God can and will use you to share who He is with those
around you.
The call to Jonah is our call. Should we not be more concerned about
those around us who need the blessing of the knowledge of salvation? God
created all humanity in His image, and He loves all, including Hindus,
with an equal passion. We are called to have the same love and passion
that each person be brought into a relationship with Him.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aghamkar, Atul Y. Insights into Openness: Encouraging Urban Mission.

Bangalore, India: SAIACS Press, 2000.

Babb, Lawrence A. The Divine Hierarchy: Popular Hinduism in Central

India. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.

---------. Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu

Tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986.

Bhardwaj, Surinder M. and James G. Lochtefeld. “Tirtha.” In The Hindu

World, edited by Sushil Mittal and Gene R. Thursby. New York:
Routledge, 2004.

Bharati, Dayanand. Living Water and Indian Bowl: An Analysis of

Christian Failings in Communicating Christ to Hindus. Delhi,
India: ISPCK, 2001.

Block, Daniel I. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Near Eastern

Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000.

---------. Judges, Ruth New American Bible Commentary. Nashville, TN:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.

---------. “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology.” In Biblical Faith

and Other Religions: An Evangelical Assessment, edited by David
W. Baker. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional,
2004.

Boyd, Robin. Indian Christian Theology. Delhi, India: ISPCK, 1991.

Carpenter, Holly M. Blackwelder. “A Comprehensive Narrative Analysis

 of the Book of Ruth.” M.A. thesis, Andrews University, 2005.

Chaudhuri, Nirad C., ed. The Hinduism Omnibus. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003.

Conn, Harvie M. Eternal Word and Changing Worlds: Theology,

Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1984.

Dillard, Raymond B. Faith in the Face of Apostasy: The Gospel According

to Elijah & Elisha. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 1999.

Eck, Diana L. Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in India. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1998.

Effa, Allan. “Prophet, Kings, Servants, and Lepers: A Missiological

Reading of an Ancient Drama.” Missiology 35, no. 3 (2007): 465-
473.

Filbeck, David. Yes, God of the Gentiles, Too: The Missionary Message of
the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Billy Graham Center, Wheaton
College, 1994.

Flood, Gavin, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell, 2003.

Fretheim, Terence E. First and Second Kings. Westminster Bible

Companion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.

Fuller, C. J. The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.

Goheen, Michael W. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and

the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Harris, J. Gordon, Cheryl Anne Brown, and Michael S. Moore. Joshua,

Judges, Ruth. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000.

Hedlund, Roger E. God and the Nations: A Biblical Theology of Mission in

the Asian Context. Delhi, India: ISPCK, 1997.
Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.

--------. “Syncretism and Social Paradigms.” In Contextualization and

Syncretism: Navigating Cultural Currents, edited by Gailyn Van
Rheenen. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2006.

Hoefer, Herbert E. Churchless Christianity. Pasadena, CA: William Carey

Library, 2001.

Hubbard, Robert L. The Book of Ruth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.

Huyler, Stephen P. Meeting God: Elements of Hindu Devotion. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.

James, George. “The Environment and Environmental Movements.” In

Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual, Culture, and Practice, edited by
Robin Rinehart. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004.

Jeyaraj, Dasan. “Facilitating Genuine Conversion.” In Conversion in a

Pluralistic Context: Perspectives and Perceptions, edited by
Krickwin C. Marak and Plamthodathil S. Jacob. Delhi, India:
CMS/ISPCK, 2000.

Kannan, P., and S. Kannan. “A Survey of Disciples of Christ from Non-

Dalit Hindu Homes.” In Rethinking Hindu Ministry, edited by H. L.
Richard. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2011.

Knipe, David M. “Hinduism and the Tradition of Ayurveda.” In Healing

and Restoring: Health and Medicine in the World’s Religious
Traditions, edited by Lawrence Eugene Sullivan. New York:
Macmillan Collier Macmillan, 1989.

Konkel, August H. 1 & 2 Kings. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

Leithart, Peter J. 1 & 2 Kings. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006.

Llewellyn, J. E. “Gurus and Groups.” In Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual,

Culture, and Practice, edited by Robin Rinehart. Santa Barbara,
CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004.
Maithily, Jagannathan. South Indian Hindu Festivals and Traditions. New
Delhi, India: Abhinav Publications, 2006.

Marak, Krickwin C., and Plamthodathil S. Jacob, eds. Conversion in a

Pluralistic Context: Perspectives and Perceptions. Delhi, India:
CMS/ISPCK, 2000.

Mittal, Sushil, and Gene R. Thursby, eds. The Hindu World. New York:
Routledge, 2004.

Narayanan, Vasudha. “Alaya.” In The Hindu World, edited by Sushil

Mittal, and Gene R. Thursby. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Nelson, Richard D. First and Second Kings. Interpretation. Atlanta, GA:

Knox, 1987.

Newbigin, Lesslie, and Paul Weston. Lesslie Newbigin: Missionary

Theologian. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

Patton, Laurie L. “Veda and Upanisad.” In The Hindu World, edited by

Sushil Mittal and Gene R. Thursby. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Prothero, Stephen R. God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run
the World-- and Why Their Differences Matter. New York:
HarperOne, 2010.

Rhodes, Constantina Eleni. Invoking Lakshmi: The Goddess of Wealth in

Song and Ceremony. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 2010.

Richard, H. L., ed. Rethinking Hindu Ministry. Pasadena, CA: William

Carey Library, 2011.

--------. “Evangelical Approaches to Hindus.” In Rethinking Hindu

Ministry, edited by H. L. Richard. Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library, 2011.

Rinehart, Robin, ed. Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual, Culture, and

Practice. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004.
Sullivan, Lawrence Eugene, ed. Healing and Restoring: Health and
Medicine in the World’s Religious Traditions. New York:
Macmillan Collier Macmillan, 1989.

Tennent, Timothy C. Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian

Missiology for the Twenty-First Century. Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel Publications, 2010.

Van Rheenen, Gailyn, ed. Contextualization and Syncretism: Navigating

Cultural Currents. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2006.

---------. “Syncretism and Contextualization.” In Contextualization and

Syncretism: Navigating Cultural Currents, edited by Gailyn Van
Rheenen. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2006.

Van Zyl, A. H. The Moabites. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960.

Walton, John H., ed. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

Witzel, Michael. “Vedas and Upanisads.” In The Blackwell Companion to

Hinduism. edited by Gavin Flood, Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2003.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s

Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

Younger, K. Lawson. Judges and Ruth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

2002.
 ABOUT THE BOOK
S CRIPTURE RECORDS A NUMBER OF INSTANCES in which a
follower of the true God interacts with a person or people from the
“nations” outside of Israel. These can be termed interreligious encounters
and they contain many insights on how God has worked in mission in the
past. They also contain many principles that if understood can be applied
in the present world of many religions.
This book specifically looks at narratives such as Abraham, Joseph,
Daniel, and Elisha with Naaman and many more to gain insights into how
God has done mission in order to learn ways of doing mission in the
present especially in the Hindu context.
God is working among Hindus even now; the fields are ripe both in India
and in the diaspora populations. There are people building real, genuine
relationships with Hindus, engaging them in meaningful ways that are
impacting their lives and drawing them to Jesus. God is using His power to
influence and draw Hindus into a better understanding of who He is. This
book can help increase our knowledge of how God desires to partner with
you in His mission to Hindus.