Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


There is a passage seldom preached and rarely read with the sincerity with which it ought to be read – it appears in II chronicles 28 chapter of The Bible:

23 “For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me…”

The character who came to that conclusion was Ahaz, who is rarely included in the Roll of Honour of the Kings of Judah & Benjamin. He was eclipsed by his illustrious son Hezekiah, as a King of Judah & Benjamin.

Leaving aside the truthfulness of the belief as to whether the gods of Syria helped the Syrians, let me lead the reader to what made Ahaz come to such a conclusion despite having the heritage of David as his forebear?

Ahaz’ father was Jotham. His grandfather was Uzziah, the longest serving King of Judah & Benjamin.

Jotham had defeated the Ammonites and had amassed silver and wheat as tribute. His grandfather Uzziah was a greater warrior and had even installed machines to throw stones against enemies – a larger version of a sling to launch projectiles- which history credits as an invention by Archimedes of Syracuse called Catapult.

Therefore, Ahaz was not a person who was depleted of his resources. He had inherited resources from his grandfather and his father in good measure, but he came to a conclusion that the Syrians won the battles with him because the Syrian gods were stronger.

He adopted certain practices like making human sacrifice out of his own children. A practice which was not alien to the neighbouring Baal and Molech worshippers. But with Mosaic law proscribing human sacrifice to God, for any reason whatsoever, except Jephthah, a judge of Israel, none practiced it as an acceptable sacrifice to the Jehovah.

Even in the case of Jephthah, the Judge couldn’t bring himself to redeem his own daughter, though there are very many verses supporting redemption of human beings in the Mosaic rules. Jephthah’s case was more because he lacked good priestly advisors.

Ahaz lost to the Syrians more because he relied on the wealth created by his father and grandfather through their action.

Ahaz’s offer to the Assyrian king was the wealth secreted in the temple and the palaces of the king of Judah. Ahaz requested for support of the Assyrian king, but instead of lending a helping hand, even the Assyrians pillage Ahaz’ wealth.

It was a clear case of wrong interpretation by Ahaz, which led to his downfall.

Both Uzziah and Jotham needed God, as they were involved in risky enterprise of engaging in wars and securing their lands by building cities on hilltops and making their people secure; whereas Ahaz had taken it for granted that the wealth was there for him to enjoy and also deploy it as a means to his salvation.

Out of such a thought is born the concept of APPEASEMENT. Ahaz is a classic case of an APPEASER.

What did Ahaz appease with? He appeased, rather sought to appease with the resources so meticulously integrated into the system through care by both Uzziah and Jotham. The foolish Ahaz had used what he had inherited to save what was left of what he had concealed of what he had inherited.

As a King, it was his duty to show himself to be strong, not as an ‘appeaser’. Appeasement as a minor tactic to a larger strategy may serve well, but not as a quid pro quo.

The foolish Ahaz finally reaches a conclusion that the Syrian gods had helped the Syrians, therefore he should bribe the Syrian gods with more to turn those gods against their traditional worshippers.

What a pity, that weakness brings. It stretches it to even beliefs.

If the reader is still sceptical, please see the gumption of the successor of Ahaz, Hezekiah. Despite the deletion of the resources, though it put him in troublesome times, he had the guts to send letters to the tribes of Israel resume their feasts at Jerusalem.

Ahaz is the hyphen who connected the strong kings Jotham and Hezekiah.

If at all one wants to appease, one may do it with what oneself had earned not on what had been inherited.

It is a well known parable of Jesus that notwithstanding the gulf fixed between the Richman and Lazarus, they were able to see each other and talk to each other.

Using the same formula, David and Uriah would have had an opportunity to meet each other and talk to each other in the paradise or for that matter in hell or between these two.

I do not presume that David would be in heaven, as at least two major commandments had been breached by him and he was not punished the way a man of normal means would have been by the Mosaic law, which was in force then. Yet, David did not deserve to be in hell, as he was always humble towards God and had been a supreme survivor of the sins committed, and the punishment for his sins had always drawn a commuted sentence from God. That mercy shown by God to his sins were not in consonance with the Mosaic laws. Yet, the Psalms and his devotions reveal the predominant side of a man who subjected himself to the will of God. Therefore, placing him for a while in Dante’s Purgatory would be in the fitness of things and more as a balance of convenience.

But as a Protestant, the concept of Purgatory is out of question. In any case, I do not know from the Bible as to how the Hittite Uriah was with God. After all, he was a Hittite – a breed which Jehovah is stated to have promised Moses to vanquish and acquire the land of Canaan. But, if we look at his devotion to duty, Uriah had taken it a bit too seriously that David was emboldened to send a contrived death warrant through Uriah’s own hand, when David’s attempt to pass off the pregnancy of Bathsheba to have been caused by Uriah failed.

Would Uriah have known that he was got killed by David. If so, whose would have been the opening lines?

Would it have been an unqualified sorry of David?

When a Sadducee asked Jesus regarding the woman who married 7 men after the successive death of each of her 7 husbands, Jesus said “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”(Matthew 28:30).

Therefore to assume that both David and Uriah would be like angels would not be far fetched. Yet, the Rich man and Lazarus parable shows that the dead had not drunk from Lethe for them to have forgotten their past.

Or is it that, being angels, each would have been reconciled and would have no time to hold grudges for those events that took place back while they were alive.

The only conclusive thought for me, based on these two parables is that in the resurrection, Bathsheba would have become an angel and would neither be a wife to Uriah nor to David.

Sometimes I feel the Sadducees had logical reasons to doubt the Resurrection, not that I doubt it.

If logic and reasoning is not broken, definitely there is no Christianity. Reasoning and logic are mere tools for survival in this life and not for stretching it beyond life.

Otherwise, when Jesus said that Elijah had already come as John the Baptist and John the Baptist has been beheaded by Herod, why should Elijah appear in the mount of transfiguration as Elijah and not as John the Baptist?

Human beings extending logic and reasoning beyond the immediate purpose of life, is a wasteful exercise. Can Man contend with God? Yes he can for survival, like Jacob did on his way to Padanaram and still succeed, but cannot survive on the grounds of self-righteousness, though Righteous like Job.

The Greeks had coined a beautiful word for this – “Hubris”. The pride that gets into a man’s mind upon him acquiring power or even in man’s infallibility after complying with all the commandments of God. The only hope for man is Patience, Humility and Doing.

History has to be interpreted with the available facts. Then is born an assertion, which may not be to the liking of some. Consequently, they start looking hard for facts to punch holes in that assertion and thereby grows History – a mix of facts and undisproved assertions.

Tamil, of all the Indian languages has an advantage which no other language has – a script which is old and without much departure from the oldest Tamil script – thereby ‘proof’ could be looked for either from the inscriptions or cave scribbling or copper plates or even palm leaves. But there are languages which claim hoariness even more than Tamil, but when asked for proof, want of a script has been a severe stumbling block and therefore Belief is the basis & proof of assertions. We as decent individuals will have to respect their beliefs. But one thing to remember is that when even the written word changes it’s meaning with usage, relying on a oral tradition without a script to transcribe words for the future generations exposes such languages to be posited with meanings unascribed at the time of composition and also susceptible to be altered by the spirit of the Times.

Tamil is no such language – its basis is in facts, provable facts.

Though the purpose of my blog is not to eulogise Tamil, we need to look into the relationship between Tamil with the rest of India, to have a grasp of its place at any given time.

During the beginning of the 7 th century AD, there were two kings of great stature, one was Harsha Vardhana and the other was Pulikesi II of the Chalukya Dynasty. Harsha was reigning north of the Narmada and Pulikesin II was to the south of It.

Harsha Vardhana was an enlightened king, a loyal friend, great ruler, a warrior and above all one who understood the value of structured studies.

This Great King was ruled from Kannauj. His name doesn’t figure in the following list –

Narasimhavarman I is claimed to be one of the 12 Indian kings who never lost on the battlefield to their enemies, the others being Ajatashatru, Chandragupta Maurya, Karikala Chola, Cheran Senguttuvan, Sri krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagar empire, Chola king Rajasuyam Vaetta Perunarkilli (575 BC), who successfully completed military Rajasuyam sacrifice, Pandyan Nedunchezhian of the Sangam age, Samudragupta, great Pallava Nayanmar saint Rajasimha, Rajaraja Chola I, his great warrior son Rajendra Chola .


So Harsha Vardhana is left out. Not only is it left out, but the fact that he lost to Pulikesin II of the Chalukyas appears as a footnote in muted tones in the text books. I remember the History Text book, in which Harsha was devoted an entire chapter. I still remember a pencil sketch of Hieun Tsang – which for the life of me, I couldn’t spell it the way it was transcribed into English in my school text books.

The Hindu newspaper in one of articles had stated that a contemporaneous copper plate had been discovered, which is supposed to have on it the fact that Harsha was defeated by Pulikesin II in the year 612 AD or CE, give or take a few years.

Harsha’s contribution to the Nalanda University has been well documented. Heuin Tsang has praised the king as having been a righteous king. Yet, his defeat in the hands of Pulikesin has been an indelible blot on all his other achievements. But we have to look at the defeat in its perspective too.

An aggressor getting defeated when he trenched upon another man’s territory, is not so bad as when he loses his own territory after being defeated in the battle as an aggressor. To that extent Harsha Vardhana was not a loser. Harsha just couldn’t make forays into Pulikesin’s territory beyond the Narmada. All this happened in 612.

The same Pulikesin II in 642 AD, was defeated by a king from the Pallava dynasty. His name was Narasimhavarman, whose name figures in the list of the undefeated kings from India.

What is so great about Narasimhavarman? The King’s father was a contemporary to Harshavardhana and was also subjected to forays of pillaging and plunder in those territories controlled by him. His son was Narasimhavarman I.

The interesting part is the nature of the defeat of Pulikesin at his hands, Narasimhavarman not only defeated Pulikesin but pursued him to his state capital at Vatapi (presently called Badami), a place in the present day Karnataka and capital of the Chalukyas and took over his whole empire and set up an administrative machinery in Vatapi and returned. I can’t remember another King in India who had avenged the maltreatment of his father like Narasimhavarman did. The same Hieun Tsang visited Kanchipuran during the reign of Narasimhavarman. Hieun Tsang’s account of Harsha Vardhana’s defeat is the only reliable source of that fact, as the Court historian cum poet Banabhat doesn’t mention anything of the defeat of Harsha in his Harsha charita. Wikipedia’s take is as follows:

Harsha’s court poet Bana does not mention this conflict in his biography Harsha-charita, presumably to avoid portraying his patron in a negative light. However, Pulakeshin’s success against Harsha is confirmed by other independent sources. The Chinese traveler Xuanzang, who calls Pulakeshin’s kingdom Mo-ho-la-cha (the Chinese transcription of “Maharashtra”), provides the evidence of Pulakeshin’s success against Harsha. Xuanzang states that Shiladitya (that is, Harsha) had conquered the nations from east to west, and had marched with his army to remote parts of India: only the people of Mo-ho-la-cha had refused to accept his suzerainty. Xuanzang further states that Harsha gathered troops from different parts of his kingdom, summoned his best commanders, and himself led the army to punish the people of Mo-ho-la-cha, but could not subjugate them.

To have a fair idea of the Empire of the Chalukyas of Badami, one has to look at the territories they controlled. The whole of the present day Karnataka, most of Andhra Pradesh, the whole of Telangana, whole of Maharashtra, half of the non peninsular Gujrat and south western quarter of Madhya Pradesh.

The above, marked in saffron, was the territory of the Western Chalukyas of Badami (Vatapi).

Now compare it with the territories controlled by Harsha Vardhana from the below map:

Therefore, the Empire of Harsha consisted of the present day Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal, most of Madhya Pradesh, Chatisgarh, Jharkhand, parts of Haryana and Punjab.

No doubt, anyone with those resources ranging from the Himalayas till the banks of Narmada should have defeated a king like Pulikesin II, but that was not to be.

Even more interesting is that the Pallava kingdom was not even one third territorially as spacious the Chalukyas.

Yet, Pulikesin II who is reported to have defeated Harsha was defeated by Narasimha Varma Pallava and not only that he defeated Pulikesin II, he marched up to Badami/ Vatapi and established an administrative set up there for 13 long years. Yet, after the death of Narasimhavarma the Chalukyas not only reclaimed their territory but defeated the Pallava kings.

History writing is very tough, especially when we belong to a region where we are fed with false histories and have converted those historical figures to icons.

Banabhatta couldn’t write about the defeat of his benefactor Harsha; the Pallava kings did not write about the subsequent defeats at the hands of the Chalukyas; nor did the Chalukyas write the ignominious end of their greatest conqueror Pulikesin II.

Basically, history in India has been an exercise to inspire heroism, heritage and not for factual reportage.

As such, I’m not surprised that Pandit Nehru in his Discovery of INDIA had very little to say of the Ancient kings of Southern India.

In these circumstances how can we designate Harsha as The Great? Neither can we call Narasimhavarma the Great, as his legacy did not even last beyond his rule. The very next ruler of the Pallava dynasty lost all the gains reflecting a poor integration of the territories won coupled with an inability to maintain the discipline or tempo of a king like Narasimhavarma.

No wonder, neither Harsha nor Narasimhavarma made it to the epithet The Great.

There are 282 laws out of which one of the laws which is interesting and relevant is Code no. 144.

144. If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.

Hammurabi lived during the 19th Century BC. One has to read his political achievements before one steps into reading his Codes.

The most important concept that emerged out of his code, almost 3800 years ago was PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

In social intercourse an allegation has to be backed by a credible proof. The judge cannot presume the guilt merely because a person has been accused of having committed a crime. There are two things which are to be proved; one being by that indeed a crime was committed and secondly that such crime was committed by the accused. This has to be proved through witnesses.

Me as a Christian, raised in Christian beliefs rooted mostly in the Old Testament of the Bible, believed that Moses was the first law giver.

If one were to chronologically date the time of Moses, the starting point with some certainty would be the reign of David/Solomon, which has been recognised to have been around 1000 BC. That’s 3000 years back. Give the Israeli judges from Joshua another 450 years, so that makes it 3450 years back. Add generously another 100 years for Moses, who is mentioned to have lived for 120 years, and we would end up with a figure of 3550 years. Make it 3600 years, still that would make Moses as a person who was probably in existence almost 200 years after the Rule of Hammurabi, of the first Babylonian empire.

Therefore, as a man raised in the palace of the Egyptian Pharaoh, I’m sure that Moses would have had access to the Code of Hammurabi or at any rate would have been trained in the laws of other lands and thereby would have been familiar with the codes of Hammurabi.

The distinctness of Moses’ Ten Commandments besides having social perspective opens with the concept of God and his jealous nature and how one ought to worship that one true God, regarding which, at least the opening 144 Sections of the Code of Hammurabi doesn’t entertain.

Hammurabi’s Codes are secular and more designed to cater to the fairness of just existence – except for Death as a penalty at the drop of a hat. Worse still is that punishment of throwing someone into the Euphrates or Tigris – which according to me is no punishment for a swimmer.

Code no 144 is what Laban and his daughters Rachel and Leah did to Jacob. Laban was a Syrian and Jacob had been egged in by his mother Rebekah to go to Laban’s place and wive from there, unlike his brother Esau, who wives from the locals, which Rebekah believed was the cause of her conflict with her daughters in law, little realising that Laban and his daughters were bigger frauds than all those ones in the land of Isaac.

Laban finds that his nephew, Jacob was smitten by Rachel, his younger daughter, so in bargain agrees to get her married to him in return for his labour for seven years with Laban.

But Laban suo motu decides to get Leah, his first daughter, married to Jacob without his knowledge. I often wonder how Jacob spent the whole night with Leah not realising that it was not Rachel. Or was it a payback time by the cosmic forces for all that drama enacted by Jacob and his mother Rebekah by impersonating as Esau and stealing the blessings from his father Isaac? Or did the sharp Jacob, decide to take the bird in hand for the night and protest for the other bird – the wages for his seven years’ labour – later and obtain it too? I don’t put that thought beyond Jacob – the sharpest one in the Book of Genesis.

Be that as it may, Jacob protests and plays the victim card to Laban and gets Rachel too for another 7 years’ labour.

After the marriage of Leah and Rachel, the sisters play the one up manship based on their fecundity and in that race, Rachel gets left behind. Rachel gives her maid to Jacob and Rachel’s maid brings forth a boy. Leah also follows suit and gives her maid to Jacob for procreating purposes. At that point Jacob ends up with two wives and two of their maids in his kitty.

Jacob feels stifled by Laban’s methods of sharing the fruits of Jacob’s labour. Jacob flees overnight from Padanaram to his hometown – of course with his two wives, the two maids and the brood littered in Padanaram.

Laban overtakes then and takes an oath from Jacob, which is mentioned in the Bible as follows:

Genesis 31:

The LORD watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another.

50 If thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if thou shalt take other wives beside my daughters, no man is with us; see, God is witness betwixt me and thee.

51 And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this heap, and behold this pillar, which I have cast betwixt me and thee:

52 This heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm.

Laban extracts a vow from Jacob that he shall not take any more wives than the ones he had given – Laban’s two daughters.

Now let us revert to Hammurabi’s law no 144:

If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.

What Laban did was that he was merely enforcing that law no 144 on Jacob. Hammurabi’s code must have seeped into the consciousness of the Syrians by then, as unlike the Ten Commandments, which became an esoteric set of Rules for the Israelites, Hammurabi had directed every town/ city to rear a cylinder with all his 282 laws written and kept for the public to be aware.

Job 41

8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

In the exposition of God’s capabilities by God Himself to Job, the above verses appear. It is in continuation of the description, by God, of the awesomeness of the creature Leviathan.

From the description of the foregoing verses it is clear – that the animal lived in water; that there was a possibility to hook him like a fish; that he was huge etc. Nowhere is the capability of this creature on land been mentioned.

It is therefore safe to assume that the creature was more like fish, yet not merely predatory like a shark, but awesome as well. Therefore the commentaries mentioning Leviathan as an equivalent to a crocodile appears inaccurate.

A Whale like creature in size but at the same time not playfully amusing but inspiring Fear.

To say that Hebrew language doesn’t have an equivalent for crocodiles and therefore the Hebrew texts arrived on the conclusion that a Leviathan is a crocodile, seems inappropriate. The Hebrews, if at all they grew into a nation, it was in Goshen, a place not far from the Nile, where crocs were in plenty. I’m sure Moses and Aaron would have invented a word for it.

Further, to assume that Leviathan must have been seen by the Hebrews does not appear necessary, as the period of Job is still a matter of surmise, despite much biblical research.

God tells Job, rather demonstrates to Job how he cannot judge God. Judging is a function to be followed up with exoneration or punishment. If the person doesn’t have the power to punish or exonerate, how could he judge? Therefore Job cannot show to God that He has been unjust.

It is at this juncture that God describes the massiveness of Leviathan and tells Job “Lay thine hand upon him” and if Job laid his hand upon Leviathan, God tells Job to remember the battle that ensues. God challenges Job to just recall the ensuing battle and requires Job just to remember the battle and nothing more.

If Job cannot remember the ensuing battle after he had laid his hand upon Leviathan, after all a creature created by God, how could Job justify himself condemning God who is far greater and incomparable with merely one of his creations?

The challenge of God: “do no more”, just remember the moment after you laid your hands on Leviathan, is a poetic knock out.

I suppose, the passage ought to be read the way I’d interpreted it.

Growth with borrowed money on interest is fine as long as the income therefrom is good enough to service the loan. Otherwise a Lot can happen over coffee.

Currency is such a strange thing that the intrinsic nominal value never changes but the purchasing/repaying power is dependant on whether there is cash in the system – as the central banks can suck them out for any reason whatsoever. Secondly, the servicing cost can be increased under the Floating rate concept by the banks in collusion, oops! consultation with the Central Banks and weaken your net earnings.

Eventualities are plenty.

Worse still, the banks and those bankers, who once chased you to sell their “product” and overvalued your property would be replaced, by the same management, with another set of bankers- when the going gets tough- who become recovery agents and devalue the same property.

The only lesson to be learnt from banks is – Take a Loan only when you badly need one and the banker makes you struggle for it.

Easy come, easy go. A Lot can happen over coffee‼️

How fragile is Life! Siddarth, you deserved a better end. You competed with the Baristas and Star Bucks and held on your own and gave us world class coffee at reasonable rates in a clean and good ambience.

God bless the soul of Siddarth of Cafe Coffeeday 💐

When I used to read the passage where God told Moses, ”Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.” (Numbers 20:12), I was terribly upset as a young boy.

This Moses had struggled with the stiff-necked Hebrews, who had taunted Moses saying “Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have brought us to die in the wilderness?”; “wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.” and many such words of rebellion and unbelief.

But at every point, Moses went back to God, prayed and returned with the word of God and faithfully executed God’s command. Should such a plight await, as a curse, on a Man of God, in the twilight of his life?

Secondly, if Moses had done something which God disapproved of, was this punishment disproportionate?

As a mere mortal it is blasphemous to even attempt the second question – A good reading of the Book of Job would cure anyone who would challenge me on this.

But the primary question involves a most merciful God, not only NOT FORGIVING, but declaring that Moses would not be a part of the celebrations of having led the Hebrews into the Promised Land.

As a believer in the Bible, I am at liberty to share my understanding however imperfect and flawed it might be – which I exercise here-below:

The relationship between God and Moses was unique and with the exception of Jesus, in the flesh, none approximated to even the periphery of the mount where they had their trysts. Moses was even promised by God, that he (Moses) would be god to Pharaoh – a position which was never shared by God except with His son Jesus. It is what Lucifer aspired and fell from his glory. Even when the King Saul performed the functions of a priest, he was not spared, if so, one can imagine what it is to be told by God Himself that Moses would be god to the Pharaoh‼️

God tells Moses, had you not intervened I would have destroyed the Hebrews for their stiff-neckedness and causing grief even to God. Moses could intervene – albeit with Humility and Prayer. Who else could have intervened like Moses from the burning anger of God- none.

Despite such a relationship, he did something which God couldn’t believe that Moses would do.

Was it that important?

Yes, very important.

Here was a God, who meets a man at 80 years and not only guides him, but answers his call – every time.

Therefore in the desert of Zin, when the Hebrews rebelled for water and God had told him to SPEAK TO THE ROCK – probably God wanted to share the power of the Word and exhibit it before the rebellious people and exalt Moses even more in their presence.

But Alas! Even Moses didn’t believe in what God commanded him. Moses instead of imperiously standing before the congregation and speaking the Word to the Rock, on the strength of the command of God, slinks with suspicion and addresses the rebellious crowd and conducts the greatest DRAMA EVER ENACTED BEFORE GOD- Moses strikes the rock and utters:


Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?

11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice:

Look at the words, and look at to whom he addresses it. Moses should have lifted up his hands above and thanked the Father, like Jesus used to, and imperiously commanded the flint to yield water. That would have been in consonance with his past. A past where he had the assurance of God listening to him. But here, Moses, though armed with the promise of God, yet harbouring that it may be foolish to address a flinty rock to yield water, succumbs to “equivocation”. An equivocation which would address both the rebellious Hebrews of human inability to bring water out of a rock – if water didn’t flow; and also satisfy the command of God partially by doing something to the rock‼️ Moses strikes like he used to. But at the Red Sea the command word of God was different, but here God wanted Moses to address an inanimate thing with words and make the inanimate thing yield in obedience.

But Moses thought of being Wise. It was for that piece of wisdom, that Moses couldn’t set his foot in the Promised Land, across the Jordan and had to breathe his last in mount Nebo.

This is not to justify in anyway God’s ways to man, but after having known God, a man of God like Moses has no reason to be seen wise. Jesus when He made clay out of His spittle and anointed the eye of the blind man, how ridiculous would it have been if the blind had not got his sight back. Jesus did what he heard, risking and ignoring what other mortals might think. That was the faith expected of Moses. Moses failed and slipped out of the Promised Land.

Tag Cloud