Gerard Reve God een ezel passage and trial AI-pedia

The "God as a donkey" passage (Dutch: God als ezel) is an episode in post-war Dutch literature written by the novelist and poet Gerard Reve (1923–2006). In a text first published in 1965 and collected in his 1966 book Nader tot U (Nearer to Thee), Reve described a mystical and erotic daydream in which God returns to Earth incarnated as a young, mouse-grey donkey. The narrator welcomes the donkey into his home, feeds and grooms the animal, and engages in sexual intimacy with it, depicting the act as one of absolute religious devotion, tender submission, and divine forgiveness.

The publication caused immediate outrage among conservative and orthodox Christian politicians and citizens in the Netherlands. In 1966, Reve was prosecuted under Article 147 of the Dutch Penal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) for "scornful blasphemy" (smalende godslastering). The resulting legal dispute, popularly known as the Ezelproces ("The Donkey Trial"), spanned three levels of the Dutch judiciary from 1966 to 1968.

The trial became a watershed moment in modern Dutch legal and cultural history. Reve mounted a flamboyant, theological defense of his work, arguing that his vision was a sincere expression of Christian mysticism rather than mockery. On 2 April 1968, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) definitively acquitted Reve, ruling that blasphemy required an intent to insult or defame God. The decision rendered the Dutch blasphemy statute practically unenforceable, transforming it into a "dead letter" decades before the Dutch parliament formally repealed the law in 2014.

Literary Context and Gerard Reve

Gerard Reve, born Gerard Kornelis van het Reve in Amsterdam, is widely considered one of the "Great Three" (De Grote Drie) post-war Dutch writers, alongside Willem Frederik Hermans and Harry Mulisch. Reve rose to fame with his debut novel De Avonden (The Evenings, 1947), which captured the stifling boredom, cynicism, and disillusionment of post-World War II youth in the Netherlands.

Raised in a secular, staunchly communist family, Reve experienced a profound spiritual and stylistic shift during the late 1950s and 1960s. He moved away from traditional realist fiction and developed an autobiographical, epistolary style (writing in the form of personal letters and intimate travelogues). His prose during this period combined high-flown, archaic Dutch with everyday banality, ironic humor, and profound earnestness.

This idiosyncratic worldview, often termed "Revism" (revisme), was characterized by the convergence of three central elements:

• Roman Catholic ritualism: Reve felt drawn to Catholic liturgy, saints, Mary, and the drama of the sacraments, formally converting to Roman Catholicism in 1966.
• Homoerotic desire and sadomasochism: Reve was one of the earliest openly homosexual public figures in the Netherlands. His writing repeatedly framed homoerotic desire, physical suffering, and sexual submission as paths to spiritual purification.
• Romantic agony and irony: Reve persistently explored feelings of absolute isolation, fear of death, and the impossibility of receiving perfect human love, finding relief only in the prospect of divine mercy.

These themes dominated his two major epistolary books of the 1960s: Op weg naar het einde (On the Way to the End, 1963) and Nader tot U (Nearer to Thee, 1966). It was in the latter work that Reve published the text that provoked his legal prosecution.

The Passage

The controversial passage first appeared in late 1965 in the literary and cultural journal Dialoog: tijdschrift voor homofilie en maatschappij (Dialogue: Journal for Homophilia and Society), a progressive magazine addressing homosexuality. It was subsequently included in Nader tot U, within the section titled "Brief uit het verleden" ("Letter from the Past"), also associated with the text "Brief in de nacht geschreven" ("Letter Written in the Night").

Text and Imagery

In the text, Reve meditates on the nature of God's incarnation. He argues that if God were to return to Earth in human majesty, mankind would once again fail to recognize Him, or would persecute Him. Reve posits that God would instead choose the humblest, most defenseless, and least understood guise imaginable: a one-year-old, mouse-grey donkey (een eenjarige, muisgrijze ezel).

The narrator imagines the donkey arriving at his door in the evening. Reve describes the encounter in terms of domestic and physical tenderness:

"Als God Zich opnieuw in Levende Male openbaart, zal Hij weer niet worden begrepen... En als God Zichzelf opnieuw in Levende Male openbaart, dan zal Hij de gedaante aannemen van een eenjarige, muisgrijze ezel, en 's avonds bij mij voor de deur staan, en aanbellen."

In Reve's vision, he opens the door and welcomes God inside. He brushes the dust from the donkey's fur, cleans its hooves, and serves it a meal of warm water and oatmeal. The narrator then takes the animal to bed:

"...en Hem langdurig in Zijn Geheime Opening bezitten, en daarna met Hem op de canapé gaan liggen, en Hem zachtjes strelen..."

The Dutch phrase in Zijn Geheime Opening bezitten translates literally to "possessing Him at length in His Secret Opening." Following the sexual act, the narrator rests alongside the animal, stroking it and speaking to it of his deepest sorrows, sins, and failings. In return, the donkey looks at him with complete, silent comprehension and grants him absolute forgiveness.

Narrative Intent and Tone

For Reve, the passage was not a profane satire or a celebration of bestiality. Instead, it was framed as an expression of devotional longing. The narrator imagines sexual union not as an aggressive conquest, but as a total surrender to God in which human shame is dissolved by divine grace.

Reve maintained that because human language and human beings are inherently flawed, the deepest form of love known to him—physical and emotional intimacy—was the only vehicle through which he could meaningfully approach the divine. By uniting with God in the lowest, most vulnerable form (a beast of burden), the narrator achieved the reconciliation he could never find among fellow humans.

Theological and Mystical Roots

Although the general public viewed the passage as shocking and perverse, Reve's defense drew heavily from classical traditions of Christian mysticism and biblical theology.

Animal Symbolism in Christian Tradition

Throughout Christian iconology and scripture, God and the divine persons of the Trinity are repeatedly represented by animals:

• The Lamb of God (Agnus Dei): The primary biblical metaphor for Jesus Christ is that of a vulnerable, sacrificial animal (John 1:29).
• The Holy Spirit as a Dove: The third person of the Trinity is explicitly depicted in the Gospels descending in the bodily form of a dove (Luke 3:22).
• The Donkey in Scripture: The donkey occupies a unique place in Christian theology. Christ entered Jerusalem before his crucifixion riding on a young donkey (Matthew 21:1–7), fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 as an intentional demonstration of humility rather than worldly power. Furthermore, tradition associates the donkey with Christ's birth in Bethlehem and the flight into Egypt.

Reve argued that if God could become a defenseless lamb or a dove, there was no theological contradiction in God assuming the form of an ass to demonstrate supreme humility and gentleness.

Bridal Mysticism and Kenosis

Reve's defense also invoked the tradition of Christian bridal mysticism (Brautmystik), found in the writings of medieval and early modern mystics such as Bernard of Clairvaux, Hadewijch, John of the Cross, and Teresa of Ávila. These writers routinely used intensely sensual, bridal, and explicitly erotic allegories—frequently inspired by the Old Testament's Song of Songs—to describe the soul's union with God.

Reve connected his text to the theological doctrine of kenosis (from the Greek for "emptying"), described in Philippians 2:7, which holds that Christ emptied himself of divine glory to take the form of a servant. Reve extended this logic to suggest that an incarnation as a humble animal was the ultimate manifestation of kenotic love, meeting humanity at its most debased level.

The Legal Framework: Article 147 of the Penal Code

The legal controversy centered on Article 147 of the Dutch Penal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht). Enacted in 1932, the provision was often referred to as the Lex Donner, named after Jan Donner, the orthodox Calvinist Minister of Justice in the first cabinet of Dirk Jan de Geer.

The 1932 "Lex Donner"

The law had been created during the interwar period amid political tensions between the Dutch Christian establishment and radical left-wing movements. The Communist Party of the Netherlands (CPN) and militant secularists had published anti-religious caricatures, such as cartoons in the freethinkers' periodical De Vrijdenker that lampooned Christian doctrines. The 1932 statute aimed to penalize deliberate, public insults directed at the religious convictions of believers to maintain public order.

Article 147, subsection 1, stated that anyone who publicly insulted religious feelings through "scornful blasphemy" (smalende godslastering) was liable to imprisonment for up to three months or a fine:

"Hij die zich in het openbaar, bij monde of bij geschrift of afbeelding, opzettelijk kwetsend voor godsdienstige gevoelens door smalende godslastering uit, wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste drie maanden of geldboete..."

The Significance of "Smalend"

The Dutch parliament had included the word smalend (meaning scornful, derisive, or mocking) with great deliberation in 1932. The legislators did not wish to criminalize philosophical atheism, scientific inquiry, or honest inter-faith theological disputes. An individual had the right to deny the existence of God or to critique church dogma.

To violate Article 147, the speech had to meet two rigorous criteria:

1. The expression had to target God directly (blasphemy), rather than merely criticizing religious institutions or clergy.
2. The act had to be committed in a smalende manner: with the explicit, malicious intention to insult, mock, or jeer at the divine.

Political Outcry and Prosecution

The publication of Dialoog and Nader tot U occurred at a time when the Netherlands was governed by deeply institutionalized religious divides, known as pillarization (verzuiling). Under this system, Dutch society was segregated into Protestant, Catholic, socialist, and liberal pillars, each with its own schools, trade unions, media, and political parties.

When conservative Christians encountered Reve's passage, they perceived it as a direct and profane assault on the holiness of God. The image of the Almighty participating in a homosexual, bestial sexual act was seen as an unacceptable violation of public decency and an intolerable insult to Christian believers.

Parliamentary Inquiries

In February 1966, members of parliament from conservative Christian parties raised formal questions to the Minister of Justice, Ivo Samkalden (a member of the social-democratic Labor Party, PvdA). Prominent figures from the Reformed Political Party (SGP), such as Hette Abma and Cor van der Peijl, alongside politicians from the Christian Historical Union (CHU) and the Catholic People's Party (KVP), demanded to know why the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie) had not taken action against Reve for blatant blasphemy.

Minister Samkalden initially urged restraint, stating that it was the role of the independent judiciary, not the executive, to assess literary works. However, formal criminal complaints from offended citizens flooded into police stations across the country. Under intense political and public pressure, the Public Prosecutor in Amsterdam initiated criminal proceedings against Reve under Article 147, subsection 1.

The Donkey Trial (Het Ezelproces, 1966–1968)

The legal proceedings against Gerard Reve lasted from 1966 until 1968, moving through the District Court, the Court of Appeal, and finally the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.

District Court of Amsterdam (1966)

Reve appeared before the Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam (District Court) on 10 October 1966. The proceedings drew immense public and media interest. Reve treated the court appearance with a combination of solemn gravity and calculated theatricality. He arrived wearing a tailored dark suit and an enormous, conspicuous wooden crucifix around his neck.

Rather than arguing that an artist held an absolute right to offend, Reve mounted a defense based on religious sincerity. He testified that the passage was an authentic account of his personal faith:

• He argued that he did not view God as an abstract, unapproachable philosophical concept, but as a living presence of boundless love.
• He asserted that his love for God was total and incorporated his physical, sexual, and psychological reality as a gay man.
• He insisted that the encounter was devoid of mockery: the donkey was treated with reverence, care, and worship.

The prosecution contended that the image of God engaging in anal intercourse with a human being was inherently insulting to the nature of God, regardless of the author's internal psychological motivations.

On 20 October 1966, the District Court acquitted Reve. The judges ruled that the text did not demonstrate an intent to mock or insult God. The court recognized that the passage, read in the context of Reve's broader literary and spiritual themes, reflected an idiosyncratic religious perception rather than scornful derision.

Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (1967)

The Public Prosecution Service appealed the acquittal to the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal). The prosecution argued that the District Court had given too much weight to Reve's subjective literary intentions. They claimed that certain depictions of God were so fundamentally degraded that they constituted objective scorn under Article 147, irrespective of the author's declared motives.

On 18 April 1967, the Court of Appeal affirmed the acquittal. The appellate judges held that the term smalend required proof that the author aimed to belittle God or hold the divine up to public ridicule. Because Reve's prose emerged from an intensely personal search for spiritual redemption, it could not be legally characterized as derisive or scornful.

The Supreme Court Ruling (1968)

The prosecution appealed once more on points of law (cassatie) to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden). The central legal question was whether an expression could be considered "scornful blasphemy" based solely on its offensive character to average believers, or whether proof of deliberate scorn toward the divine was strictly required.

On 2 April 1968, the Supreme Court delivered its landmark verdict (recorded in Dutch legal jurisprudence as HR 2 april 1968, NJ 1968, 373). The court formally rejected the prosecution's appeal and upheld Reve's total acquittal.

Court Level	Date of Decision	Primary Finding	Outcome
Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam (District Court)	20 October 1966	Reve's passage expressed personal religious belief; no intent to mock God.	Acquittal
Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal)	18 April 1967	Confirmed that subjective religious imagery, even if unorthodox, is not derisive.	Acquittal upheld
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court)	2 April 1968	Article 147 requires expressions to be inherently mocking or made with intent to scorn God.	Cassation rejected; acquittal final

The Supreme Court ruled that under the legislative history of Article 147, blasphemy was not defined by whether an expression wounded the religious feelings of orthodox believers. Instead, an offense occurred only if the expression was smalend—meaning that the text, by its very nature or objective form, was deliberately intended to deride, ridicule, or mock God Himself. Because Reve's narrative conveyed a sincere, albeit unconventional, vision of devotional communion, it did not constitute an assault on God's majesty.

Cultural and Historical Impact

The outcome of the Donkey Trial extended far beyond the literary career of Gerard Reve. It unfolded during the mid-to-late 1960s, a period of unprecedented social upheaval and rapid modernization in Dutch society.

Depillarization and Secularization

Between 1960 and 1970, the Netherlands experienced one of the most rapid transitions from a deeply religious society to a secularized state in Western Europe. This process, known as depillarization (ontzuiling), saw the traditional authority of churches, confessional political parties, and religious leaders disintegrate.

The Donkey Trial exposed the growing gulf between an older generation of conservative churchgoers and an emergent counterculture that prioritized individual expression, artistic autonomy, and sexual liberation. The acquittal of Reve demonstrated that the state judiciary would no longer enforce traditional theological dogmas against artists.

Divisions within Dutch Catholicism

The trial coincided with the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). The Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands was then considered one of the most progressive and radical branches of global Catholicism, experimenting with liturgical reforms and modern theological interpretations (such as the Dutch Catechism of 1966).

Reve's reception among Catholics was starkly divided:

• Conservative Catholics viewed his work as obscene sacrilege, particularly given his recent formal admission into the Church.
• Progressive clergy, most notably the prominent Jesuit student priest Father Jan van Kilsdonk (who had supported Reve during his conversion), defended Reve. Van Kilsdonk and sympathetic theologians argued that Reve was a serious, tortured seeker of grace whose provocative prose revealed genuine spiritual depth, rather than a malicious enemy of the faith.

Visibility of Homosexuality

The trial occurred alongside early modern campaigns for gay rights in the Netherlands. At the time, while homosexuality was not illegal among consenting adults over 21 (due to the separate, discriminatory Article 248bis of the Penal Code), it was still widely considered a shameful illness or a moral perversion.

Reve refused to treat his homosexuality as a defect. In the courtroom, he openly discussed homosexual desire as an intrinsic element of his God-given existence. By framing gay eroticism not merely as acceptable, but as capable of sacred communion with God, Reve fundamentally disrupted the moral categories of the era.

Legal Legacy and Abolition of the Blasphemy Statute

The Supreme Court's 1968 ruling had a profound effect on the Dutch legal system, effectively ending the prosecution of blasphemy in the Netherlands for the remainder of the twentieth century.

The "Dead Letter" Doctrine

By establishing that Article 147 required proof that an artist or speaker intended to scorn or mock God directly, the Supreme Court made successful blasphemy prosecutions virtually impossible. Any defendant could argue that their provocative remarks, literature, or art were manifestations of personal belief, philosophical critique, or aesthetic expression.

Following the 1968 ruling, prosecutors consistently refused to bring charges under Article 147. For over four decades, the blasphemy statute remained in the penal code as a "dead letter" (a law that remains formally on the books but is never applied in practice).

Later Free Speech Debates

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the legal debate over religious speech shifted away from blasphemy (insults directed at God) to hate speech and group defamation (insults directed at people on the basis of their religion or race, governed by Articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code):

• Theo van Gogh: The provocative Dutch filmmaker and columnist repeatedly attacked religious beliefs, calling Christians and Muslims derogatory names. Despite numerous public complaints, prosecutors declined to charge him with blasphemy, relying on the precedent set by the Donkey Trial.
• Piet Hein Donner's Initiative (2004): Following the assassination of Theo van Gogh by an Islamic extremist in November 2004, the Dutch Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner—the grandson of Jan Donner, who had created the 1932 law—suggested reviving the enforcement of the blasphemy law to protect social harmony and prevent religious groups from feeling humiliated. The proposal met with fierce resistance from parliament and the public, who viewed it as a step backward for free expression.

Formal Repeal (2014)

In November 2009, a parliamentary majority began working toward the formal abolition of Article 147. Progressive and liberal parties argued that the law was an archaic relic that provided religion with an unjustified, privileged status above other forms of conscience, while human rights treaties and existing anti-discrimination statutes already protected individual citizens from harassment and hate crimes.

In November 2012, the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) voted to abolish the blasphemy ban, and the Senate (Eerste Kamer) approved the measure in December 2013. On 1 February 2014, the repeal officially took effect, formally removing the Lex Donner from the Dutch Penal Code 46 years after Reve's final victory in the Supreme Court.

See also

• Gerard Reve
• De Avonden
• Blasphemy law in the Netherlands
• Freedom of speech in the Netherlands
• Pillarization
• Jan Donner
• Piet Hein Donner
• LGBT history in the Netherlands