The problem that I found with this author ’s article was not that he was attempting to engage Hinduism in a non-aggressive manner, but that he did so at the expense of drawing a sharp dividing line between Christian truth and Hindu beliefs. In an increasingly apostate universalist-syncretist-antinomianpost-postmodern American “Christianity,” should we be blurring such foundational distinctions? Are we not, thereby, adding to the self-refuting, unconsciously ironic “dialgoue” that would seek to eliminate Christ as we know Him (i.e. as the Word of God presents Him) – the absolutely unique, unmatched, Creator become flesh to save man from the wrath of God Almighty – in order to be more accepting, inclusive, and “mature”?
This is a serious consideration that I don’t see being made much in many of today’s churches. We’ve tried to appeal to shared particulars instead of making our appeal to universals.
Paul’s speech to the Athenian men is an appeal to universals that then leads into particulars about the Christian faith. Why have we inverted the movement? Have we uncritically accepted calls to “find common ground” with others who really share no common ground with us when it comes to matters of doctrine?
I think we have.
A great example of this can be found in how the author of this article chooses to end his section on Hiduism. He briefly touches upon Hinduism’s idolatry, urging Christians to not be too harsh in criticizing their behavior. Why? Because Israel, like the Hindus, practiced idolatry throughout its history and we don’t go ballistic on them, do we? No, he claims, but we actually appreciate this fact about them. Quoting from a pastor who shall remain nameless, he writes:
“…On a question of this nature the light, which is shed by modern historical and literary criticism of the Bible, is very helpful. Thanks to the patient research and industry of modern scholars, we have come to realize that growth of the Old Testament religion was continually impeded by lapses into idolatry…Gradually they were weaned away from idolatry…In course of time the children of Israel became entirely free from the temptations to idol worship and full aware of the nature of God as Spirit.
We do not dismiss the Old Testament because the story of Israel is tainted with idol worship. On the other hand, we find much value in the slow and toilsome growth of Israel towards clearer light about the nature of God and about the method of worshiping Him.The bhakti religion of India may be considered to belong to the spiritual level that is represented in the Old Testament. The faith and devotion and love which have been lavished on idols must be directed towards the one true God…” (p. 88)
Really? A “pastor” is claiming that Israel came to faith progressively, via a cognitive evolutionary process that really involves the acquisition of new information and the repeated practices that relate individuals/nations to said acquired information (i.e. new rituals)? A “pastor” made these egregious errors regarding the Biblical distinction between those who truly had faith and those who didn’t? A “pastor” disregarded the basic teaching of the New Testament regarding unregenerate man’s antagonistic posture toward “the one true God” (see, Romans 1 & 3)?
Really?
Yes, really.
In an attempt to evangelize, some have sought “common ground” that just doesn’t exist, subordinating the New Testament’s own theological analysis of the Old Testament (that is to say, God’s commentary upon/lucid explication of God’s record of God’s people) to postmodern concepts in the process, and boldly contradicting some very plain teachings.
And this is something that is, unfortunately, becoming more and more commonplace. So now is a good time to state the following facts:
1. All human beings are not children of God. According to the Bible, only those who have been born-again/born-from-above can legitimately be called the children of God(cf. John 3:1-8 & 1 John 3:1-3).
2. One either has saving faith, or does not. This is not a concoction bequeathed to us present day believers by Calvin and Luther, it’s purely Biblical (cf. Romans 4 & Galatians 4, et al). “Coming to faith” is not a cognitive evolutionary process, it is a gift from God posterior to regeneration. As R.C. Sproul wonderfully articulates, Regeneration Precedes Faith.
3. A denial of points (1.) and (2.), which are foundational tenets of Biblical Christianity, is intolerable heresy akin to the universalist-syncretist-antinomian (i.e. heretical) nonsense spewed by those of the Emerging Church movement.
Now, I’m not advocating that you burn your favorite Ravi Zacharias book, or call the author of this article a heretic. In fact, on the basis of the other articles in the book I would actually recommend this book to those who are looking to familiarize themselves with the contemporary challenges that Christians will face on the mission field.
What I am doing is asking you to be discerning, and to not compromise truth for the sake of winning converts to a Christ-less Christianity, perpetuating a religious money machine, or pleasing the world.
Why not follow Paul who presented the validity of his case on the basis of universals and then proceeded to explain and defend the distinct, pure, and absolutely unique truth of the gospel?
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Now earlyin the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. 7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
For those who haven’t been introduced to wonderful world of textual criticism yet, John 8:1-11 is a good place to start. The question of the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae, i.e. John 8:1-11 as it is referred to amongst scholars, has caused quite a bit of controversey.To summarize the entirety of why the debate exists, we can point to two main factors:
1. It’s late appearance in the “best” manuscripts
&
2. Its supposed usage of “non-Johannine” (i.e. “non-John”) words.
These two factors, apparently, caused the entire passage’s authenticity to be called into question by scholars of the rank and association of men like John Calvin and Bruce Metzger (to name but two among the many who would argue against it). [For a more in depth history and analysis of the Pericope Adultera problem, see here.]
Yet, what I find humorous and disturbingly problematic is the fact that their accepted method of evaluation/interpretation has not been called into question. The incident, its position in the gospel narrative, and the reliability of the record are all called into question – but the method of evaluation/interpretation used by such scholars who consider it to be a later scribal interpolation is assumed to be valid and reliable.
But is it?
Several months ago, I read through John’s gospel as intently and closely as I could, and found that the book evidences a very rigid structure that surfaces repeatedly and which serves as the vehicle whereby John communicates his opening statement concerning the identity of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is, John uses the structure of his gospel to communicate the simple truth that Jesus is the Word of God (i.e. the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament).
Some main structural features of John’s gospel are:
1. Symbolism (e.g. the wedding at Cana where the “new wine” Christ makes is considered superior to the “wine at first” by the master of the feast, pointing to Jesus’ wine of the new covenant as superior to the old covenant)
2. Typological Fulfillment (e.g. “I am the bread which came down from heaven…” [John 6], “…as Moses lifted up the serpent…” [John 3], et al)
3. Narratival Incremental Repetition (e.g. The healing of the blind man in John 9 identifies Christ with increasing clarity as the narrative draws to a close – first identifying Him as a “man” [v. 11], then as a “prophet” [v. 17], and finally as “Lord” [v. 36 & v. 38] – which narratively parallels his physical healing and the blindness of those who cannot see their own sin or see that Jesus is the Messiah). Literary scholar Robert Alter touches upon incremental repetition’s appearance throughout Scripture as a vehicle for the communication of ideas (i.e. as an indispensible literary technique) in his works, primarily The Art of Biblical Narrative.
There are more, but I think these suffice to show that what would contribute to a better, wider evaluative/interpretive methodology would be the consideration of the text at hand as a piece of literature. The problem with the conclusions drawn by Calvin and Metzger, let’s say, is that they fail to see that the Pericope Adulturae is structurally indispensible to the gospel of John.
John’s gospel is rife with incremental repetitions that typically occur in triplets. This something we also find in the book of Revelation 5, for example, which contains three doxologies: (a.) the Lamb’s worthiness to open the scroll (vv. 8-10), (b.) the Lamb’s worthiness to receive the seven fold blessing (vv. 11-12), and (c.) the worthiness of the Father and the Lamb to receive worship (vv. 13-14).
The pericope in question meets all three literary markers as a (1.)symbol of the marriage of Christ and the church, (2.) the fulfillment of God ordained marriage-types found in the book of Genesis, and (3.) completes a macro-narratival incremental repetition.
Symbolism
John’s portrayal of Christ as the bridegroom is first hinted at in John 2:1-12, where the bridegroom is identified as being the agent responsible for bringing out the best/new wine at the wedding feast, when in reality it is Christ who is responsible. Subtle? Sure, but John’s intention is pretty clear. Jesus is the promised bridgegroom/Messiah. And if isn’t clear enough, he goes on to record John the Baptist’s identification of Jesus as the bridegroom in John 3:29-30:
29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
On a level for the plain eye to discern, John is identifying Jesus as the Bridegroom. This symbol, drawn from the Old Testament, is also used in the book of Revelation where John refers to the bride of Christ as the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven (Rev. 19:1-10), and is characteristic of the entire Biblical portrait of Christ (e.g., cf. Ps. 45).
Typological Fulfillment
As I mentioned earlier, John’s allusions and direct references to the Old Testament are many (perhaps too many to list here!), and find their explication, therefore, in a careful assessment of those texts in question. This is the case for John 2, for instance, which mirrors Gen. 40 in a variety of ways but perhaps most powerfully in its usage of the wine/bread><blood/broken body motif which foreshadows the Last Supper, but also helps John identify Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. More time can and should be devoted to the comparison of John 2 and Genesis 40, but for now I’ll draw out the basic parallels between the two.
1. Wine/Bread: In Gen. 40:1-15, the butler’s dream about wine appears first; in vv. 16-19 the baker’s dream about bread, i.e. his body, follows. In John 2, the first focus is wine (vv. 1-12), the second is Jesus’ body (vv.13- 21). John follows the basic structure of the passage in Genesis.
2. Three Days: Gen. 40 hinges upon a three day period prior to the release of the butler and the baker (40:20, et al). In John, the wedding in Cana occurs on “the third day”, and Jesus makes an explicit reference to the resurrection occurring after three days (respectively, 2:1 & 19)
3. The Satisfaction of the King/The Broken Body: In Gen. 40, the Pharoah is served wine by the butler, with whom he is pleased, while the body of the baker is hanged. In a similar fashion, John 2 presents us with the “master of the wedding feast” who is well pleased with the new wine given by Christ on the third day, and Jesus speaks of the breaking/hanging/crucifixion of His body and His resurrection on the third day.
I think these three points are sufficient to show that John is very purposefully aligning his narrative record with Genesis 40 in order to elicit typlogical fulfillment. Jesus is the true butler who poured out His own blood to satisfy the wrath of God, and whose blood continually speaks on our behalf before the Father (cf. Hebrews 9:11-15). He is also greater than the baker, His body being broken for our sins and not His own, when He was condemened to “hang” upon the tree of Calvary (cf. Galatians 3:10-14).
On this basis, it’s easy to see why John parallels the three “God-Ordained marriages of Genesis” with the three “Christ-Sinful Woman Narratives” in his gospel (which I’ve written a little about here). Here is an unfortunately brief comparative typological analysis.
1. [Adam/Eve (Gen. 2:15-25)]/[Jesus/Mary (John 19:31-37 & 20:11-17)]: Both events are situated in a garden, containing a Gardener (Adam is really a gardener, while Mary supposes Jesus is the Gardener), after the sides of both males have been pierced. Moses tells us that man will cleave unto his wife; Jesus tells Mary not to cling unto Him, for He has not yet ascended to His Father. The typological significance of John 20:
2. [Isaac/Rebekah (Gen. 24)]/[Jesus/Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)]: Both events feature a woman being brought to the promised Seed (Isaac and Jesus) by men who belong to the household of Abraham (in Gen. 24, the servant (Eliezer) is spiritually, as a man of faith, a member of Abraham’s household, whereas those who bring the woman caught in adultery to Jesus are spiritually unrelated to Abraham – cf. John 8:31-59 and cf. Galatians 4:21-31); also, in both narratives the woman’s history is presented to the male in question by the aforementioned servant[s].
3. [Jacob/Rachel (Gen. 29:1-14)]/[Jesus/Woman at the Well (John 4)]: As Jacob traveled to meet Rachel, so Christ was traveling to meet the Samaritan woman at the well (who references Jacob’s well and questions Christ as to whether or not He is greater than Jacob), and as Jacob offers to roll away the stone covering the well and water Rachel’s sheep, so Christ speaks of the outpouring of His Holy Spirit (which succeeded His rolling away the stone that covered His own tomb).
Narratival Incremental Repetition
As I briefly mentioned above, one manner of incremental repetition can be found within a particular narrative (e.g. the blind man’s gradual ability to truly see Christ as Lord and Messiah is aided literarily by the use of incremental repetition, see above). However, another usage incremental repetition can be found in entire narratives. There are three of which I’m aware.
1. Bread Breaking Narratives: There are three bread breaking scenes that incrementally climax in John 21. These are: (1.) The feeding of the five thousand in John 6, (2.) The Lord’s supper in John 13, and (3.) The Lord’s breakfast in John 21.
2. The Resurrection Narratives: There are three resurrection narratives that climax in, you guessed it, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. These are: (1.) The near resurrection of the Nobleman’s son in John 4, (2.) The resurrection of Lazarus, and (3.) The resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
3. The Christ-Sinful Woman Narratives: Seeing as I’ve already gone over these, I’ll just speak about the incremental climax. John’s presentation of Christ as greater than Jacob, and as the truly only begotten Son who, unlike Isaac, was truly sacrificed by the Father, climaxes in his presentation of Jesus as the Last Adam who side was pierced and who purchased His bride thereby – the true Son of God who, unlike Adam, fully obeyed the Father and now will never die.
Final Remarks…
There is much more I could write here, but time is against me. My point in this blog was simply to elucidate the structure of John’s gospel in the hopes of creating much needed research, on behalf of textual scholars, into how macro-literary structure orders language use and not vice-versa. Whether or not the passage is included in the early manuscripts is nearly inconsequential once we seriously examine the literary work on its own terms and not according to methodological presuppositions that, in truth, severely limit the criteria for determining the authenticity of a given text of Scripture.
Questioning one’s own methodological presuppositions is vital to a healthy consideration of complementary, not altogether alternative or contradictory, data when facing a problematic portion of Scripture.
If we just stick to our own methodologies, in spite of what data/evidence another methodology may yield we’re no different than these guys…
With the clamor of chaos in the marketplace, the church, the family, and just about every other sphere life we can imagine, it’s easy to lose sight of Who it is we serve. Now, I’m not denying the reality of tons of products claiming to show Him to us. Rather, I’m stating the unfortunate fact that either Jesus is absent or Jesus is commodified. And we are told: “Look, here He is!” or “See, over here!” But is He really there? And if He isn’t, then where is He?
Where are we to look?
In Revelation 1, John gives us the answer:
9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,”and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia:to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” 12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band.
For years, I’ve overlooked the context in which John receives this revelation of the Lord, failing to ask this simple, yet profound, question:
What comes before John’s revelation of Christ?
And what is the answer?
The Word of God.
The entire revelation of Jesus Christ begins with the Word of God. John is in exile because of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. John, in the Spirit, hears the Word of God. John turns to see the Voice that spoke to him.
John sees the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.
“Simple enough,” you say. Yet, where we do you and I turn? Are we running after “visions” of Christ that are no visions at all? Where do we expect to see Christ? And what or Who do we expect to see? A divine ATM? A relationship guru? A pop-psychologist?
Who do we say that He, the Son of Man, is?
John writes:
13 [...] in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 1718 I And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
We often, rightly, see the Lord’s omnipotence and glory as He stands before John, all the while neglecting one subtle detail.
The right hand that holds the seven stars – i.e. the seven angels of the seven churches over which Christ watches, through which He walks, and which He intensely watches and scrutinizes – is the same hand that is laid upon the fearful apostle’s shoulders. [Go ahead, read it again ;)]
Because Christ has overcome death, we too have overcome death. Because He is all powerful, upholding all things by the Word of His power, we can be comforted and not terrified.
Because we have His Word and His Spirit, we too can see Him as the conquering Lion of the tribe of Judah, and the gentle Lamb of God who washed us in His own blood (as John did.)
If we want to find Christ in the midst of our crises, we need to look no further than the Word of God.
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
-Acts 17:22-31
For my birthday last year, I received a copy of Ravi Zacharias’ book Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (Thomas Nelson, 2007). The book is a collection of essays (written by various authors) that aim to address contemporary challenges facing Christians as they seek to fulfill the great commission in a postmodern, poly-ethnic culture. Among these essays, the one on Eastern Religion (particularly, Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age-ified mashups of the two) kind of caught me off guard. It wasn’t that the author had anything “revolutionary” or “groundbreaking” to say about the religion and how Christians should respond to it; rather, it was the overly sympathetic tone that he used when describing various aspects of the religion.
Here are some quotes:
- “…the bhakti (devotion) movement of Hinduism encourages devotion to gods that would put Christians to shame…” (p. 83)
- “…Salvation is earned by good works; these can contribute toward a better/higher birth in the next cycle of reincarnation or eternal communion with god not very different from what Christians aspire for.” (p. 85)
- “In ancient Hinduism, bhakti movements show a striking similarity to Christian devotion to a personal, relational God.” (p. 85)
The problem is subtle, but present:
1. Are Christianity and the bhakti sect of Hinduism anything alike?
2. Is it right for us to practically equate different aspects of our faith with those of another for the sake of the Gospel?
Biblically speaking, I would say that (1.)No, they aren’t; and (2.)No, it isn’t.
Contrary to the postmodern “everything-is-a-dialogue” categorical imperative that even the Church has begun to uphold, Christianity is absolutely unique. For even the constituent beliefs we hold tie into the greater, systematic doctrinal truth presented in the Bible.
And this is the problem.
Every faith can be understood systematically; therefore, every constituent element of that faith must be understood in relation, not in isolation, to the whole of that faith. The phrase “good works” in Christianity hold a completely different meaning than it does for members of another religion. “Salvation” and “communion with God” may seem to mean the same thing, but they don’t.
When Paul addressed the Athenian men, to what did he appeal?
1. To their admission of ignorance.
2. To the fact of their religious sensibility, in spite of their ignorance.
3. To their shared humanity.
These are universally shared traits. When Paul got into particulars, he didn’t cause false unity at the expense of sound doctrine, but division.We read:
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” 32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.”
Christ divides. Men are either opposed to Him or they will fall at His feet in worship. Biblically speaking, there is no spectrum moving from idolatry to true faith in Christ. One is either a child of Light or a child of darkness; a child of God, or a child of the wicked one.
This may not be politically correct, but it’s pretty plainly laid out in the Word of God.
Now if you didn’t catch it, the above passage tells us something apparently contradictory:
At the end of his arduous journey through life, blind Jacob saw.
Ironically, this is one passage of Scripture I’ve yet to see discussed by individuals who would claim to see tons of contradictions within the Word of God. One would assume this would be an easy target and yet it often gets passed right over by both believers and unbelievers. Why? Why did I never observe this and ask:
How did/could blind Jacob see?
Being familiar with the story, I noticed that I tend to skim over the text at times in search of those truths that have been preached upon countless times. Well, this time it was different: I had to stop and look at different translations, and a few commentary notes here and there in order to try to make sense of what was going on here.
Not surprisingly, all of the resources I checked out interpreted Jacob’s inability to see as being only partial (i.e. he was nearly blind, not fully blind). I felt, and still feel, that this is a plausible solution to the apparent contradiction, although I think we may be missing the bigger picture the Holy Spirit is painting for us in this chapter.
Why?
Well you see, the word used here for “see” (ראה) is first used in the opening of the Jacob’s speech to Joseph in vv. 3-4:
3 Then Jacob said to Joseph: “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, 4 and said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a multitude of people, and give this land to your descendants after you as an everlasting possession.’
Jacob’s sight is, in the above passage, spiritual and literal. Could it be that blind Jacob’s sight, his ability to see Joseph’s sons, was not literal but spiritual (or possibly both – i.e. partial blindness and full spiritual sight)? Could it be that Jacob’s literal blindness wasn’t paralleling his father’s literal/figurative blindness in Gen. 27?
I believe we wouldn’t be in strange territory if we took it to mean precisely that blind Jacob’s sight was (figurative) spiritual, not literal. Especially since it isn’t until Jacob blesses Ephraim (the younger) with a greater blessing than Manessah (the firstborn) that we read:
17 Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head.
Up until this point, the only seeing that was being done was being done by Jacob. This is significant because it seems to validate interpreting Jacob’s ability to seeas being not only literal (i.e. in his extremely bad eyesight) but also spiritual. Jacob could see that it was Ephraim who was going to be more highly blessed by God, not Manessah.
Joseph’s literal ability to see doesn’t help him see what Jacob sees in Ephraim’s future, so he tries to correct his father’s behavior and is corrected by his blind father!
So now can you see where I’m coming from?
We often fail to see God’s perfect plan, although we are looking right at it. We sometimes depend more on our natural abilities than we do in His Word/promises (remember, this is all begins with Jacob’s reference to God’s promise).
Not only that, and here’s where it gets even more convicting, but we often criticize the spirituality of others on the basis of how their natural abilities compare to ours.
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
With the clamor of chaos in the marketplace, the church, the family, and just about every other sphere life we can imagine, it’s easy to lose sight of Who it is we serve. Now, I’m not denying the reality of tons of products claiming to show Him to us. Rather, I’m stating the unfortunate fact that either Jesus is absent or Jesus is 
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
