Merry Christmas?

Every year Christmas time seems to get a little more unreal.

At first I thought it was just that I was getting more cynical with age; but being aware this year, I'm sure it's really getting more bizarre... (and, okay, I'm also more cynical, too). It hit me particularly when my wife and I were in the unusual situation of sitting in a Spanish-language church for a Navidad service. Besides several Spanish versions of popular Christmas hymns, the young music group suddenly put Jingle Bells on the overhead projector, with English words. Somehow, seeing the words 'writ large' as it were, made me very conscious of how crazy they must seem to those in the congregation who understood English. What could they make of 'bells on bob-tails?' In the midst of all the religious hymns in Spanish, what was the relevance of sleigh-bells on horses? Yet there is something quite illustrative about the contradictions.

From that service, I came away hyper-sensitive to all the craziness of this season. As I listened to the old, hackneyed tunes on the radio, the weirdness factor kept growing. Every singer established enough to be called an ‘artist' has to release a Christmas album sooner or later to cement their position in the commercial music scene. So we get all those old, familiar tunes 'covered' by every artist, and each has to add his/her distinctive embellishments, with more or less success-- you are the judge. Once a year, for maybe ten days or so, we get to hear all those old saws, by a platoon of artists, and just as they almost take over our feverish minds, they mercifully disappear for another eleven and a half months.

It's those songs that set the mood for the season, and if anyone stops to ponder them, all kinds of unsettling questions arise to sour that mood. We get so comfortable with the songs that the obvious questions don't occur to us. But if you had to explain the Christmas memes to a complete outsider-- the classic anthropologist from Mars-- you'd start to see what I mean. Like, he/she might well ask 'what does an impossible reindeer with luminescent nose have to do with the birth of the Son of God? Or a zombie snowman? And all those other secular favorites, ranging from rock rhythms to almost anything? Of course, they are all examples of the de-religifying of Christmas, if I may coin a word. Over the decades, the feast has, in the pop media, lost almost all of its original religious significance, and has morphed into a kind of winter saturnalia, a warm, family get-together time that appeals to almost all 'communities' regardless of religious outlook. Even the formulized greeting ‘Merry Christmas’ begs questioning. Why should it be merry... which connotes triviality, at best? (The French ‘Joyeaux Noel’ makes more sense for a Christian).

To the beleaguered Christians, this secularization of Christmas is much lamented. But it may actually be a blessing in disguise. Rather than asking the rhetorical 'Who took Christ out of Christmas?' Christians would do better to ask the question posed by an Internet writer who pondered 'Who put Christ into the Solstice?' Yes, that makes more sense. After all, there is nothing in scripture to indicate when Jesus was born. Nor is there the slightest hint that his believers ought to celebrate his birthday. For those who dare investigate, it seems that Constantine, the Roman emperor credited with making Christianity the official faith of Rome, decided his decision would enjoy much better chances of success if he eased his subjects into the transition from paganism. So, he made Sunday the official day of religious observance, and... he transformed the old feast of the winter solstice-- the day of shortest sunlight and longest darkness. Under Constantine's plan, the 're-birth of the sun' became celebrated as the birth of the Son, and pagan symbols like evergreen trees and yule logs were adopted into the new scheme of things. Eventually, 'Father Christmas' came along in Europe, and morphed into the stereotyped, rotund Santa Claus that infests every shopping mall in America every December. The once hallowed, holy day has become the premier holiday of the modern calendar, accompanied by its commercial companion, 'boxing day.' While the religious aspect is now trivial, the holiday has become so vital to retailers that many could not survive without the buying frenzy of Christmas.

On the flip side, the expectations surrounding Christmas are so onerous that many innocent 'consumers' suffer great stress at this time of year as they try to find the right gifts for people who don't really need more stuff; and as they try to find the money to pay for all the futile presents. I've heard it claimed that the death rate from suicide and other causes peaks over the Christmas/New Year season. What seemed a good idea 17 centuries ago, in a more religious era has turned out quite differently in today's society.

Perhaps the ultimate irony lies in the efforts of some progressive reformers to enforce a non-religious Christmas, one with no hymns, no nativity scene, no mention of Christ, and no church affiliation at all. To bolster their efforts, they've tried to add Hanukah and Kwanza, and heaven knows what, to the 'generic season' while denaturing Christmas into a Santa-Claus fest. Which takes us to the wacky concoction of incongruous themes that have grated on my nerves with increasing urgency over the decades.

As I stated, all these contradictions could have a beneficial outcome if they roused Christians to really think about their faith, and its sources, and to realize that they must stop depending on institutions and start developing a personal understanding of scripture and the gospel. Is this likely to occur? No; more likely, the contradictions will increase. Maybe all mention of Jesus will be removed, and tho the day may still be called Christmas, it will be completely non-religious, maybe even irreligious. No matter; I have long ago stopped taking it seriously.

Dogmatic Certitude

How many of you readers have found yourselves among a group of people who 'belong' to some religion or another, and just observed and listened to their chatter? If the people are true believers-- of whatever they call their faith-- they will exhibit certain traits that are held in common by all such cults, whether big or small. That uniformity in behavior, and often structure, can be puzzling to the objective and unfamiliar observer.

Probably the most striking characteristic that true believers manifest is that they are completely comfortable with the certainty that their religion has all the answers.

It doesn't matter what question of existence that you place before them; they unhesitatingly respond with the 'correct and only correct answer.' They alone, of all schools of thought, have the answer; all other responses are, therefore, incorrect or lacking in some way. After one has been thru this kind of situation a few times with different religious groups-- including some that appear completely different-- one can find it almost hilarious. At least it demonstrates some deeper truth about human nature and the perversity of human belief.

To give an example of what I'm talking about, let me state that I was raised as a Roman Catholic, getting the full treatment of catechism classes, the sacraments, priestly sermons, Latin masses, and so on. In those days, the RC Church had all the answers; they were found in the Church literature, or were handed down to the laity from the big guy, the Pope, via his hierarchy of clergy. Somehow (God be praised) I escaped the clutches of this General Motors of the religious world. However, I was still a prisoner of the notion of 'church,' and ended up in the camp of the Seventh Day Adventist organization. Now, here's a group that sets itself as a kind of religious insurgency against the RC Church, and has all the scriptures to back them up. Well, guess what? After almost ten years as a member of this group, I found that they are really much closer in general morphology to their designated adversary than they'd ever want to admit! Yes, it's true. Take away the ceremonial paraphernalia of the Catholics, and there are remarkable similarities in the attitudes of the clergy and of the parishioners... 'er, members.

By the grace of God, again I broke free of the benign shackles of Adventism. This time, tho, I was older and wiser; and twice-burned, I was not about to make the same mistake again. It finally dawned on me that a relationship with the Supreme Creator has nothing to do with huddling around with people who have developed a common dogma concerning the supposed nature of this unknowable Being. Far from it; these organizations inevitably become convenient vessels of the great enemy of souls, Satan, in his relentless and venomous campaign to destroy humanity. That, alas, is a consequence of fallen human nature. So I finally took responsibility for my own religious outlook, my own beliefs, and my own relationship with God. And, curiously, I found the answers and guidelines necessary in the same scriptures as do those big, organized things called churches.

But the phenomenon of 'religious isomorphism' is not restricted to Christianity. No, not at all. Over the years of open-minded pursuit of faith, I have fellowshipped with groups of various religious persuasions, including Moslems, Bahai's, and Hindus. Sure enough; each group is totally convinced that their system has all the answers. Some of them are fairly pushy in explaining their elaborate beliefs on all aspects of human existence-- from the creation of the universe, to the nature and fate of mankind, and everything in between... they all have all the answers. Of course, there's one small problem that the outsider like myself immediately realizes-- these groups often differ vastly in the details of the answers that they supply, yet they are all convinced that they alone are correct!

Well, 'duh!' They just can't all be correct. You can point this unsettling fact out to the adherents of any one of the myriad of sects... and it will have no effect on their thinking. No, they remain resolute in their certitude. God is clearly a Catholic for the Catholics, a Muslim for the Muslims, a million manifestations for the Hindus, Jehovah for the Witnesses, and so it goes. Once someone makes that commitment to a creed, he or she is highly reluctant to exercise any kind of free thinking-- what would their religious peers think? What about all the time and sacrifices they made to obtain this ‘final truth?’ They cannot even seem to exercise any imagination! They have to inhabit a fully determined world, where their group has all the answers, and no further thinking is necessary. Can thinking be so painful? Is life without all the answers so unbearable?

It stuck me that religions must attract the kind of personality that cannot cope with shades of gray, with uncertainty, with any doubts about the nature of existence and the universe. By the way; I hope the perceptive and unbiased reader can notice clearly that in this regard, even atheists who vigorously defend evolution and attack God, are themselves behaving exactly like the religious zealots I have described above! They are just as certain that they have all the answers-- at least the answers they need-- as the annoying religionists. I say to all these insecure personalities, 'What's so hard about admitting that there are many things about the cosmos that we just don't understand, and perhaps will never understand?' So what? We don't have to have 'all the answers' in order to live fulfilling lives, to make scientific progress. Why does every intentional group have to insist that they are 'right' and everyone else 'wrong?'

Well, I'm quite sure that each one of the religious sects can supply me with definitive answers to my rhetorical questions... But curse them all; I don't want their pre-packaged, black-and-white, rote responses! Probably each group has a little truth; but none has a patent on truth. And none is willing to admit it. Sadly, the whole world suffers because of their refusal to admit incomplete truth, and because of such restrictive views of reality. With their monocular outlook on world events, each group is doomed to miss things that other groups could teach them. The whole race is the poorer for this problem of the dogged certitude of human belief.

Loud Cry to Modern Christians!

This is a message from a modern-day prophet, an Isaiah or Jeremiah for the times. It is not a message to tickle your ears. You will not sit there with a warm glow of satisfaction as you read. It is a wake-up call, a winnowing stick that will determine whether your faith is a solid kernel... or a thin husk of chaff that can be blown about by the winds of deception.

What are my credentials, you ask, in this age of expert-worship. What credentials did Isaiah or Jeremiah have? Jesus was a carpenter’s son and presumed apprentice; what qualifications did he have to lecture the people of his day? What enduring spiritual insight has been uttered by the mouths of the credentialed professionals, that you should seek them to soothe your itching spirit? If you are truly a Christian, the Holy Spirit should be getting your attention, and should guide your outlook, and provide you with sufficient ‘gifts’ to at least recognize truth when it hits you in the ego.

The Spirit of the Lord speaks thus to His followers in the rich, ‘Western’ lands of plenty:

if you are still under the delusion that the USA is other than a land completely and utterly under the domination of satanic forces, then you haven’t done your homework, Christian! You just haven’t been paying any attention over the last decade as events have unfolded on the world scene. You have spurned the spiritual gift of discernment, thinking it too strenuous, and turned such weighty matters over to your eager-to-please pastors. You’ve been content to sit in your pew for that pathetic hour on Sunday when you are a credentialed Christian, and listen to your hired, professional shepherd tell you what to believe about the faith and current events.

When you appear before your Lord and Judge on that Day, you will try to use the excuse that “they told us we were blessed among the nations for our Christian heritage”? Will you whine that “they said our prosperity was a sign that God was blessing us for going to church and donating to its upkeep”? Didn’t Jesus soundly chastise the Pharisees for that same smug attitude? “We are Abraham’s children, so God must be pleased with us.” Didn’t the prophets of yore raise a loud cry against their ‘blessed,’ complacent compatriots who exploited the masses while claiming the benefits of being an Israelite? Your riches are no sign of spiritual health, Christian! Far from it. If you still sit there passively or actively supporting the depredations of your government, smugly assured that it is carrying out God’s work, you are in a most sad spiritual condition. If you believe that Israel is a land blessed by God and destined to rule over the nations, regardless of the methods it employs and its treatment of its neighbors, then you are living the New Testament with a stony, Old Testament mind-set.

Mind-set is a modern word for what the Bible calls your ‘heart.’ The biblical writers were not referring to the physical organ when they talked about the heart; it’s the term used for the beliefs of your soul, your inner convictions... or lack thereof. The Christian mind-set in modern America is that of an adolescent-- ‘gimme everything I want because I deserve it.’ That’s the gospel of divine entitlement that is so prevalent in America over the last half century, and that is so eagerly lapped up by the masses of pew-warmers. While Americans have bloated their bodies on over-abundant junk food, they have likewise dulled their souls with the pop dogma of Christian prosperity. The USA must be blessed because of its surfeit of material wealth, so the logic goes. It’s so easy for the purveyors of such mind-mush to push this nonsense because their flocks are dull of mind, happy to abdicate the responsibility of discernment to ‘credentialed experts’ who make them feel so good about their wretched excess of wealth in a world where two-thirds of humanity live in pitiful poverty.

Yes, it’s so pleasant to listen to those sermons that quote scripture here and there, and supply all the Christian rationale for sitting contentedly in the land of plenty while the majority of humanity barely survives. In fact, the experts are not content with simply justifying the gross inequalities of the modern world; no, they go on to blame the victims for their poverty, their lack of initiative, their inability to hoist themselves up by the boot-straps (never mind that they can’t even afford boots-- that’s their problem). How many Christians in the US have joined the righteous battle against the ‘evil’ of universal medical care? How dare those ‘communists’ try to extend health care to the undeserving poor! Any attempt at a slightly more equitable distribution of wealth in the land of plenty is met with a storm of indignation, largely from the Republican ‘right,’ the haven of indignant Christians of various stripes, united in their fear of losing their privileges.

While Christians (some at least) rail against the false doctrine of Evolution, they have unconsciously bought into the allied, subtle dogma of economic Darwinism, or social ‘survival of the fittest.’ That cunning view has insinuated itself into the mass mind-set, and envelops a host of social evils with an air of listless inevitability. Thus, the poor get what they deserve; and presumably, so too, the rich. Hence, no need to exercise moral imperatives to address such inequalities-- they are unavoidable consequences of human, Darwinian behavior. How convenient... especially for the rich class! In this manner, the modern Christian is a dupe, speaking against anti-Christian teaching on one hand, while unwittingly accepting and promoting it on the other.

Again, in the realm of core faith, the American Christian has blindly accepted the precepts of the Old Testament while pretending to live under the New Covenant of Christ. It doesn’t occur to them that they are living a contradiction! After all, they reason, the pastors would have told them. As Hosea lamented in his day, My people are destroyed by lack of knowledge. What do I mean? Let me spell it out. The Old Covenant (or Testament) was given to a specific group of people at a time when they needed it. The Old Covenant, given thru Moses to the people of Israel, out in the Sinai wilderness, some 3,300 years ago, was like a ready-made constitution. They needed it to endure as a viable nation after leaving the ancient culture of Egypt. Over time, the Israelites corrupted their covenant, and their society broke down into the many ills decried by their God-sent prophets. The primary alarm of those prophets was the spiritual exploitation by the priests and scholars over the laity, the unschooled populace. Abusing their office, those shepherds led their flocks into spiritual destruction (and often physical destruction, as well). The same tragedy is unfolding in our midst, and this messenger condemns it!

After twelve centuries of corruption of the ‘Laws of Moses,’ God sent His Anointed One (for that is what Messiah means) to His people, Israel. By then, there remained only one remnant of Israel, the tribe known as Jews. Jesus was born a Jew, and delivered a radically new message to the Jews and to the surrounding peoples. In place of the rigid ‘Law of Moses’ with its legalistic, flinty, unbending outlook on morality, Jesus proclaimed a gospel of Love. It starts with the crazy belief that God, rather than seeking to destroy you, really loves you! Yes, God wants people to live a decent, upright, and fulfilling life... and to inherit everlasting life in the beyond. It was a radical message that upset the socio-political-religious order of his day... and continues today to fly in the face of human logic in all aspects of society. The organized Christian Church, within two centuries of Jesus, and to this very day, has not been able to accept his gospel. Instead, using human cunning, the powers that run the Christian churches have invented a hybrid gospel, one that has mesmerized almost everyone. The false, hybridized gospel proclaims the New Covenant message that God is Love, and we are saved by His grace obtained thru Christ’s ministry... and then it adds the proviso that we must thereafter live under the Ten Commandments-- which are the heart of the Old Covenant! The problem seems to be that the hierarchy cannot accept that ordinary believers could allow their mind-set, their heart, to be conditioned and directed by God’s Holy Spirit. So, in their zeal to impose external constraints (‘binding guidelines’) on their flocks, they graft Moses’ Laws onto Jesus’ gospel. Voila-- modern Christianity-- neither New nor Old, neither hot nor cold, but pitifully lukewarm (as per Rev. 3).

American Christians are particularly vulnerable to deception and manipulation. Since most believers are very comfortable by world standards, they have little to motivate them to study the deeper, spiritual meaning of life. (‘Life is good; why bother to ponder?’) All Americans have been purposely conditioned over many decades to put their trust in experts who know better than them. In the religious sphere, the same logic holds sway: don’t study the Bible because it’s too complicated; only trained pastors understand it. Thirdly, despite the promises of the technologists that life would become lazy with futuristic inventions, modern life is, instead, kept at a mad rat-race pace, so that working people have little energy or inclination to devote time to spiritual enquiry. These factors have made it easy for unscrupulous leaders to bamboozle their congregation into believing all kinds of errant articles that would be exposed with some focused Bible study.

Yet some of the worst offences of Christians are among the most obvious contradictions of the true faith of their founder. While Christians believe they are covered by God’s grace, they apparently do not believe that grace should extend to anyone else (ie. to non-Christians, or even, incredibly, to non-Americans!). Thus, they bask in assurance of the good life, here and hereafter, while supporting a government that kills women and children in other, (mostly Arab) countries around the world. Some such Christians, demonstrating the extent of their glorious ignorance, would argue with me that no, their government only kills ‘bad guys,’ and the death of innocent civilians is purely accidental (‘collateral damage;’ tut, tut). That childish response is hardly worth the effort to rebut since it merely indicates the degree of worldly brainwashing of the one who utters it. Just as comfortable Christians can’t be bothered to investigate scripture, neither can they be bothered to determine the truth behind the ‘news’ fed to them like daily pabulum by their major media outlets, the servants of the masters in Washington.

It’s hard for onlookers, whether people of faith or atheists, to comprehend ‘Christians’ who seem to honestly believe that all those fingered by their government as terrorists must be guilty and ergo, deserve whatever punishment meted out. Those ‘loving Christians’ who support the wars of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, and covert wars all over the globe, are a menacing mystery to a puzzled world of non-Christians everywhere. Even those with the vaguest notion of Jesus understand that he stood for ‘love thy neighbor,’ and some even know that he said ‘love thy enemies.’ But the armchair ‘Christians’ of modern America have complacently accepted the ersatz, bellicose beliefs palmed off as Christian by the crafty, religious shysters of our day. Instead of social justice and equity, Christians are tilting their rhetorical lances at the windmills of homosexuality and abortion. Sure, these may be behaviors anathema to Christian teaching; but in the big scheme of life, when the streets of poor nations are running with the blood of the innocent, Christians ought to be mature enough to know where the priorities are. Instead, Christians in America prefer to wrap themselves in the star-spangled (and blood-spattered) banner rather than the pure, white robe of Jesus.

You eat up all the nonsense about ‘spreading democracy’ with military might, and strive vehemently against phony, concocted ‘communism,’ and cower at the Oz-like specter of ‘global terrorism,’ of which your government is a major dealer. But you go to church, and call yourselves Christian! You bring only shame on his name! Christians must yearn for the gift of spiritual discernment, and learn to exercise it in every walk of life. If they are so easily deceived by their own shepherds, they will be easily devoured by the great Adversary, the Devil, who pretends to bring light... but it’s the headlight of an approaching locomotive. They must learn to hear the true shepherd’s voice-- not the dulcet demagoguery of those who make empty and hypocritical promises.

Like the hypocrites, I could have littered this diatribe with Bible verses. But this message is based on the most elemental tenets of the faith of Jesus! You don’t need a Ph.D. or doctorate in Theology to use the common sense God endowed all humans with. You don’t need a penetrating insight into scripture’s nuances to grasp what the Holy Spirit speaks to your heart. All you need is the basic Christian faith that rests in the giver of that faith, the ‘true light that gives light to every man’ (Jn 1:9). There is no excuse, Christian! You must wake up now to seek that true light... before you stand before Him, and have no defense but to point your fingers at the false prophets who sold you what your ears were too eager to hear. (2 Tim 3; 4).


© J. Krzyzewski, Aug. 2009

Spiritual Gifts- Use Them or Lose Them?

"Pray and give yourself anew to the Lord and His work. Then look around at what others are doing in your church and ask if you can join in. ... Your church needs you.
For a healthier church, exercise your spiritual gifts." [RBC ministries]

The above advice was recently presented in a 'thought for the day' by a popular Christian organization. The author obviously assumed first, that any Christian reading it would be a member of a church, and secondly, that 'your church' will be happy to have you exercise your spiritual gifts in their environs. Yes, it all sounds perfectly reasonable, and quite normal assumptions by most readers. Well, the surprising news for all those gullible readers is 'It ain't necessarily so!'

Take the first assumption-- that all Christians 'belong' to a church. Not! The current generation of Christians no longer simply takes it from tradition that they must belong to a recognizable church to be saved... not at all. Why should some self-generated body of people decide that they are authorized franchisees for God? Why should any believer have to subscribe to some man-made corporation to appropriate the blessings of the Creator? Why do we need professional clergy to spoon-feed religious truth to us? These are all burning questions that stick in the spiritual craw of a growing number of modern believers, and so far, there is little evidence that the mainstream churches, and also splinter groups, have any idea of how to respond.

Looking at the second assumption, we find that it is equally glib. Accepting for the moment, that one is a member of a duly constituted church, it is my experience that there is no guarantee whatsoever that either the pastor or other members will be pleased to have you 'exercise your spiritual gifts' in their midst. Far from it. Oh sure, if you are willing to just do whatever the pastor or church board wants you to do, then they'll be happier than clams. But that is hardly using your God-given gifts, is it? If your 'gift' happens to be something like spiritual discernment, or understanding the signs of the times, (perhaps fancy terms for 'BS-detecting') then you stand a high chance of being rebuffed by your church. You will be accused of being a disturber of the sheep, of not being a team player, and in the extreme, of being a pawn of Satan. If you are in a conservative church, they will ensure that you don't exercise those gifts for long, and if you don't submit to suggestions, they will impose sanctions of some kind, restricting your ability to exercise those gifts or influence anyone else in the company. If you are seen as persisting, you will end up disfellowshipped.

In a 'progressive church,' a person who upsets the doctrinal or spiritual apple-cart in some way will probably undergo more subtle, marginalizing treatment. You will be re-assigned to more suitable roles, like baby-sitting the toddlers, or making coffee for visitors, but not leading a Sunday school class, certainly. Faithful church apparatchiks will keep a wary eye and ear on your verbal or written comments, to provide early intervention in sticking to the doctrinal line. In such an environment, only the most docile continue to put in an appearance on a regular basis.

Those with an aptitude for finding discrepancies in matters of official dogma, or of voicing alternative interpretations of scripture, will eventually find themselves on the margins of their church. There's little point in fighting the system to try to convince the powers that be within the organization to change their views. Organizations do not change their official articles of faith easily, if at all. And individuals do not take kindly to suggestions that their cherished views are in need of adjustment, or that their organization needs reform. The leaders may make all the positive statements possible about encouraging diversity and promoting renewal, and so on; but, mark my words, it is pure hog-wash! Such progressives may actually believe what they are saying... at the moment. But, upon sober reflection-- and serious reprimand by the rest of the establishment-- they will find a convenient way to let hierarchical nature take its course and extirpate any and all attempts at genuine reformation. It's not a problem with churches-- it's a universal problem with all human structures.

So, in conclusion, I have to temper the enthusiastic and well-meaning advice of the writer for the electronic ministry. Within a church structure, you will be welcome to work to advance the goals of the management board-- in fact, they'll love you for it. But, dear Christian, harbor no illusions about exercising your spiritual gifts if they involve any call to seriously change the basic outlook of the organization. For that kind of exercise, you will most likely have to leave the company and operate independently. Don't lament; that's just the way things work in the realm of 'sinful flesh.'

The Prodigal Son - A Fresh Look

If there's one parable of Jesus that gets a lot of retelling by preachers, it has to be the story of the 'prodigal son.' It has been analyzed and interpreted through the ages, and books have been written based on it. Yet, there always seems to be something new and fresh to learn from the tale. Here is still another look at this story--one with perhaps a genuinely new lesson to absorb.

The word 'prodigal' has the meaning of 'wasteful,' 'reckless,' and other rather pejorative terms.

Jesus crafted this amazingly multi-layered lesson masterfully, as the ultimate illustrated guide to salvation.

It is obviously an allegory for the story of God's dealings with mankind. The 'father' represents God. He's a kindly, tolerant, long-suffering, generous person, who allows his son to go his own way, but then waits patiently, longingly, even expectantly, for him to return home. The elder son is a typical 'first-born'--responsible, obedient, and maybe too ready to resent. He has 'high standards' of behavior, and expects it of others. On the outside, he's your average Christian, you could say.

The famous prodigal is adventurous, and curious; he wants to 'experience life.' Perhaps he represents Adam and Eve, wanting to fly on his own, without Dad around to supervise. But he is no less loved of the father. Even when he demands his inheritance before the usual obituary, his father takes no offense, and hands over the portion to his inexperienced hands. Number two son goes out, and sure enough, he blows his fortune and falls on hard times. He's the kind Christians want to 'convert.'

That's a lot like most of us. We want to get away from the restrictions of external authority and live life freely, able to do what we want. We squander the blessings of health and youth that were our inheritance, and sometime in middle age, we come to our senses. So too, the prodigal comes to his senses, and realizes he's got to go back to the ancestral home. But he also realizes he's 'blown it,' and feels pretty guilty and ashamed. He figures he'll earn his way back to his father's good books by working as a servant. It sounds quite sensible to most human listeners: acknowledge your failure and go to work to pay your way, earn your keep, merit a place in the father's house. Doesn't that have an intuitive appeal to our sense of self-worth, our sense of pride and right behavior? Of course-that's what we humans would expect!

But, is that what the father wants? Not at all! First of all, he ignores the smell--the shame and guilt--of the prodigal, and runs (not walks, not waits with hands on hips). The father runs to the returning child, and before the kid can blurt out his rehearsed confession, he hugs him close, with tears in his eyes. God wants nothing to do with a 'works' repentance; He just wants us to return in love, and be part of his family again. Then the older son gets indignant about the treatment his brother is getting, reminding Dad about how well he's performed over the years. The father gently reminds him that everything in the estate belongs equally to him; there was never any question of judging his achievements.

You can see that in Jesus' own sketch of salvation, there is no mention of 'standards,' of measuring one's behavior either before or after 'conversion,' by means of external criteria, i.e. by reference to laws. The father is a figure of grace personified. All he wants is for his children to turn to him, and love him in return for the never-turning love he bears them. He doesn't want servants; he wants family. Jesus told his disciples that servants don't know the master's affairs; but he told his followers everything he knew, and called them 'friends.'

My conclusion is that this key parable, illustrative of God's plan of salvation, shows clearly that in the New Covenant, the everlasting covenant, there is no reference to, no need for, the Ten Commandment Law. The only law Jesus was interested in was the Golden Rule: love one another as you love yourself. And importantly, this is not the only place where he makes this idea clear. In another classic, eschatological parable of 'The Sheep and the Goats,' Jesus again separates those two classes of people without reference to the commandments, but simply on the basis of what we call 'charity,' or love. It's another lesson to glean from the well-studied parables; something very provocative to think about.

The High-jacking of Christianity

Mention the topic of the Christian Church among a random group today, and you will likely get a cluster of comments that portray the Church as a conservative institution, a virtual anachronism in a modern, 'progressive' world. In fact, it is surprising to see the contempt many 'outsiders' express when talking about the Christian Church. Indeed, there are many good reasons for those impressions to prevail, since they were developed over the past several decades, even centuries. Spokesmen (and they're mostly males) for Christianity in the USA have aligned themselves firmly on the far right of the political spectrum, and have even made forays into the worldly realm of politics. (While the religious scene in Canada is quite different from that in the US, Canadians are subject to heavy influence via the TV broadcasts and media stories coming from the south. By such cultural osmosis, the popular impression of 'Christianity' is much the same there as in the USA.)

And so, it has come about that in America, Christianity is virtually synonymous with the 'religious right.' Most observers probably assume that this is quite natural, that it has always been thus, that all Christians are rampant red-necks. But, is that correct?

Have Christians always been conservatives? And is that how it's supposed to be? Not at all, is my response! Quite the contrary, in fact. The primordial Christian Church, as it arose in Jerusalem from the first Pentecost after Jesus' death, was far from conservative. It was a very outward-looking, radical organization, attracting those who were not satisfied with the ages-old traditions of a dead expression of religion. Only people of courage dared to join this new sect, and they endured much hardship for the right to be followers of Christ.

Yes, they were radicals when seen in the light of their Jewish background. In proclaiming the gospel of Christ, they were overturning all the sacred cows of the traditional, Old Testament or Mosaic faith. If you doubt this, just read Acts, especially chapter 15, where the disciples decide what to require of gentile converts. Rather than dump the whole Law of Moses on these new believers, they simply required abstinence from food offered to idols, and from sexual immorality. That's it; period! Even today, most pastors of any given denomination would cringe to deliver that message to their flocks. They'd be appalled with any suggestion against the thought that there's got to be a whole bunch of rules added to the membership certificate to keep these innocent believers from going 'hog wild' in their freedom in Christ. When you contrast the early church with the hide-bound society from which it emerged, you start to get a feeling for how radical it was.

Somewhere along its track of history, though, the mainstream Christian Church (make that 'Churches,' following the Reformation) lost the radical flavor that characterized the beginning. They got high-jacked by conservative thinking men whose primary interest was in preserving the status quo. It's too hazy and protracted a process to try to pin an exact moment on when the Church swung 'right,' but it probably started after the time of persecution by the Romans. After Constantine made Christianity the national religion, the Church could relax. Without the threat of external persecution, membership became a lot more attractive to a much wider population. With the blessing of the emperor, it was a smart political move to adopt this new religion... even if one wasn't fully 'heart-converted.' Under these two factors, the inevitable happened. The Church came to adopt the hierarchical, paternalistic, bureaucratic structure characteristic of the Roman government and most human, secular organizations. Once that happened, it was not long before the bureaucrats behaved as all such officials behave. They adopted the mindset that the prime objective was to preserve the existing organization at all costs. In other words, the Church fell into the hands of conservatives. In the main thrust of its history, it has never recovered from this phase.

So today, we have arrived at the point where some Christians think that going radical means accepting the profligate ways of secular society, embracing all manner of 'progressive' ideas, until the essence of their faith is dispersed into a faint hint of vague theism. Meanwhile, the mainstream, monolithic Churches are largely populated by adherents with little Biblical knowledge, led by company men, working towards retirement on company pensions. Not much room there for radical Christianity of the first Century type. In the USA, canny 'evangelists' with a flair for theatrics have found their niche. In a country hungry for some true substance, for spiritual nourishment, these men know how to use the media, especially TV, to advance their right-wing, fear-based agenda. In a country of unparalleled wealth, there's much to conserve, and these leaders know their audience and its insecurities. Not content with getting rich, they want to gain control of the levers of power, occupy political offices in order to extend their legalistic mania over the whole population of the US.

The Christian churches themselves have long forgotten what the radical, early church looked like... and worse, they don't want to remember. They've set up a pseudo-church system that seems to work well for their purposes. Many dubious practices have been embedded as part of the machine; for eg. "we need more money to '----------' (you fill in the blanks, and oh yes, send them a cheque.) The idea that the church itself needs to be 'born again' (to use the now-tired and tarnished phrase) doesn't seem to be part of any prominent leader's agenda. But that's what's necessary. If the Christian church is to have any relevance in the modern world, any appeal to a desperate world, any credibility, it must be wrested from the sleazy hands of the conservatives who now control it, and reclaimed by souls who are radical for Christ!

As Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their dead!" The prescription above may sound altogether too drastic, but if you read the gospels with a 'free mind' rather than one conditioned by years of the traditional blandishments, you will see just how radical Jesus was, and why he was so hated by the establishment. He associated with all the 'wrong' people-- tax collectors (considered traitors by Jews), uneducated workers, foreigners, and women including prostitutes. He exposed the hypocrisy of the ultra-legalistic Pharisees, and even had the gall to attack the abomination that they had made of the Temple of God. He broke their laws, and talked about setting people free... yet he made no effort whatever to speak against the Roman occupiers. Instead of preaching 'fire and brimstone' sermons about God's wrath and severe judgement, Jesus assured people of God's love and His mercy. So you should understand, that Jesus was no conservative, fearful defender of 'traditional values.' Far from it! He was a force for change, a force majeur sweeping through the stale, decrepit, rigid structure that was contemporary Israel. His message was radical. It's no wonder that he had to be eliminated by the conservative forces of the status quo. What is a wonder is how the movement he founded has fallen in the hands of opportunists and aparachiks who want nothing to do with institutional repentance and rebirth.

For those with the spiritual eyes to see behind the human dynamics, one can see how Satan infiltrated the organized church and immediately began leading it astray. God countered with successive reformations to ensure the survival of the essential message ensconced in the scriptures so that any sincere seeker can find the Way, the Truth, and the Life, in spite of the fog of confusion and error dispersed by most churches thru their spokesmen and literature. But it takes a bit of effort, not just occupying a pew on a periodic basis. Jesus said "Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and the door shall be opened; ask, and it shall be given." So, dear reader, don't be satisfied to listen to sermons, but open your Bible, ask for guidance, and seek the truth.

Final Stand for Truth

"Truth exists. Only falsehood must be fabricated."

It's a curious thing-- for me, at least-- that when I started writing about the idea of truth, I got rather negative reactions from various people. This reaction puzzled me at first, but as time went on, I came to realize that that's what truth does-- it creates controversy. And that's a story in itself... an important one.

Consider the name I chose for my web-blog (Truthquest): it seems to elicit annoyance or sarcasm from people who may be acquaintances or strangers. Why? Well, many persons are of the conviction that there's no such thing as truth, or that it's completely relative or personal, or that it's just an abstraction with no reality. These views all strike me as incredibly naive and lacking substance. It is baffling to me to have to defend the notion of something as obvious as truth. But then, I exist in a kind of transcendent sphere, where ideals and ethical concepts have genuine reality.

The controversy over something as fundamental to our lives as truth underscores for me the crux of the looming crisis poised to strike humanity and our tenure on Earth. Along with very many traditions and predictions, I also believe that mankind is very close to the cataclysmic end of this age that will be the most tumultuous crisis in our history. However, while the coming crisis will be characterized by physical upheavals of the planet, and social and political upheavals of unparalleled ferocity, I think the underlying conflict will be the final, colossal struggle between truth and untruth.

If anything is the endemic trait of our zeitgeist, it is capsulized in one word-- deception. Maybe I'm just too hyper-sensitive to 'BS,' but to me it's the grating tenor of the times that almost everything that reaches my consciousness from 'official sources' of any kind-- be they government, corporate, religious, academic-- has the stench of self-serving deceit about it. If it's not outright lies, it is usually a noxious mix of lies and selected truth. It's everywhere; all pervasive; in every aspect of our daily lives. And the worst thing is that most people either don't even notice it... or are so inured to 'relative truth' that they accept it as normal. The current generation have grown up in an 'age of persuasion,' with ‘commercial messages' bombarding us incessantly in every corner of urban life, so that distortion and hyperbole are taken as commonplace, and an inevitable part of modern existence.

You've got to understand that this inoculation to distorted reality, packaged as advertising and promotion for every kind of cause (good or otherwise), is a purposeful strategy, one designed to devalue truth in the mind of humankind. And it has succeeded quite well. In place of truth, we have pluralism-- in a global bazaar of cultures and ideologies, your 'truths' (ie. cuisine, music, political system, religion, etc.) are no better nor less valuable than mine. Everybody's truth is equally worthy-- so say the proponents of pluralism... as long as it suits their purposes.

Why do people get so offended by mention of truth, though? It would seem innocuous enough; but no, the reaction can be quite visceral. One reason may be because many skeptics associate truth with religion; and of course, religion is a big no-no with the chic, educated, liberal-minded middle-class. There is some justification for their wariness, because if you do an Internet search on the words 'truth quest,' you will certainly turn up many sites related to churches and religion. However, why should that link to Christianity (in particular) stir such animosity? Could it be due to disgust that anyone in today's pluralistic world would dare to pretend that they possess 'the truth?' The problem is that in rejecting the idea that any creed could corner the market on truth, these opponents then throw out the notion that there is such a thing as truth, altogether. It's a fool's line of reasoning that disempowers its supporter, while playing right into the hands of those hidden powers who want to strip humanity of any hope in a transcendent order of reality above the mundane. Brilliant, on the part of the forces of darkness; and ultimately deadly for the innocent who fall into the trap. As for me, I don’t profess to possess ‘the whole truth.’ What I do know is that I am on a quest for truth; and that is more than most can say.

Note that incomplete truth is not necessarily evil, but can be hazardous. After all, in this world we will not achieve 100% absolute truth in most areas, although it is possible in a limited sense, as in some branches of mathematics, or some purely observational matters (e.g. Is it raining here or not? What color is the object? etc.). We can and do function on incomplete knowledge, because it's all we have, generally. We have to recognize, tho, when we are operating on incomplete information, otherwise we run a real risk of making mistakes when our decisions are taken on the premise that we have full knowledge. For example, an airline pilot once discovered the truth that his aircraft's fuel tanks were empty while he'd been flying under the assumption they held ample fuel. In fact, the tanks had been refueled, but the ground techs were reading the gauges in metric units and assuming they displayed 'imperial' units (ie. liters for gallons). This is a good illustration of where partial truth can get us when we fail to grasp it for what it is.

What the nay-sayers apparently are so inclined against is the intimation that there must exist 'ultimate truth.' They can concede that there exists 'relative truth,' or 'constrained truth' in the laws that govern the physical universe... but they vehemently resist any attempt to extend the phenomenon to its logical conclusion-- that there must, perforce, exist ultimate truth. What are they afraid of? It's not obvious, but appears to be the tacit assumption in this logic that recognizing Ultimate Truth is tantamount to believing in God... and that, of course, is another materialist no-no. No, we must never return to the 'primitive dogma' of believing in God, lest we... what? What would believing in God do to mankind that isn't already being done, this time in the name of godless, unfettered, capitalistic avarice? Can't people wake up and see that what was once done under the guise of religion hasn't stopped; it is now being done in the name of 'democratic capitalism?' In times past, nations were conquered, peoples were murdered and 'ethnically cleansed' in the interests of saving them from heathenism and Christianizing them. Today, nations are conquered, and peoples murdered and ethnically cleansed in the interests of big business seeking new sources of petroleum. And the atheists smugly support commercial interests over religious... because they can't even see a religion if it wears a worldly disguise! And make no mistake; you may think that, oh no, you are a socialist; you don't support big corporations and their predatory practices. Well, how do you think the capitalists justify their predatory exploitation, if not by reference to your patron saint, Charles Darwin, and his godless theory of evolution? For in the purely material, humanist paradise, there is no ethic except the ethic of evolution, which is based on mere survival. In other words, might makes right in the mechanistic universe of Darwin's theory.

A world without ultimate truth is a world without God. And such a society is a hopeless, Orwellian nightmare, not worth living, neither for the trampled masses nor for their soulless overlords. The only way to survive in such a world is to shut one's eyes to the reality of its bleakness, and live life in a constant frenzy of activity, pretending that everything is fine and dandy. That is how the 20th century was lived by a growing majority in the Western nations. While we were madly accumulating material goods, and scrambling for success, we didn't have time to think about the omnipresent question of truth. The hidden manipulators used this materialistic smokescreen to advance many of their objectives, all the while completely unnoticed by a populace drunk on the perverted, fermented fruits of science and technology, the neo-religions of the modern age. Among those objectives were the following:

- ridicule and devaluation of Christianity, making Christians look antiquated and irrelevant to the contemporary world;
- deadening of belief in a 'higher power,' a divine designer, a cosmic creator;
- belief in the triumph of materialistic science to describe reality and explain existence;
- acceptance of ultimate relativism-- since all views are valid, virtually anything goes;
- breakdown of public morality-- we make our own rules, and they are constrained only by 'common consensus;'
- disintegration of the family unit-- since all 'sexual expression' is valid, marriage is outdated, and a family is whatever you want it to be, including homosexual 'parents;'
- breakdown of social cohesion-- under Darwinian morality, it's everyone for himself, and let nature prevail with the weak; capitalism isn't sentimental, we are told;
- Hollywood and the mainstream media now define reality for the masses, and they assure us that we don't know anything-- we must be told by experts, whom they supply.

All of these goals have been largely achieved, and they have succeeded by means of deception. The proponents behind these aims have been using lies, half-truths, and psychological manipulation for over a century to mold society in the desired direction. Their most important weapon is artful lying, which is telling untruths using carefully chosen vocabulary, so that an unpalatable statement can be stick-handled past the normal mental defense mechanisms. It's brilliant, in a way; and yet it has been a favorite ploy since the invention of speech. The difference today is that we now have individuals who specialize in the art of selling lies. They are called 'public relations' specialists, and have attained indispensable status for corporations and governments around the world. Sure, you sigh, you know that; and therefore, you are on guard for such games. If so, you are truly rare, because we are all being constantly set up to fall into these word traps, without being aware of it. Yes, we all figured out pretty fast what they mean by 'collateral damage,' and a few other notable examples. But, have you stopped to consider the pedigree of such words as 'homophobic,' and 'anti-semitism,' for example? You won't find them in an older Oxford dictionary because they were coined in more recent times for very specific, political purposes. By having the media use these terms repeatedly over years, the listeners eventually assimilate not only the word, but the concept behind the word, so that it becomes part of one's background, presumptive knowledge. From the repeated context clues, one comes to 'understand' that it is unacceptable to be called either homophobic or anti-semitic; therefore, one must avoid speaking or behaving in a way that might provoke such labels from others. The original and ostensible intent of these words may have been quite legitimate-- we should, indeed, refrain from attacking people because of their differences from the mainstream. Where this 'political correctness' has led, however, is to a state wherein it is impossible to criticize any aspect of, in these examples, homosexuality or Jews, because these terms have been enshrined into 'anti-hate laws,' and protect these groups from basic freedom of speech.

The mind-conditioning that has been implemented in the Western world over the past century is astounding, and space prevents me from analyzing it further, here. (The reader can find voluminous studies to corroborate my assertions). My point is that 'untruth' (which includes all that does not aim to be 'congruent with demonstrable fact') is now endemic in our society; so much so, that we are no longer even aware of the appalling extent to which this is true. In place of truth, we now have corporate 'brands,' icons and symbols, and national myths. By the time one reaches adulthood, he or she has understood and assimilated the notion that image is everything; that illusion is more powerful than reality. Thus, when someone complains that a certain advertisement is false, or a product isn't as described, or a political party reneged on a promise, etc., the response is that you should understand that you're buying a fantasy, you're electing a perception, you can't expect correspondence with facts or statements. In other words, deceit is a 'legitimate' part of modern life... it has been normalized, just as has various sexual perversions.

The problem is that you simply cannot run a world for any length of time on rampant and institutionalized deceit. That paradigm was tried in the last century in the late, great Soviet Union, and we saw where that experiment ended. More perceptive readers may argue that 'our' society, too, has lied to itself for centuries, and I agree, but also point out that in bygone years, there was enough freedom of speech, and persons of conscience in influential positions that there were restraints on the spread of deceit. In the 21st century, those checks are being rapidly hog-tied and neutralized by the introduction of draconian limits to freedoms once taken for granted, particularly in the USA. Those retractions of hard-won civil rights are almost always based on fears whipped up on events contrived for that purpose. To quote Goethe: 'There are none so enslaved as those who believe they are free when they are not.' From a 'spiritual' perspective (however you want to interpret that notion) this age is characterized by a definitive, titanic struggle between truth and untruth, between The Truth and Deception. The battle lines are being strongly delineated so that everyone who bothers to consider it can become aware of the division. And everyone should be conscious of the split between truth and deception because we will all have to make a final choice, choosing which side we want to follow... to the end.

My purpose in this essay is to pull together the not-obviously-related strands of thought from numerous other essays into a synthesis that portrays the essence of the final battle for planet Earth. Okay, it sounds grandiose, but many commentators are seeing the same thing-- or at least parts of it. I'm trying to put all the pieces on one puzzle board. We are witnessing before our eyes the following currents:

- clear movements towards a one-world 'system' as the inevitable outcome of...
regional, political integration (eg. EU, NAFTA, ASEAN); global trade agreements (WTO); an ever-expanding NATO; reaction to exogenous threats like 'climate change,' terrorism, pandemic, etc.

- attacks on traditional stabilizing institutions such as the family, religion, common mores, all resulting in a disintegration of the social fabric (via alienation, substance abuse, mental health issues, job mobility, etc.) which engenders a state of constant disequilibrium and stress among all citizens;

- attacks and restrictions on civil liberties and free speech under the guise of 'protection of minority rights,' or 'security from terrorism;'

- the calculated transfer of the wealth of the middle classes to the banker elite, under the pretext of bailouts of sinking institutions and stimulating a moribund economy;

- the mysterious appearance or resurgence of viral diseases thought to be conquered a generation ago, among both animal populations and the human populace;

- ever-greater use of deception by governments and corporations to achieve desired aims, and in particular, the use of 'agents provocateurs' to create ersatz terrorist plots, either apprehended or accomplished.

All of these phenomena exist by design, not by mere chance, and their end goal is global domination by a small clique over the masses. Let me state this bluntly: if you can't see these 'big picture' signs of the times, you are in sad shape, and will be completely overwhelmed when the pretences are all dropped, and 'their dream' becomes our nightmare. These major indicators are all out in the open, and if you can't see the connections among them, you have been taken in by the master con-job of the satanic forces behind them.

Another open secret is that the evil cabal is obviously waging a titanic war against two groups of people in particular. Those are specifically, Christians and Muslims. The strategies employed are different. Since Christians are mainly found in the 'Western' nations, they are already in the 'belly of the beast,' exposed to all the egregious degeneration of the modern, atheist, materialist society, and very largely absorbed into that system, often quite cluelessly. Thru the use of the media and the Hollywood propaganda machine, the influence of the Christian faith has been largely neutralized. In fact, a significant sect, recently branded as 'Christian-Zionists' or 'Judeo-Christians,' has proven to be quite useful to the shadow governors, by their zealous support of any who pretend to agree with their aberrant theology and their bellicose leanings.

As for Islam, the crypto-rulers have waged all-out, shock-and-awe warfare against them, deploying all the latest expensive, grisly gadgets of destruction against poorly equipped militias, often composed of warriors who were once under the employ of Uncle Sam's covert agencies abroad. The Muslims (mostly Arabs and mostly civilians) have been subject to merciless carnage-- despite all shedding of 'crocodile tears' by Western leaders. The wars have been based on pure lies, the pretexts fabricated on 'false-flag' operations and blatant poppycock (ie. lies) about spreading democracy and freedom.

Why have the hidden 'powers that be' selected Christianity and Islam as the special objects of their wrath? The reason is simple; so simple that most 'modern' readers will reject it out of hand (ie. without serious reflection). It's because both religions are monotheistic, believing in a supreme creator who rules over the universe and will, one day, call all humanity into account. All other religions (the pagans) can be distilled into the essential belief that man is 'god,' and therefore, he can 'call his own shots.' The conspirators must defeat all belief in ultimate truth, the supreme God, because that belief will resist their real, so far unannounced agenda, which is to present their own leader as the deity, the one who functions as 'chief god,' and as the legitimate ruler of the planet. He will be portrayed as a unifier, bringing squabbling humanity into one, harmonious race, paying homage to his benevolent dictatorship. It will be Orwell's world, with a bizarre, religious twist-- 'Big Brother' will be presented as our god, and our total worship will be demanded. Yes, this will be the Antichrist, the antithesis of Christ Jesus. And his modus operandi is untruth, the antithesis of truth.

While Judaism also professes belief in one God, it appears that the PTB are not too concerned with this faith. I can only speculate on why they devote scant enmity toward Judaism, and one might suppose that it's due to the relatively small number of seriously religious Jews (compared to two billion or so nominal Christians, and another billion Muslims, worldwide). More than that, the Jews are, significantly, still awaiting the arrival of their Messiah. That belief could be quite effectively exploited by the Satanists when they reveal their hero as the 'promised one' of various traditions. In fact, the obsession that the hidden powers have towards Israel gives extra credence to the theory that they intend to install their antichrist in Jerusalem, claiming it to be the seat of their new world government.

The liberal atheists may read this article and say 'This is outrageous speculation.' Their powers of discernment are so deadened by those who put them exactly in that condition, that they can't see the menace that is lurking everywhere in this modern world that they think is marvelous because it has 'freed us from the chains of religion!' And, see-- the humanist/atheists STILL DON'T GET IT! They still think I'm trying to defend religion and sell it thru some covert, philosophical semantics. I'M NOT! The truth is that I don't believe in religion as a pre-packaged paradigm for viewing the world. What I've been trying to tell all of you in reader-land, both believers in God, and atheists, alike, is that ALL systems of viewing the universe, whether packaged as creeds or as any other paradigm, are de-facto 'religions.' How could 'science' have assured us for years that there was no link between tobacco and a panoply of diseases? Or that all kinds of chemical products are perfectly safe for human consumption, when people are dying daily from exposure to them? Ah, you retort, 'It's not the fault of science, but of the people who practice science under false motives.' No kidding? Isn't that exactly what has happened with religion over the centuries? Jesus and other spiritual leaders NEVER advocated violence in any form (indeed, Jesus stated that hatred was akin to murder); yet misguided followers have resorted to violence down thru the ages. ALL belief systems are interpreted by their believers to accommodate self-serving ends. You've got to understand that simple 'truth' if you ever want to understand reality!

So my advice to believers and atheists is to wake up, recognize that pure science and pure religion both purport to explain reality, define truth, but by different methods. Taken to the ultimate, they overlap. They should cooperate, not compete. Instead, they are engaged in a historic struggle because they are both errant, human ideologies run by human masters for purposes of enslaving the minds of their adherents. In fact, they can be seen as yet another prong of the ‘thesis-vs-antithesis’ paradigm so frequently used by the hidden manipulators. Their coming Antichrist will be offered as the solution to this Hegelian dialectic.

Numerous astute observers of the times have noticed many of the things I've described in this paper; few of them want to assemble all the pieces presented here. Especially, many would object to the final religious angle I ascribe to the anticipated ruling cabal. It seems crazy, and presently, there doesn't appear to be a lot of evidence of a 'spiritual angle' to the push towards world governance. That opacity is because many viewers do not comprehend the spirit behind those who frequent the gatherings of the elite movers and shakers at such enclaves as ‘Bohemian Grove,’ where they engage in ‘weird’ practices that can only be viewed as satanic. Freemasonry, one of the ‘fronts’ of the puppeteers, is, in its upper echelons (‘degrees’) based loosely on Gnosticism, and is definitely ‘religious’ in its cosmic outlook. To those who are dubious about the demonic nature of the evil conspirators, I say that their homage to Satan explains how they have been able to sustain their cover up and their momentum over the centuries. Without supernatural assistance, any purely human conspiracy inevitably collapses due to in-fighting, traitors, spies, exhaustion, mistakes, and so on. But the Illuminati (the general term covering all the many tentacles of this monster) have been able to survive and thrive long enough to achieve their critical objectives (back in the late 19th century), and then build on those to attain the position they presently occupy.

By seizing control of the Western world’s banking system, the cabal wields enormous power over the lives of the majority of the global population. We are seeing the early signs of that power in the current ‘economic crisis.’ Then, by gaining effective control over the communications media, the Illuminati have been able to filter and distort the information that reaches the masses, and equally important, have used the media to corrupt and disintegrate society. To those still under the spell of their cradle-to-grave propaganda, these revelations sound incredible. Yet even a little time spent investigating these claims will unveil cracks in the foundations of the illusion. But all of this-- the allegations, the denials, the doubts-- are all part of the cosmic drama that is unfolding before our contemporary eyes. It is the last battle on planet Earth, the battle for truth. As the expression goes, the truth shall prevail... but not before a period of unparalleled havoc, and it must be stated, bloodshed. To the skeptics, hold your derision for a while; keep your senses attuned to the times and their signs. And pledge allegiance only to the quest for Truth.

The Law and the Kingdom of God

Most Christians who've studied the Bible come to understand the cross as the pivotal moment of human history, the focal point marking a fundamental transformation in God's relationship to man. Indeed, Calvary represents a paradigm shift, to use contemporary words.

Before the cross, there were several notable events wherein God intervened in history, and made covenants with certain patriarchs (e.g. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses). The Sinai Covenant with its Ten Commandments has been analyzed at length by numerous commentators, including authoritatively, the author of the book of Hebrews. Besides that source, there are numerous other scriptures that corroborate the notion of a fundamental renovation of God's plan for humanity. This paper surveys the Biblical theme of Jesus' new covenant.

Jesus and the Law
Surrounding the ultimate 'crucial' event, the cross of Christ, several details concerning the Law stand prominent. In the major dissertation Jesus gave on the subject of behavior— in the Sermon on the Mount—he made it a point to pronounce the 'Golden Rule' as the summation of the Law (Matt 7:12). In his parables, especially of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the King's feast, and others, Jesus never mentioned anything about the commandments, but he emphasized love and grace. Paul, too, doesn't mention the Sinai commandments without explicitly indicating that those laws are subsumed in a greater Law of love (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14).

One of Jesus' apocalyptic sermons occurs in Matthew 25 (vs 31 to end) where he talks about the actions that identify the 'sheep and the goats' at the final judgment. Here is the ultimate proof of the new regime: in his repetitious description of the criteria for separating the righteous from the evil-doers, Jesus makes absolutely no reference to Laws of any kind! He simply zeroes in on the basic gestures of charity towards our fellow humans—those who love are saved, those who don't love are lost. Surely, if commandment-keeping were paramount, they would have been cited in a sermon on judgment! The fact that the spotlight is on love cannot be missed... or dismissed.

Then at the last supper, Jesus inaugurates two 'new' things, which, one can perceive, he has been building towards during his full 3 ½ year ministry. As stated in Luke 22:20, he offers "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood," thereby instituting the new relationship with humanity. This covenant is ratified by his blood, shed at Calvary, as the ultimate, perfect Lamb. Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels state that the blood of this covenant is poured out for (the) ‘many,’ thereby echoing Daniel’s prophecy of 9:27, indicating that this covenant is not exclusive to the people of Israel, but covers everyone.

John's gospel devotes a great portion entirely to Jesus' last day on earth, and records his words in ch 13, vs 34: "A new commandment I give you, that you love one another…" (reiterated in ch 15:17). Here, Jesus makes plain what he had been teaching by example and by word—that the heart of the new covenant is a new commandment; (and thereby, fulfilling Jer 31:34 and Ezek 36:26). The old covenant of Moses was based on obedience to rules; the new contract is characterized by love. You have to ask yourself a critical question: "If the Decalog was sufficient to define Christian conduct, why would Jesus have found it expedient to introduce a 'new commandment'?" The word ‘new’ does not mean ‘extra,’ as so many Christians have ingenuously assumed. Jesus did not issue an additional, eleventh commandment—this was a ‘new,’ replacement Law, to complement the ‘new’ covenant. Hebrews 8:13 states that in speaking of a ‘new covenant’ God rendered the previous one obsolete. By the same token, in speaking of a ‘new commandment’, Jesus similarly made the old ones obsolete.

While adherents of the Decalog assert that the continuance of the old law is 'implied' or 'taken for granted,' it is worthy of note that the only explicit law in the NT is the Law of Love enunciated by Jesus himself! All other references to the Ten C's include only partial mention, intended as illustrations of normative behavior. If the reader is able to read these texts with 'new eyes,' unprejudiced by a priori assumptions, it becomes apparent that the words are actually revealing a new order which fulfills the prophecies of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. After all, anyone can simply memorize the rules ‘by heart.’ That isn’t what the prophets were talking about. They meant having the principles inculcated in one’s thinking, so that a set of ‘rote rules’ was irrelevant.

A Biblical Exegesis
The author of the book of Hebrews puts the pieces together for us, juxtaposing and contrasting the two covenants (which he calls 'old' and 'new'). The writer makes it very plain that Jesus ushered in a totally new deal for mankind. He builds an airtight, forensic, scriptural case that, with his death, Christ achieved…

• a new covenant, [7:22; 8:6-7, 13]
• sealed with a better sacrifice, [9:14, 25, 28; 10:12, 14]
• ministered by a superior High Priest, [7:11-12, 8:6]
• delivered in a heavenly, not earthly, temple, [8:2; 9:11, 24]
• and containing radically different terms [10:10, 14, 17, 19-22].

In doing so, this book echoes the predictions in the book of Daniel, ch 9:24.
"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city…

• to finish the transgression, -> [Jn 19:30]
• to make an end of sin, -> [Rom 3; Heb 10:14; 2Cor 5:21]
• to make atonement for iniquity, -> [Jn 1:29; Rom 5; Gal 3:13]
• to bring in everlasting righteousness, -> [Heb 10]
• to seal up vision and prophecy, and -> [Lk 24:44]
• to anoint the most holy [place]." -> [Heb 9]

Both Daniel and Hebrews are talking about a revolution, a new world order, the completion of one paradigm and the inauguration of another.

Heb 7:18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness [19] (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. [NASB].

If believers can bring themselves to read the New Testament with fresh, objective eyes—spiritual eyes, free from presumption—they will be amazed at what they will see. Especially examining 2 Corinthians 3, and Galations 3, which complement Matthew 5, 6 and 25, and other pertinent accounts of Jesus' teachings. If we read what the text says, rather than what we think it says, the message is nothing short of astonishing!

Hebrews 5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. [14] But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
[NASB, emphasis supplied.]

This discernment of good and evil is precisely what the converted heart is called to exercise ("practice"), rather than falling back on looking to an externally-imposed criterion of righteousness. Hebrews, chapters 7, 8, and 9 elaborate on the replacement of the 'Old Deal' completely by the new covenant, in every detail. Then in chapter 10, the scholar continues his analysis using OT scripture (Ps 40).

[8] After saying above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have not desired, nor have you taken pleasure in them'' (which are offered according to the Law), [9] then He said, " Behold, I have come to do your will.'' He takes away the first in order to establish the second. [Emphasis supplied].

Once one has seen the quintessential paradigm shift represented by the cross, it becomes baffling why anyone would insist on dragging the tables of stone through the 'gospel stargate' into the new dimension. By so doing, the Decalog lingers as a stark anomaly, an anachronism, even an affront to the work of Christ!

Hebrews 10:29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
[36] For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. [NASB, emphasis added].

Do we not disdain the awesome sacrifice of Christ and his blood-bought covenant of grace by insisting on clinging to the old covenant and its ten-point terms? And what does it mean to do the will of God (Heb 10:36)? Jesus himself answered that very question, in straightforward terms to his legalistic enquirers, in John's gospel, ch 6:

v. 28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?'' [29] Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.''

The same chapter goes on to quote Jesus extensively on the subject of discipleship and salvation. Nowhere does he hint that the Law is involved; far from it, he emphasizes that it is he himself who is responsible for our salvation. E.g.:

40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.''
54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Paul on Gospel Freedom
In Galatians, Paul writes extensively on the 'freedom' that the believer enjoys; freedom that he cautions is not to be abused. Surely, one cannot argue that OT Israelites enjoyed freedom under the tyranny of the whole 'Law of Moses' (commandments and ordinances). True, they misused the Mosaic covenant, becoming slaves to salvation by works. But Paul is talking about more than just freedom from this misapprehension; he actually says that Christians are called to exercise freedom in love, adding again, that love is the fulfillment of the Law (Gal 5:13, 14).

13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself.''
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

Why would Paul have had to spell out for the new believers, as he does in ch 5, what behavior to avoid if they were still under the 'Old Ten'—when he could simply refer to that code? The point Paul makes is the same one that gave rise to the book "Servants or Friends?" which explores the concept of being born again as children and heirs of God, versus the old mindset of behaving like a servant (slave) who is kept ignorant of the master's ways. The Israelites in the desert begged Moses to mediate between them and God; they didn't want to deal directly with God as a friend (as Moses did). Moreover, they recited the mantra: "All that the Lord has said we will do," like little vassals, hardly seeming to understand the impossible task they were taking on!

Their naïve words are in stark contrast to the relationship Jesus desired in John 15:15, where he tells the disciples:

14 You are My friends if you do what I command you.
15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. […17] This I command you, that you love one another.

The slave mentality just wants to know the rules, not the knowledge behind the rules. Friends, on the other hand, have access to the knowledge, the law-Maker, and deal with the principles, the spirit, not the 'articles.' This is the crux of the matter: do we dare take Jesus at his word—that his sacrifice has opened the way for us to be legitimate heirs of God, and thus able to function in his freedom—or do we reject that radical offer and cling timidly to the core of the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments, as our moral security blanket?

Righteousness by Faith - Another Look
Much has been said on the subject of righteousness by faith—right standing with God on the basis of our faith in the complete efficacy of Jesus. Yet there is another aspect seldom broached. Paul examines the topic in Galatians 3…(See 5:3, also).

11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "the righteous man shall live by faith.''

He proceeds to make a startling observation:

12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "he who practices them shall live by them.'' [13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree''.

What Paul is saying here is that the Law is at odds with faith; if you're going to put yourself under one, you can't also be under the other! Either live in total obedience to the Law, or else live by faith in Christ… Christ who took on the whole terrible curse of law-keeping (and law-breaking) so that we might be freed from that burden.

Anticipating the obvious objection, Paul then states:

19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made [Jesus].

He explains that the Law was 'added' or introduced as a supplement, an adjunct to God's original plan, and that it was a temporary measure intended to be in effect until Jesus came with a new arrangement. He characterizes the Law as a kind of 'school-master' that was in charge only until the way of faith was revealed.

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. [24] Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

He immediately adds the remark that we are no longer under that system.

25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

By becoming adopted into the family of God, we are no longer treated as servants or pupils who must simply obey the rules, but as heirs who are learning the family business—the capacity to live in love. Paul expands on this idea in ch. 5, where he cautions fellow 'family members' not to abuse their new freedom, but to live a life of loving service and to abide by the golden rule.

5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.''

It seems apparent to me that Paul is not just writing to the Galatians about freedom from the notion of salvation by works, i.e. keeping the Law as a means to be saved. He is talking about being under a new system—one where salvation is found in believing in Jesus Christ, period, without reference to the Law either as a means of salvation OR as a means of measuring behavior. Is there other scriptural evidence behind this idea?

In fact, right in Romans, Paul corroborates this view, but it's so radical a notion that most readers can't take Paul at his word, preferring instead to adduce their own meanings. For example… (notice, especially, 10:4 and 5)

7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
10:3 For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
[4] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
[5] For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
[9] …that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

People will say that 7:6 means we have only been released from the Law as means of salvation, ignoring the added contrast between old and new systems of service. Then, in 10:4, the neo-legalists say that the word 'end' should be replaced with its alternate meaning of 'goal,' despite the problem posed by the context. What Paul is doing is contrasting the life of someone living under the Law, versus one who lives by faith in Christ. Again, it's a new way of living, of thinking, of acting. Since Christ has done all the 'doing' as our representative, we no longer have to live with reference to an impossible check-list. If our righteousness is truly and purely based on faith, with all that that implies (and which Paul describes, starting in ch 8) then what's the use of referring to some other, outer measure of righteousness?

In ch 12, Paul echoes Jeremiah's prophecy (Jer 31:31) with reference to allowing the Spirit to transform our minds so that we will know God's will—what is acceptable (and by extension, what is not). He enumerates a few of the 'old commandments' merely as illustrations of what he is talking about. That's why in ch 13, he twice states that to love is to accomplish the Law's dictates, and that "if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying." (Surely Paul knew if there were other commandments!)

Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Rom 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law… [10] Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

The Hebraic Analysis
The book of Hebrews treats extensively the subject of covenants and the role of Christ. The writer considers the Sinai covenant and indicates that that system required a continual cycle of sacrifices designed to remind the Israelites of their sins and to attempt to make atonement for them (through ritual sacrifices).

Heb 10:1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

He goes on to contrast the work of the earthly priests to that of the supreme Priest, Jesus Christ. Their work is doomed to repetition, while Christ's is definitive. Jesus' one, perfect sacrifice accomplished in one stroke what all the offerings of antiquity failed to do.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; [12] but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, […]
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. […18] Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

It's easy to miss the full significance of verse 14. It states baldly that we (believers) have already been sanctified—for all time, yet!—by his one, ultimate offering! Why then do we fret about whether we've broken this or that commandment? IT'S A MOOT POINT for the born-again child of God! This is a detail that David, a confessed law-breaker, understood a thousand years before Christ came, as he celebrates in the Psalms (see Ps 32). David lived under the 'new covenant!'

If we who believe in Christ continue to also believe that we are under obligation to the Law—even as a standard of behavior—are we not scorning the perfect achievement of our Lord and Savior, Jesus?

28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Verse 22 (Heb 10) exhorts us to exercise our faith since our hearts have been cleansed of an evil conscience—which is an effect the Law had imposed on us.

21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, [22] let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

The author encourages the believers to redirect their focus from the old way of thinking what to avoid, to the new positive way of thinking.

24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, […]
36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

So, there it is: the New Testament turns the old system on its head. Christ accomplished a 'once and for all' revolution in the spiritual dimension. The believer is no longer under the Law of behaviorism—neither for salvation, nor as a standard of behavior, nor as evidence of salvation—but solely under faith in the one who alone was able to keep perfectly (i.e. to fulfill) the Law in their stead!

Jesus Lived the New Covenant!
Defenders of the Old Covenant quote, in support of their views, the words of Jesus that "… I did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it," claiming that this proves their point. On the contrary, they are overlooking the significance of that key word, "fulfill." Just look at these texts in juxtaposition to see what Jesus really meant.

Romans 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.''
[And again in 6:2] Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. [NASB]

At the last supper, Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant, which he ratified or consummated with his death on the cross. Most Christians are agreed on that. During his brief ministry on earth, Jesus was introducing the concepts that characterize this new covenant. These concepts were so radical for the unanointed minds of his day-- (and also of today)—that he was in constant conflict with the religious authorities. Since he knew that these new ideas would inflame the system against him (before he could complete his mission) he elucidated many of them in the guise of parables and illustrations. Using the enlightened hindsight of the Spirit, the apostles were later able to perceive the true impact of these figures of speech and work them into their teaching.

In Jesus' words preserved as a pattern for us in 'the Lord's Prayer,' he doesn't ask God for strength to keep the Commandments; he instead asks God for forgiveness—in proportion to our willingness to forgive those who wrong us. Again, it's a whole new way of spiritual thinking, and of defining holiness. Most of us recite the words with little grasp of the significance.

In Mark's gospel, Jesus employs two common analogies to hint at the value system of the Kingdom of God.

Mark 2: 21 No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.
22 No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.''

These are rather enigmatic metaphors, but one thing the reader can conclude is that it is unwise to mix old and new components of a specific system—they are simply not compatible. The new fabric of Jesus' teachings cannot merely be patched on to the old garment of the traditional Jewish beliefs. Similarly, the new wine of the covenant he presented in the cup of his blood, was to be placed in a new container, a new spiritual framework, not in the old one. It's very fascinating that the text continues in a way that confirms this view.

23 And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. [24] The Pharisees were saying to Him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?'' [25] And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; [26] "how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?''
27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. [28] So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.''

Right there, in the real-life incident, Jesus was illustrating what he meant by the earlier analogies. Here he deliberately 'broke' the Sabbath commandment (in the eyes of the Pharisees) to demonstrate that the concepts of man are not the criteria of God. There is a higher principle involved than the limiting reference to the commandments.

In the encounter with the Samaritan woman, Jesus again illustrates that he represents a new paradigm, one that supersedes tradition.

John 4:5 So He came to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph; [6] and Jacob's well was there. So Jesus, being wearied from His journey, was sitting thus by the well… [7] There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, Give Me a drink.'' [9] Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?'' (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.'' [11] She said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12 "You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?''
13 Jesus answered and said to her, Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.'' […]
19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. [20] Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.''
21 Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. [22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.''

The key verses here are v.12-14 and v.23-24. Jacob represents the Old Covenant, providing a limited 'well' of spiritual blessing, requiring work on the part of the recipient to retrieve water. Jesus is the source of living water, that a believer carries within, to bless others in love. Jesus makes it clear that he is superior to the old way, and moreover, that 'true worshippers' will worship God "in spirit and truth." This manner of worship (not of salvation, note) has nothing whatever to do with burnt offerings and observance of commands and ordinances (as David also celebrated in the Psalms, a millennium before Christ!).

Again, in the 6th chapter, John's gospel recounts another memorable metaphor Jesus used to get the point across that his regime is radically different from the traditional one. Here, Jesus likens himself to life-giving bread that he compares to the manna given to the Israelites in the wilderness. Clearly, references to Moses and manna harken the listener back to the Old Covenant, while Jesus reveals himself as the true source of spiritual nourishment. The Law, whether as a method of righteousness or a standard of performance, brings death. Christ alone gives life!

John 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. [33] For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.'' [35] Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. […]
47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''
58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.''

Those who cannot recognize that Christ operated under a new paradigm in his earthly ministry are in peril of failing to acknowledge the completeness of the work he accomplished with his life, death and resurrection. Yes, he freed humanity from the burden of 'salvation by works;' but more than that, he freed us from the subtle, pernicious worry of measuring our performance by a codified, external set of laws. And of the associated temptation to rate ourselves and others as to spirituality. When one finally sees how much God loves us, how easy he made salvation through his Son, then one is enabled to extend that love to all others, without judging them by external standards of appearance or behavior.

Closing Thoughts
It must be recognized that the Israelites were a 'new nation' (estimated at over one million souls) which arose during 430 years of captivity in Egypt. Suddenly, they found themselves out in the wilderness with no indigenous tradition of law and order. In response to this need, God gave the entire Mosaic code to them as a formula for national success. Instead, the people decided that observing this code would be 'righteousness' for them in a spiritual sense, as well (Deut 6:25). That interpretation of theirs was the start of their problems as a distinct group—problems that persist to this day among Jews.

In the new covenant, God took an entirely different approach. The emphasis now is on Christ and his accomplishments, not on humans and their efforts at all. The new deal removes the Decalog from the picture, pointing instead to Jesus and the positive call to love one another. Since everyone admits the old law couldn't save anyone, and couldn't be fully observed in any case, then one has to wonder: "Why keep it?" Especially when God has provided something far superior!

So enthralling is the spirit of legalism, that even for those who acknowledge salvation by grace, it is difficult to stay focused on Christ as long as the Ten Commandments lurk menacingly in the background. Only by removing them as a foreboding taskmaster does the believer experience the full freedom promised by Christ and his gospel; the freedom to act in love. Only the one who has received grace and forgiveness can extend the same to others. The tables of stone had their place and time, but are long obsolete, superseded by a new regime that is superior in all respects. Believers in Christ can rest assured that the tables of stone were ground into dust by the Rock of Ages!


Appendix: The New Covenant in the Old Testament - The Heart of the matter

Jeremiah stated clearly in 31:31 that the new covenant of the future would not be like the one he [God] made with them at Sinai. This was already foreshadowed back in Jeremiah 3:16-- "It shall be in those days when you are multiplied and increased in the land,'' declares the LORD, "they will no longer say, 'The ark of the covenant of the LORD.' And it will not come to mind, nor will they remember it, nor will they miss it, nor will it be made again." Finally, one can also add Ezekiel 36:26 to the argument, when he says "… I will remove the heart of stone… and give you a heart of flesh." The 'stone' surely echoes the tables of stone, and is deliberately contrasted with the soft, gracious heart of born-again flesh. (The heart is traditionally regarded as the seat of love.) When you juxtapose all these verses, the message is clear that an internalized, heart-stored law will supersede the old, external law.

Defenders of the Ten Commandments (being literally binding) will acknowledge Jeremiah's prophecy (Jer 31;31-34) that the Law would be written in our hearts. But, incredibly, they argue that it's the Decalog that's written in the human heart. First, the whole point of transposing the external, literal Law internally upon 'the heart' is a Hebrew poetic way of indicating what Paul was trying to say when he referred to the letter of the Law versus the spirit of the Law, in Romans 7:6. That is, an externalized law is lifeless, and moreover cannot inspire the human spirit towards what is right. Only an internalized law—i.e. one whose underlying principles are understood—can effect any change, not in behavior, but in motivation. Second, the reference to the 'heart' is significant. After all, anyone can memorize ten rules—store them in his mind. But to harbor the law in one's heart signifies a grasp of, or a willingness to grasp, the 'heart' of the Law, which is its elementary intent.

Therefore, to argue that a literal Law is transposed on the heart of the believer is to take a naïve, immature view that misses the essence of the mystery of the rebirth experience! Jeremiah says as much when he states that "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, declares the LORD," (Jer 31:34). What this implies is that it's not a question of memorizing ten rules (or however many one wants to add) but of understanding the intent of the Law and its creator so as to be able to apply the principles in daily intercourse.