Restoration by D. Thomas Lancaster (FFOZ): A review - This is "another gospel" built on a foundation of lies

The only way to accept the case that FFOZ is proposing in this book is to believe that the Church Fathers were cowardly villains, the Reformers incompetent, and the Gospel a shell of its intended message as it has been preached and accepted by everyone except the first generation after Jesus, and now this present one in which FFOZ’s leadership has revived it.  Follow this unorthodox heretical path if you will, but understand what you’re being asked to believe. - Pastor Powell

Restoration by D. Thomas Lancaster (2015, 1^st edition 2005)

Published by First Fruits of Zion

Below are quotations from Restoration by D. Thomas Lancaster in italics and 11 point font, followed by my commentary in {} and 10 point font.  At the end is a brief conclusion as to my evaluation of the book as a whole.

Due to the length of the post, I have also made it available as a Word document: Restoration review/rebuttal in Word form.  Links to the YouTube video version of this post are at the bottom.

It’s a book about the Torah (also known as “the Law”) and how the Torah relates to disciples of Jesus.  It’s also a book about an ancient prophecy from 3,400 years ago coming true in our own lifetimes- a prophecy of restoration. – p. 3

{Here the hubris of the leadership of FFOZ is on display from the beginning, they are convinced that God has chosen them to fulfill End Times prophecy, that this is the very first generation since the Early Church to have the true Gospel, and they’re the only ones who have it.}

The appearance of modern Messianic Judaism indicates that the ancient prophecy of Moses is being fulfilled…The coming of the Messiah has drawn near.  It’s right at the door.  The signs are here…” – p. 6

{Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

That they are ushering in the End Times, at God’s direction no less, is a foundational belief of the entire FFOZ organization.  If Messianic Judaism’s growth isn’t the fulfillment of ancient prophecy, everything that FFOZ believes and is advocating for fails.  If the End Times are not near, FFOZ’s leaders are liars, claiming to know that which Jesus promised us nobody would ever know.  They are not the first to fall into this trap, it was after all, the false prophecy of Pastor William Miller that Christ was going to return in 1844 that fueled the era that saw the formation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses…There can only be one generation in which the self-proclaimed prophets shouting, “The End is near!” will be right, all the rest are using fear/anticipation of the End Times as a tool to serve their own ends.}

When I wanted to allegorize a passage he always pointed me back to its literal meaning.  He revolutionized my understanding of the Bible.  He gave me an interpretive framework for understanding how the different books of the Bible work together – he taught me the priority of Scripture; in other words, which books must be understood first.  He showed me how the Torah forms the foundation upon which all subsequent biblical revelation stands.” – p. 12 (the “he” in the passage is Daniel’s brother Steven)

{Those who emphasize the “literal” meaning of the Bible do not have a solid foundation in proper hermeneutics, whatever they may claim.  The Bible is full of analogy, metaphors, stories, dreams, parables, and host of other non-literal ways to convey Truth that God chose to utilize.  More ominously, Lancaster is advocating for a belief that the heart of the Bible is Torah, and it alone can be the interpretive framework (or viewing lens) of any other portion of scripture.  While it is indeed true that Torah is the beginning of God’s redemptive story, the heart of the story is the Gospels where the incarnate Word of God comes as Immanuel.  The Gospels allow us to more fully understand God’s previous purposes in choosing Israel and making his covenant with them, not the other way around.  Scripture requires a Jesus-centric interpretive lens, not a Torah-centric one.  And God’s redemptive plan is progressively unfolds in scripture, it is not static.}

…we will see that according to the way that many of the church fathers and reformers would define the term, I am a Judaizer.  That doesn’t mean that I want to make Christians into Jews.  It simply means that I am encouraging Christians to return to what I understand to be the original form of Christianity.  I am teaching Christians that God’s laws, in one fashion or another, apply to them.  The classic church understands a Judaizer as one who encourages Christians to adopt Jewish practices, such as observance of the Sabbath and the biblical festivals.  According to that definition of the word, I’m a Judaizer. – p. 14-15

{Many times both publicly and privately in communication with me, our local Torah Club leaders and participants have denied that this is the goal and purpose of FFOZ.  They have contradicted Lancaster’s own admission in a book he wrote and FFOZ published.  Here it is in black and white.  The Church Fathers and Reformers would have called Lancaster and FFOZ Judaizers, Lancaster admits this.  His goal is to convince Christians of the need to adopt Jewish observances such as the Sabbath and the Festivals, Lancaster admits this as well…The obvious conclusion from this line-of-thought is that FFOZ’s leaders consider themselves to be more authoritative than both the Church Fathers and the Reformers, once more highlighting the hubris involved.}

CONVENTIONAL DEFINITION OF A JUDAIZER: One who encourages Christians to adopt Jewish practices, such as observance of the Sabbath and the biblical festivals.

BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF A JUDAIZER: One who compels non-Jews to become Jewish and keep the Torah as Jews in order to merit salvation. – p. 15

{This statement is misleading on multiple fronts.  It is typical of the FFOZ use of Straw Men to make their subsequent arguments feel compelling.  There is indeed a distinction between becoming Jewish through a formal conversion to Judaism, and living like a Jew through practices like those advocated by FFOZ.  However, when you look at why FFOZ is trying to convince Christians to join them in living like Jews, the answer you will find repeatedly in their teaching is that ONLY those who do so truly love Jesus and keep God’s commands.  It is not, then, necessary to merit salvation, but it is (in their view) to prove one’s salvation to be genuine, the difference being between what it takes to become a Christian and what it takes to remain a Christian.  In the end, FFOZ is a Judaizing organization through and through because they teach that these practices are necessary for every true genuine follower of Jesus…Note this from the same page, “I do not believe in keeping the Law in order to be saved.  I believe in keeping it because I am saved.” (Lancaster, p. 15-16).  If Lancaster substituted “living righteously” for “keeping the Law” this would be a perfectly orthodox statement that conforms with the emphasis in James that, “faith without works is dead.” (James 2:17) As it is, the statement once again affirms that Lancaster is, as he knows the Church Fathers and Reformers would have readily concluded, a Judaizer.}

I will be seen as a heretic.  According to many Christian authorities, teaching Christians to keep the biblical laws of Torah is heresy.  Wow! How does a person become a heretic?  Probably by reading books like this one.  Let me encourage you to keep reading anyway.  In the study of Torah, the conclusion is sometimes less important than the process of study because the study of Torah is the study of God’s Word. – p. 17

{Lancaster is aware that what he is teaching is heresy as recognized by the Church.  It is shocking to see him write that the process of studying Torah is more important than the results, when the end results of his study has been heresy!  To declare the process more important than the results is a man-centered view.  It is important to study God’s Word with proper methodology, even if your own human failings leave you with faulty conclusions at times because God is invested in each of us for the long-haul, but the end result has to matter at some point!  And here’s the rub, Lancaster and FFOZ have declared themselves to be teachers of God’s Word, the conclusions they have already reached, and are now spreading to others, are supremely relevant.}

The Jewish people have lived in exile since the age of the apostles.  So has the gospel.  The gospel is in exile because, like the Jewish people, it has been removed from context and disconnected from its point of origin. – P. 19

{Another example of FFOZ’s self-awareness that what they are spreading is a “different gospel” as evidenced by their disdain for the Church’s traditional understanding of the Gospel.}

In the days of the apostles, Christianity was not yet a separate religion from Judaism.  An honest reading of the New Testament from a Jewish perspective makes it clear that the first-century church never thought of itself as separate and excluded from Judaism.  Rather, the early disciples of Yeshua considered themselves to be at the center of the people of Israel.  The Jewish disciples never imagined that they were introducing a new religion to replace Judaism. – P. 20

{If the criteria is an honest reading, and it should be, this entire thesis is false.  The Book of Acts as well as Paul’s letters present a Church well aware of its own existence, seeking its own leadership (why else would Paul tell Timothy how to select elders/deacons when the synagogues already had rabbis?) and path forward, all of this well before the end of the first generation of believers, at a time when the Apostles were still alive to object had they felt the need to do so.  The Apostles and Jewish Christians of the first generation may not have viewed their own actions as leaving Judaism per se, but they didn’t have to leave it, it had left them.  They had embraced Jesus as the Messiah, the majority of their countrymen, and virtually the entire leadership structure of first-century Judaism had not.  They could not be reconciled with a system that called their Messiah a fraud, they could not continue to participate in a sacrificial system when Jesus was the Lamb of God, the full and final sacrifice for sins…None of these discussions of the attitude of the Apostles with respect to Judaism that Lancaster puts so much weight in, in any way diminishes their own purposeful role in founding the Church and in approving of the Spirit’s call to include Gentiles in it with no preconditions, this too could not be a “branch” or “reform movement” within Judaism, its leadership would never allow Gentiles to join on an equal footing, and the Apostles knew this full well.}

He did not institute a new religion, nor did He cancel the Torah.  Instead, He sought to bring restoration to the ancient faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  He diligently sought after the lost sheep of Israel – those who had turned away from Torah.  He affirmed the words of Moses and brought clarification regarding the proper observance of God’s Law.  His followers the apostles and the believers, also remained within the parameters of normative, first-century Jewish expression. – P. 20

{The Straw Man in use again: the Church does not claim Jesus “canceled” Torah, rather that he fulfilled it and brought its era of preeminence in God’s redemptive plan to a close.  While Jesus did indeed focus on the lost sheep of Israel, first, he fully intended that his Gospel would go forth to the Gentiles and gave that quest to his disciples after his resurrection.  While it is true that they were stunned by how powerfully the Gospel was being accepted among the Gentiles, they acknowledged that this was God’s will and sealed that understanding at the Council of Jerusalem.  Lastly, to say that the Early Church fit within the parameters of normative first-century Jewish expression would have been a huge shock to those who led first-century Judaism given how intent they were on snuffing out belief in Jesus, how determined they were to expel from the synagogues any who showed signs of devotion to Jesus.  How exactly did Saul of Tarsus receive approval to “root out” the Jewish followers of Jesus in Damascus if his followers were “within the parameters” of Judaism?…This historical fantasy is necessary to justify the “restoration” of Judaism plus Jesus that FFOZ is proclaiming, but it is not based in the reality of what transpired in the generation after Jesus’ death and resurrection.}

When non-Jews began to enter the faith through the ministry of Paul of Tarsus, they too congregated in synagogues and embraced the standards of Judaism.  They understood themselves to be “grafted in” to the nation of Israel and made citizens of the larger “commonwealth of Israel.”

{Lancaster offers no Biblical support for this thesis, given that it flies in the face of Paul’s writings, and relies upon an erroneous interpretation of Romans 11, a view like this that overturns what we know of history cannot simply be accepted because it fits with what FFOZ wants to believe happened.  Where is the evidence that shows what first century Gentile followers of Jesus “understood themselves to be”?  None is offered, this is an argument from silence that contradicts what we know of the Early Church from scripture.}

They ruled that ritual conversion (i.e., “circumcision”) was not required of the Gentile disciples.  Neither were they required to forsake their ethnic identity and become Jewish.  Yet their faith was the faith of Israel, placed in the Messiah of Israel, and they henceforth practiced the religion of Israel.  They observed the laws of the Torah that applied to them as Gentiles among the people of Israel.  They congregated with the Jewish people and participated in the life of Torah as God-fearers and sojourners within the nation. – P. 21

{Another massive rewriting of history given without a single supporting bit of evidence from scripture itself, or indeed from any historical source.  It also contains the canard that the Jerusalem Council affirmed Gentile observance of Torah, which is the opposite of its actual conclusion and its purpose in the narrative of Acts.  If we accept this premise for a moment as true, we are left with the shocking realization that the work of the entire first few generations of believers was undone by later generations, the work established by the Spirit (supposedly of Gentile Torah observance) was utterly forsaken.  Where is the evidence of this massive change?  Where are the prophetic voices calling for a return to Torah observance by the Gentile believers? They don’t exist because such a massive shift didn’t happen.}

The Jewish war gave rise to the politics of anti-Semitism.  Jews in the Diaspora became objects of derision, open persecution, and brutality.  The war against the Jews further estranged the Gentile disciples of Yeshua…With the addition of the Fiscus Judaicus tax, Gentile believers had financial, political, and cultural incentives to distance themselves from Judaism. – P. 23

{In a remarkable twist, FFOZ blames the Early Church’s gentiles for abandoning their supposed role within Judaism out of self-preservation and greed.  According to this theory, the Gentile believers in Jesus were harmoniously worshiping within Jewish synagogues in the Diaspora until after the outbreak of war in 66 AD.  If we saw evidence of this harmony in Acts or in Paul’s letters we might consider the Revolt to be a proximate cause of the estrangement that did indeed exist between Judaism and Christianity, however that tension is evident long before the Revolt, with Paul’s scars from his beatings as exhibit A.}

Shortly after the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem, synagogues throughout the world introduced a new benediction in the daily liturgies.  The new prayer formulated a curse against sectarians – including the believers in Yeshua.  The synagogue authorities expelled worshipers who would not pray the curse…What is worse, the expulsion left believers with no place to assemble on the Sabbath, or to assemble at all. – P. 23

{This is all too surreal.  The Apostle Paul founded churches throughout his journeys before the Revolt.  In these churches, which met in the homes of believers, the primarily gentile congregations worshiped Jesus on Sunday, as had been their practice from the beginning in honor of the Resurrection.  They were not a part of the synagogues at any point because Paul’s preaching of Jesus as the Messiah was universally rejected there with only a few converts at each attempt.}

By the time the second century began, anti-Jewish sentiment was so high in the church that most Gentile disciples of Yeshua no longer wanted to be identified with Jews at all.  The first-century believers were long dead and gone.  A new generation had been raised to view Jews and even Jewishness as the antithesis of Christianity…. Gentile Christians decided that the Christian church had replaced the Jews as the true Israel of God.  Christians were now the true people of God; Jews were accursed and consigned to everlasting damnation. – P. 24

{So, according to FFOZ, the era of Spirit-led God-honoring worship in accordance with Torah that Jesus intended and his apostles established everywhere that Jesus was accepted lasted ONE generation before being wiped out.  In order for FFOZ to convince people today to abandon the teachings of the Church, they must portray the second generation of Christians as entirely apostate, as hate-filled scoundrels… Gentile Christians did not decide what God had to say about the Jewish people and Israel, they learned how to come to terms with the Jewish rejection of Jesus as their Messiah through Paul’s own agony in Romans and his discussion of the New Covenant in Galatians.  Jews were not damned because the Church said so, they were damned because they rejected Jesus, this was the exact same standard that applied to Gentiles who rejected Jesus.}

Rome made no distinction between Jews and Gentile believers practicing the Jewish faith.  To survive, it became necessary for Gentile believers to further disassociate from Judaism.  Paul’s compiled letters, when read outside their original context, provided ample justifications for that disassociation.  The emerging Christian movement read Paul’s arguments for the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom backward to imply the exclusion of Torah. – P. 25

{The premise is this: Second century Christians were unaware of the context of Paul’s letters written one generation earlier.  They were so ignorant of Paul’s actual intent, in fact, that they took his words to mean the opposite of what Paul intended.  We are supposed to believe this ignorance and folly was possible one generation after the Apostle Paul lived.  That’s far too incredible to be actual history, it is instead merely fantasy…It is true that the Roman Empire at first didn’t understand the distinction between the monotheists who practiced Judaism and the monotheists who worshiped the Jewish Messiah, one can hardly blame them for not understanding the distinction, but that does not mean that they were identical in the way that they practiced their religion until the second century believers supposedly abandoned all the Jewish aspects of their faith.  Again, the second and third generation of the Early Church are portrayed as pathetic and weak.  That must be a real shock to those martyred by the Romans at this time, especially since Lancaster (and FFOZ) want you to believe that they rejected Judaism in order to save their own skins, evidently that betrayal didn’t work because Roman persecution of Christians was still growing.}

The effort to return to the first-century church is praiseworthy.  It reflects our desire to conform our lives and religious expression to the authority of the New Testament.  The reformers had good motives.  Their methodology, however, was flawed. – P. 31

{Speaking of the Reformation, FFOZ labels Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest as failures. In fact, they published a book in 2021: Rethinking the Five Solae: Why Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism, by Jacob Fronczak that claims that the Five Solae are inherently antisemitic and in fact cause antisemitism…Why is Scripture Alone (in particular) an insufficient basis for faith according to FFOZ?  Simple, by reading the New Testament on its own, one cannot arrive at the conclusions reached by FFOZ, it requires the teachings of rabbis and Jewish mystics to “inform” our understanding of Bible to conclude, as they have, that Christianity and the Church were never meant to exist.}

Wherever the Bible was read without theological manipulation, believers were returning to Torah.  Nevertheless, the anti-Jewish faction prevailed.  The return to Torah was stalled.  The gospel would remain in exile.  The time was not yet ripe.  Several more centuries would pass before the momentum returned. – P. 33

{Once more we see the impotence of the Spirit in FFOZ’s version of Church History.  God evidently wanted the Church to “return to Torah” during the Reformation but hate-filled men thwarted that purpose and another five centuries without the true Gospel ensued.  Again, the only way to accept the case that FFOZ is proposing is to make the Church Fathers cowardly villains, the Reformers incompetent, and the Gospel a shell of its intended message for all but the first generation after Jesus, and now this present one in which FFOZ’s leadership has revived it.  Follow this path if you will, but know what you’re being asked to believe.}

That’s the story of how the disciples of Yeshua lost the Torah of Moses, and how we are finding it again.  The long exile of the Jewish people is at its end.  The final redemption is just around the corner.  In the same way, the long exile of the gospel is at an end.  Just as the Jewish people are returning to their native soil, we are returning the gospel to its original matrix in Judaism and the Torah of Moses. – P. 36

{A story filled with conjecture, fantasy, and devoid of actual evidence.  We return to FFOZ’s certainty that they have correctly predicted the Second Coming of Jesus (Jesus’ own repeated promise that this is impossible notwithstanding), and so the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 becomes the rationale used to give this vast deviation from orthodox belief the veneer of divine sanction.  Surely God must want Judaism to be the vehicle of the Gospel, after all Israel exists again as a nation (so goes the thought).  Prophetic supposition is a poor rubric for theological interpretation.  Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses before them, FFOZ has taken a particular view of the End Times and used it to subvert the true Gospel and replace it with another.}

Sin, properly defined, is transgression of Torah. – P. 38

{That’s not a proper definition of sin, certainly not a biblically sufficient one. Sin is being at variance with the nature and will of God.  Sin existed, and those created by God were held to account because they committed sins against God, long before God gave the Torah at Sinai.  Additionally, Torah cannot be an all-sufficient explanation of what sin is because God was not finished revealing his nature and will when Moses died.}

All Scripture is God-breathed and built upon the revelation of Torah…In traditional Judaism, even the rabbis extended teachings came to be termed “Torah.”  The oral traditions, customs, and law, including the Talmud and other later writings, are regarded as additional members of the extended family of Torah. – P. 39-40

{The first phrase is absolutely true, all scripture is θεοπνευστος (THEOPNEUSTOS), but the remainder is both too narrow, making Torah the only interpretive lens available for God’s Word, and too broad, as it makes rabbinical oral tradition into an authority, even those writings that occurred after the time of Christ and were written by those who rejected him as Messiah.}

Yeshua Himself is not above the Torah of God, for it is His own law.  Yeshua is God’s Word made flesh; how then could He teach against God’s Word? – P. 53

{This is one reason why the teaching of FFOZ leads toward Subordinationism.  They’re so intent upon elevating Torah that they feel the need to lower Christ and muzzle divine prerogative.  Certainly, Jesus would not teach against the revealed Word of God, but Jesus had every right, as the eternal Logos, as God himself, to amend, supersede, abrogate, and ultimately fulfill that Word, as well as the right to establish another, a New Covenant.}

We don’t know exactly how first-century Galileans conducted a Sabbath synagogue service.  Luke chapter 4 provides the oldest existing description of any synagogue service, and the details there are sparse. – P. 55

{This is one of the most self-damning admissions from FFOZ.  How then could first-century Jewish synagogue worship be the ONLY acceptable form of worship for followers of Jesus if we don’t even know what it was that they did?  How could this be the form of worship Jesus intended all of his followers to imitate, for all time, and there be no accurate description of it?  Once again, the plan of God they’re portraying it is woefully inept.}

Paul did not know that his epistles would one day be collected as Scripture.  He did not imagine himself writing new books of the Bible.  He did not even live long enough to see the written Gospels produced.  As far as Paul knew, the Hebrew Scriptures were the only Scriptures. – P. 58

{A bizarre way of downgrading the authority of the writings of the Apostle Paul (and thus lending more weight to Torah), and also a deeply false narrative.  Peter knew that Paul’s writings were scripture (2 Peter 3:16), are we supposed to believe that the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was entirely ignorant of his role?  Also, the dates of the writings of the four Gospel accounts are debatable, but even if Paul didn’t influence the Gospel of Mark, and even if he didn’t live to see a written copy, he was still deeply aware of the oral traditions of the life of Jesus, he would have absolutely expected these to be codified into scripture.}

Near the end of his life Paul declared himself fully obedient to the Torah of Moses. – P. 58

{This sentence is followed by one of the few citations in the book, in this case it simply lists Acts 25:8 and Acts 28:17.  In both verses Paul is making a legal argument that he had not done anything against the Law of Moses or the Jewish traditions, yet was being persecuted, that is not the same thing as an affirmation that he lived fully obedient to Torah, something that would have prevented him from becoming, “like one not having the law…so as to win those not having the law.” (1 Corinthians 9:21) In the end, the oft repeated argument in FFOZ’s published materials about how the first generation of Jewish Christians, all of whom had been raised within Judaism, lived the rest of their lives as followers of Jesus, does NOT automatically convey to both subsequent generations of Jewish Christians, let alone to any generation of Gentile Christians.  They are tilting at windmills, even the thin “proof” offered by Lancaster does not lend weight to the central argument regarding Gentile Torah observance.}

They are the standard of righteousness for which we are to train. – p. 58

{Referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, and while they certainly contain much wisdom with respect to the righteousness required of Jesus’ followers, they are not the full expression of that concept.  The Fruit of the Spirit and the imitation of the life of Jesus are necessarily the central focus of that pursuit.  A common misunderstanding in all of these arguments from FFOZ in favor of Torah supremacy is any lack of progressive revelation.  In their view, God gave the fullness first, and everything later is simply an echo, but as the text of Genesis reveals to us, God began with Adam and Eve and continued to reveal himself more fully, and explain his will and purpose more clearly, through successive generations, including those AFTER the Torah was given to Moses, until the final revelation of grace and truth came in-person through Jesus Christ.}

The correct priority of Scripture is sequential.  We should start at the beginning.  Paul teaches that a later covenant cannot contradict an earlier covenant. – P. 60

{The citation offered here, Galatians 3:16-17, is yet another example of Lancaster misusing scripture in that the Apostle Paul is actually making the argument in this portion of Galatians as to the supremacy of Abraham’s promise OVER the Law of Moses which it proceeded, and yet FFOZ’s entire focus is upon elevating the Mosaic Law, which is not, as Paul emphasizes in Galatians, God’s original covenant… Also, what is the proof offered that scripture has a priority, or that if it does, this priority must be sequential?  None and none.}

Through the books of Moses, God made His debut to humanity. – P. 60

{This is just laziness in service to a pre-determined outcome.  God’s revelation to humanity began many years prior to Moses writing about it.  God had been working with the children of Abraham for hundreds of years prior to the recording of that prior work in the form of scripture, and as Paul tells us in Romans 1, Creation was revealing God to humanity from the very beginning.}

Any subsequent revelations, prophecies, or Scriptures need to be checked against the Torah for authentication. – P. 61

{Torah is a flexible word, and here it is being used as a substitute for the Law of Moses, for it is not the promises to Abraham that consume FFOZ’s efforts, but the attempt to revive the Mosaic Law, and invalidate any interpretation (even when that is the plain meaning of subsequent scripture) that does not make the Mosaic Law normative for all peoples for all time…We also see a further reminder of the subordination of Jesus, it is not the eternal Logos to whom we look as we seek to understand God’s Word, but only to Torah according to Lancaster.}

According to God’s own criteria, any prophet who contradicts His Torah is a false prophet.  Therefore, if we encounter a passage in the Apostolic Scriptures that appears to contradict an earlier revelation of Scripture, then we are misunderstanding that passage. – P. 62

{Step 1: Create Straw Man, Step 2: Attack Straw Man…The question is not one of contradiction, but subsequent fulfillment and amendment by Jesus Christ himself, and the Apostle Paul speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…Through this tactic FFOZ gives themselves permission to flip NT passages on their head and proclaim them to mean the opposite of the author’s intention because this counter-intuitive interpretation is upholding (in their view at least) Torah whereas the way in which the Church has understood Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews, etc. for 2,000 does not (in their view).} 

This is not to say that one Scripture is more important than another.  It does not mean that Torah is more important than the Gospels or the Epistles.  But it does mean that Torah must be regarded first, because it was given first. – P. 62

{You can say all scripture is equal, but in reality it isn’t when the interpretation of it is coming from FFOZ.  Torah is always superior, always what reinterprets even the words of Jesus into conformity.  In practice, Torah is the only true Scripture, the only full revelation.}

If we pull Torah out from under them, they all collapse, and we are left with a hopeless jumble of confusing Scripture that seem to contradict one another. – P. 62

{I honestly have no idea what seeming contradictions that Lancaster is trying to scare his readers with.  This reminds me of what the apostate Bart Ehrman claims in his many books: If we don’t have a perfectly preserved Bible, we don’t have the Word of God.  A scare tactic, but nothing that true faith need worry about.  The same holds true here.}

The bedrock on which the Bible stands is the revelation at Mount Sinai. – P. 63

{Wow.  It deserves another, wow.  That isn’t even accurate within the Torah itself.  The heart of the Torah is God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12.  At least he’s being honest and telling us where his love of scripture is centered.  Personally, my heart is in the Gospels, in the story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, and that is the true Cornerstone of our faith.  “On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”}

When one realizes that God discloses Himself to the world in the Torah, one must also recognize the enormous gravity of declaring parts of that same Torah null or void.  Even the smallest commandment of the Torah comes to us suffused with godliness.  To declare any commandment as irrelevant or obsolete denies the eternal and unchanging nature of God.  As soon as we begin to discard commandments, we have begun editing God.  We have started reshaping God into an image we deem more appropriate. – P. 70

{Where to begin, the uses of “null”, “void”, “irrelevant”, “obsolete”, and “discard” is both inflammatory and once again a Straw Man.  That is not what the historic and orthodox understanding of the New Covenant has done with the Law of Moses.  Most importantly, and this is key, this entire rant is man-centric, it is all about what people choose to do with God’s revelation, but it ignores the elephant in the room: God is the one who declared that the Law of Moses need not apply to those who came to Jesus Christ by faith.  This was not a human choice but the unfolding of the will of God, as revealed in the New Testament, which is just as much God’s Word as Torah.}

When we try to change the Torah or do away with a commandment, it is God we are trying to change or do away with. – P. 71

{Set aside for a moment that neither Daniel Lancaster, nor any of his followers or competitors in the Hebrew Roots Movement are fully keeping the Law of Moses as it is written.  They’re all falling short of this, and not just because Paul declares nobody can keep the Law in Romans, but because nobody in the world today is living like a first-century Jew (see above where Lancaster admits that nobody knows what the first century synagogue liturgy consisted of), and because it is far more accurate to talk about first century Judaism as a spectrum rather than a monolith…In the end, what we have here is a form of idolatry with respect to the Torah.  It has been elevated so high by Lancaster (and FFOZ) that not even God can develop it further, not even God (through the inspired writings of the NT) can move beyond the model established at Sinai.}

Deuteronomy 4:5-8 says that when Israel lives out the Torah, the world will see God. – P. 71

{A true enough statement with respect to Israel, it does not, however, as Lancaster contends here, mean that God intended Torah to be the final way in which he would make himself known through his people.  Jesus himself updated this formula when he told his followers, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35)}

The Messiah reconciles the human race to God’s Torah.  The ultimate completion of His work will occur when the Natural Law of human society is identical to the revealed law of Torah…This is the promise of the new covenant. – P. 71

{Again, we see Torah elevated to near idolatry.  Jesus does NOT reconcile the world to Torah, he reconciles it to himself, to God.  How do I know this?  The Apostle Paul proclaimed it:

Corinthians 5:18-20     All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

The work of the New Covenant is the creation of brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, the enlargement of God’s family by the transformation of hearts and minds to Christ-likeness, not Torah-likeness.  Jesus is our guide, our direction, our purpose.  We will be like him, the Spirit’s power ensures it.  Romans 8:14-30 spells this out in great detail, it is the purpose to which God is working EVERYTHING, the one goal (telos) of history, “that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.”}

The Spirit will never lead us to break Torah. – P. 73

{The word choice frames the discussion, “break” is a pejorative term, but if God himself has decreed that portions of his Law as given to Israel no longer will apply in the New Covenant, nobody is “breaking” anything.}

James calls the Torah the “perfect Torah” and the “Torah of liberty.” – p. 76

{The common word substitution fallacy employed again and again by FFOZ.  It is not acceptable to substitute Torah for Law in the writings of the NT whenever it is convenient to fit a point you’re trying to make.  In fact, in its context, there is no reason to believe that James is thinking about the Law of Moses (rather than the whole counsel of God, including the words of Jesus) when he writes, “But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.” James 1:25}

Our new creation identity is premised on the notion that the Messiah now dwells within us, is being formed within us, and lives through us.  This raises an important implication.  There is a Torah-observant, Jewish person dwelling within you! – P. 79

{This conflation of the parts of the Trinity is a common problem with Lancaster/FFOZ, in the previous paragraph he acknowledged that it is the Spirit that dwells within believers, but chooses here to say that it is Jesus because it will allow him to not very subtly hint that we must be Torah observant, “Just like Jesus.”}

It seems that the Apostle John alludes to the Torah, to him, the Word of God is first and foremost the Torah…The Torah is the Word that God spoke.  All things are made through God’s Word because He spoke His Word as recorded in the Torah, and all things came into being.  The Torah is the will and wisdom of God; it is His self-disclosure to the world.  As such, it is the extension of His being. – P. 80

{The reference to John is about the prologue to the Gospel of John.  The Logos of John 1 is not Torah, that’s not even close to a proper exegetical analysis of that passage.  Here instead we have a bizarre melding together of Jesus, the Word, and Torah, that results in having Torah become almost its own living thing, a personified mystical expression of God’s being.  Lancaster gets this view from extra-biblical rabbinic literature, here it is used as the lens through which John 1 is interpreted.}

This interpretation is consistent with how the earliest believers understood Messiah.  Clement of Alexandria, one of the early church fathers, quotes a passage he ascribes to Peter when he says, “And in the preaching of Peter you may find the Master is called ‘Torah and Word.’” – P. 81

{Ok, that’s a big claim, normally FFOZ has only extremely derogatory things to say about the Church Fathers, so what did Clement say in Stromata (1.29.182)?  It turns out the term used by Clement is nomos (law) not Torah, “And in the Preaching of Peter you will find the Lord called Law and Word.”  This is an accurate translation from Greek to English, but Lancaster /FFOZ have vested interest in the word substitution fallacy.}

Yeshua is not the same as the written Torah of Moses, but He is of the same essence as the Torah.  One might speak of the five books of the Torah of Moses as the ‘Written Torah’ and Yeshua as the ‘Living Torah.’  He is the Living Torah in that He emanates from the same source as the written Torah; that is, God’s divine Word. – P. 81

{The claim that Jesus “emanates” from the divine Word is bizarre, it only really makes sense if one abandons the Trinity and embraces the ancient heresy of Modalism.  How can Jesus, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made (to quote the Nicene Creed) be of the same “essence” as the Torah and how can he “emanate” from the Word when he is the Word???}

The Living Torah writes the commandments of the written Torah onto our hearts.  That is Messiah being formed within us.” - P. 81

{We have, in our opposition to the Torah Clubs/FFOZ been told many times that they don’t teach that Torah observance is necessary for salvation.  How else could one interpret this claim?  If becoming Christ-like is having the Law of Moses written on your heart, how could observing it fully not be necessary to demonstrate salvation?  This teaching is far more radical than the public impression of being, “just a Bible study.”}

If there is no universal standard of right and wrong, how could God have punished the Gentiles in the story of Noah? - P. 83

{This quote is followed by several other examples of people judged by God without knowledge of Torah.  The answer is no mystery at all, that Lancaster seriously asks it demonstrates a shocking ignorance of biblical theology on the part of someone claiming to be a teacher/prophet.  Paul makes the case in Romans 1 that general revelation was more than sufficient for God to judge humanity before special revelation was given. 

Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.}

No one thought the Torah was canceled, and no one suggested that Jewish believers in Yeshua no longer needed to observe the Torah’s commandments.  The argument was about something else altogether.  The argument was about whether or not Gentile believers should be required to become Jewish and keep the whole Torah, just as the Jewish believers did. – P. 91

{Here the book of Acts and the writings of Paul are framed in a way that makes other arguments put forth by FFOZ seem more plausible.  The problem, however, is that this isn’t based in history, let alone the text of the NT itself.  Paul may not have used the pejorative “canceled”, but he certainly wrote about the fulfillment of the Law and the freedom that was now to be enjoyed by those in Christ.  Likewise, the writer of Hebrews extensively lays out the case that not only was Christ the superior form of all things related to the Mosaic Law (Priest, Temple, sacrifice), but that everyone who had ever been justified was justified by faith (as is Paul’s consistent message as well)…The argument at the Jerusalem Council was NOT about whether or not Gentile Christians needed to become Jewish, it was about whether or not ANY preconditions could be placed upon them related to the Mosaic Law’s ceremonial and purity regulations and the answer from James and the whole council was an emphatic, “No.”…This whole line of argument is in service of the false reading of Paul’s writings where Lancaster and FFOZ will claim that Paul’s only concern is circumcision and full Gentile conversion, that in fact he was in favor of Gentiles keeping every aspect of the Law except circumcision.  This is a false reading of Paul, and one that has a massive internal fallacy, as if the Law of Moes is eternal, for all peoples and all times, except circumcision?  How can we possibly justify NOT including circumcision if “living like Jesus” means full Torah observance for everyone?  Lancaster and FFOZ have no answer for why circumcision is allowed to be “replaced” by baptism when the Law of Moses is supposedly immutable and eternal.}

Paul believed that Gentiles needed to keep the basic ethical standards of the Torah – essentially the equivalent of the seven Noachide [sic] laws – but they did not need to keep the commandments specifically given to the Jewish people as identity markers and tokens of the covenant, such as the sign of circumcision, the Sabbath and holy days, and the complex dietary laws, various Levitical regulations, and ceremonial regulations. – P. 92

{This is a true statement, and an accurate assessment of Paul’s theology.  It will be undermined, however, by the rest of Restoration and the ongoing teaching of FFOZ.  Lancaster can see the truth, but won’t hold onto it.}

Simon Peter interpreted this event as God’s own testimony on behalf of the Gentile believers.  It indicated that He received them as they were, without any contingencies about future circumcision or conversion or Torah. – P. 94

{Another accurate understanding of Acts 10 as Peter recognizes God’s hand at work in the household of Cornelius.  And yet, this too will be undermined and discarded by Lancaster and FFOZ.}

The decision exempted the Gentiles from circumcision and the particular commandments that pertain specifically to Jewish identity.  It prohibited the Jewish believers from forcing those issues on Gentiles. Nevertheless, the apostles did not forbid the Gentiles from voluntarily participating in the Sabbath, the dietary laws, or any aspect of Torah-life. – P. 95

{Emphasis mine.  Also an accurate description of James’ verdict at the Council of Jerusalem, but it is immediately discarded by the next sentence, where “nevertheless” wipes out the previously stated views of Paul, Peter, and now James.  All will be set aside in favor of “voluntary” observance of Torah by Gentiles that is then elevated beyond “voluntary” by teaching that all true disciples who love Jesus will want to participate, in fact, that all true disciples will participate (so much for “divine permission” instead of “divine mandate.”}

The Gentile believers were more than “sons of Noah” or simple God-fearers.  Through his allegiance to King Messiah, a Gentile believer entered into close fellowship with the Jewish people and became an adjunct member of the nation.  In the language of the Torah, he became a ger toshav, i.e., “a stranger who sojourns among you.” – P. 96

{Immediately after stating the teaching of Paul, Peter, and James AGAINST this idea, Lancaster begins to weave a narrative they would have rejected.  For FFOZ, the idea of the “sojourner in the land” does a lot of heavy lifting to justify Gentile Torah observance.  No NT writer makes this claim, or even mentions the idea, and almost none of the Gentile followers of Jesus were living IN the Promised Land itself.  Supposition is being used to overrule the stated beliefs of the Apostles, conjecture to overturn the clear teaching of scripture.}

Since Gentile believers have been “grafted in” to the nation, - P. 100

{The oft cited non-contextual false interpretation of Romans 11, Lancaster and FFOZ must simply assume this to be what Paul means, without it their whole system will crash and burn.}

It’s absolutely wrong to say that the Torah does not apply to Gentile believers.  When we combine all of the seven Noachide [sic] laws and their various derivatives with the four laws of the apostolic decree and all of their implications, we discover that many of the Torah’s 613 commandments, particularly the prohibitions, do apply directly to Gentile believers and are incumbent upon them.  Therefore, one cannot say that the Torah is only incumbent upon the Jewish people.  Most of the Torah’s prohibitions apply equally to both Jews and Gentile Christians. – P. 101

{Emphasis mine.  Here we have an argument that works against the belief of Lancaster and FFOZ that the Torah is unchangeable and universally mandated.  How can Torah be a direct reflection of God’s nature (in all of its parts, an argument Lancaster made just a few pages ago) and yet only “most of” it apply to Gentiles?  Either it stands for all time and all peoples, or it can be modified (by Jesus, who certainly had the authority, as is the orthodox belief).  How you get from the ethical standards given to Noah and the 4 prohibitions in the Jerusalem Council to the 613 commandment of the Mosaic Law is beyond me.  11 is not “most of” the way to 613.  Ultimately, it is not the ethical standards of the Mosaic Law that are at issue, those have always been embraced by orthodoxy, it is the cultural distinctives, the marks of the Covenant, precisely the types of things NOT covered by Noah or the Jerusalem Council that Lancaster and FFOZ want to lay upon Gentile Christians as a yoke.  The gap between scripture and their position on this issue is enormous.}

James maintained that the God-fearing Gentile believers should be held to the legal standard that the Torah applies to a stranger in the midst of Israel even if they lived outside the geographic borders of the nation state. – P. 102

{Thus in Lancaster’s thinking, Acts 15:21 flips the entire Council of Jerusalem from a statement that prohibited placing extra burdens (i.e. Torah observance) on the backs of new Gentile believers, to a statement that requires just that.  Set aside that this topic is never brought up in the NT writings, never commented upon, let alone affirmed by Paul.  Acts 15:21, contrary to Lancaster’s view, can readily be interpreted as the rationale for James asking the new Gentile Christians to respect the well known teachings of Judaism so as to not cause offense to the Jewish Diaspora, no more than this is request for kindness is needed to understand his motivation or the plain words of the Greek text of Acts.}

In those days, the Gentile believers still assembled within those synagogues.  They considered the synagogues (both messianic and non-messianic) as their houses of worship. – P. 102

{As is the case throughout the book, Lancaster offers no historical proof of these thesis, no archaeological finds, no writings of the Church Fathers, no evidence from the NT.  The claim fails the smell test: Why would Jewish communities who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah welcome and influx of Gentile believers in Jesus into their midst?  When they violently opposed Paul again and again, how are we to believe that the Gentile Christians worshiped among them in peace?  Did the Gentile Christians muzzle themselves and say nothing about Jesus while worshiping in the synagogues year after year?  In those synagogues, they would find no instruction about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, how could this be what Jesus and the Apostles intended for them (instead of the Church which Paul labors so long and hard to build)?}

James took Gentile participation in Sabbath and synagogue Sabbath services as a forgone conclusion.  The apostles did not require the Gentile believers to observe the Sabbath, but they assumed that they would celebrate the LORD’s holy day to some extent.  They assumed that the Gentile believers would attend the prayer services and Scripture readings as they participated in Torah life along with the Jewish people, in accordance with the custom of the Master.  As yet, no alternative, competing holy days existed.  The God-fearing Gentile believers participated in almost every aspect of Torah life – whether or not they were obligated to do so. – P. 102-103

{The last sentence is a subtle attempt to argue later for that supposed obligation.  As with the rest of the book, no portion of the NT is quoted in support, nothing from the Church Fathers, just another bold statement that fails to fit within what we read in the NT, particularly in Acts where the Church very early worshiped on Resurrection Day, calling it the Lord’s Day…The fantasy version of Christian history, we can’t call it Church History when they contend that the Church was never meant to exist, actually we can’t call it Christian history, as Christianity wasn’t meant to exist either.  Ok, so the fantasy version of the history of the followers of Jesus (Yeshua), sees both Jew and Gentile alike worship on the Sabbath in synagogues until the 2^nd century, where both those who believed in Jesus and those who rejected him utterly live in harmony, all together observing Torah, until evil men destroyed this symbiosis with Judaism and created the Church and Christianity to take its place.  It may not be calling the Moon Landing fake, but it is a total fantasy, a theory without proof, but a fiction necessary for the conclusions to come from Lancaster (and FFOZ) that the Gospel proclaimed by the Church has always been illegitimate.}

Now, for the first time in centuries, we are beginning to understand the real intention behind Paul’s epistles and the decision in Acts 15.  The apostles agreed that Gentile believers did not need to undergo circumcision and full obligation to the Torah as Jews.  The obvious corollary requires that Jewish believers are obligated to observe the Torah.  The thought that a Jewish believer might also be exempt from the whole yoke of Torah did not enter the minds of the apostles. – P. 106

{Emphasis original.   If you think the statement, “the real intention behind Paul’s epistles,” is ominous and radical, you’d be correct.  In the end, Lancaster and FFOZ will twist Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. into pretzels to claim they mean the opposite of what the Church has taught for two thousand years.  In addition, we see again the misrepresentation of the Council of Jerusalem, which did far more than simply eliminate full conversion to Judaism as an option, it forbade ANY preconditions for Gentile believers…The twisted version of the Jerusalem Council is used, without evidence from any other NT text or any Christian theologian, to claim that the Apostles never even thought about the yoke of Torah being taken from Jewish Christians.  This too is false, and while any Jewish Christian may participate in any aspect of Torah observance as a cultural/ethnic practice, it is not an ethical question of obedience or sin if they do or do not do so.  Ephesians 2:14-18 is one of the relevant passages from the hand of Paul that speaks of Jesus creating, “one new humanity out of the two.”}

The things that define Christian life are Torah-based.  For the most part, the Christian life is one of Torah lived out. – P. 110

{One can indeed find the foundations of what Jesus taught in the Torah, as the eternal Word of God we entirely expect this from him, but Jesus repeatedly gave to his followers a “new commandment” that went beyond the requirements of Torah, that strove with matters of the heart and not just the letter of the Law.  Christian life surpasses the Torah, by design, because we have been given the Holy Spirit.  The irony here is that our obligation before God is HIGHER than Torah observance, but FFOZ wants to impose these exterior observances under the mistaken premise that they are the true full form of devotion to Jesus.}

The apostles never intended to see the Gentile believers divorced from Judaism.  Acts 15 was meant to keep Jews and Gentiles together, not to separate Gentiles into a new religion. – P. 112

{One part of this statement is true: The Apostles wanted Jewish and Gentile Christians to be one body.  The other is false, false because the Jewish Christians were already aware that they had no home in Judaism. First Century Judaism had already rejected their Messiah, and while the Temple was still sacred ground for them as a place to gather for prayer, they no longer answered to the Sanhedrin, nor required the services of the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood, no sacrifice for sin remained, none was needed by a single follower of Jesus, Jew or Gentile.  The curtain in the Temple had been torn (Matthe 27:51) at the death of Jesus, the way to God no longer ran through the priesthood.}

The church lost all of that surprisingly early in the development of Christianity…Christianity lost her connection to Torah and the Jewish people.  This happened in fulfillment of the Master’s words. (followed by a quotation of Matthew 24:9-12) – P. 112-113

{Thus, Lancaster and FFOZ make their case for the impotency of the Holy Spirit.  It only took a couple of generations for the entirety of the purpose of Jesus and the Apostles to be subverted and destroyed.  Did the Church move away from Judaism?  Absolutely, but this began while the Apostles were living, it was not an act of defiance of their work.  From this second century failure, in the minds of FFOZ, the Gospel will go into captivity until they were personally chosen by God to bring it back into the light and usher in the End Times.  The hubris on their part is astounding, the lack of faith in the Early Church, in our ancestors in the faith who remained true to the Gospel in the face of Roman oppression, is telling.  They have all the faith in the world in themselves, none in those who claimed Christ as Lord in generations past.}

They are things we all lost a long time ago, and I am obligated to restore them to you. – P. 113

{While I have been criticized for having certainty with respect to orthodoxy, something I did not create nor does it rest upon my wisdom or authority, the leaders of FFOZ, including Daniel Lancaster, have a towering sense of their own self-importance, in their own rightness in opposition to the entirety of Church History.  It is just this sort of self-aggrandizement that pushes FFOZ from being a heretical sect (which it also is) to being a dangerous cult.}

Paul says that the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come and the substance of Messiah.  The Sabbath is about the Messiah.  Therefore, the Sabbath has something for all the followers of Messiah – both Jews and Gentiles. – P. 116

{The note in the text offers Colossians 2:16-17 as justification for this statement, “16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”  This is once again twisting Paul around to the opposite of his meaning.  Paul calls Sabbath keeping a shadow of what was to come, but reality, Jesus, has now come.  He is here.  He is our rest and we rest in him.  The idea of taking a Sabbath rest, as outlined in the creation account in Genesis has value to Christians, as a principle, but the literal observance of it according to the Law of Moses is not at all what Paul is trying to say in Colossians where he warns AGAINST those who would judge others based upon religious observances…Also, Paul does not say that Sabbath “is the substance of Messiah.”  How he gets that from Colossians 2:16-17 is a mystery to me.}

Gentile believers…keep the Sabbath along with the Jewish people as a sign of solidarity with the people of God and as servants of our Master Yeshua, as it says, “So that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.” (Deuteronomy 5:14) – P. 116

{Having been accused, many times, wrongly, of teaching Replacement Theology, it is ironic to see Lancaster applying commands given to the theocratic kingdom of Israel as if they apply now equally to Gentile believers.  In contrast, orthodoxy sees the distinction between what the Mosaic Law commanded of Israel, a specific people in a specific time and place, and what God requires of the disciples of Jesus, a new people called from the ends of the earth, an act of God’s grace that goes beyond his previous work through Israel.}

The Sabbath is not burdensome, as some suppose.  The Master of the Sabbath declares, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28) – P. 116

{The problem here is that Jesus in Matthew 11 is not talking about Sabbath keeping, but rather about the far more profound rest that our souls can find in him.  It is not our weary bodies that he offers rest to, but our lost souls and our striving toward self-righteousness…In that respect, this use of Matthew 11:28 also twists Jesus’ words around to the opposite meaning, making them about human obedience to an external code rather than Christ’s sufficiency.}

The apostles teach that the Sabbath foreshadows things that come.  The book of Revelation tells us that the coming of Messiah will institute a one thousand-year era of peace – the kingdom on earth, also called the Messianic Era.  This one thousand-year era can be compared to the Sabbath.  The six days of the week correspond to the six thousand years of redemptive history.  “With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day,” Peter reminds us (2 Peter 3:8).  The seventh-day Sabbath foreshadows the coming kingdom of heaven on earth – the Messianic Era. – P. 117

{Here we see the numerology that has led Lancaster and FFOZ to conclude that the End Times are nigh (despite Jesus’ warning that such knowledge is impossible).  Because he evidently believes in Young Earth Creationism, he concludes that God’s work with humanity has lasted for six thousand years, and thus we stand on the precipice of the Sabbath thousand years.  Creative, I suppose, IF we knew the exact age of the earth (we don’t) and IF God wanted mankind to know when Christ was going to return (he doesn’t).}

Nowhere in the Bible does it say, or even imply, that Yeshua or His followers met and worshiped on Sunday. – P. 121

{This combines a Red Herring and simple ignorance of the history of the Early Church.  Of course, Jesus didn’t meet on Sunday with his disciples to worship, Sunday worship came about in honor of his resurrection, prior to this it would not have had any relevance.  However, evidence of Sunday worship can be found in Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, and Revelation 1:10…It is a canard utilized by FFOZ to contend that the followers of Jesus didn’t worship on Sunday until Constantine made it so, but by then this common practice of the Church was a dozen generations in the rear-view mirror.}

When we realize that the substance of the appointed times is Messiah, we are more inclined to keep them.  It becomes a matter of discipleship. – P. 137

{One of a host of examples where the supposed FFOZ teaching of Divine Permission (i.e. that Gentiles are allowed to keep Torah, that is, live like Jews) gives way to the previous FFOZ support for Divine Mandate (i.e. that Gentiles must/should keep Torah if they truly love Jesus).

The Torah’s reminders of Jewish identity are not commandments that apply directly to Gentiles.  There’s nothing at all wrong with observing these things, and many Gentiles in the Messianic movement do so.  When I first learned about the Torah, I was eager to wear a tallit, put up a mezuzah, and wrap tefillin just like everyone else.  For many years I did, but I found that when Gentile disciples of Yeshua adopt Jewish identity markers, it confuses everyone, including the Gentile disciple.  It makes others think that he is Jewish, and it makes the Gentile think of himself as the same as a Jew.  For that reason, I now choose not to observe these particular identity-marking commandments. – P. 146

{While it is refreshing to hear that Lancaster is aware of the confusion caused by Gentiles living like Jews, and that he is willing to listen to Paul in Romans 14 and limit himself accordingly so as not to cause others to stumble, this conclusion does NOT at all fit within the theological framework of FFOZ.  Afterall, according to FFOZ these identity markers are commandments, part of the immutable and eternal Law of Moses, necessary if we are to imitate Christ, that would thus be required of every believer, Jew or Gentile.  To obey them should not be a matter of conscience, IF they are a reflection of God’s nature and not subject to any deviation for any reason.  I’m glad he made the choice, for the sake of others, but in his own book he offers reasons why he shouldn’t have done so according to his worldview.}

Many Gentile believers choose to take on more than just that minimum standard.  The Didache (a first-century Apostolic-era catechism for new Gentile disciples) recommends that Gentile believers, while not technically obligated to do so, should consider voluntarily adopting Jewish dietary standards: Concerning food, bear what you can, but scrupulously guard yourself from what has been offered to idols, because it is the worship of dead gods (Didache 6:2-3) – P. 149

{The minimum standard he’s talking about are the restrictions put in place by the Jerusalem Council.  This singular reference to the Didache, that doesn’t actually mention Jewish dietary laws at all, is typical of the house of cards erected by FFOZ to reach conclusions not at all envisioned by the original authors.  From this they contend that the Early Church urged all Gentile believers to keep the dietary laws, this of course without a single reference in the NT to any such practice.}

On the other hand, the thought of all that might feel overwhelming.  Don’t be discouraged.  You don’t have to try to take on everything all at once.  Just take one step at a time.  Every step toward God and His Word is a step in the right direction. – P. 151

{This is a mind-blowing statement.  (1) Lancaster admits that his end goal is for Gentile believers to fully keep Torah, “take on everything,” and live like Jews.  I have pointed this out again and again, but local Torah club leaders and participants continue to insist that I’m making it up.  (2) Lancaster believes that failure to keep the whole Torah is sin, and yet he is encouraging people to take “baby steps” toward not sinning??  Is this his idea of discipleship, “just sin a bit less for now, don’t worry about it”? (3) Lancaster also reveals that his idea of Christ-likeness, i.e. moving toward God, is bound up primarily in Torah keeping.  Whereas the Apostle Paul is fixated on the Fruit of the Spirit, Lancaster’s obsession is the Law of Moses.}

Some expositors try to make these words say something other than what they say: But the Midrash Rabbah… - P. 153

{In reference to Matthew 5:17-19.  It is part of a long section where Lancaster interprets Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Matthew based upon the assumption that Jesus was referencing a midrash (commentary on the text) about Solomon from Deuteronomy 17.  While an interesting theory, Lancaster treats this Midrash as authoritative, letting it restrict what the Gospel of Matthew could mean.}

He pointed out that Solomon and men like him are temporal and passing, but the Law of God is eternal. – P. 157

{The Word of God stands forever, God and his nature do not change, but that’s not the same as saying that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, which is where FFOZ and Lancaster veer off into making an idol of Torah (which for them is almost exclusively the Mosaic Law) by depicting it nearly with as much finality as Muslims speak of the Quran.}

His reinterpretation of the Torah gave him permission to ignore the Rule of Law.  He considered himself above the literal meaning of the commandment because he understood the text at a “deeper” level. – P. 159

{Here the Midrash about Solomon is taken as fact, and is used to both judge the thoughts and motives of Solomon AND take a shot at any Christian who looks at the principles upon with the Law of Moses were built rather than the specific manifestations of them.  Also, anytime someone talks about the “literal meaning” of the Bible the hair on the back of my neck stands up, very few good ideas come after a rant about the “literal meaning” largely because that’s not an exegetical rubric that fits with true scholarship.  We could talk about the historical context, about the grammatical context, and perhaps about the plain/evident meaning of a text, but the term “literal” has scant meaning with respect to a text full of idioms, analogies, allegories, parables, poetic language, and the like.}

Unlike most of us, Bonhoeffer refused to trivialize and explain away the words of the Master.  He took Yeshua literally.  Bonhoeffer did not feel the need to be wiser than Yeshua.  He did not try to be smarter than the gospel.  He did not substitute rationalization for obedience.  Because of that, Bonhoeffer met martyrdom in the death camps of Nazi Germany while most of his seminary colleagues were goose-stepping around with swastikas on their uniforms.  Bonhoeffer believed in the Rule of Law, and to him, a theology that did not confess the Rule of Law was a theology of “cheap grace.” – P. 160

{If you don’t embrace Gentile Torah observance, you’re no better than the German Christians who embraced the Nazis.  Not very subtle this time.  Wow, in addition to twisting Bonhoeffer’s words (this follows a quote from The Cost of Discipleship), it totally misappropriates what he was trying to teach about “cheap grace,” to make a point that Bonhoeffer would never have tolerated, he would have been horrified to have his words used to promote legalistic Torah observance.  Yes, Lancaster is using “literally”, again.  He also is literally comparing those who don’t see Matthew 5:17-19 as a call by Jesus for everyone to live like Jew, with those who went along with the Nazis…And yes, the use of Bonhoeffer’s martyrdom to bolster Lancaster’s cause is disturbing as well.  Bonhoeffer died for his own reasons, for his own convictions and faith, not to enable Lancaster, or anyone else, to use his blood to make their own unrelated point.  We see this same troubling trend every MLK Jr. day when politicians and pundits latch on to him to promote ideas that MLK Jr. opposed during his life.}

Typically we reconcile the problem by dividing the Torah into three domains of legislation.  The Torah contains laws pertaining to morality, laws pertaining to civil government, and laws pertaining to ceremony…The three-fold explanation has one serious flaw.  There are not three Torahs.  There is only one Torah.  The Torah makes no distinction between different categories of laws. – P. 167

{Here Lancaster addresses the question of why Christians are willing to affirm that Homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22) but not the failure to keep kosher (Dt. 14:3): Christians distinguish between different categories in the Law of Moses.  Lancaster, and FFOZ, reject this effort.  While these distinctions are ones that every Reformation era credal statement embraces, Lancaster see only a timeless Torah that would be instantly back in full-force should the people of Israel create a new Temple, priesthood, and Sanhedrin.  However, we do not live in a theocracy, nor do any of the NT authors suggest that Jesus’ followers should seek to establish one.  We are not a specific ethnic people living in a specific place, we are called out of every nation around the globe.  To say that the Law of Moses must be all-or-nothing, that God’s only program is one he crafted for a kingdom in the Ancient Near East, is not only contrary to the vision of Jesus and the NT authors, reinstituting that program would end any hope of a pluralistic society where Freedom of Religion is valued.  While this idea may appeal to “Christian” Nationalist, it certainly does not to this Baptist pastor.}

God has not distinguished between ritual laws and ethical laws, but we have.  And because we have, it is possible for some theologians and seminarians to condone homosexuality even in the clergy of the church.  Any Scriptures condemning such behavior can be readily dismissed as antiquated ceremonial laws, not part of the essential morality of the Bible.  Following this line of reasoning, nothing can be said to be absolutely wrong or right.  Rather, everything is subject to possible interpretation and dismissal as part of the obsolete body of ceremonial legislation.  By dividing the Word of God into arbitrary categories, some of which we have declared no longer valid, we have dug our own theological grave and handed the shovel to the opponents of the gospel. – P 168

{Lancaster goes full-on Culture War “sky is falling!!” fearmonger.  IF we don’t embrace Torah observance, Lancaster is in essence saying, the “Libs” will win.  Any argument for a theological position that is in actuality a political or cultural argument, is inherently suspect and weak.  This one happens to also be a poor discussion of the theology of homosexuality as well.  The NT authors did not base their views on this topic on the Law of Moses.  They could have, but they didn’t.  Instead, when Jesus in the Gospel, and Paul in his epistles, want to talk about sexuality and marriage, they turn to God’s created order and the Genesis account.  In the end, Lancaster’s whole point is a Red Herring, an attempt to elicit fear on the part of the reader that is no different than the political tripe we hear from those bemoaning a loss of cultural hegemony in the West who claim that Christianity needs a strong-man dictator like Viktor Orban or Vladimir Putin to “save” it.  We don’t need Torah observance to defend the authority of God’s Word, the Church has managed to stand up for what God’s Word teaches on a host of issues for two thousand years, fear of changing cultural norms about sexuality is not a reason to embrace the theological heresy that Lancaster is promoting.}

If, however, we maintain that the Torah is unchanging and immutable, as our Master did, we find ourselves on firmer ground. – P. 169

{The thesis from Lancaster: The Culture War justifies taking up the yoke of the Law of Moses.  At least he’s made his argument out in the open so we can evaluate it.  The answer is, “No, no it doesn’t.”  In addition, we have here repeated the false claim that Jesus believed that Torah was unchanging and immutable.  And yet, he himself is the Word of God, the author and finisher of our faith.  He himself instituted a new commandment, a new institution (the Church) and a New Covenant.  The argument Lancaster is making would appeal to Christian Fundamentalists, whose answer to modernity was greater legalism (for example, the retreat into a King James Only attitude), but it is not one that fits with who Jesus was or what he said and did.}

The New Testament metaphorically refers to Yeshua’s suffering and death as a sacrifice for sin, but that’s not the same as cancelling the sacrifices. – P. 169 (emphasis mine)

{This was a jaw dropping moment for me.  I had said multiple times that FFOZ was diminishing the sacrifice of Jesus only to have their supporters here locally and online claim this to be a lie, but here Lancaster lays it out and signals his skepticism (at least) of substitutionary atonement.  Jesus wasn’t metaphorically a sacrifice for sin, he was actually a sacrifice for sin.  There is disagreement among the various Christians traditions as to how to explain this process, but the testimony of Hebrews is definitive on this subject.  Jesus was the last, perfect, and final sacrifice.  No additional sacrifice could ever be needed, he paid it all, all to him I owe (to borrow a line from the hymn).  Every follower of Jesus is forever freed from the need of animal sacrifices.  The curtain is torn, the way to the Father is open.  Here is a link to a longer essay on this topic that quotes this passage: Did the Apostles fully keep the Torah after the death and resurrection of Jesus?

The book of Acts shows us that the believers remained engaged in the Jerusalem Temple system long after the death and resurrection of the Master.  Obviously they did not regard Temple worship as obsolete. – P. 169

{This is a bait and switch attempt.  Yes, the Apostles and early Jewish Christians continued to pray, preach, and worship in the Temple courts, and why wouldn’t they?  They lived in/around Jerusalem, the Temple was the natural place to gather and the best place to evangelize their kinsmen.  However, this is not the same thing as saying that they were full participants in the Temple’s sacrificial system after Jesus’ death/resurrection.  There is zero NT evidence of that happening.  The only potential one would be Paul’s Nazarite vow, but the sacrifice to fulfill a vow is NOT a sin offering.  FFOZ makes much of that instance, but it isn’t the smoking gun they claim it to be, not remotely.  In the end, the NT never tells us that the Jewish Christians participated fully in the Temple (i.e. Judaism) as if Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection hadn’t changed anything, and it certainly never even hints that Gentiles Christians should start living as Jews, if that had been Paul’s intention, at all, he would have had dozens of questions to answer in his letters, but instead there is only silence.}

Ever since the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the sacrifices detailed in the Torah have not been possible and will not be possible until God’s Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt…If the Temple were rebuilt in Jerusalem tomorrow, every worshiper going to that Temple would be bound to observe the laws of clean and unclean. – P. 170

{Lancaster’s vision includes a rebuilt Temple with animal sacrifices resuming exactly as the Law of Moses prescribed (remember, in his mind the Law is eternal).  Sin offerings would abound, and followers of Jesus would be right in line to offer them.  Ceremonial laws would be in force, with Gentile Christians (and all women) unable to approach the inner courts, with a priesthood having the only full access.  This flies in the face of the NT’s vision of a singular Body of Christ, of an equal right to approach the throne of grace because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  This diminishes Jesus and everything he accomplished.}

If such a court existed today and had civil jurisdiction in Israel, and if the accused Sabbath-breaker was not a Gentile, but was demonstrably obligated by Torah to keep the Sabbath as a Jew…an execution under the auspices of the court could commence. – P. 172

{Music to the ear of the Christian dominionist movement which hopes to create an American theocracy.  Lancaster sees zero distinction between the theocratic kingdom of Israel and the modern-nation state.  He can’t allow such a distinction, the Law of Moses must be supreme and applicable in every way because he believes it to be immutable and eternal.}

We don’t make sacrifices today, but only because the Torah forbids us from doing so.  Without a Temple and priesthood, sacrificing is a sin. – P. 173 (emphasis mine)

{The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus changes nothing in his view.  Not a single thing.  The entire system should be operating right now, and it would be if only a new Temple were built and the priesthood reconsecrated.  The further I dig into the teaching of FFOZ, the more the most radical assessment of them, that they’re a heretical cult, is confirmed by their own words.}

Sometimes disciples of Yeshua – both Jewish and Gentile disciples – are eager to take hold of the Torah, but they are reluctant to acknowledge the role of Jewish tradition and authority in interpreting the Torah.  We would prefer to interpret the Torah’s meaning ourselves and not bother with consulting Judaism, but that’s not how the Torah works. – P. 175

{Note that the section on Oral Torah that contains this quote is all about how Gentile Christians can figure out how to live like a Jew.  Once again, we see that this is the end goal of Lancaster and FFOZ, the path they urge others to follow.  It also helps explain the pattern in FFOZ published materials of having little, if any, quotations from Christians scholars and theologians, instead when outside sources are quoted there are almost always from rabbis.  While it makes sense to consult the history of Jewish interpretation with respect to the Hebrew Scriptures, it cannot be the final understanding of even these because that viewpoint does not reflect those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (either because they wrote before he lived, or wrote after but reject him).  The traditions of the rabbis may be a useful tool in Christian interpretation, but it cannot be the last word, although that’s the premise Lancaster is setting forth in this chapter.}

When God entrusted the Jewish people with the Torah, He also entrusted them with the responsibility of interpreting its commandments and applying them. – P. 175

{This is true, as far as it goes.  They had that responsibility for the people of Israel during the time of the Mosaic Covenant.  They do not, however, retain that authority over the Church, we are not beholden to rabbinic traditions when we seek to apply the principles of the Law in the age of the Spirit.  This is also a subtle way of rejecting any viewpoint on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) that is put forth by Christian theologians because they were not “entrusted” with that text.}

Yeshua firmly endorsed traditional Jewish authority when He told His disciples “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe” (Matthew 23:2-3) – P. 180

{This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous.  Lancaster’s ability to interpret scripture is woefully inadequate here.  It is either a failure of basic skills or a deliberate misuse of the text, both are dangerous in a published work intended to teach others.  What’s so funny?  Jesus is being sarcastic in these lines.  He’s mocking the scribes and Pharisees who claim such authority, not endorsing them.  How do we know this?  Lancaster didn’t quote all of verse 3, and for good reason.  The sentence continues with, “But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”  Lancaster quotes this verse to prove that Jesus “firmly endorsed traditional Jewish authority”?  Misquoting and misusing scripture is a dangerous game, sadly FFOZ does this blatantly with out-of-context quotations.}

Yeshua was a part of that context, arguing with the sages just like the famous Hillel argued with Shamai. – P. 181

{No, no, a thousand times no.  Jesus did not argue with his contemporaries just like other rabbis did.  Jesus spoke with authority, his own authority.  Mathew 7:28-29 “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.”  This is a subtle diminution of Jesus’ person, but it follows the pattern in FFOZ’s writings of hinting at Subordinationism and Modalism.}

You don’t need to be a Torah scholar to observe the Torah.  If you do have questions about specifics, consult your local Messianic Jewish rabbi, or if that’s not an option, you might want to consult a few basic books about Judaism.  Just make sure they come from reliable sources such as First Fruits of Zion or other Jewish publishers with a traditional perspective. – P. 186

{Aside from the shameless self-promotion asking people to buy books from the company he works for, calling FFOZ a reliable publisher with respect to Judaism is a slap in the face of actual Jewish publishing houses.  Given the near uniform disdain among both Jews who follow Judaism and Messianic Jews for the work of FFOZ (and those like them) in trying to convince Gentiles to live like Jews, this is a very tone-deaf statement from Lancaster.}

In addition, Gentile disciples felt enormous social pressure to become Jewish.  Paul’s letter must be understood within this larger Jewish context.  Remember that when we read Paul’s letter, we hear only one side of an argument. – P. 193

{I’ve been asked many times by incredulous fellow pastors and lay Christians, “How can they ignore Paul?”  This quote illustrate the process: (1) They change the context by postulating a fantasy first century where Gentile Christians worship on the Sabbath in Synagogues with non-Messianic Jews where they were Torah observant, (2) they then dismiss anything Paul has to say about the Law as ONLY a reaction against full-on Judaizers, and (3) smother this with relentless word-substitution fallacies by replacing the Greek term for law (nomos) with Torah whenever it helps change the meaning of the text in their favor.  Lancaster goes so far on the previous page as to add “[of Torah]” to the end of a quote of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and “[i.e Torah} to the middle of 1 Timoth 6:14}

Paul taught a life of imitation of Yeshua.  Disciples are more than just converts.  Disciples must meet expectations of discipleship…To be like Yeshua, Paul needed to observe the Torah, and his disciples needed to observe it as it applied to them. – P. 195

{Another example where “Divine Permission” is replaced in FFOZ’s actual teaching with “Divine Mandate”, they are a One Law organization in truth if not in their public façade.  How else does one interpret a call to be like Jesus when Lancaster defines that solely (or at least primarily) as observing Torah?  Note that there is no distinction made between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians with respect to Jesus’ expectations of their relationship to Torah.  This follows after quotations of 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7 where Lancaster claims the “traditions” that Paul is speaking to the Gentile Christians about are Oral Torah.  In fact, he was referring to the oral traditions about Jesus, his life and teaching, knowledge of which Paul imparted to them directly because they did not yet have access to the four-fold Gospel account.  Because “traditions” means Oral Torah to Lancaster (and FFOZ), he has no problem with reading that idea into the writings of Paul.}

Paul warns us against the Man of Torahlessness: the Antichrist.  Paul indicates that we will be able to recognize this imposter because he will be opposed to the Torah of God. – P. 195

{Good to know he wasn’t willing to stop at painting his opponents as Nazi sympathizers, here we see that Christians who don’t embrace Torah observance are antichrists in Lancaster’s view.  This is once more word substitution, Paul didn’t use the word Torah in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10, no effort is made to show that this is contextually valid, Lancaster just inserts it as a matter of course.}

According to God’s own criteria for determining a false prophet, Judaism’s rejection of the traditional Christian presentation of Jesus is a matter of obedience to Torah and loyalty to God.  The traditional presentation of the Christian Jesus offers a prophet…who canceled the Torah.  Such a person fits the Torah’s description of a false prophet perfectly. – P. 198

{The Straw Man returns.  Jesus did not “cancel” the Torah, he fulfilled it.  He became the ultimate High Priest, sacrifice, and Temple and instituted a New Covenant in his own blood.  No doubt some Christians have wrongly portrayed Jesus as anti-Torah in their efforts to evangelize Jews, but that error does not prove Lancaster’s opposing contention that Jesus changed nothing in the Torah.}

The real Yeshua of the Gospels is no such.  He has little affinity with the traditional depiction of the Christian Jesus in regard to the Torah and the Jewish people…He taught the enduring, unchanging Torah and called Israel to submit to the highest standards of Torah. – P. 199

{What more can be said?  The thing that strikes me most in this quote is the portrayal of Jesus as merely a new prophet who came to say, “Obey Torah, just like always.”  The Jesus of the Gospels, contrary to Lancaster’s assertion, is the Son of God, the Word made flesh, who draws all men to himself, and thus to the Father.  He teaches with authority, his own, and offers both new commandments and a new covenant.  To make the heart of his message, “Return to Torah!” does a great disservice to the Gospel account of Jesus.}

If the Word of God is true, it must be consistent.  If Messiah is true, He must be consistent with the Torah of Moses. – P. 200

{I hear echoes of the arguments made by the most radical King James Only advocates.  They see the only choice being between a “perfect” Bible (with no textual variants, no errors in copying) and one that cannot be trusted.  Lancaster’s eternal and unchanging Torah allows for no shred of progressive revelation of the redemptive plan of God.  Sinai is the last stop, nothing new, nothing amended, nothing fulfilled, after this point.  Much as the KJV Only zealot says God’s revelation ended in 1611 when the English language was perfected, here Lancaster cannot countenance Jesus having the power to fulfill Torah and establish God’s new program by his own authority.}

For nearly two thousand years, the Jewish people have languished in exile, without a king, without a Temple, and without a home.  How did this happen?  According to the Bible, it happened because the Torah was neglected…The Temple was destroyed because the people transgressed the Torah...If turning away from the Torah inflicted the wound, then returning to Torah is the balm. – P. 200-01

{Stop for a minute and absorb the antisemitism: The Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was the Jews’ own fault according to Lancaster.  It happened because this people failed to keep the Torah.  How, when, where?  He doesn’t say.  The zeal of those like Saul of Tarsus to keep the Torah was evidently not enough.  In this way, Lancaster has made himself a prophet, declaring that he knows the mind of God and can proclaim that what happened in 70 AD was for the same reason as the destruction of Solomon’s Temple in 586 BC…He then uses this “prophetic” assessment as the reason to proclaim that Torah observance by Christians is now necessary.  FFOZ goes to great lengths to blame the Church for its antisemitism in charging the Jewish people with deicide (I agree thus far, it was foolish, even sinful, from the beginning to do so), but here he has simply changed the charge, it wasn’t the rejection of Jesus that brought about 2,000 years of woe to the Jewish people, but rejection of Torah.  He blames them for their own tragedy, just with a different crime as the cause.  And yes, this is yet another example of Torah idolatry, Torah not Jesus is the focus, Torah is what caused the misery of the Jews, and Torah is the solution.}

In a sense, the gospel has been in exile since the days of the apostles.  Like the Jewish people sent into exile to wander among the nations, the gospel has been dispersed among the nations and subject to the Gentiles. – P. 201

{So, the Gospel among the Gentiles is a Gospel in exile?  Paul proclaims multiple times that in Christ the old distinctions and categories of people have fallen away, that we are all members of One Body.  Yet, here we see Lancaster’s two-tier understanding of humanity peak through the surface, as a Gentile himself, he can’t accept the Gospel being “subject to the Gentiles” as anything other than unnatural.}

 

Conclusions from Pastor Powell: D. Thomas Lancaster’s Restoration, published by FFOZ, is exceedingly thin on evidence and outside authority, and long on bold claims and unproven assertions.  It is cavalier with its scriptural citations, a significant number of which are taken out-of-context and used in a manner that works against the author’s original intent.  In addition, Lancaster continues the FFOZ practice of freely substituting the term Torah into any NT quotation in place of the Greek nomos (Law) whenever it serves his purpose.  As a work of scholarship, due to these deficiencies, it offers very little.  I saw one review of this book that called it “scholarly,” I couldn’t disagree more as it is far from a scholarly analysis of anything.

With respect to the book’s evident and repeated disdain for the traditional Gospel and the Church, Lancaster is at least honest in admitting how these fit with his true goal of convincing Gentile Christians to live like Jews in order to bring about the End Times.  FFOZ publicly maintains that it has abandoned One Law (“Divine Mandate”) and instead embraces a “Divine Permission” attitude.  This book shows that public stance, one that our local Torah Club’s participants have accused me of not believing (to the extent of calling me a liar), to be just that, a public relations effort and no more.  In Restoration, Lancaster doesn’t hide his own personal embrace of full Gentile Torah observance, nor his belief that this is what Jesus and the Apostles intended.  At least he doesn’t run away from how radical his teaching is or try to hide it.

In the end, Restoration is consistent with the other published works of FFOZ in that it too is full of unorthodox and heretical teachings, disdain for Christianity and the Church, radical reinterpretations of scripture, and an End Times inspired self-appointed prophetic missionary zeal.  Far from easing my desire to warn others about the teachings of FFOZ, this book only further confirms how necessary it is to protect the Church from the new “gospel” that FFOZ is selling.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4