The boldly heretical anti-trinitarianism of Daniel Lancaster (One of the key leaders of the FFOZ and Torah Clubs) in his own words

Here is the link to the original PDF on the website of Beth Immanuel where Daniel Lancaster serves as the pastor: The Only Begotten Son - By D. Thomas Lancaster

This was published in 2019 and remains an active link on their website.

Beth Immanuel Messianic Synagogue

May 8, 2019 / Iyyar 3, 5779

A Messianic Jewish Introduction to Discipleship, Part Four: The Only Begotten Son

© 2019 D. Thomas Lancaster www.bethimmanuel.org

 

{All commentary below from Pastor Powell will be in brackets, bold and italics to avoid any confusion as to Lancaster’s original words.  The bold section titles are original.}

THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON

Before being immersed, a person should be instructed in “knowledge about the unbegotten God”

and “understanding about the only begotten son.” Under this subject, we touch on some of the

ideas in Christology—the study of Messiah. This is among the deepest and most mysterious

subjects in the Bible, so this lesson will only introduce a few of the topics pertaining to the

sonship of Yeshua. The material dives into some deep waters, so don’t feel distressed if it goes

over your head at time. It’s enough to get a rough idea of the concepts.

{The opening paragraph reveals this to be a pre-baptism primer for those joining Beth Immanuel, as such we would expect that the beliefs expressed here have not been arrived at in a flippant manner, which adds weight to their deviancy from orthodoxy.}

The Son of God

Yeshua regularly referred to himself as “the Son” and to God as “the Father.” It wasn’t

uncommon for Jews in his day to describe God as their loving Father. Even to this day, Jewish

prayers still address God warmly as “our Father,” and “Father in Heaven.” But there was

something unique about the way Yeshua talked. When he addressed God, he called him “Abba,”

a term of special endearment. When he talked about himself, he referred to himself as “the Son”

that was sent by the Father. After his death and resurrection, his followers began to refer to him

as “the Son of God,” and the “only begotten son.”

God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son, so that whoever

believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life. (John 3:16)

What do we mean when we say that Yeshua is the Son of God and why is he called “the only

begotten Son?” It’s not just because he was born of a virgin. It’s blasphemous to even think that

the Almighty fathered him through his mother Miriam. 

{This is the Hebraic version of the familiar Mary} 

In Greek mythology, the gods routinely impregnate human women who subsequently give birth to demi-gods, but those mythological and idolatrous ideas have nothing to do with the story of Yeshua’s miraculous conception or why he is called the Son of God. So why is he called the Son of God?

{There isn’t much of note in the preceding paragraph, it all could be a part of a perfectly orthodox explanation of the Incarnation, if it wasn’t connected to what comes later…}

Today I have Begotten You

Let’s start with the idea of Messiah. The word “messiah” means “The Anointed One.” It’s

directly related to the Hebrew word Mashiach and the Greek word Christos. That’s where we get

the English word “Christ.” In the days of the kings of Israel, a new king was anointed with oil to

symbolize that God had chosen him and put his Spirit upon him to lead the people. Every king of

Israel was called an anointed one.

God promised that, in the future, the descendants of king David would beget a son who would be

anointed by God’s spirit to restore the kingdom of Israel and conquer the whole world. The

LORD promised King David, “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me” (2 Samuel

7:14). We call that promised king “the Anointed One,” i.e. the Messiah.

Son of God is a title for the Messiah. The LORD says to the Messiah in Psalm 2, “You are my

son, today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7). The word “beget” means “to give birth to” or “to

bring forth.” In Psalm 2, God says that the Davidic Messiah is called his “son” because he has

begotten him.

When Yeshua was immersed in the Jordan River, the voice of God declared him to be the

fulfillment of the promise made to David. He said, “You are my son.” With these words, the

voice at the Jordan identified Yeshua as the Messiah.

Yeshua asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the

Messiah, the Son of living God!” (Matthew 16:16). The two titles were connected in Peter’s

mind. Not long after that, Yeshua took three disciples with him up onto a high mountain. They

heard the voice of God say, “This is my son! Listen to him.” That revelation dispelled any

lingering doubts.

All of these instances point to the connection between Yeshua’s identity as the Messiah and the

promise made to King David, “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me” (2 Samuel

7:14). By saying to Yeshua, “You are my son,” the voice at the Jordan River declared, “You are

the Messiah.” By saying to the disciples, “This is my son,” the voice on the high mountain

declared, “This is the Messiah.”

{Up until the next paragraph, there isn’t anything of concern here, and that’s the pattern with FFOZ and their Torah Clubs.  They project an “ordinary Bible study” vibe right up until they include unorthodox teaching that often slips by Torah Club members, or leaves them thinking they can “strain out” the heretical bits and keep the rest.  Hold onto your hats for what is coming next.}

The Logos Becomes Flesh

But what about the idea that the Messiah is God?  How is that supposed to work?

Sometimes people say that Yeshua is fully God and fully man: 100% God and 100% human.

Mathematically, that doesn’t work very well. That would make him a 200% being which, by

definition, would be two different things, not a single person.

{And with this flippant math analogy, Lancaster has rejected the Council of Nicaea.  Given that Jesus is the one and only Incarnation of God, the only example that there ever was or will be of the divine and human combined in one person, why is he so sure that Jesus can’t be fully God AND fully man at the same time?  Whatever comes next, whatever lesser explanation of the humanity and divinity of Jesus that he is about to offer, orthodoxy has already been abandoned by Lancaster.}

But Yeshua is not a math equation,

nor is he a recipe calling for equal parts God and equal parts man, stirred together and baked in

an oven. The spiritual world doesn’t work according to those rules or simple ideas.

{More mockery of the orthodox understanding of Jesus’ full humanity and divinity that the Early Church affirmed at Nicaea.  If Jesus isn’t equal parts God and man, either his divinity or his humanity must be lesser, as we will soon see.  That last sentence jumps out at me, our understanding of the spiritual realm comes from divine revelation, our knowledge of how it works is up to God.  Thus we do not define the Incarnation, and we certainly don’t declare what it can/can’t be based on our preferences.  What we must do, what we only can do, is accept what God has said about himself, and the Word of God tells us that Jesus of Nazareth is both fully human and fully divine.}

Let’s take a look at how the apostles solved the problem.

{Ok, let’s do that…Wait, when does he start quoting the Apostles?  The only two quotes to follow, from John and Colossians, actually speak firmly against this notion that Jesus can’t be fully God and fully man.}

In the previous chapter, we learned that God is the first-cause and that he created the whole universe through the agency of his Word.  The “Word” of God functions as his avatar, so to speak, expressing his being within the confines of the created order.

{The warning signs should be shouting by now, “Danger! Danger!”  Why is “Word” in quotation marks?  It shouldn’t be given that it is how the prologue of the Gospel of John describes the eternal 2^nd person of the Trinity, but it is to Lancaster because the Word that he’s describing is NOT a person at all.  We’re heading toward a form of unitarian monotheism, something that would be acceptable to modern Judaism (and Islam) but something that has been entirely rejected by the Church since the very beginning…An avatar?  Why are we using a term that has less than full personhood associated with it?  The term Lancaster refuses to use is “person.”  The Word is not described as a person (and neither is the Holy Spirit), and honestly neither is the Father, these are simply avatars (manifestations) of the One, not persons.}

Through his Word he spoke and the world came into being. His Word hovered over the waters of creation and said, “Let there be light.” In the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God’s Word appeared in the form of the Angel of the LORD, and in the days of Moses, his Word spoke from inside a burning bush. From on top of Mount Sinai, the Word spoke the ten commandments, declaring, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” The same Word of God came to dwell in the Tabernacle and spoke to Moses from between the wings of Cherubim over the ark of the covenant.

{Sloppy and careless use of scripture is a hallmark here.  The Spirit of God hovered over the waters in Genesis 1:2, nor is the Word described by Moses as the one who spoke Creation into existence in Genesis 1:3.  So why attribute these things, contrary to the text, to the Word? There is a purpose to Lancaster making these attributions, and saying that the voice of God in the Burning Bush was an Avatar of the Word along with the appearances of the Angel of the LORD, it muddies the waters and sets the stage for what he is about to say…}

When the time came for God to fulfill his promises to the house of David by bringing forth the

Messiah, the Word of God divested itself of glory and clothed itself in a human body. Much as

the Word dwelt in the Tabernacle, the Word came to dwell within the human being named

Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth.

{Heresy.  Full stop.  The Word did NOT simply “dwell within” a human being, He was and is a human being because Jesus retains his humanity in his resurrected body.  At the Incarnation God became a human being when the Son was born of the virgin and took upon himself humanity in addition to his eternal deity.  It was not being “clothed” with a human body, but having one, being one of us.  When he switches gears to the Atonement below, this lesser version of Jesus will have dire implications that leave Lancaster (and FFOZ) with a diet version of the Gospel, one devoid of power…According to how Lancaster explains this, Yeshua (Jesus) the man already independently existed, and the Word simply came to dwell within him.  What we have here is full blown Monarchianism, also known as Modalism, a heresy that was known in the Early Church and entirely rejected by it even before the Council of Nicaea (as early as Tertullian, 160-220 AD).  Lancaster is not inventing a new heresy, he is simply recycling an old previously rejected one.}

The Gospel of John says, “The Word became flesh (a human body), and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory: the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Make no mistake, this is about as close as the apostles ever get to saying, “God became a human

being.” Of course, they don’t say it in those words, but the apostle Paul says essentially the same

thing in slightly different language. He says, “In him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily

form” (Colossians 2:9). 

{Yes! Amen!  The Apostle Paul does indeed say that God became a human being, and not just in Colossians 2:9 (Also see John’s prologue), so why are you denying it?  I know that FFOZ wants to make the Gospel more palatable to the “Jewish perspective” as they define it, but abandoning the fully deity and humanity of Jesus to do it?  Never.}

A Real Human Being

Why didn’t the apostles just come right out and say, “Yeshua is God”? Why beat around the

bush? They refer to him as the “Son of God, the “glory of God,” the “representation” and “image

of God,” the “exact imprint” of God, and so forth? Why do they always seem to take one step

back from just saying, “Yeshua is God”? 

{Those statements are a “step back”?  Only if you want to proclaim Jesus as less than fully God and fully man combined in one person.  Nobody and nothing has the fullness of God’s glory except God.  One cannot miss that John’s Gospel proclaims Jesus as God, equal with the Father, unless what the text is actually saying is secondary to your agenda.  For example: “before Abraham was born, I am.” In John 8:58. Did Jesus’ audience know he was claiming to be God?  Absolutely, they immediately picked up stones to kill him.}

Well for one thing, that’s not a Jewish way of speaking about God. They did not want to imply

that God was two different beings, nor did they want to give people the idea that they were

teaching polytheism. Besides, that wasn’t what they meant. The human body of Yeshua is not

God nor is it the Word of God. When God dwelt inside the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle did not

become God. 

{He said it himself.  Lancaster has made a distinction between the human Yeshua and the divine Word of God; they’re not the same to him, he wants them to be distinct and makes sure to say so.  The Tabernacle analogy is ridiculous.  Of course a tent didn’t become God, what does that have to do with Jesus?  Don’t miss the line, “that wasn’t what they meant.”  It points back to the early question about why the Apostles didn’t simply say that, “Yeshua is God.”  Lancaster’s answer: They didn’t say it because they didn’t believe it.  A laughable conclusion based on the text of the NT, even the apostate Bart Ehrman accepts that the NT text proclaims Jesus to be God (Ehrman erroneously teaches that the Church edited the text centuries after the Apostles to add this idea).}

One might say that Yeshua is God in the flesh, so long as we remember that his flesh is not God.

{“One might say that Yeshua is God in the flesh”??  Oh really, we are allowed to say that the Incarnation is God in the flesh and thus accept what Holy Scripture says and the Church has believed from the beginning!  But Lancaster needs to add a caveat, a distinction that undermines any hope that he will accept this fundamental truth of orthodox Christology.}

The human body of Yeshua is a real human body. Unlike God, it began at a fixed point in time,

conceived and born of a woman. Perhaps this is one reason why he also referred to himself as

“the Son of Man.” The term “Son of Man” is an obscure title for the Messiah, but it is also a

Hebrew idiom that simply means “human being.” Yeshua was the human being who took up

Adam’s job of being the image of God. 

{So, at least we don’t also have the heresy that the Divine Jesus only looked human (Docetism).  Lancaster is willing to concede that Jesus of Nazareth was a real human being.  The “unlike God” segway serves as a reminder that Jesus the man and the Word of God are not one and the same in this heretical view endorsed by one of the primary leaders of FFOZ and creator of Torah Club materials.}

Yeshua was not a fake person that only looked human but was actually a deity in disguise.

In Greek mythology, the gods occasionally masqueraded as men to fool people, but that’s not what

is happening in the gospels. Yeshua was a real person who hungered, thirsted, tired, experienced

a full range of human emotions, felt both physical and emotional pain, and suffered temptation.

But the living God in the form of the Word

{“in the form of the Word” is the Modalist way of not having a true Trinity with three equal persons, the Word and the Spirit are simply “forms” of God, “avatars” God wears for specific purposes.}

dwelt within him and permeated his whole being.

{Nope.  The Word didn’t “dwell within” Jesus, Jesus is the Word.}

The glory of God shone through him.

When it says that the Word “dwelt among us,” the Gospel alludes to how God’s presence dwelt

in the Tabernacle and the Temple so that he could “dwell” in the midst of his people. It’s similar

with Yeshua of Nazareth. Much as God can be said to dwell in his sanctuary in a unique way, he

chose to dwell within a single human being in a unique way. But unlike the Tabernacle or the

Temple, Yeshua is a person with his own will, his own inclinations, and his own consciousness. 

{Once you’ve gone off the rails, there’s no telling where you’ll end up. Now we’re about to hear Lancaster explain how the Word and Jesus have competing wills.  So, Jesus the man has a separate will/inclination/consciousness that is NOT the same as the Word?  Jesus is some sort of multiple personality sufferer in Lancaster’s eyes?}

For example, when praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, he distinguished between his own will

and God’s will. He prayed, “Not my will, but let your will be done” (Luke 22:42). Come to think

of it, just by praying to God he was making it clear that he made a distinction between himself

and God. Otherwise he would have been praying to himself.

{Good grief, as he often enough does, Lancaster demonstrates no real understanding of the orthodoxy he’s rejecting.  There’s a reason why we can talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as their own person, it’s a mystery called the Trinity.  One God, three persons.  As Athanasius put it, “one ousia in three hypostaseis”, that is, one substance/essence with three persons.  Lancaster doesn’t understand this ancient doctrine, so he thinks that Jesus praying to the Father would be Jesus praying to himself, which is nonsense.  There was communication and fellowship within the Trinity before Creation.  That this continues when Jesus walked the Earth in the form of prayer is to be expected.}

The Apostle Paul explains that Yeshua did not “consider equality with God a thing to be seized” (Philippians 2:6). 

{And here we’re abusing Paul to advocate for heresy.  Philippians 2:6 is not saying that Jesus wasn’t equal with God, the Kenosis (“emptying”) passage tells of Jesus’ humility in that he didn’t cling to the prerogatives of deity but was instead willing to set them aside.  By the way, Philippians 2:9-11 reveals the coming glory of Jesus when his divinity is acknowledged by all of creation.  As is common with FFOZ, the passage of scripture they’re citing means the opposite of what they’re trying to use it for.}

Divestment

How does that work? How can the Word dwell in Yeshua, yet make room enough for him to

keep a distinct will and consciousness of his own? 

{It can’t, and it doesn’t need to unless you’ve embraced heresy, as Lancaster here, and need to somehow try to justify it.}

God’s Word dwelt within him much the way your spirit dwells within you. Human beings are

not merely physical creatures of flesh and blood and bone. We are more than just mudballs, and

more than just monkeys. There is a spiritual spark hidden inside of us that existed before we

were conceived, and it will continue to live on after we die. The body is like a suit of clothing

that the spirit within us wears. 

{Now Lancaster is dabbling in Docetism by making the spirit the real essence of us and the body merely a covering.  Our body is not at all “clothing” that our spirit wears.  Afterall, the coming resurrection of the dead is a bodily resurrection.  Given how wrong he is about the nature of humanity, his attempt to use this as analogy to the unique Incarnation of the God/Man is useless.  With each attempt to explain his heresy, Lancaster further cements the truth that critics of FFOZ, like myself, are not “making this up.”  This is what he chose to publish, what he is teaching at Beth Immanuel, and what, God help us, others are accepting because of his so-called “expertise.”}

When the spirit enters the human body at conception and birth, it conceals itself in the person.

You wouldn’t even know its there. It functions within you on an unconscious level, beneath the

surface of your awareness. But it’s very much the real you, deep down inside. In order to become

you, your spirit first divests itself of its heavenly identity and any memories it had. That’s why

you don’t remember being a spirit before you were born. 

{There’s no telling how far down the rabbit hole we will go.  Now Lancaster is claiming pre-existence in heaven of the human soul, with an identity and memories that we “lose” when we’re born.  The Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) condemned this belief as heresy.}

It’s not exactly the same, but the Word that became flesh in the person of Yeshua did something

similar by divesting its identity to indwell a man and live a real human life through Yeshua of

Nazareth: 

{And now we see the fruit of the poisoned heretical vine.  God isn’t really living a human life, Jesus of Nazareth is, God is just indwelling him through an avatar.  When you abandon orthodoxy, the consequences are legion and grotesque.}

Although he existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God a thing to

be seized. Instead, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the

likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by

becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:6-8)

Of what did the Word divest itself? He stripped himself of glory, divesting himself of

omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence in order to inhabit a human life. 

{You were almost there, if you replace “inhabit” with “live” you have orthodoxy.  But that’s a bridge too far for Lancaster, his Jesus isn’t a part of any Trinity.}

This explains why Yeshua would have appeared to anyone who knew him as a normal human being. He did not glow, and he did not have a halo floating over his head. This also explains why he didn’t know everything all the time, and how he could have been tempted, and why he achieved merit for his obedience. After all, it wouldn’t have been any great accomplishment for the omnipotent and omniscient God to pass temptations and trials, but Yeshua earned merit and God’s favor by doing so. 

{And now we see what happens with a lesser Christology, we must also have a lesser Atonement (which actually is no real atonement at all, as we will see below.  FYI, orthodoxy acknowledges that Jesus’ suffering and temptations were real, he was a real human being who had laid aside the fullness of divinity’s power during his time on earth.  These “explanations” from Lancaster are as unnecessary as they are heretical…So, for Lancaster Jesus of Nazareth also needs to be a separate man who is only indwelt by the Word (itself only an avatar of God, not a person) in order to make his trials and temptations “real”?}

He himself was tempted in everything he suffered, so he is able to help those who are

tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

He has been tempted in all things as we are, yet he was without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And

having been made perfect, he became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal

salvation. (Hebrews 5:8-9)

{Nice to see Hebrews quoted, none of these are being used in a way that the author would have recognized or accepted because he most certainly believed that Jesus was fully God and fully man together as one, not this weird amalgam of a human being serving as the clothing for an avatar of God.}

The Suffering of Messiah

Disciples of Yeshua believe that his death on the cross obtained the forgiveness of sins for us.

How is that supposed to work? Doesn’t it seem strange to believe that the death of one Jewish

man, 2000 years ago, could bring us the forgiveness of sins today? Why would the death of

anyone bring forgiveness of sins to someone else?

{It isn’t a strange notion if you accept the teachings of the Apostle Paul.  One Jewish man’s death couldn’t do anything for us, the death of the God/Man, the only Son of God, is what actually matters, but Lancaster has already undermined who the Church has always believed Jesus to be, which is who Jesus actually is, so…}

God’s Favor

To begin with, Yeshua found favor in God’s eyes. He lived a life of complete righteousness in

perfect submission to God’s will, but he suffered unjustly. Th apostles teach, “This finds favor

with God, if for the sake of his convictions toward God a person bears up under sorrows when

suffering unjustly” (1 Peter 2:19).

{Over and over again.  Peter isn’t talking about the Atonement, he’s not talking about merit that can be applied to others, this quotation is irrelevant, because it isn’t at all about what Jesus did for us.}

That’s the same way that Yeshua earned God’s favor. Now he is able to share that favor with all of his disciples. When we pray to God or ask him for forgiveness for sins, we do so not according to our own merit or righteousness, but in the merit and favor that Yeshua earned with God. We know that we don’t deserve God’s mercy, but Yeshua does, so we associate ourselves with him. It’s as if we say, “I know that I don’t deserve your favor or your forgiveness, but please remember your son Yeshua and include me along with him.” 

{So, we’re missing something here.  What about the punishment for sin?  What about the darkness as Jesus hung on the Cross or the symbolism of the Lamb of God at Passover?  What about the deep focus in Hebrews on Jesus as a better Priest and a better sacrifice?  The explanation that the man Jesus (remember, Lancaster already declared that the Word and Yeshua are separate) is able to share some extra merit with you and me is far from a sufficient explanation.  This is not what the NT writers have to say about Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection.}

The Law of Sin and Death

The Bible also speaks about a principle called “the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

According to this principle, human suffering and death come into the world only as a

consequence for sin. If there was no sin in the world, there would be no human suffering or

death. We would live in paradise. But this theory raises a serious problem. How do you explain it

when innocent people suffer and die? What about when a very righteous person suffers and dies

as a martyr? Obviously innocent people, like small children, cannot be said to have suffered and

died to pay for their sins. They didn’t have any sins. Neither can it be said that the righteous

suffer and die for their sins. Surely there are plenty of worse sinners who go unpunished. Where

is the fairness? 

{Lancaster is attempting to delve into Theodicy, also known as “the problem of evil.”  We do indeed live in a world where sin is far from sufficiently punished and righteousness often goes unrewarded.  What is lacking in this discussion is any connection to Paul’s theology in Romans. The universality of human sin, and the inheritance of the sin nature in each generation is not present.  Also, where is the truth that all have individually sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? (Romans 3:23) When you leave that fundamental truth out of your explanation of God’s response to humanity’s plight, things go awry, as the next sentence will show.}

Judaism explains that when righteous people suffer and die, it comes not as a consequence for

their own sins, but for the sins of others. God even uses the suffering and death of the righteous

as a way to atone for others who otherwise would not deserve his mercy. According to this idea,

an extremely righteous person might suffer for the sins of his whole generation. 

{“Judaism explains” is weak sauce.  Where does this come from, which rabbis taught this?  Is this an idea that predates the life of Jesus, or a modern one?  Lancaster offers no explanation.  In the end, where it comes from doesn’t really matter because it isn’t a biblical idea.  God is a just God.  There are no “righteous people” who don’t need a savior (Romans 2-3), everyone dies for their own sins, everyone needs Jesus.  How then could the acts of righteousness done by sinners (for that is what we all are) produce extra merit before God that could be applied to others?  This notion cannot be squared with Paul’s meticulous explanation of the Gospel in Romans, and fails utterly to connect with Ephesians 2:8-9.  If “Judaism” (Or at least Lancaster’s view of it) believes that a human being could “suffer for the sins of his whole generation” it is flat-out wrong.  No person could ever obtain enough merit for him/herself, let alone for others.}

The apostles applied this same reasoning to explain Yeshua’s suffering.

{No evidence that the Apostles believed anything of the sort is offered, none exists, because they most certainly did not.}

Since he was tempted in all things but without sin, he accrued merit with God. When he suffered and died, it tipped the scales of justice far out of balance. To bring the scales of justice back into balance, his suffering must have been on behalf of the sins of others. This is what the prophet Isaiah predicted the Messiah would do:

{The scales of justice?  God has to balance the cosmic scales?  The thing is, the injustice of Jesus’ death was infinite.  He had no sin, zero. This isn’t a cosmic math problem, Jesus’ death paid for the sins of tens of billions of people (and counting as the years lengthen) because he was fully God and fully man with zero sin, which left death with no claim upon him.}

He bore our griefs, and he carried our sorrows. But we considered him to be plagued,

struck by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through for our transgressions; he was

crushed for our iniquities. Upon him fell the discipline to bring us peace, and by his welts

(from scourging) we are healed. (Isaiah 53:4-5)

{Yes!  Isaiah 53:4-5 is very relevant.  Isaiah is talking about Substitutionary Atonement, Lancaster isn’t.}

Higher than the Angels

In the Bible, angels are also called “sons of God,” but the Messiah occupies a station higher than

the angels. He is the Son of God on a higher level than they can claim.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten

you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?” (Hebrews 1:5)

The Messiah is called God’s firstborn and only begotten son. But how does that square with the

idea that he existed since the beginning of creation? Physically, we know he was begotten

through Miriam the wife of Joseph and born in the town of Bethlehem, but spiritually, he was

with God in the beginning. He is called “firstborn” because he is God’s agent

{Again, the Word is an “agent” in Lancaster’s view, not a person.}

through which all things came into being, that is, the Word. If God is the first-cause, the Word is the action that initiates the first effect. This is why Yeshua is called “the beginning of God’s creation”

(Revelation 3:14) and “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians

1:15). In the days of the Bible, a firstborn son took a double portion of his father’s inheritance. By

calling the Messiah the “firstborn,” this implies that the Messiah was “begotten” before the

angels were created. Because he is the firstborn over God’s household, the angels must pay

homage to him as their superior: When he brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (Hebrews 1:6)

{As far as I can tell, this whole section is justifying why Hebrews claims that Jesus (who is a man inhabited by God’s avatar the Word in Lancaster’s view) is above the angels when he was born after they were created.  If Lancaster believed that Jesus was the 2^nd person of the Trinity, God from God, true God from true God, light from light, etc. he could just agree with the author of Hebrews without all of the odd talk about inheritance law.}

The Resurrection of Yeshua

Disciples of Yeshua believe some enormous claims about him. How do we know that these

things are true? He claimed to be the Son of God and the Messiah. He claimed to submit to

God’s will completely. The apostles claimed that he lived a sinless life, and they claimed that,

thanks to the merit and favor he earned with God,

{Merit and favor are all we have here, nothing about sin being paid for.)

his disciples can obtain the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, i.e. the resurrection of the dead and a share in the World to Come. They also claimed that he will come again and bring the Messianic Era to earth.  We believe all of these things on the basis of his resurrection from the dead. If Yeshua was a deceiver, a false prophet, a liar, or even a self-deluded madman, God would not have endorsed his claims by resurrecting him from the dead. The resurrection of Yeshua and the empty tomb that he left behind testify that everything he said is true and valid, and everything his disciples

believed and taught about him are also true.

{Somehow, some way, we’re found the truth again.  The Resurrection is indeed foundational to our belief in Jesus.}

The resurrection of Yeshua endorses all of his Messianic claims and his teachings about the

coming kingdom. His resurrection also provides evidence for hope in a future resurrection of the

righteous and a share in the world to come. Finally, the resurrection of Yeshua proves that he is

the Son of God. In fact, it declares him to be God’s son:

He was physically descended from David, but he was declared to be the Son of God in

power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:3-

4)

In summary, Yeshua is regard as the “only begotten son” of God on the basis of three

indisputable things. He is the Messiah the son of David, and therefore the heir to the Davidic title

“son of God” as it says in Psalm 2, “Your are my son, today I have begotten you.”

He is the Son of God on the basis of the divine Word made flesh. The Word was begotten of the

first-cause from the before the beginning as the firstborn “son” over creation, and the Word

inhabits and fills him.

{The distinction between Yeshua the man, and the Word continues, the Word didn’t become man in the Incarnation, it merely “inhabits and fills” a man.  This is not at all sufficient, and was rejected soundly by the Early Church as heresy.}

Finally, he is declared the “Son of God … by his resurrection from the dead.” The evidence of

the resurrection confirms his claims. Yeshua invites his followers to join the family as sons and daughters of God too. When we become his disciples, we join his family. He becomes the elder brother, and we become children of his Father. We enter into the family and enjoy the same intimate relationship that the Father and Son share together:

For in the Messiah Yeshua you are all sons (and daughters) of God, through faith.

(Galatians 3:26)

And because you are sons (and daughters), God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our

hearts, praying, “Abba! Father!” Since you are no longer a slave, but a son, now, as a son

(or daughter), you are an heir through God. (Galatians 4:6-7)

 

 

Pastor Powell’s Conclusions: As someone who has taken on the role of teacher, and who is actively sharing his views with a global audience, the beliefs of Daniel Lancaster are profoundly important for they permeate what he teaches (i.e. the published materials of FFOZ and Torah Clubs).  Contrary to what his (and FFOZ’s) defenders claim, these teachings are deeply and profoundly unorthodox and literally heretical given that they were specifically rejected by the Early Church and declared to be heresy by its Councils.

1. This teaching is Modalism, it is anti-Trinitarian, a rejection of the Council of Nicaea, and wholly unacceptable, it has more in common with the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses about Jesus than it does with anything in historic Christianity.

2. A lesser view of Jesus taints the purpose and meaning of the Cross.  Instead of Substitutionary Atonement (or any variation of atonement thereof), we have here in its place the notion of the balancing of the scales of justice, instead of sins that have been paid for, we have sins that God chooses to ignore because of Jesus’ extra merit.  This too falls short of what the Gospel proclaims and the New Testament teaches.

3. Teachings like this eviscerate any “about us” statements that are put forth by Beth Immanuel or FFOZ (see below).  While it may be convenient or strategic to allow people to assume that they haven’t rejected the Trinity, this is the direction in which they are leading people, and it is neither a part of historic Christianity nor Messianic Judaism, but instead a cult that like the JW’s and LDS before them, have chosen to follow “prophets” into the wilderness.

Also from Pastor Powell -

For comparison: Below is the Statement of Faith created by FFOZ (FFOZ Statement of Faith)

Note that at first glance this statement does not appear to be anti-Trinitarian.  However, when read in light of Daniel Lancaster’s stated beliefs above, phrases like “he reveals himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are recognizable as a form of Modalism.  Likewise, the opening phrase, “There is one God” is seen more clearly as not simply the assertion of traditional Christian monotheism, but rather of a Unitarian Monotheism more akin to the “Jewish perspective” (as FFOZ defines it).

With respect to Jesus, their statement of faith doesn’t mention that the Word is only an avatar, or that the man Jesus (Yeshua) had a separate will and consciousness from that of the Word (as claimed by D. Lancaster in the text above), but if the Word is only a manifestation of God, and not a true person, this sort of lesser Christology is inevitable.  Jesus cannot be fully God and fully Man (as Christian orthodoxy proclaims) if the deity indwelling him is only a power and not a person.

With respect to the Holy Spirit, once again we’re looking at what is missing.  In FFOZ’s statement of faith we only find mention of what the Spirit does, nothing that speaks to who the Spirit is.

As such, this statement of faith from FFOZ follows the pattern that I have highlighted over and over again: publicly acceptable softer and ambiguous versions of their beliefs combined with deeply unorthodox teachings mixed in and/or revealed to insiders (see for example the Malchut 2022 videos in parts 2 & 3 of my seminar).  This is the answer to the objection that has been raised over and over by true believers as to why their local Torah Club isn’t the same as what my research into FFOZ has revealed: The truly disturbing beliefs are mostly shielded from public scrutiny.  This pattern follows other cult-like tendencies that have been documented (like the severing of family/church ties), and is yet another cause for concern about this organization and this movement.

God

There is one God: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). “He is God; there is no other besides Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35), the unbegotten God, first cause, and single source. He discloses Himself in the testimony of creation and through the Scriptures of the Jewish people, and he reveals Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, interacting with His creation as the Father working through the Son and in the power of the Spirit. (Genesis 1:1; Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:4–6)

Yeshua

Yeshua is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Eternal One in whom all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form, and who is the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us, and whose glory we beheld, the glory of the uniquely begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth (John 1:1–14; Colossians 2:9).

The Holy Spirit

The Spirit of God comforts, teaches, leads, indwells, and empowers all whom God regenerates (Acts 9:31; 1 John 2:27; John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:7).