Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #26: End Times speculation based on Young Earth Creationism combined with the Epistle of Barnabas

 

Building an End Times chronology on the pseudepigraphal (i.e. the Apostle Barnabas had nothing to do with writing it so it lacks any genuine authority) Epistle of Barnabas.

Predicting that we are about to be in the last 1/7th of God's redemptive program based on the combination of Young Earth Creationism (i.e. the Earth is 6,000 years old) and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Using brackets, {In the Messianic Era} and {In the World to Come} to change the meaning of the book of Hebrews away from its intended target of comforting the Church today.

Admitting the truth about Acts 15, this flatly contradicts what Lancaster wrote in Restoration and FFOZ's belief that the Jerusalem Council imposed the Law of Moses on Gentile believers by "assuming" they would be taught it in the synagogues (Where, as Acts makes painfully clear, they were not welcome).

I know a lot of pastors and committed Christians, among them friends, relatives, and fellow workers in the field of the Lord, that subscribe to Young Earth Creationism.  When I was a young man I did too.  While my study of the scriptures and the wisdom of teachers like Professor John Walton (the Lost World series of commentaries) have drawn me toward some version of Theistic Evolution because I believe it best explains both what we know of the world around us (i.e. science) and the theological emphasis of Genesis (rather than a scientific one) which doesn't offer information about when or how the universe, earth, and humanity were created but rather the much more important question of why God created.

That being said, given that none of us were there at the time, being dogmatic about an interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't very helpful to the Church, so I certainly have no issue with those who embrace Young Earth Creationism as long as they're not attacking those who also respect God's Word but understand this text differently.

Which brings us to Daniel Lancaster, the Beginning of Wisdom, and what the First Fruits of Zion are teaching about the End Times.  Trust me, there's a connection.  When learning about Boaz Michael and his supposed prophetic vision of God's plan to entice the descendants of Abraham to accept Jesus in this generation by convincing gentile Christians to live like Jews, one might rightly wonder why God would have allowed the Gospel to be deficient for 2,000 years before revealing the truth to only this man and his movement.  Honestly, a healthy douse of skepticism is required when anyone proclaims that he/she understands something in a way that many generations before have not.  For every Einstein who correctly glimpses relativity, there are hundreds of quacks and frauds whose ideas of perpetual motion, transmutation, or eugenics were rightly scorned and rejected by their peers. So, why do Boaz, Daniel, and the rest of the leaders at FFOZ think that God is acting now to finally reveal the true Gospel?  Answer: The End Times are upon us.

Here's the thing, you and I know that, "about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32, NIV)  Jesus repeatedly in the Gospels tells his followers that there will be signs pointing toward his return and coming Kingdom, but that by design we aren't supposed to know when that day will come.  Throughout the past 2,000 years of Church history there have been many who have believed they were the exception.  In fact, it was Baptist Pastor William Miller whose prediction that Jesus would return in 1844 started us on the path that led to the 7th Day Adventist Movement, which itself laid the groundwork for the Hebrew Roots Movement and now the First Fruits of Zion.  Ironically, then, erroneous End Times prophecy helped usher the false teaching of the Hebrew Roots Movement (FFOZ) into existence, and now another erroneous End Times prophecy is being used by them to justify their worldview.

In lesson 26 of the Beginning of Wisdom set of Torah Club materials, Daniel Lancaster uses the pseudepigraphal / apocryphal  Epistle of Barnabas as the framework of an argument that in essence is saying that the End Times must happen around the year 2,000 AD because the world must now be, using Young Earth Creationism chronology (there's the tie in), 6,000 years old, and Jesus will return to usher in a "seventh day" 7th thousand year Sabbath era.  Beyond the obvious contradiction with Jesus' words that tell us that all such calculations are a fool's errand, we also have the burning question of why we should put any stock in the words of the Epistle of Barnabas given that this letter has zero connection to the Barnabas found in the book of Acts.  While it is true that some of the Early Church Fathers believed it to be genuine, it was ultimately excluded from the canonical collection of scriptures, a decision we now know was the right one.  

By definition, non-canonical writings are non-inspired writings.  It works the other way too, canonical writings are inspired writings.  This is a circular argument, it can't help being one, but one that has deep implications for the authority of any writing/teaching that isn't included in the canonical scriptures.  The Reformers wished to emphasize this distinction by championing the belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone) as the ultimate authority for faith and practice.  We know that FFOZ considers this idea to be antisemitic (as per: Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic), which makes sense given that they want to impose the traditions and teachings of various rabbis, both those who lived before and after Christ, on the New Testament as its interpretive lens.  

So, why FFOZ think they have the Truth when dozens of generations of Jesus' followers have in their view missed out on it?  Young Earth Creationism's timeline combined with a letter written by an unknown 2nd century author using Barnabas' name.  I don't know about you, but I'm going to pass on that line of thinking.

Two other things jump out at me from lesson 26: (#1) The insertion of [in the Messianic Era] and [in the World to Come] into the text of Hebrews 12:22-24.  This follows a pattern of word substitutions and "my translations" used repeatedly by FFOZ in their publications, as the 3rd way in which FFOZ alters the text of scripture to suit their own purposes.  Scripture does indeed need interpretive assistance to be understood in our own time, that is why we have things like commentaries and study bibles, but this level of eisegesis (reading into the text what one wants to find) is extremely dangerous.  

So, why do they insert these references to the future into the text of Hebrews 12:22-24?  It looks like the goal is to shift the emphasis away from the author of Hebrew's intended target, that is, the Church today, toward the upcoming Messianic Kingdom.  It is, then, just another attack on the Church in keeping with FFOZ's stated core belief that Jesus never intended to found a religion, therefore the Church has always been illegitimate.

(#2) The second noteworthy thing in lesson 26 is a candid admission during a discussion about dietary laws that the Council of Jerusalem, "did not foist the whole gamut of Jewish dietary laws upon the Gentile disciples" (p. 19)  While this may not seem remarkable to those familiar with the way in which Acts 15 has been understood for the past 2,000 years, it is a shocking admission from FFOZ given that Daniel Lancaster wrote a whole book built around the false premise that gentile followers of Jesus should be living under the Law of Moses (Restoration by D. Thomas Lancaster (FFOZ): A review - This is "another gospel" built on a foundation of lies).  In many of their published materials, podcasts, and videos, a radical reinterpretation of Acts 15 is a fundamental ploy of how FFOZ hopes to convince gentile Christians to abandon orthodoxy in favor of their version of rabbinic messianic Judaism.  I don't know why they were willing to admit in this one place (while denying it in many others) that the Jerusalem Council did indeed choose to not place the Law of Moses on the backs of new gentile believers, but here it is.