Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #48: Using Midrash to limit Jesus and bash the Church, plus hypocrisy about taking scripture "literally."

 

One of the challenges in responding to the massive amount of output coming from FFOZ is to not become numb to seeing the same tactics used and claims made over and over again.  At a certain point, it becomes repetitive as I read another time where they are placing limits on the person and work of Jesus or bashing the Church, "If I've seen it once, I've seen it a thousand times."  That numbness can't happen.  These teachings are not normal, and they need to be called out again and again, as the TV sitcom character Clair Huxtable would say, "Let the record show..."

Lesson 48, page 12

"If one were allowed to suggest such a thing, it almost seems as if the limitations on multiplying horses, wives, and wealth entered the Torah in reaction to the excesses of King Solomon's kingdom."

As an organization that teaches that Torah is eternal, going so far as to say that it existed before Creation, and can never and will never change in the least way, it shocked me (yes, that's somehow still possible) to hear Lancaster muse about the idea that the Torah was edited in Solomon's day to include commandments that would retro-actively make Solomon's sins a violation of the Law.  The idea of the Torah being edited as late as the post-Exile period is common in some academic circles, but typically rejected outright by most Evangelicals.  Needless to say, Torah can't be an eternal reflection of the "lifestyle of the redeemed community" {A phrase FFOZ uses in many publications} if parts of it were situationally added as time went on.  

Lesson 48, page 14

"The obligation of writing a copy of the Torah for himself reminded the king that he is not above God's law - even if He is the Messiah (Matthew 5:17-19)."

"Group Discussion: Read Matthew 5:17-19 and discuss the problem with the common assumption that Yeshua was exempt from literal compliance to the authority of the Torah."

FFOZ likes to use loaded phrases, "above God's law" is one of them.  Jesus was, and is, the Word of God.  Jesus is God.  He cannot be under the Law's authority as if he were an ordinary king.  Jesus is the heir of David, to be sure, but he is also the Son of God.  In their effort to elevate Torah (a form of idolatry) they proclaim that even Jesus' authority must be placed beneath Torah such that he can only point backward to Torah, only be a reformer, never a new law giver.  To them, Moses is the lawgiver, Jesus is not.  Jesus submitted to the Law, just as he submitted to the will of the Father, not because of ontological inferiority, but because of his great love for humanity.  However, in the end, the Son of God is not a hired hand, he is the heir, and the Law serves his purpose, not the other way around.

The Group Discussion question likewise contains the loaded term, "literal."  Yes, it does bother me as a former English teacher to see how often Lancaster chooses to wield "literal" like the term itself contains power to silence FFOZ's critics.  I saw this same fixation on the term literal with Fundamentalists in my youth, they were misguided in doing so like Lancaster.  

It is not, by the way, a teaching common to any portion of the Church that Jesus did not fulfill the Law by fully keeping it.  Notice that the term chosen is the "authority" of the Torah.  It isn't about Jesus willingly obeying the Law fully in order to be the perfect sacrifice, they need Jesus to submit to its authority, to not teach by his own authority.  The Gospels paint a much different picture, remarking again and again that Jesus' ministry and mission was by his own authority {Mt. 7:9, 9:6, 28:18, Mk. 1:22, 2:10, Lk. 4:32, 5:24}.

Lesson 48, page 14b

"The Midrash Rabbah transmits a legend about King Solomon that seems to be the source behind the above teaching from Matthew 5."

This theory isn't proven in any way, just asserted.  Of course, we have no idea if Jesus was responding to the content of Midrash Rabbah, given that it only existed in oral form during his lifetime and did not reach its current iteration as a written text for at least four hundred years after.  What, then, the rabbinic teaching on this text looked like in Jesus' day is unprovable.  If, however, we assume that Jesus was aware of the legend (in some form), it still would only be one among many possible contextual ideas he may be addressing, AND it is a legend not part of the scriptural story, so there is zero evidence that Jesus in any way approved of the way in which this particular midrash handles the story of Solomon.  Maybe Midrash Rabbah is wrong about Solomon's thought processes.  Remember that rabbinic commentary is not inspired scripture..  Last, but not least, Jesus is not a rabbi like his contemporaries, he does not rely upon the authority of others to bolster his teachings, he is his own authority.  Thus, to look at anything Jesus taught and seek its "source" from human authors is going to be a stretch, at best, and a dangerous game, at worst.

Lesson 48, page 15

"Solomon felt that he understood the spiritual intention behind the letter of the law against multiplying wives.  He thus reasoned, 'If I keep my heart from going astray, then I am free to multiply wives.'  He also felt at liberty to edit the text of the Torah to reflect his new insight.  He felt that because he understood the principle of the law, he did not need to obey the literal meaning."

According to the Midrash Rabbah, as usual, FFOZ treats rabbinic sources as if they are fully true and applicable to scripture.  This may be a legitimate insight into why Solomon sinned, then again it may not.  It reflects the opinion of one human author, not divine revelation.  Scripture does not offer any evidence that Solomon felt he had the authority to edit the Torah, nor that he sinned because he was trying to keep the "spirit of the Law" rather than its "literal meaning."  This view fits with FFOZ's legalism, nothing more.

Lesson 48, page 16

Group Discussion: Make the relationship between the midrash and Matthew 5:17-19 explicit.

Lest anyone think that the Midrash is just a tool to provide background information, the Torah Club group discussion will make the "relationship," remember that none has been proven only claimed, "explicit."  Again, I have zero issue with studying rabbinic sources to learn more about the background, but using them as the lens through which the text of scripture must be viewed is deeply problematic.  This is true of even the OT passages, but grows even more tenuous in the NT.  Why?  Remember, these sources were not codified (written down) until centuries after the time of Christ.  They are influenced by a reaction against the claims about Jesus made by his followers.  It will always be anachronistic to connect them directly to Jesus' teachings, and at times will be promoting a viewpoint he would not have endorsed.

Lesson 48, page 17

"What Solomon meant by these words is this: 'Because I tried to be wiser than the Torah and persuaded myself that I knew the intention of the Torah, did this understanding and knowledge turn out to be madness and folly.' (Exodus Rabbah 6:1)"

"Through reinterpretation and rationalization, he ignored the literal meaning of God's commandments.  In so doing, his wisdom turned to madness and folly with bitter consequences for his life."

FFOZ's current (4th version, so who knows if it will be the last) teaching about Gentiles and the Torah is that we are only obligated to keep the portions that apply to "sojourners" in the commonwealth of Israel, Gentiles do not need to keep the identity markers that God gave to Abraham's descendants at Sinai, but is it any wonder that those following them on this pro-Torah path naturally end up adopting those observances, even converting to Judaism and leaving Jesus behind?  The focus is nearly entirely on pointing back to Torah as the key to living well, the Fruit of the Spirit are rarely mentioned, so people in Torah Clubs hear this loud and clear and respond accordingly.

Lesson 48, page 17b

"Solomon's folly is still with us today.  It's easy to rationalize away the literal meaning of God's commandments.  It happens ever time the Torah is read from the perspective of replacement theology.  The ceremonial commandments are explained away as allegorical, symbolic, spiritual, or just plain obsolete."

"Likewise, the interpretation of replacement theology effectively move boundaries established by God.  Replacement theology eliminates the boundary between Israel and the nations, thereby neutralizing Jewish identity and the covenant.  It redefines the boundaries of Scripture by declaring the Torah to be canceled by grace.  It eliminates the boundaries between clean and unclean and the boundaries between holy and profane."

So, Midrash Rabbah proves that followers of Jesus who don't live Torah observant lives are sinful fools.  Got it, actually they'll say something much stronger than that on the next page.  As a general rule, it is not "rationalizing away" one of God's commands when his people seek to understand if there is a principle that it is demonstrating, something that could be more readily or more widely applied than the specific rule alone.  Legalists talk like this, they draw bright lines in the sand on specific rule iterations and decry the ability of people to use wisdom, reason, experience, compassion, hope, or any other God-honoring quality to think through life's circumstances on their own.  This doesn't mean that one can excuse murder or adultery by talking about the principle at issue, but it does mean that many commands that God gave to Israel that were specific to the Ancient Near East and an agrarian economy will still be able to offer some insight to his people today.  The way FFOZ views the Law, if you don't own an ox, for example, all such portions of the Law of Moses have no meaning or purpose for you, they can ONLY speak to those who do and no one else.  In a sad bit of irony, for all their talk about an eternal Torah that can never change, their literalist and legalist view of it makes it less relevant for today than among the so-called "replacement theologians" of the Church whom they mock as fools.

The boundary between Israel and the nations was destroyed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I know that FFOZ has redefined Paul's words in Ephesians 2:14, "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility," but the Jewish context (they should like this, right?) of the verse is Paul talking about the literal (more irony) wall that kept Gentiles from coming any closer to the Temple being destroyed by Jesus.  The Church didn't make one new people out of two by uniting them in the Body of Christ, Jesus did that.

The Torah isn't "canceled by grace," that's more pejorative language framing the victory of Jesus in a negative light.  Jesus established a New Covenant, in his own blood, with all the peoples of the world.  This idea is anathema to FFOZ, their false zeal will never accept that God would make a covenant with Gentiles.  The New Covenant is established by grace, just as the Mosaic was.  Grace has always been God's mechanism in relating to humanity, it can be no other because God is holy and humanity is most certainly not.  Once again, it was not replacement theology that removed the designation of clean and unclean food laws, but God himself {the Gospel of Mark (7:19) and the book of Acts (Peter's vision in chapter 10)"}.  The problem FFOZ has isn't actually with the Church, it is with what God chose to do and revealed in scripture. 

Lesson 48, page 18

"The Torah curses anyone who moves a boundary stone (Deuteronomy 27:17).  According to the Prophet Hosea, God pours out His wrath like water on those who move boundary stones (Hosea 5:10)."

"1. List replacement theology's four preferred methods of explaining the Torah's ceremonial commandments."

"2. What boundaries are either moved or eliminated in replacement theology."

"Group Discussion: Employing the same metaphor of a boundary stone as an established social, legal, or religious distinction, what are some other boundaries that should not be altered."

It probably isn't healthy if I shout at the screen while typing the quotes for this presentation, but it wasn't easy to refrain this time.  Lancaster just finished lecturing the Torah Club on the need to NEVER abandon the 'literal' meaning of Torah in favor of an allegory or spiritualized meaning because this would lead to the folly of Solomon, something he says the Church has done, and ONE PAGE later he does exactly that by turning Dt. 27:17's commandment about actual physical (i.e. literal) boundary stones {something very important in the A.N.E.} into a condemnation of the Church for supposedly moving God's ("allegorical, symbolic, spiritual"?) "boundary stones" contained in the eternal Torah.  Are the people in Torah Clubs awake?  Can there be a more blatant use of, "Do as I say, not as I do."?  

This blatant hypocrisy shouldn't keep us from also seeing that FFOZ has pronounced that the Church (Lancaster has defined "replacement theology" as Church orthodoxy, so it is all of us) is cursed of God for this supposed moving of boundary stones.  FFOZ has pronounced that God will pour out his wrath upon the Church for not upholding the literal eternal commands of Torah.  How can anyone be in a Torah Club, answer these questions, and then fellowship with his/her church again?  The publicly stated goal of Torah Clubs is not to pull people from church fellowship, but the teaching absolutely makes this more likely.  That this bashing of the Church happens over and over again and has been going on throughout FFOZ's history, makes it likely that this is a deliberate act, a purposeful choice.

If you need more evidence, the Group Discussion question calls the boundary stone command a metaphor.  It spiritualizes the commands and asks Torah Club participants to think of new ways to apply it. Can this really be the same lesson that was calling such actions the "folly of Solomon" one page earlier?  Yep.  The open-ended discussion question feels creepy to me.  What "boundaries" are they seeking to reinforce?  

Lesson 48, page 20 (quote begins on page 19)

"The apostles extended the Torah's prohibitions...Didache 2.2, 3.4)"

I know, you might be saying, "Let it go, Indiana."  Just a short reminder as we close that the author of the Didache is unknown.  We don't know if the author was "apostolic" or not.  Keep in mind, that while FFOZ is willing to quote a few short lines from the Didache to try to portray it as a pro-Torah observance document, they are at the same time claiming that from the 2nd generation of the Church onward the teachings of the Apostles was already lost, which feels odd if the apostles worked to "extend" a Torah prohibition.  The lack of consistency is noted.  Ok, so this is really the last thought: If the Didache "extends" the, as they believe, eternal and unchangeable Torah, isn't that wrong?  They think Torah can never, ever, be modified even by Jesus, how could the Didache choose to further define idolatry?