Sermon Video: Isaac's Covenant with the LORD - Genesis 26:1-33

Having introduced the rivalry between Jacob and Esau in chapter 25, Moses now recounts the ways in which God's interactions with Isaac echo the interactions with his father Abraham.  In addition to reiterating the promises regarding the land, numerous descendants, and a blessing to the world through them, the LORD takes the time to tell Isaac that he will be WITH him.  The element of relationship is emphasized, purposefully, setting this covenant apart from others in the A.N.E.   God wanted to be with Isaac, a trait that hasn't changed with God's people today because it is an outflow of God's unchanging love.

Sermon Video: Jacob & Esau: Brother vs. Brother - Genesis 25:19-34

As the narrative of Genesis continues, we learn that God's choice to inherit the promise of Abraham and become the Chosen People will rest with only one of Isaac and Rebekah's sons, Jacob instead of Esau.  This isn't because Jacob is better than Esau, in fact, as this episode demonstrates, Jacob is a schemer willing to defraud even his own twin brother.  What is it then?  Grace, God's grace.  

What then do we say about Jacob?  There isn't any reason to like Jacob as Genesis presents him, we may think that Esau is a fool (that's Moses' narrative assessment), but a just because a family member is a fool doesn't mean we have the right to take advantage of him/her.  Ultimately, Jacob will reap what he sows, but it will be a tragic story that didn't need to happen, he could have been a better man, he could have considered his brother above himself.

Professor Solberg's conclusion about FFOZ: "Wolves in sheep's clothing" with "functional Torah idolatry."

 

Having spent three years researching and writing about this organization, it greatly encourages me to have Professor Solberg, one of the foremost experts on the Hebrew Roots Movement, weigh in with an in-depth analysis.  His conclusions echo my own, further confirmation that this warning about FFOZ is both necessary and accurate.

Sermon Video: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Abraham's Family Tree - Genesis 24:62-25:18

 

In a transitional section between the finding of Rebekah as Isaac's wife and the birth of their twin boys Esau and Jacob, Genesis pauses to tell us about the death of Abraham and his other sons, Ishmael (whom we already know) and six previously unnamed sons with Keturah.

A few insights emerge: The rift between Sarah and Hagar didn't continue with their sons,  Isaac and Ishmael, at least not when it came to burying their father together.  There is hope that family fractures aren't permanent. 

Secondly, God blessed each of Abraham's sons, but only Isaac was the Child of Promise, the heir of the covenant.  In this we see a reminder that Grace is God's gift to give according to his purpose.

Sermon Video: Finding a Wife for Isaac - The Faith of Rebekah, Genesis 24:28-61

 

After God's providential choice of Rebekah to be Isaac's future wife is revealed to Abraham's servant through his faithful prayer in the first half of chapter 24, the narrative shifts its focus to the potential bride herself and her brother Laban.  They now need to be convinced to also follow God's leading.

After hearing the whole tale from Abraham's servant, Laban steps aside by embracing God's choice of Rebekah.  But then something happens, a delay is requested, and the pivotal moment rests with Rebekah: Will she choose to go this day to a new land to marry a man she has only heard a report about, or not?

Rebekah chooses to live by faith, puts her trust in the LORD, and thus becomes a part of Abraham's larger covenantal story.

Sermon Video: Finding a Wife for Isaac - the Faith of Eliezer, Genesis 24:1-27

 

The unnamed servant of Genesis 24 (we will assume him to be the same servant as in Genesis 15, Eliezer, for simplicity's sake) plays a key role in the transition of the covenantal promises of God to Abraham to the next generation of Isaac.  It is Eliezer's faith that the LORD chooses to use to guide him to the selection of Rebekah as Isaac's wife.  He steps out in faith by praying for guidance, God delivers it.  

This serves as a powerful reminder to us that God's will is unfolding around us each day, we are called to participate in it by faith.

Sermon Video: The Supporting Cast at Advent: The Shepherds - Luke 2:8-9,15-17

 

On that blessed Christmas morn, as the newborn baby Jesus lay in the manger and Mary and Joseph marvel at what has happened in their lives, the angelic host appears to the shepherds in the surrounding hills and proclaims the birth of the Messiah. The angels get a lot of attention, and rightly so, but what about the shepherds? What were they thinking that night? God chose these ordinary men to be the first witnesses, and the first evangelists who would share the Good News. A reminder to us that God still works through ordinary people like you and me.

Sermon Video: The Supporting Cast at Advent: Anna - Luke 2:36-38

 

After Simeon's bold prophecy about who and what this child will be, Luke follows up with the shorter story of Anna, focused not on her words but her noteworthy life up until this moment. As a prophet, and a widow of over 60 years whose entire life has been spent here at the Temple worshiping for decades, Anna commands respect. She would have been known to the priest, Levites, and Jerusalem residents as a constant presence in this sacred space. So, when she speaks up to also confirm that this is the Lord's Christ, people will listen.

Sermon Video: The Supporting Cast at Advent: Simeon - Luke 2:25-35

 

After the shepherds and the angels had paid their visit on the day of Jesus' birth, Luke offers a look at two individuals led by the Holy Spirit who play an unexpected visit to Jesus when Mary and Joseph bring him for the first time to the Temple in Jerusalem. The first of these two is a "righteous and devout" man named Simeon. To him was given an incredible gift by the Holy Spirit: certainty that the Messiah would arrive in his lifetime. In the end, Simeon was in the right place at the right time to meet the baby Jesus because he had been a willing servant of the Lord, a reminder to us of how much God can use those who humbly seek him.

The Evangelical Free Churches of SW MN release a public letter warning about FFOZ

 

Evangelical Free Church Community of SW MN letter concerning FFOZ

On November 15th, the six churches in the SW of MN that belong to the Evangelical Free Church of America denomination {EFCA website} jointly issued a letter signed by each church's pastor outlining their opposition to the First Fruits of Zion.  Those of you who have frequented my blog or my YouTube channel are well aware that I've worked steadily these last three years at spreading awareness about the unorthodox and heretical teachings of this organization.  Thus, for me, it is an encouraging sign to now be aware of a second pastoral body (the Franklin Christian Ministerium being the first) that has recognized the threat and been willing to take collective public action in response.

The letter contains numerous rationales for this action, including a list of seven dangerous ideas taught by FFOZ, and concludes with the following key lines, "Given all of the above, we consider it our duty to warn our congregation against participation in these groups, and call upon those who do so now, and especially those who are promoting them, to turn from the errors within FFOZ.  The gospel of free grace in Christ for salvation and sanctification really is at stake.  We feel compelled to give this warning, while fully aware that many who participate in FFOZ may not be aware of the problematic nature of the organization with which they are studying.  Our hearts are not to condemn.  Rather, we pray that this information will serve to protect and exhort those within our congregations."

The letter also contains three footnotes (#s 1,3,4) that I would like to highlight: 1. We are indebted to the labors of Pastor Randy Powell of First Baptist Church of Franklin, Pennsylvania in bringing much of this to light.  Much of the content of this letter and the supporting research and documentation was taken directly from him, with his heartfelt permission."

In response, let me say that it was profoundly emotional for me to read those words when the letter was sent to me.  I did not anticipate them mentioning my role behind-the-scenes in providing research and insights to these pastors, and I am humbled that they chose to do so.  I will in turn acknowledge my debt to my congregation who have generously allowed me to follow my call in ministry by serving in this capacity without being jealous of the time I've devoted to it, as well as the pastors and professors who helped me develop my own hermeneutical and exegetical skills and my love for the faith handed down to us.  None of us stand alone, none of us serve alone, by God's grace we all help each other along the way.

3. For the sake of accountability, we asked the EFCA Director of Theology and Credentialing, Greg Strand, to look into FFOZ.  He has affirmed the following.

From the beginning fans of FFOZ have attempted to dismiss my research and the findings of the Franklin Christian Ministerium as an isolated case of misguided, fundamentalist, zealots.  With each successive pastor, professor, and denominational leader who affirms that this teaching is indeed dangerous, that excuse grows thinner and thinner.  The truth is, it didn't have any vitality to begin with given how ecumenically minded I and the Franklin ministerium have been for many years.  We are a relatively diverse group, and we all see the same danger in FFOZ, now another leader within the Church who serves the EFCA has added his name in agreement.

4. Messianic Jewish Pastor Matt Frey from Grafted Church in St. Louis Park and Dr. Michael Rydelnik, retired professor of Jewish Studies from Moody Bible Institute, both contributed invaluable clarification between the Hebrew Roots and Messianic Jewish Movements.

Two individuals I look forward to working with, Lord willing, in the future.  Given that FFOZ still claims to be a part of Messianic Judaism and vehemently denies being a part of the Hebrew Roots Movement (both claims being untrue on their part), the voices of men like Pastor Frey and Dr. Rydelnik will be invaluable moving forward as they can speak from within Messianic Judaism about these crucial matters of faith and practice.

Sermon Video: The Supporting Cast at Advent: King Herod - Matthew 2:3-8,13-18

 

Often forgotten amidst the joy and celebration of Christmas, King Herod attempting to thwart God's sending of the Messiah from its starting point by murdering the newborn king.  The evil that controlled his heart is a powerful reminder of why humanity need a spiritual solution to our woe, not a political one.

sermon video: The supporting cast at Advent: The Magi - Matthew 2:1-2,9-12

 

We all know about the central characters in the story of Christmas, but what about those "cast" by God in a supporting role?  This 5-part series starts with the Magi, they're familiar enough to us, but what's the heart of their story?

sermon video: Faithfulness in Evil Times - Habakkuk 1:12-2:20

 

What can the righteous do in evil times when justice is hard to find?  Be faithful.  In this world we will always see evil appear to win, good appear to lose, our answer can only be: live by faith.

Sermon Video: Where is God when evil happens? - Habakkuk 1:1-11

 

Living in the midst of a people who had failed to live up to the covenant but instead embraced violence, the prophet Habakkuk asks an age-old question that falls under the theological umbrella called the Problem of Evil: Where is God when evil happens?

God chooses to answer Habakkuk by telling him that he is far from inactive, he is in fact raising up the Babylonians to act as the instrument of his wrath.  

In the end, the full answer to the prophet's question that will one day be revealed with the Advent of the Messiah is that God indeed has a plan to overcome evil, one that all who accept Christ by grace through faith can be a part of.

The harms that "Heritage America" will do to the Church, our Gospel witness, and our republic.

American Progress (1872) by John Gast

Heritage America: Wise Men Have Left Us an Inheritance Ben R. Crenshaw, August 23, 2024 at Americanreformer.org

Ben R. Crenshaw is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Declaration of Independence Center at the University of Mississippi. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.

I came across this article by Ben Crenshaw posted at Americanreformer.org while reading an article about the effort (unserious as it may be) of some complementarian pastors to revoke the 19th Amendment because they believe that women are too empathetic to be trusted with the right to vote.  Needless to say, I reject that sexist view as utter nonsense {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism or The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson}as have other Christian thinkers {The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. David French}.  While thinking about how foolish some pastors willing to rail against women voters have become in mixing their politics and adherence to the Culture War with their responsibility before God to preach the Gospel, I decided to click on the link in the article about a term that I've seen thrown around of late: Heritage Americans.

I would imagine that some who use the term "Heritage Americans" are full-on "blood and soil" racists no different than yesterday's Klan members, and some others may use it out of a love for American culture and history without any racial overtones or designs on wielding power over others, Crenshaw's article leans toward the former, even though he denies that it is so.  In the end, this entire concept of "real Americans" is dangerous to the Church, our Gospel witness, and ultimately our Republic.  Let's look at some quotes of particular concern:

"Not all people merely by virtue of being human are capable of self-government. In fact, self-government is rare in human history, as most people are too poor, slavish, stupid, or vicious to establish good government and run it well. They are instead better fit to be ruled without, and even against, their consent." 

This line of thinking is the same sort of racism that was rampant during the era of Colonialism.  Crenshaw seems to think that Englishmen (and those like them) are the only ones capable of good government and self-rule {He says as much in the article), the world's other "inferior" people are best ruled against their consent.  His views are ugly, immoral, and entirely ahistorical.  In other words, this should be condemned plainly and as often as necessary to get the point across.

This racial viewpoint offered by Crenshaw is also poison to the Gospel.  God didn't create tiers of people, some inherently different than others, to suggest otherwise is to malign the goodness of God or to call into question his ability as Creator.  If that were not bad enough, this view would also taint evangelism because how could one expect a people who are too "slavish" and "stupid" to govern themselves to be able to understand / accept the Gospel, and even if they do, how could such lesser people make good disciples?  This whole pit of racism is revolting, it has nothing to do with a theology actually derived from scripture.

"Heritage America is unique in that it is not merely a Christian people seeking to govern themselves well, but to order themselves under intentional Christian government and civil law. To be a Heritage American, then, is to accept this form of religious polity and be willing to submit to laws and institutions that are explicitly Christian in their origin, nature, and purposes."

The problem with this is, as it is with all 'Christian' Nationalism, a question of who gets to decide which civil laws are "Christian" and which are not.  What Crenshaw wants to do is blur the line between theology and politics so thoroughly that all civil lawmaking becomes a theological exercise.  As we will see later, he also wants to limit that exercise to Protestant Christians with little regard for our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, let alone any regard to those who are not followers of Jesus.

In addition to the problem one can see with a legal code that is supposedly endorsed by Christianity with respect to who makes that definition and who it leaves out in the cold, we also have the little problem of Church History.  We have tried this game before, and it did not end well, at all, for the Church.  From the time of Constantine until the rise of modern nation-states, the Church was intertwined with the power of various kingdoms and empires.  This embrace of power over others rather than Jesus' power under others via a servanthood model {See my 6 hour seminar for a very deep dive: The Church and Politics} redefines Christian discipleship as a matter not of serving others and showing them the value of the Gospel, but instead one of compelling by force and punishing those who do not accept the Gospel.  In the past this resulted in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the burning of heretics at the stake.  Needless to say, as a Baptist who believes in the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and who considers Rogers Williams to be a hero worth emulating, this lust for power on the part of those who think they are helping the Church is terrifying.

"As already mentioned, the Americans were overwhelmingly Christian, and so religious liberty and tolerance was more specifically Christian liberty and Christian tolerance. That tolerance was intolerant toward many world religions and religious practices judged to be harmful to soul and body; instead, toleration was primarily extended toward overcoming denominational differences among Protestants."

Tellingly, Crenshaw admits that the Heritage Americans he so much admires and wants to give power to failed to give liberty or freedom to anyone that didn't fit within their own definition of being "one of us."  Honestly, he's giving them too much credit.  There was a reason why Roger Williams was forced to flee Massachusetts Bay Colony and found Rhode Island, the Puritans with power in the colony abused it just as any student of human nature could have predicted. 

"Heritage Americans must love liberty in its fullest sense—freedom from external tyranny and internal despotism—and seek spiritual freedom in community with family, friends, and neighbors. Heritage America embraces religious liberty and tolerance toward Christian differences, and might even tolerate Christian-adjacent religions if its adherents agree to live according to Christian civil laws, norms, and cultural expectations."

We have seen this fail miserably in John Calvin's Geneva, in the slaughter of the Thirty Years War, and in the rise of antisemitism that ran parallel to the launch of the Crusades.  It doesn't work.  Freedom for us, but not for you if you disagree, is a recipe for disaster.  It will result in oppression, violence, and evil done in the name of defending Christ and the Church.  The thing is, never once did Jesus Christ ask his disciples to force anyone to follow him.  Never once did Jesus tell his disciples to seize civil power and enforce "laws, norms, and cultural expectations."  This quest for power is popular among today's 'Christian' Nationalists, like Crenshaw, but it is foreign to the work and words of Jesus in the Gospels, and it has harmed the Church each and every time it has been tried.

"These traits are what constitute Heritage America. You might formally be an American citizen by birth or naturalization, but unless you understand these deeply-rooted and traditional aspects of American identity, you cannot be a Heritage American—a true American. Nor is it the case that one can merely pay lip service to these ideals. Instead, what is outlined above is a description of a tangible way of life. Because Heritage America is a habit of living, those outside the tradition can be grafted in. The concept of engrafting—of adopting and integrating into the trunk of a tree branches that are foreign to it such that what was once separate becomes one—is the best way to think about becoming a Heritage American if you are not one currently. It is a particular way of life that is proud and exclusive, but it is welcoming to those who want to live in this manner"

And here is where Crenshaw's racism moves beyond harming the Church and our Gospel witness to threatening the future of the Republic.  The moment we allow there to be an ideological test for "true Americans" we've lost.  If one must pass a test of beliefs in order to be considered a "real" American, the 1st Amendment is a joke.  This trend toward those in the Blue and Red partisan camps viewing each other as un-American (or even, as "enemies of the state") has already caused violence and a dramatic erosion of kindness and decency in our politics.  Rather than seeking to heal this partisan divide, Crenshaw and the concept of "Heritage Americans" would purposefully rupture it further.

"Can you be a Heritage American if you’re not a Christian? What if you are a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist? Ideally, of course, all Americans would be Christians, whether sincerely or nominally. However, a polity of pure saints is not practical or likely, and so toleration of those who dissent is necessary. There is a balance that must be struck on this point. Non-Christians can be tolerated, as long as they acquiesce to living in an unashamedly Christian America (i.e., submitting to Christian civil law, government support for Christianity, Christian moral, civil, and religious norms and customs, etc.). At the same time, both public and private citizens should be concerned to help the Christian Church flourish in our nation, since a collapse of Christian conversions, church plants, and influence will mark the end of America. Toleration of non-conformists thus presupposes cultural and religious dominance of some sort. This dominant culture ought to be Christian culture."

The end of the second sentence tells you everything you need to know about why this is absolute madness for Christianity and the Church: "whether sincerely or nominally." That is exactly what doomed the expressions of Christianity in Europe prior to WWII.  Everyone was "nominally" a Christian, but many were just paying lip service to that faith, or were counted as being a part of the Church with zero evidence that they even wanted to be.  This Cheap Grace horrified Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to have faith in Jesus Christ reduced to something that one could simply claim with zero discipleship simply because a person was meeting "cultural expectations" is a slap in the face of the Gospel.  The truth is, I don't want nominal Christians in my Church, and nor should any pastor worth his/her salt.  We need committed Christians, we need men and women willing to embrace self-sacrifice and service for the sake of others, we need people willing to pray for their enemies, and willing to turn the other cheek.  'Christian' Nationalists will eventually say the quite part out loud if you give them a chance.  Here Crenshaw has admitted that "nominal" Christians (i.e. ones without real saving faith) are good enough to be Heritage Americans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a much higher bar for inclusion: real genuine life-altering, Fruit of the Spirit producing, faith.

By the way, I don't want government support for Christianity.  That support is a Faustian Bargain, the costs are in the fine print.  Far better to have a government that is neutral, that protects the rights of all, and allows the Gospel to compete in the marketplace of ideas.  On a level playing field, the Gospel has nothing to worry about.

In the end, an article such as this one will garner enthusiastic cheers from those whose primary concern is earthly power for people who look, act, and think just like "us."  It should also make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up if you happen to look, act, or think outside of the mythical Heritage American mold.  The concept of Heritage Americans could be rejected solely on the basis of how it dismisses the slaughter of Native Americans, enslavement of Blacks, and contributions to American history of those who weren't White or didn't speak English.  On that basis alone this idea ought to be soundly rejected as an ugly relic of the racism of the past.  However, the way in which Crenshaw, and many others like him, present this as a boon to Christianity and the Church only enhances the danger that these ideas pose.  Make no mistake about it, there is no room at the Cross of Jesus Christ for racists, and no need for the Gospel to wield power over others.

For further reading, see also:

The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory, by Tim Alberta: A book review

Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer

The posts in my ongoing "Scripture refutes Christian Nationalism" series

Sermon Video: All Kinds of Prayers- Ephesians 6:18-23

To close his letter to the church at Ephesus, the Apostle Paul encourages them to bring, "all kinds of prayers and requests" to God.  With that in mind, as followers of Jesus we have a host of things to pray about and for in our conversations with God.  These include those who share the Gospel (i.e. pastors, missionaries, evangelists, apologists) as well as the concerns that are near and dear to our hearts, including our family and ourselves.

In the end, pray and keep on praying.

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?

 

Sermon Video: The Full Armor of God - Ephesians 6:10-17

Before concluding his letter, the Apostle Paul offers an extended military metaphor about spiritual warfare.  We learn that our enemy is not other human beings, but rather the schemes of the Devil and his minions.  Against such foes we don't need the weapons of man, but the armor gifted to us by God: truth, righteousness, the Gospel, faith, salvation, and the Word of God.

Our call, in this fight, is to stand firm.  Stand where we have been planted by the Lord.

Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak (FFOZ, 2021) - full rebuttal by Pastor Powell

In many of its publications, the First Fruits of Zion presents itself as an educational organization that is simply trying to help the Church learn more about the aspects of the Jewish people and Judaism that form the background of the Bible.  Sometimes, however, they drop the pretense and go full-on Anti-Church revealing their belief that both Christianity and the Church were never meant to exist and have had an "incomplete Gospel" since the generation after the Apostles.

Rethinking the Five Solae by Jacob Fronczak is a prime example of FFOZ's hostility toward the Church and the key theological truths that have been believed by followers of Jesus for centuries.  This isn't just a random book that FFOZ happens to publish, not only is it consistent with what is scattered throughout the Torah Club series, Jacob serves as the co-host of their public facing Messiah Podcast.  As of this date, the book is still available on their website, they are still profiting from its sales.

Which is what helps make the actual content of this book so very alarming.  It is the worst book that I have read in the past twenty-five years.  There are two primary reasons: (1) It is built upon a click-bait title / premise that it doesn't begin to substantiate, and uses the unethical polemic of the Straw Man argument and the argument Ad Absurdum {i.e. Jacob doesn't argue against what Protestant actually believe, but against the most absurd version of his opponents ideas}. (2) It contains a host of dangerous false ideas, among them: That the Trinity is a construct, not an idea derived from scripture, that the scriptures were given to the Jewish people alone and nobody else has the right to interpret them, that the New Perspective on Paul ought to convince Protestants to abandon the idea of being saved by Christ alone through grace and faith alone, that congregational polity is folly and what we really need is a human authority that can force people to obey, and lastly, that the Messianic Jewish movement will never be taken seriously until it abandons its ties to Evangelicalism and embraces the structure of Orthodox Judaism.

The six-part series to follow interacts with well over 100 quotes directly from the book.  For those wishing to utilize it, the PowerPoint from the videos is here: Rethinking the Five Solae - full rebuttal PowerPoint

Part 1: Sola Scriptura (a)

Part 2: Sola Scriptura (b)

Part 3: Sola Fide (a)

Part 4: Sola Fide (b)

Part 5: Sola Gratia

Part 6: Solus Christus & Soli Deo Gloria

Sermon Video: Serving Wholeheartedly in Tough Situation - Ephesians 6:5-9

 

The last group to be addressed by Paul after wives, husbands, fathers, and children, are slaves and masters.  The message that Paul has for them spells out a principle that is equally relevant in our era's employees and employers: treat the work you are doing as if it was for the Lord.  When we do this, we not only treat other people, whether they are customers or co-workers, as if they are Jesus and worthy of kindness and respect, but we treat the work itself as if it has dignity and purpose even if that would be otherwise difficult for us to recognize. 

God cares about every worker, and God cares about the work that we do.  Our whole lives belong to God, including our careers.