Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #47: Only one ancient source gets bashed, the Christian one

 

One of the challenges that I face when responding to the false teachings of the First Fruits of Zion is that they utilize sources that most Christians are unfamiliar with.  These range from the vast collections of rabbinic sources contained in the Talmud (Mishnah, Gemara) to more obscure apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings from the centuries before and after the life of Jesus.  In virtually every instance, the source being cited isn't framed with details about it, it is simply utilized and given a measure of implicit authority.

We saw, to our horror, in lesson 46 that FFOZ was willing to name-drop the Gospel of Thomas without any word of caution related to this pseudepigraphal (NOT written by the Apostle Thomas) heretical Gnostic work.  That mention of Thomas was a serious red flag (added to our huge list), but it wasn't long before someone who had been invited to join a Torah Club sent me quotes from a different series to show that this usage of the Gospel of Thomas was only the tip of the iceberg:

Jesus my Rabbi, lesson 18, volume 2, "The Days of Noah", p. 11 (as a parallel to Lk 17:24-27)

Jesus my Rabbi, Lesson 26, volume 2 "The Four Questions" p. 8-9

Jesus my Rabbi, Lesson 28, Volume 2, The 7 Woes, p. 4 (as a parallel to Mt. 23:13)

To employ such a false gospel so broadly is beyond dangerous, to draw comparisons between it and the true Gospels that it borrows from is ridiculous.  

Which brings us to lesson 47 of the Beginning of Wisdom which will showcase FFOZ's willingness to positively interact with a variety of sources without mentioning their background or theological bent, except the one that is used that is explicitly Christian.  Note: FFOZ almost never quotes any Christian source, with the rare exception of ones that are from Messianic Jewish authors (even these are rare and limited).  This usage is thus highly unusual, a rarity.  It does, however, follow the pattern of FFOZ's long-standing hostility toward the Church.

Lesson 47, page 4

"The Torah presents life as a choice between two ways: the path of blessing and the path of curse...The path of blessing that leads to eternal life is narrow and only a few find it, whereas the path that leads to destruction is broad and well-traveled (Matthew 7:13-14)."

Before looking briefly at this quote, note that above it the lesson quotes "Sifrei" without any reference to where this quote can be found.  The glossary at the end of the lesson calls Sifrei, "The earliest collection of rabbinic discussions on the book of Deuteronomy compiled in the second century CE."  The date given is earlier than it ought to be (more likely 4th century than 2nd), but there's no reason to object to the utilization of a rabbinic source when discussing Torah, so long as we remember that the author was not someone who accepted that Jesus was the Messiah, a distinction I've yet to see FFOZ make, as that may have colored the interpretation of the scriptural text in question.

What about this usage?  The problem with using the quote from the Sifrei commentary is that the comparison of God's warnings about blessings and curses in the Mosaic Covenant and Jesus' warning of the wide and narrow paths in the New Covenant are not the same thing.  {Note: FFOZ operates under the belief that the New Covenant hasn't started yet, that we are all living still under the Mosaic}.  When ancient Israel obeyed or disobeyed the Mosaic Law it was not souls that were at stake but national blessings or curses.  Repeated disobedience might bring into question whether a particular individual had faith in God (see Hebrews 11), but Dt. 30:19 is the LORD speaking to the nation as a whole about collective blessings and curses, not to individuals.  Jesus, on the other hand, is talking to individuals about their choice to live by faith or not.  The narrow/wide path that Jesus is talking about doesn't lead to blessings/curses but to salvation/damnation.  

This then becomes another example of FFOZ creating confusion between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, and between national Israel's covenantal relationship with God and that which exists between God and all who come to Jesus in faith.  For an organization that believes that Gentiles can only be grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel as "sojourners in the land" such confusion is not a bug, its a feature. 

Lesson 47, page 7

"The Apostolic-era rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah"

The lesson has no issue with quoting Eleazar Ben Azariah several times with only the small note that he is from the "Apostolic-era" {Note: Eleazar Ben Azariah isn't in the lesson glossary}.  Eleazar was indeed a first-century rabbi, having lived through the destruction of the Second Temple.  There are no preserved writings of Eleazar that mention Jesus Christ.  Once again, this is a rabbinic source that could offer some insight into the ideas/attitudes of 2nd Temple Judaism, as well as the aftermath of the loss of the Temple and Levitical system, but he also continues the pattern of relying for wisdom upon sources that rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Lesson 47, page 9

"When a person ascertains the intention behind a commandment (the so-called "spirit of the law"), he might fee liberated from literally observing the commandment.  The sages warn us not to try to be wiser than the Torah."

The first sentence would feel right-at-home among legalists in any era.  Notice the subtle ways in which the statement is framed: (1) "spirit of the law" is in quotes and preceded by "so-called," it is clear that in Lancaster's mind the attempt to seek and obey God's command on this level of principle is folly.  (2) A "literal" obedience is the only true obedience, this thought is buttressed by the support of the sages (without a quote or authority, take FFOZ's word for it).

Lesson 47, page 11

"(1 Enoch 90:38-39)...This type of apocalyptic symbolism helps explain the meaning of Peter's vision of a four-cornered sheet lowered from heaven containing "all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air (Acts 10:12)...The vision did not supplant the Bible's dietary laws." 

Another source is cited, this time it is 1 Enoch, the only information about it given is that it falls under the category of "Jewish apocalyptic writers".  1 Enoch actually has a fascinating history and a connection to Jude 1:14-15, but that background information is lacking in the lesson.  Instead, FFOZ uses 1 Enoch as an interpretive lens to frame Acts 10 in a way that preserves the all time, all peoples, all places view they have of the Law of Moses.  The problem with this particular framing attempt is that it is flat-out contradicted by the context of Peter's vision as emphasized by Luke in Acts.

Acts 10:48  So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 11:1-3  The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

If Peter didn't think his vision had anything to do with dietary laws, if he thought it only concerned Gentiles and had nothing to do with how he should live as a Jewish follower of Jesus, why did he stay at Cornelius' house, eat with his family, and then defend that action when criticized?  If the Law of Moses was still binding on everyone, why did Peter sin?  Context matters, FFOZ's blithe "The vision did not supplant the Bible's dietary laws" ignores the key conclusion to the episode that is right there to be read in Acts.  Peter did what he did because he understood the far-reaching implications of the vision God had given him.

Lesson 47, page 12

"Group Discussion: Let's start an argument.  Divide the Torah Club into two competing teams, with one team arguing that Peter's vision of a sheet in Acts 10 means a change to the dietary laws and the other group arguing that the vision sanctions the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom.  Have fun." 

One last thought before turning to the harsh way that FFOZ treats the only Christian source in the lesson: What is going on here??  They've already proclaimed (wrongly) that Peter's vision does not have anything to do with what they believe to be eternal dietary laws, so what purpose can this serve?  There is no debate in FFOZ's eyes.  The end result of this play acting will be mockery of those who hold the view that followers of Jesus are not bound by the Law, in other words, mockery of Christians, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.

Lesson 47, page 15

"A forgotten Apostolic-era midrash embedded in the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas...For the remainder of this discussion about the dietary laws, we'll work inside the Epistle of Barnabas.  You won't find Epistle of Barnabas in your Bible.  It does not belong in your Bible.  The Apostle Barnabas did not write it.  The epistle dates to the early second century (circa 130 CE).  An anonymous Christian composed the epistle to marshal various proofs to support the premises of replacement theology."

Prior to page 15 this lesson has quoted Sifrei, Eleazar ben Azariah, Sifra Kedoshim, 1 Enoch, Josephus' Antiquities, Genesis Rabbah, and Leviticus Rabbah, all sources that were pro-Torah keeping, all referenced with a positive usage and no further explanations necessary.  How will the Epistle of Barnabas be treated in comparison?  The contrast couldn't be more stark.

Let me be clear, while this epistle was copied in Codex Sinaiticus (along with Shepherd of Hermas) it is not scripture, and had no genuine prospect of being included in the canon.  It was written by a Second Century follower of Jesus, and like any non-inspired writing from God's people has both positive and negative aspects, both truth and error.  It thus has as much authority as any of the other sources regularly utilized by FFOZ in Torah Clubs, with one hugely important distinction: Its writer believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  The same cannot be said of anyone else quoted in this lesson.  Does that make him automatically smarter or more trustworthy?  Of course not, but if the topic-at-hand has any connection to the Gospel (i.e. faith, grace, works, Law, Messiah, etc.) its author is someone who has accepted what God has revealed as humanity's means of salvation.  That difference matters.

How is Barnabas treated?  (1) It is labeled as "apocryphal" and that idea is followed-up with a factual statement, "The Apostle Barnabas did not write it."  Amazingly, shockingly, appallingly, The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (replete with heresies about Christ) is not given this modifier, to my knowledge, any of the times that FFOZ cites it.  Why would one pseudepigraphal (from Greek, "false writing") work be noted while another example is ignored?  The reason is simple, Barnabas' message is one of Torah abrogation by Christ, Thomas' message is of Gnostic mysticism.  FFOZ vehemently rejects the first truth, but embraces the second lie.

Notice also how FFOZ describes the unknown author of Barnabas: A "Christian" working to "support the premises of replacement theology."  Given that FFOZ has many times equated replacement theology (with a massively broad definition that includes the whole Church throughout our history) with racism in the form of antisemitism, they are letting Torah Club members know that the author of Barnabas is one of the bad guys.

Note: Later on page 15 FFOZ gives credit to everything they like in Barnabas as having originated with "the Jewish community - most likely from the Jewish disciples of Jesus" which ensures that everything negative can be contributed to the unknown Christian author.

Remember, we have noted multiple times when FFOZ utilizes a deeply heretical work (in lesson 46 it was the Clementine Homilies and Gospel of Thomas, many other examples have been given) in its teaching, almost never with any kind of warning or disclaimer, but when an author dares to write that the finished work of Jesus Christ has brought the era of the Mosaic Law to a close, the opposition is full-throated and sustained.

Lesson 47, page 16

"Contrary to this logic, there's no reason to suppose that 'a spiritual meaning' invalidates the literal application of a commandment, but many Bible teachers make the same mistake.  For example, many New Testament teachers declare the abolition of the Levitical worship on the basis that the sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's death.  Likewise, they might argue for the dissolution of the Levitical priesthood because the New Testament teaches that Christ has become a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.  Flawed logic like the type on display in Epistle of Barnabas is still alive and well in the Gentile Church.  Let's ignore the author's anti-Torah agenda and see what we can learn from the early Messianic Jewish midrash he uses.

1. What is the Epistle of Barnabas, and why is it not included in the Bible?

2. What was the purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas, and what theological position did it support?

Group Discussion: Explain why Torah Club uses the Epistle of Barnabas in this discussion if its a spurious epistle that should not be in the Bible.

In the quote, FFOZ draws a comparison between the author of Barnabas and "many Bible teachers" and "many New Testament teachers" who foolishly believe that because of Jesus a "literal" obedience to the Mosaic Law is not longer necessary.  Another reminder for us that to FFOZ the Church is the opposition and proselytizing its members is their growth plan, so it is little wonder to see historic orthodoxy called "flawed logic" that is "still alive and well in the Gentile Church."  A danger to the Church?  How could anyone think that about FFOZ? 

Note that FFOZ's strong opposition to the Epistle of Barnabas is reinforced by two study questions and the group discussion that includes the term "spurious" as its descriptor.

Lesson 47, page 19

"At this point in the manuscript of Epistle of Barnabas (10:6-8), the text departs abruptly from the Jewish source material by clumsily inserting three additional examples of prohibited land animals: the hare, the hyena, and the weasel.  The interruption is artless, comical, and obscene."

The assumed Jewish source material isn't the problem, it is the author's "artless, comical, and obscene" departure from it.  Got it.

Lesson 47, page 19

"After the interpolation concludes, the text of Epistle of Barnabas continues with a ridiculous criticism of the Jewish people for taking the Torah literally:...it's a fallacious argument."

To anyone who doesn't take the Torah literally (yes, this is not the right use of literally, legalists love the term, FFOZ included): Your ideas are ridiculous and fallacious.  

We just have one small problem: Jesus.  Ok, that's actually a huge, insurmountable problem for FFOZ.

Jesus in the Gospels repeatedly elevates the teachings of Torah to matters of the heart, including rough take-downs of those within 2nd Temple Judaism whose focus was on taking the Torah "literally" and not embracing the "so called 'spirit-of-the-law'" by putting God's intention and God's people first.  Jesus purposefully heals publicly on the Sabbath to make this very point, "Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'” (Mark 2:27-28)

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #46: Venerating false Messiahs as men who pleased God

 

Would you expect a Christian ministry to include a story in one of their publications about the purity and righteousness of Joseph Smith?  How about one that speaks of the actions of Charles Russell (founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses) as an illustration of what the Apostle John was trying to teach about the love of God?  If that sort of veneration of false teachers was found in any publication of any reputable Christian ministry or denomination, the uproar would be loud, widespread, and entirely justified.  I could have chosen Buddha or Confucius to make this point, Gandhi or the Dalai Lama, or any number of people that are admired by many, even millions of people, but who did not have a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  We can admire someone, we can be fascinated by their life story or what they accomplished, but only God sets the standard for who is righteous in his sight, and that status is only possible through his Son.  To venerate anyone as a righteous person who pleased God WIHTOUT Jesus is an anathema to the Gospel, it is blasphemy.  

That's exactly what First Fruits of Zion has done in Lesson 46 of the Beginning of Wisdom, they just did so by using 18th century European mystics that are not as familiar as my examples are to an American.  To be clear, this objection is not an indictment of the life of either of the two Jewish leaders that FFOZ chose to venerate, nor is it an indictment of Judaism, or even Hasidic Judaism, the branch of Judaism the two of them were instrumental in founding / shaping, in particular.  They may have been good men, they may have been wise in their area of study, they may have been loving and kind, even exceptionally so.  They may be worthy of veneration within the religious movement they helped give direction to.  What they are not, what they cannot be, no matter what, is an example of someone whose righteousness pleased God.

To a universalist, that's an absurd statement.  If we set aside the bedrock truth of God's Word that, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" because, "There is no one righteous, not even one." (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10 & 3:23), and we set aside the bedrock truth spoken by Jesus, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," (John 14:6), we would find ourselves in a world where people who are decent, good, even righteous in human eyes who should be lauded and praised for rising above the evil in this world.  BUT, we don't live in that world.  The reality is that there are none who are righteous in God's sight, all have sinned, and "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23).  Without Jesus Christ, without faith in him to save us from our sins, we are entirely and irrevocably lost, period.  Whether this Truth is palatable or not, it is the Gospel given to us by God.  There is no other path, no Plan B or consolation prize, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is not other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).

Unless you are a universalist of some kind, someone who doesn't believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation, at least for some people...

Lesson 46, page 15
"A similar story is told about the Baal Shem Tov.  It happened once that the Ball Shem Tov realized a heavenly decree had been issued against the Jewish community.  He determined to persuade God to reverse the decree.  Like Moses praying to enter the promised land, he threw himself into prayer and fasting, wrestling with God, so to speak.  He refused to relent until hie managed to reverse the decree and save the Jewish community.  However, the victory came at a great personal price.  A heavenly voice informed him that he had forfeited his own place in the World to Come.  Rather than grow despondent over the prospect, the Baal Shem Tov rejoiced.  He said, 'At last, I will know that my service of God is born purely out of a heart of love for Him and devotion to Him and not out of any hope for reward or fear of punishment.'"

Before we look at what FFOZ said about him, the Reader's Digest version of who Baal Shem Tov was: Baal Shem Tov, or "Master of the Good Name," is how Israel ben Eliezer (1700-1760) is known.  Israel was a Polish Jewish mystic who is regarded as the founder of Hasidic Judaism (a segment of ultra-Orthodox Judaism originating in Eastern Europe, most followers of it today live in the USA or Israel).  Today his life is surrounded by legends of miracles, so much so that the apostate Bart Ehrman has used him as an example to discredit the eyewitness account in the Gospels of the miracles of Jesus Christ by saying that eyewitnesses believed Baal Shem Tov to be a miracle worker too.  

From the Jewish Encyclopedia article on his life: {Besht is an abbreviation of Baal Shem Tov}

"The foundation-stone of Ḥasidism as laid by Besht is a strongly marked pantheistic conception of God. He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Cabala, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which He reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God. Even evil exists in God. This seeming contradiction is explained on the ground that evil is not bad in itself, but only in its relation to man."

With that brief consideration of the life of Baal Shem Tov (Israel ben Eliezer) in mind, how does FFOZ choose to connect this mystic to its lesson?  By praising a bold assertion of heresy.  In the story related to the Torah Club members by Lancaster and FFOZ, God rewards Baal Shem Tov by answering his prayer, but at the cost of condemning his soul.  This supposed "bargain" with God not only elevates Baal Shem Tov to a messianic level (he supposedly saved his entire people from destruction by sacrificing himself), it also portrays God in a blasphemous way as a God who would trade the soul of one he loves simply to change his own mind.  God has never condemned a soul unjustly as he is portrayed as doing in the story FFOZ cites.  Such a God is unworthy of worship and praise, that's who God would be if he let Abraham go through with sacrificing Isaac, such a God is NOT the God of the Bible.  

To recap the dangerous errors of using this example of Baal Shem Tov in the lesson: (1) It venerates a false Messiah-figure, (2) it treats the actions of a non-believer as righteous before God without reference to faith in Christ, (3) and by extension it puts an implicit stamp of approval on Baal Shem Tov's heretical pantheism.

Lesson 46, page 15
"Once, it happened that the disciples of Schneur Zalman (1745-1812), the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, overheard their rabbi in ecstatic prayer, crying out, 'I don't want your Paradise, I don't want your World to Come, I want only You.'  These stories illustrate the Apostle John's words, 'There is not fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.  We love, because He first loved us.'"(1 John 4:18-19)."

Before we look at what FFOZ said about him, the Reader's Digest version of who Schneur Zalman was: Schneur was a Russian Jewish rabbi commonly known as the Alter Rebbe who was the founder and first Rebbe (spiritual leader) of Chabad (a dynasty with chosen successors), which is a branch of Hasidic Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.  The 7th Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (d. 1994) taught that Baal Shem Tov was a divine manifestation (known as Sephirot) of infinite faith, and that Schneur Zalman was a divine manifestation of infinite wisdom.  By many of his followers in the movement, Schneerson is believed to have been the Messiah; that's the movement that Zalman founded, and the one that FFOZ is linking its teaching to.  

In case you are wondering, linking to the Lubavitch Movement and its messianic claims is the kind of thing that would shock both liberal and conservative rabbis within Messianic Judaism.  FFOZ isn't building bridges here, they're lighting them on fire.

With that brief introduction into Schneur Zalman in mind, how does FFOZ choose to connect this mystical rabbi to the lesson?  By making him an example of what the Apostle John was teaching about perfect love.  This use is beyond the ordinary false teaching of FFOZ into the realm of outright blasphemy as it is telling Torah Club followers that the Apostle John, the very disciple whom Jesus loved, was talking about someone like Schneur Zalman in 1 John.  What's the problem with this connection?  The answer is simple, and it doesn't have anything to do with Zalman's life except one fact about it.  John's entire contextual (the part FFOZ likes to ignore) thesis in 1 John is that any true and genuine believer must have 3 things to prove they have the genuine faith that pleases God: (1) walking in the light / obeying God's commands, (2) love for our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, and (3) affirmation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  Take away one of them and the whole thing falls apart.  

1 John repeats these 3 factors over and over, fifty-two times to be exact {I know because I wrote a book on the subject: Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John}, with thirty-one positive statements on how to demonstrate you are part of God's family, and twenty-one negative statements that show who is not.  Of these, seventeen are about what we believe, eleven times John says we must affirm Jesus (as the Christ, the Son of God, who came in the flesh) and six times we are told we cannot deny Jesus and be in God's family.  In case you're curious now, there are fourteen statements in John about our need to love each other, which leaves twelve about our need to follow God's commands.  That is what John is actually teaching, in context.

HOW could Zalman know the "perfect love" that "casts out fear" if he didn't know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?  If he had confidence before God, it was a false confidence because it was based upon his own work not that of Jesus Christ.  If he did not feel fear when contemplating standing before Almighty God in judgment, he should have, because all who will stand before God without the being clothed in the righteousness of Christ will be condemned.  Being good, kind, loving, smart, zealous, none of it matters.  Our faith is in Christ, and Christ alone.  Faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone.  As a reminder, FFOZ utterly rejects the Five Solae of the Reformation: Rethinking the Five Solae

The stories of Baal Shem Tov and Schneur Zalman are NOT stories that illustrate what the Apostle John was teaching in 1 John.  To claim this, as FFOZ has done, is to deny the necessity of the saving Blood of Jesus Christ because John's entire point is that our connection to the love of God must be through Jesus.  We already know from Aaron Eby's, "What Replaces Replacement Theology?" that FFOZ is willing to hint that the Jewish people don't need Jesus to be saved.  This lesson is a much bolder assertion, it proclaims that men who have been elevated to the status of prophets, or even that of a Messiah, by their followers, who have thus led many astray away from God's salvation, should be venerated as wise and righteous despite having no connection to Jesus Christ.

The average American sitting in a Torah Club hearing this lesson won't know who either of the Jewish mystics are that FFOZ chooses to proclaim as heroes of the faith.  Most will assume that both were Messianic Jews, that they shared with them a belief in Jesus.  Ignorance is not bliss.  What FFOZ is doing in this lesson is heretical (an implicit statement that Jews don't need Jesus since these men who rejected him are elevated to saint-like status), blasphemous (ascribing "perfect love" to someone who doesn't know Jesus, thus equating human effort with divine grace), and grossly cynical as it depends upon their followers being unwilling to examine what they're being taught.

For the sake of those who are being led astray by FFOZ, I wish I was only able to find small errors or follies, but the opposite is true.  The dangers of FFOZ are very, very real.

An incredible story of God's love chasing after his lost sheep: A family's 20-year journey into the Hebrew Roots Movement & back out again.

 

In a powerful story of God's grace and faithful love for us, Joshua and Carla share their own story spanning twenty years and three countries as they journeyed into the Hebrew Roots Movement, wandered from the Church they had been raised in, and were pursued by God until his grace called them back home to a place where Jesus Christ is the absolute center of their relationship with God (and not their own effort at Torah observance).

This story also is a message to family and loved ones who are concerned about someone in the HRM: (1) Pray for them, (2) Be patient, (3) show compassion, (4) and don't let the relationship be broken for the sake of an argument.

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #45: Gnostic mysticism, Sabbath idolatry, and elevating heretical extra-biblical sources

There are many topics connected to our faith about which the average Christians is mostly or entirely ignorant.  Some of that is a failure of education/discipleship, but much of it is simply the breadth and the depth of ideas and concepts that touch on the faith that steers our lives.  In all honestly, even scholars who spend their whole lives in study are a long way from knowing everything.  With that in mind, we shouldn't be surprised that people in Torah Clubs don't run away as soon as Daniel Lancaster and FFOZ starts to teach them Gnostic mysticism.  Our ancestors in the faith, however, who spent generations fighting against the malign influence of that philosophy during the 2nd to 4th centuries would have recoiled in horror because they knew how dangerous it was.  FFOZ is taking advantage of our collective ignorance of Early Church history, and particularly of the heresies that the Early Church rejected.  That needs to end.

Lesson 45, page 5
"in the version of the story told in the Midrash Rabbah, the LORD explains, "If you are buried here, near those who died in the wilderness, then they will enter the land for your sake at the time of the resurrection of the dead."

The primary heretical error in this lesson is gnostic mysticism, but with FFOZ there is typically room for several other dangerous ideas.  Here we see that they are uncritically citing the Midrash Rabbah to concur with its (false) assertion that the Israelites who died in the wilderness because of unbelief will be welcomed into the Promised Land (i.e. Heaven) by God because of the faithfulness of Moses.  This isn't the first time that FFOZ has taught that human beings can share salvific merit with others, an idea utterly rejected by the Apostle Paul, particularly in Romans.  This isn't the first time they've elevated Moses' exploits to the level of hero-worship.  There is nothing wrong with citing Jewish rabbinical teaching to illustrate a point, however, the uncritical way in which Lancaster does this leads to dangerous errors like this one.

Lesson 45, page 9
"Any person who seeks the LORD with repentance, searching for Him with heart and soul, will find Him and receive the forgiveness of sins.  The LORD will gather that soul in with His people to save it from the coming day of fire."

If not for my research into FFOZ, I would probably assume that this is an orthodox statement by assuming that when they say, "seeks the LORD" they mean in this New Covenant era, "any person accepts Jesus as Savior."  But that's not what this is.  This isn't simply a statement expressing confidence in the Grace of God to ensure Gospel acceptance on the part of all who seek him.  Instead, we are once again seeing FFOZ toy with ideas of Universalism.  We've already noted the times that FFOZ has hinted that Jews don't need Jesus because they're already the Chosen People, here they are hinting at an even further extension by saying that some who will be saved won't even be a part of "His people."  Word choices matter in theology.  When the one being saved isn't spoken of as being a part of God's people, but instead as being "with" them, it raises eyebrows.  When the person/organization making such a statement is already known to subvert the Gospel, there is apt reason to be concerned.  Read the statement again, compare it to Jesus' own words, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but my me." (John 14:6).  

Lesson 45, page 14
"The early Jewish believers in Yeshua taught the same concepts.  The collection of teachings and fictionalized narratives titled Clementine Homilies."

Thus Lancaster elevates the Clementine Homilies to the level of a trusted, even authoritative source.  See how simple that was?  All he needed to do was connect it in one sentence to Jewish followers of Jesus, no further explanation needed.  Except we really need one.  The Clementine Homilies were not written by Clementine of Rome, as with many ancient manuscripts the name of someone famous is used to lend authenticity or weight.  While the original was written earlier, our only surviving version dates from the 5th century.  The Early Church historian Eusebius dismissed it in this manner, "And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients." (Ecclesiastical History, 3.38)

What does this collection of writings contain?  Among other things through a gnostic and Arian influence it proclaims that Jews don't need Jesus to be saved and portrays Jesus primarily as the final prophet to the Jewish people rather than as the savior of the world.  If, then, the Clementine Homilies is an accurate reflection of what some of Jesus' followers believed in that era, it shows them to be disciples with a dangerously flawed theology, albeit one that aligns with the false teachings that FFOZ is currently selling.

So, what is it from the Clementine Homilies that FFOZ wants its followers to embrace?

Lesson 45, page 17
"God remains the stationary point from which all things emanate and to which all return.  He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.  Unmoving and at rest at the center.  God is outside the flow of time like the infinite world to come."
"This then is the mystery of the hebdomad.  For He Himself is the rest of the whole who grants Himself as a rest to those who imitate His greatness within their little measure. (Clementine Homilies)"

Gnostic mysticism is the answer.  Gnostic philosophy is NOT compatible with faith in Jesus Christ.  The attempt was made to meld them together by Gnostics, but we can see that combination being rejected even in its earliest form in 1 John.  Long story short, the Gnostics believed that the divine and physical realms could not touch because it is matter that is corrupted but spirit that is pure.  The result is to remove God from direct connection to this world, a real problem for those who believe in the Incarnation.

Lesson 45, page 17b
"A hebdomad is a group of seven.  The significance and hidden meaning behind all of the Bible's sequences of seven, including the seven days of creation and the seven days of the week, are explained in the idea sketched out above.  The hebdomad concept also gives us a tool to visualize the seven heavens differently."

In addition to a flawed cosmology, Gnosticism is also built upon the idea of "hidden" or "secret" knowledge available only to a select few.  You've probably never heard of a hebdomad unless you're a real math geek.  You can look in vain through the entirety of sacred scripture without finding anything like this, but that's of little concern to Gnostic mysticism.  Why?  Because those of us who follow Jesus through orthodox methods have limited ourselves to the divine revelation of scripture, and the mystics are seeking the answers within themselves.  If the answers are within, they're not coming from God.  If the answers are within, we are the ultimate authority not God.  Mysticism, Gnostic or otherwise, has never been the path to Truth given by God to humanity.  God reveals to us what we need to know, it is made plain by God, not hidden away.

Why would FFOZ embrace mysticism?  In addition to wanting to elevate the Jewish mysticism of Kabbalah (which they have done numerous times in Torah Club materials), this sort of unfettered search for Truth that is not bound by Holy Scripture has great appeal to those who have embraced answers that are contradicted by the Word of God.  When you are proclaiming that the Church was never meant to exist and that those who follow Jesus have been in gross error for 2,000 years, it helps to embrace a methodology like this one that allows for "truth" to come from new sources, particularly from yourself.

Lesson 45, page 18
"The homily says that God 'grants Himself as a rest to those who imitate His greatness within their little measure.'  That is to say, those who rest on the Sabbath do so as a small token of rest in imitation of God's perfect rest at the center point of existence.  As a reward, God grants a portion of His own presence."

Another reason beyond mysticism that FFOZ wants its followers to treat the Clementine Homilies as authoritative is that it contains the type of Sabbath idolatry that they themselves are promoting.  Sabbath theology is a too big of a topic to do justice to here, but one thing that we can know for sure: Keeping the Sabbath does not earn you a "portion" of God's "own presence."  The mysticism being promoted here leaves no room for Sabbath keeping to be optional.  It is being described as if it is the key to communion with God.

The truth is, Jesus is how we connect to God in the New Covenant, not the Sabbath.  The Holy Spirit was given to every person redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, we have God's Spirit within us, we don't need a mystical Sabbath experience to get it.  When Paul writes of our need to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that is, our need to have an increased presence of God in our lives, he never once mentions Sabbath keeping as having anything to do with it.

Lesson 45, page 19
"Entering the Sabbath should be like entering a state of being - specifically, God's Being - in which there is nothing unfinished, nothing incomplete, no future or past, nothing but the eternal now of perfect peace and bliss.  In that respect, the celebration and observance of the Sabbath offer a taste of the transcendent peace of simple participation in the Oneness of God."

Yeah, I'm going to pass on the idea that Sabbath keeping is the path to "participation in the Oneness of God."  The mysticism is so thick here in this description that it makes Sabbath keeping sound like a drug trip in which those who participate lose themselves entirely for a while.  "Just say, 'No!'" sounds appropriate here.

Lesson 45, page 20
Incidentally, the paradoxical concept of God as both resting point and source of all action helps explain an extremely cryptic and otherwise incomprehensibly esoteric passage in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas."

It was a good thing that I wasn't eating while I read this page or I might have choked on my food.  The Gospel of Thomas????  Did FFOZ really just drop that deeply heretical fake Gospel into a lesson as if it too deserves to be given respect?  Once again, FFOZ is hoping that Christians are ignorant, it is the only explanation that makes sense.  The Gospel of Thomas was found buried in the Egyptian desert in 1945.  It was written by unknown Gnostics a couple of centuries after Christ, who attached the name of the Apostle Thomas to it.  To say that it is heretical is an understatement.  The Jesus portrayed in this abomination of a gospel is NOT the Jesus whom we worship as Lord and Savior.  The only value that this document has are the insights we can gain from it into the heresies that the Early Church resoundingly rejected through the Ecumenical Councils.  To drop it into a lesson, without explanation, is the height of careless toying with heretical teachings.

In the end, this Torah Club lesson contains new errors when it leans heavily upon the Clementine Homilies and name-drops the Gospel of Thomas, but it is built upon the same error we have seen so many times from FFOZ: A willingness to elevate any source or method that supports the conclusions they've already proclaimed.  

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #42-43: Afterlife uncertainty and more mysticism

Lesson 42-43, page 13
"God has ordered things so that 'man will not discover anything' about his fate in the next life.  We are only granted glimpses of Gehenna and Paradise.  It's impossible to construe those glimpses into a single and universal doctrine of eternal destinies."

One of the challenging things that I have found in my efforts to expose the false teachings of First Fruits of Zion is that there continue to be more dominoes that get knocked over by their abandonment of orthodoxy.  In this case, the orthodox belief that is now being cast aside by FFOZ is what is known as eternal security.  Since the Apostles, the followers of Jesus Christ have operated with the understanding that we have all the knowledge about the Afterlife that is necessary for faith and practice.  We don't know everything we want to know, in particular that whole "day and hour" piece of the puzzle, but we know everything we need to know to live with the certainty of faith in the here and now.  Using an unsound (non-contextual) interpretation of Ecclesiastes 7:14, FFOZ is proclaiming in this lesson that faithful certainty about what the future holds must be replaced with "glimpses" that cannot be pulled together to form an understanding that is true for all of us.

The implications of this sentence are far-reaching, unbiblical, and deeply dangerous: "It's impossible to construe those glimpses into a single and universal doctrine of eternal destinies."  The Word of God tells us otherwise.  There are only two kinds of people: Those who have been saved by the Blood of the Lamb who are safe in the Father's hands, and those who remain Lost who will perish apart from a relationship with God.

John 10:28-30 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here!

1 John 5:12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

God has given us sufficient clarity about the Afterlife.  God has given us the rubric that applies to every single human being who has ever lived.  By proclaiming that this certainty is impossible to have, FFOZ is sowing seeds of doubt that will harm the faith of many.  Why would they do this?  What profit can they hope to reap from blurring lines that were clearly laid out by Jesus himself?

Lesson 42-43, page 19
"The soul forgets nothing.  It carries with it the record of every event, every deed and misdeed, every mitzvah and every sin.  Acquiring these memories is the reason the soul descends into a body and lives life as a human being in the first place.  The soul enters the world of concealment to attain merit through the free will to choose good or evil.  In this world, the soul learns to seek God, and through its many experiences in the body, it becomes uniquely you.  With those memories intact, the soul will one day be returned to the body for the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.  The memories create continuity between the old you and the new you." {emphasis mine}

Did God create you so that you could obtain memories?? Is that why you were born?  My friends, we have a higher purpose than this.  We were created to love.  To love God and love each other.  To overcome evil with good. To live self-sacrificially in this life in the hope of God's justice in the next.  What FFOZ is teaching here is built on a false premise (the pre-existence of the human soul), and far too shallow to reflect God's glorious purpose in Creation.

In addition to the heresy of the pre-existence of the human soul, we once again see FFOZ teaching that merit is earned and combining it with the idea that human beings are capable of seeking God on their own {which is consistent with their embrace of legalism in the form of Torah idolatry}.  They need to teach that human effort on its own can bear fruit because they've staked their entire organizational existence on the belief that the key to pleasing God is properly obeying a set of rules.  

Here's the thing, the Apostle Paul knew better.  The book of Romans more than sufficiently debunks this wishful thinking.  Humanity apart from God cannot please him, has no hope of earning any measure of merit, and in fact is not seeking God anyway.  Without God's grace and the calling of the Holy Spirit we are dead in the water, period.

Lesson 42-43, page 19b
"This aspect of the life review can be considered the spiritual objective behind the commandment, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'  In the end, you will live your neighbor's experience as yourself."

Lesson 42-43, page 20
"one day, we will experience what we did unto others as if it was done unto us."

Lastly, one more new false teaching from FFOZ is introduced in this lesson, the "life review."  Borrowing from the testimonies of those who have been through Near Death Experiences, FFOZ is teaching that as you die you will actually experience your life over again, and on top of that, you will experience your life through the view of everyone else you have every interacted with.  They are saying that you will, literally, experience the impact of every good and bad choice you ever made in life by having that action done to you.

Aside from being a bizarre speculation into mysticism that has ZERO biblical basis, what is the harm of teaching what is assuredly unknowable and unprovable in this life?  It fits a pattern.  A pattern of embracing mysticism and teaching it as fact that is akin to FFOZ's uplifting of rabbinical teaching and even Jewish folklore as fact (rather than opinion).  A teaching ministry needs to be able to distinguish fact from fiction, truth from opinion, and what is known from what is only guessed at.  FFOZ has shown many times over that they lack this basic skill.

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #41: More disparaging of grace and using a folktale to interpret scripture

 I'll admit, I'm a fan of God's grace.  That isn't a hot-take, nor should it raise anyone's eyebrows.  If there are a few folks down through the years who have misunderstood grace, or who have tried to take advantage of God's grace, throwing it overboard in response would be ludicrous in the extreme...

Lesson 41 page 6: "The church's loud and predominant teachings about God's grace also make it difficult for people to believe in God's wrath.  Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the emphasis on grace has tipped the scale so severely off balance that many Christians anticipate no consequences for sin whatsoever.  That's a good recipe for neutralizing the fear of the LORD, neutering the gospel message, and storing up wrath."

It turns out that First Fruits of Zion has a problem with grace.  Technically, they have a problem with the Protestant Church's emphasis on grace because they think it undermines God's wrath.  Once again in this Torah Club lesson we have the Straw Man brought out to tell us that "many" Protestants think that there are no consequences, at all, to sin.  Why would Protestants think something so foolish?  Apparently because they spend to much time praising God's grace.  

Set aside for the moment that this is patently false.  There is no substantial part of the Protestant Church that teaches that believers are free to sin because grace has "neutered" God's wrath.  Given that there are hundreds of thousands of pastors worldwide, I'm sure FFOZ could trot out a few examples of crackpots in defense of their spurious claim, but to claim that this is so widespread that it needs a correction (that's coming) is ridiculous.  This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad absurdum.  If you claim that your opponent (and FFOZ's opponent is most assuredly the Church) believes something so foolish, those listening to you will be more likely to believe your "cure" for the non-existent disease.

What then is the point?  Why would FFOZ make such an explosive claim, attacking the fundamental viewpoint about the Gospel of 1/3 of the Church?  What are they trying to put in the place of grace?

Lesson 41,page 7: "It's important to remember that the New Testament Greek word translated as grace (charis) is the Greek equivalent to the Biblical Hebrew word we see translated as 'favor.'  It's the same concept and should be translated consistently to avoid confusion." 

First Fruits of Zion wants to redefine grace.  Redefine it how??  In a way that contradicts what the Church, particularly Protestantism, has long celebrated about God's grace.  Why would it matter if FFOZ wants to equate grace in the NT with favor in the Old?  The 2023 edition of HaYesod lays forth the whole plan {HaYesod's 2023 edition (First Fruits of Zion, Torah Club) heretically redefines grace: "grace is earned" and claims humans can atone for sins by suffering}:  Grace = favor = earned.

FFOZ has built its false teaching on the foundation of an eternal, perfect, and unchanging Torah that must be observed by all peoples, in all places, for all time.  When rule keeping is the heart and soul of what you say and do, the natural result is to drift ever further into legalism.  This is human nature, it happens every time.  Conveniently, then, FFOZ now teaches that because Moses earned God's favor, and favor equals grace, we too can earn God's grace.  Not only that, the HaYesod chapter proclaims that human beings can share their extra grace (earned by unjust suffering) with others.

In case you're wondering, grace in the NT and favor in the OT are not one and the same.  Word usage determines word meaning, context is king.  The argument that FFOZ is making doesn't hold water, to simply proclaim that two words in different languages from texts written many generations apart are equal does not make it so.  However, FFOZ must proclaim absolute continuity between the testaments on even things like word definitions because they are viewing all of scripture through the lens of Torah, but that's not how communication, and certainly now how translation, works.

Nobody is earning the grace connected to the Gospel that is proclaimed in the NT.  God chooses to whom he will give it, and God freely gives it.  To say otherwise is an abomination.

Lesson 41 page 9: 'The name of the daughter of Asher was Serah' (Numbers 26:46)...The census mentions a woman named Serah, the daughter of Asher.  She's the granddaughter of the patriarch Jacob, and she also appears in the list of Jacob's seventy children who entered Egypt about three hundred years earlier: 'The sons of Asher: Imnah and Ishvah and Ishvi and Beriah and their sister Serah' (Genesis 46:17)"

To warn about the disparagement of grace in this Torah Club lesson is the proper focus.  That's one of the most dangerous ideas that FFOZ has ever put forth (tough competition there).  So, why am I also highlighting this odd embrace of Jewish folklore as the means of interpreting Genesis 46:17, Numbers 26:46, and 1 Chronicles 7:30?  The answer is simple enough: poor hermeneutical methods result in foolish teachings, or worse.  Why is FFOZ telling Torah Club members that the Serah in Jacob's day was still alive during King David's reign?  Jewish folklore says so.

Lesson 41, page 10: "At the very least, she must have had longevity comparable to that of the earliest generations recorded in the Bible.  Jewish folklore depicts her...According to one legend, she lived into the days of King David, and it was she who saved the inhabitants of Abel from the king's wrath. You certainly don't need to take that literally or believe it all, but, for the record, there really was..."

I've seen this type of caveat many times in FFOZ materials.  A bold claim is made that is pulled from extra-biblical literature, the lesson says "you don't have to believe it," and then the lesson moves ahead with that bold claim assumed as fact.  The "but, for the record" reveals where the heart of the author of this chapter lies.  In case you are wondering, there are plenty of names in the Bible that occur a few times over spans of generations.  To assume that it is the same human being who is still alive solely on the basis of the name is NOT a normal exegetical conclusion.

If the interpretation is just a folktale, and whether Serah lived the normal spans of years or 600 doesn't have any real theological significance, why should we care?  We should care because FFOZ is using these extra-biblical sources to interpret holy scripture.  The other times they use this method are much more consequential.  It is part of a dangerous pattern of treating God's Word as if it is putty to be molded and shaped as needed.  Do other teachers and ministries also selectively utilize and interpret God's Word to suit their viewpoint?  Absolutely, it is sadly far too common.  "What about..." is no excuse.  All who treat God's Word in this manner should be held accountable.

In the end, Lesson #41 of the Beginning of Wisdom is yet another reminder of why no follower of Jesus Christ ought to entrust his or her discipleship to FFOZ.