This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
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.
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
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.
Having dealt with FFOZ club leaders and followers these past three years who are adamant that FFOZ "doesn't teach that" even after I show them the exact thing they are denying, it is refreshing to see that FFOZ now has a "What We Believe" page that (mostly) reflects what they actually teach. This transparency is a big step in the right direction toward warning pastors and others about the unorthodox/heretical teachings coming from FFOZ.
In the video I break down each of the 15 statements, paying particular attention to the most dangerous (unbiblical) ideas and pointing out one big omission.
This new teaching, 2025, from FFOZ is a bold new heresy, one utterly rejected by every N.T. author.
In a nutshell, FFOZ is now teaching that the "radial" geography of the tabernacle/temple is eternal. Thus, they teach that gentile followers of Jesus are eternally 4th class citizens of the kingdom of heaven (behind the priest/Levites, Jewish men, and Jewish women) in accordance with the physical layout of the Temple.
There are also two statements that hint toward the conclusion that because the Jewish people are eternally the "people of God," with permanent status of closer access, they don't need to accept Jesus as Savior.
I'll be honest, it hasn't been easy to be the primary online voice discussing the First Fruits of Zion these past almost three years. I've put a lot more effort and passion into the effort to warn the Church about FFOZ than I ever imagined I would when I first heard about Torah Clubs in the Fall of 2022. From the beginning the entire Franklin Christian Ministerium has supported me, that has been invaluable. My whole church, including my board, have supported me, that has been crucial. But until now, I had only been able to have private conversations with people in leadership at various groups affected by this movement, the public element was missing. Today that changed. The reach of Professor Solberg's platform is roughly 1,000 times that of my own, this dialogue about FFOZ has needed to be moved into the mainstream conversation within the Church, that reality moved much closer with the release of this interview.
If you're new to my blog, or my YouTube channel, note that all of my research has been primary source. I don't write about what people say about what FFOZ says, I write about what FFOZ teaches in their own publications, the things they choose to publish and profit from. You may not agree with all of my conclusions, that's ok, they come from an Evangelical Baptist perspective, I wouldn't expect them to be universally understood and embraced. If my thoughts get in the way, look at the direct quotes, I flood my posts and videos with them. I believe in the priesthood of all believers, and I believe that the Holy Spirit is more than capable of guiding each follower of Jesus Christ into Truth. Weigh what FFOZ is saying against the Word of God for that is the ultimate judge, not me. I am doing my best to apply God's Word to these weighty matters, if I fall short God's Word will not.
HaYesod is the primary disciple-training material for the Hebrew Roots Movement aligned organization: The First Fruits of Zion
This analysis is from the 2023 edition. My initial seminar warning of the dangers of FFOZ utilized the 2017 edition. As will be shown here, the amount of unorthodox and heretical material has significantly increased from that edition to this.
The following analysis is not based upon this one lesson alone. These same false teachings have appeared in dozens of other Torah Club and FFOZ published materials.
What this lesson reveals is that Torah Club leaders are being taught to embrace these teachings, not gloss over them. The “correct” answers provided are truly damning.
FFOZ has a fascination with, and an allegiance to, the 2nd Temple Judaism of the 1st century. As such, they work to integrate beliefs from that era of Judaism into the theology they’re attempting to bring into churches.
Theodicy is the study of the “problem of evil.” It is a rich field that includes the wisdom of books like Job. However, to say that when godly people suffer it must be because of the sins of other people is a human-centered view that was rejected by Job’s insistence that his suffering was not the result of his sin (or any sin), and by the testimony of Jesus Christ.
John 9:1-3 (NIV) As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Because suffering and sin are not directly corelated, the entire premise of the so-called “Law of Atonement” is false. Even if the righteous suffered for the sins of others, there is zero biblical evidence that such suffering is connected to, let alone effective at, sin atonement. On what basis is this claim made?? The suffering and death of human beings never atones for sin. It cannot, at all. We are not a spotless sacrifice.
1 Peter 2:20 (New American Standard Bible) For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.*
[* “finds favor” is not a universal translation, it was chosen to connect to the story of Moses that is coming. Beware of theology built on cherry-picked translations.]
The use of 1 Peter 2:20 is an out-of-context abuse of Peter’s original intent. There is zero reason to assert that Peter believed that the suffering of Jesus’ followers could atone for their own sins, let alone those of anyone else. This whole concept is antithetical to the Gospel message: Only the Son of God is worthy.
“An innocent person who suffers and dies accrues extra merit and favor with God. This merit can be credited to someone else’s account.” This is blasphemous and deeply heretical. No human being has ever had enough merit to earn God’s favor, let alone extra. There is ZERO hint in God’s Word that a human being could apply merit, even if he/she had extra, to anyone else. Note that FFOZ simply makes this massive claim with zero attempt to support it from a single scriptural source, or even from their usual trope “the sages.”
FFOZ’s hermeneutical methodology is deeply flawed. Word usage determines word meaning, claiming that two words in different languages simply mean the same thing is overly simplistic and misleading.
ḥên occurs 66 times in the OT, where in the NASB it is translated into English as: adornment (1), charm (1), charming (1), favor (51), grace (8), graceful (2), gracious (3), pleases (1).
χάρις (charis) occurs 157 times in the NT, where in the NASB it is translated into English as: blessing (1), concession (1), credit (3), favor (11), gift (1), grace (122), gracious (2), gracious work (3), gratitude (1), thank (3), thankfulness (2), thanks (6).
Too simply say that both of these words mean favor (and only favor), and both are equal to each other, is simplistic at best, misleading at worst. FFOZ uses this technique to mislead…To what end?
To a disastrous redefinition of grace: “The merit and favor a person acquires in the eyes of another.”
The long-standing Christian interpretation of grace as “unmerited favor” is purposefully thrown out, earning God’ favor (that is, earning grace) is in.
Where could FFOZ possibly turn to find an example of a human being earning God’s grace? To Moses.
Note: This house of cards depends upon equating favor in the OT with grace in the NT. The example of Moses earning favor, even if it were valid, leads to a false conclusion because Moses and the Apostle Paul do not mean the same thing when using hen and charis.
Is God saying in Exodus 33 that Moses’ obedience has earned God’s favor? Yes.
Is that favor equal to atonement? No
Is it equal to redemption? No
Is it equal to righteousness? No
Is it equal to salvation? No
None of these ideas that are part of our understanding of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice as the Lamb of God are in any way connected to Moses. In fact, these concepts as they are understood in the NT are not in the OT (See my Torah in its Ancient Israelite Context series on the YouTube channel).
“The LORD agreed to extend His favor for Moses to the entire nation:”
Did God bless others because of the favor in which he held Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, David, etc? Yes.
Is that blessing in any way connected to the righteousness that is ours because of the atoning power of the Blood of Christ? 1,000 times No.
“The story also demonstrates that grace is not ‘an unmerited gift.’ Moses did merit God’s favor when he interceded with God on behalf of a guilty nation.” – This so-called interpretation of scripture is an abomination.
On the basis of a false equivalence of favor in the OT with grace in the NT, by which FFOZ declares that grace is not “unmerited favor” but instead acquired/earned favor, it has set up a false equivalence between Moses and Jesus, all to pave the way for the coming insistence that Paul’s objection to the “works of the law” is not about legalism at all. This is the goal to which this lesson is striving, to remove the stigma associated with keeping Torah as works-righteousness.
“Remember what happens when a godly and righteous person suffers and dies undeservedly…Through His righteous life and His undeserved suffering, Yeshua merited even more favor in God’s eyes, so much favor that He has an abundance to share.”
{Why is “only begotten son” in quotation marks? Why not simply say, “As the Son of God,”? Given their track record of denying the Trinity, such things make my Spidey-sense tingle}
Jesus is the only person to ever earn the righteousness that atones for sin, full stop. No solely human being could earn atonement, it is impossible. When you put atonement, favor, and grace in a mixer as FFOZ has done here, the result is grotesque.
In this section, FFOZ argues that Paul’s only issue is with full-on adoption of Jewish identity through the conversion process.
“It’s not a question of working to earn eternal life by keeping the Law. It’s a question of whether someone needs to become Jewish to be eligible for eternal life.”
They make this specious case by saying that when Paul writes about the, “works of the law” it always means only Jewish identity (i.e. circumcision, full conversion) never Torah keeping (Sabbath, kosher, festivals).
In order for this line of reasoning to hold water, every usage of “works” and “works of the law” by Paul would need to be about full-conversion only, never about legalistic attempts to keep Torah to earn righteousness.
That, of course, is not a tenable position, but when FFOZ interprets Galatians, for example, it does so assuming Paul only cares about full-conversion, they claim he was 100% in favor of Torah keeping for Jew and Gentile as long as it didn’t lead to conversion for Gentiles.
Faith does not equal belief?
True, faith does not ONLY equal belief, it is more than just belief as James rightly clarifies, but given FFOZ’s stated hostility toward the Early Church credal statements…
Where is this going? To a butchered paraphrase of Ephesians 2:8-9…
“By God’s favor, you have been saved for eternal life though your allegiance to Yeshua as the Messiah, but that favor is not something you earned. It is the gift of God, not as a result of the works of conversion. So no one, neither Jews nor Gentiles, have anything to boast about.”
“Paul sometimes used the term ‘works’ as shorthand to argue against Gentiles becoming Jewish.” – p. 2.8
Once again, we see the effort to drive a wedge between full conversion (including circumcision) and Torah keeping with respect to “works.” In FFOZ’s warped view, human beings can earn God’s favor (which they say equals grace), and relying on works is ok provided that they are the Torah-proscribed ones. Do you see why they want to downplay Paul’s concerns about legalism?
And what are the “good works” of Ephesians 2:10? What has God prepared in advance for the followers of Jesus?
“These ‘good works’ are the good deeds and acts of obedience described by the Torah’s commandments.” – p. 2.10
Once you divorce “works of the Law” from Torah keeping, the next goal is to transform it into a substitute for the Fruit of the Spirit. Once legalism has been downplayed, Torah keeping can become the new test of true discipleship.
“When a righteous person dies unjustly, they accrue favor with God.”
“This favor can be bestowed on someone else.”
So absurd that followers of Jesus ought to run screaming from this madness.
“Paul refers to the process of becoming Jewish as the ‘works of the law.’”
‘‘’We are not saved by works’ means that we are not saved by becoming Jewish.”
To reject Paul outright is too obvious, redefining him into a pro-Torah keeping champion is a much more dangerous approach.
“Is grace unmerited favor? If not, how does one acquire it?”
“No; grace is earned. One acquires it by doing good and living a difficult life or having it bestowed on them by someone else who earned it.”
Is the utter rejection of the Gospel by FFOZ not fully evident yet? What further evidence is needed?
Conclusion: FFOZ ought to be labeled a dangerous cult for their views of the Trinity alone…
The HaYesod discipleship manual proves once again that they teach equally dangerous and heretical falsehoods about grace, atonement, faith, works, and the Law of Moses.
To everyone
who follows Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior,
While we all
ought to enthusiastically support deep study of the Bible, including its Jewish
cultural and linguistic roots, all such study should occur within the framework
of a Church history-based orthodoxy, and an Apostolic understanding of the
Gospel.The First Fruits of Zion with
their Torah Clubs, are not an acceptable option.
Why are groups
associated with the Hebrew Roots Movement, like the First Fruits of Zion
dangerous?Ample documentation* has demonstrated
from primary sources, in their own words, that the First Fruits of Zion
organization, and the Torah Clubs materials they publish, are replete with the
following theological errors and/or heresies:
1.A
non-Trinitarian view of God in the forms of two ancient heresies rejected by
the Early Church: Modalism and Subordinationism.Through these heresies, they deny full
personhood and/or full deity to Jesus Christ.
2.A
foundationally flawed hermeneutic {including the use of paraphrases, “my
translation,” out-of-context quotations, and word substitutions resulting in
more palatable texts} for interpreting scripture that proclaims that all
relevant passages have been wrongly understood throughout Church History, and
in fact mean nearly the opposite of what the Church has nearly universally
taught.
3.A
consistent hostility toward the Church which is seen as the ‘mission field’ in
need of correction to bring it back to its supposed roots as a Torah observant
movement within Judaism.They teach the
Church should never have existed.
4.That
the books of Moses, the Torah, are more fully the words of God than other
portions of holy scripture, making them the lens through which all scripture
must be interpreted.Even Jesus Christ,
the eternal Word of God, has no authority to establish anything beyond the
Mosaic Law.
5.That
Jesus did not fulfill the Mosaic Law, rather it is still operative and
normative for all of God’s people, Jews and Gentiles alike.That it was designed by God to be the only
rubric for holy living for all peoples, in all places, and at all times.
6.That
there is no covenant with the Gentiles, thus all followers of Jesus Christ who
accept the Gospel must be grafted into Israel by ‘becoming a Jew’ in spirit
through Torah observance.
7.That
on this basis true Christian discipleship requires the keeping of the Mosaic
Law, including the dietary (kosher), Sabbath, and festival provisions, which is
how Christians demonstrate their love of God as these have been redefined by
FFOZ as the true “fruit of the Spirit.”
If the tree
is diseased, so will its fruit be. Christians have already been warned against
the use of bible study materials produced by the Watchtower Tract Society (JW)
or LDS (Mormon) organizations, and would not use them even if locally 100% of
the parent organization’s theology was not being adopted.The risk that heretical teachings would gain
a foothold is simply too great.The same
danger exists when using materials published by FFOZ.If the desire is to learn about Judaism or
from Messianic Judaism, a host of materials from an orthodox point-of-view are
available for Christians to utilize. To
use that which comes from the FFOZ is an unnecessary risk, in addition,
purchases support an organization whose stated goals would harm the Church and
warp the Gospel.
In the end,
while protesting that they do not offer a works-based salvation, and claiming
that faith in Jesus is sufficient, this movement is built upon and structured
around the claim that all faithful Christians will begin observing the Law of
Moses once they become followers of Jesus, that faithful Christians will, in
essence, live like Jews.They may not outright
claim the Law of Moses as the gatekeeper to salvation and Christian
discipleship, but when you make it the gauge of genuine faithfulness you are
adding it to the Gospel message, casting dispersion upon the faith of 99% of
the world’s Christians, both past and present, and spreading doubt and division
within the Church.This movement is no
benign appreciation of the scriptures, but rather an aggressively proselytizing
misappropriation of them contrary to the established teachings of Orthodox,
Catholic, Protestant Churches, and Messianic Jewish congregations, alike.
Given this,
it is necessary to warn individual Christians and congregations against
participation in these groups, and call upon those who do so now, and
especially those who are promoting them, to repent and return to the faith our
ancestors rejoiced in as, “you are not under the law, but under grace.”
(Romans 6:12)
* For documentation, see the page on this blog with the same title.
Note the terms: World of Concealment and World of Truth
Note Lancaster's description of demons and angels contending over the souls of the dead
One of the things that jumps out if you read The Beginning of Wisdom Torah Club series one after another (as I've done in order to point out the concrete examples of extra-biblical and unorthodox teachings they contain) is how much Daniel Lancaster relies upon the Wisdom of Solomon. The Wisdom of Solomon was likely written by someone in the Alexandrian Jewish community in the generations leading up to the birth of Jesus, and it was subsequently included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures known as the Septuagint (or LXX). As a text, it contains ideas derived both from Jewish thought and Greek Platonic philosophy, which isn't surprising given that Alexandria was a renowned center of Greek philosophical thought for centuries. In addition to this influence, which is something the Early Church would have been very familiar with, for it both embraced Greek philosophy on some matters, and contended against it in others {Gnostic Dualism being the most famous antagonist}, Lancaster also weaves into the Torah Club materials medieval Jewish mysticism in the form of Kabbalah.
Now, I'll be the first to tell you that Jewish medieval mysticism is not a topic that has ever been on my list of things that I need to study as a disciple of Jesus, then again, neither has Islamic Sufism or the various forms of mysticism that have operated under the guise of Christianity. The idea that the path to divine knowledge is through mystical experience is foreign to those of us who embrace the Reformation's proclamation of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). Why? Because it cannot be replicated, it cannot be evaluated, and it cannot be questioned. If someone tells you they had a mystical experience where God told them that the human soul is protected from demons trying to take it to hell after death by an angelic force {as Lancaster does in this Torah Club lesson}, what is the rebuttal? Mystical knowledge is, by definition, only available to those who experience it, and at the same time due to its dream-like nature, open to broad interpretation.
In this case Daniel Lancaster is teaching that the "insights" of Jewish mysticism are in fact true, more than that, that these ideas can be used as the rubric that explains holy scripture. Therein lies the growing danger, "because the Jewish mystics say so" is not any safer a path to follow for a disciple of Jesus than, "because the Christian mystics say so." In the end, God's Word has never required mystical experience to be understood. Whenever people, well meaning or otherwise, have tried to impose upon it allegorical interpretation or mystical knowledge, the results have been to take those who listen to them away from the plain meaning of the text. If the plain meaning of the text, that available to the educated and uneducated alike, to the novice as well as to the veteran, was what this path desired, there would be no need for arbitrary allegorical or mystical insights. Where does it stop? If the "sages" that Lancaster likes to cite (but never seems to actually quote) deny the resurrection of Jesus, is that out-of-bounds? Is that a bride-too-far, or are these supposed wise men to be followed wherever they lead? We've already seen a willingness from Lancaster and FFOZ to abandon the Trinity because it doesn't fit their new "gospel," is there reason to believe that any of the truths that our ancestors in the faith were willing to die for aren't also up for grabs?
In case you are wondering, if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, someone who has been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and given the new birth of the Holy Spirit, NOTHING can separate you from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8), so there is a zero percent chance that demonic forces would need to be thwarted by angels to allow your soul to ascend to heaven. That's utter nonsense because Jesus has already conquered sin and death, therefore the spiritual forces of evil do not contend with Jesus, they flee from him.
Note: This entire premise of Lancaster is once again built upon the assumption of a pre-existent human soul, an idea repeated as if it were fact in this Torah Club lesson as well, and an idea that was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Constantinople AD 553.
If you had any doubt that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) following Daniel Lancaster's teachings are purposefully subverting, more than that, outright jettisoning, the sole authority of God's Word, the proof is there to be seen in the actual Torah Club materials. Now, you could also look at Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic, a book that FFOZ is publishing and selling to see just how antagonistic this organization is to scriptural authority.
Here in The Beginning of Wisdom lesson 7, the Jewish mystical teaching of a pre-existent soul, a concept not found anywhere in scripture, is fully embraced to the extent that this idea becomes the very rationale for our time here on earth, "That's why we came to this place." (p. 6) We came here, according to FFOZ, to learn things that our souls in heaven couldn't because they were already in God's presence. In other words, God needed us to disconnect from him so we'd learn to want to come back though life's "innumerable difficulties, trials, and temptations." (p. 6) Thus FFOZ is not only imagining our purpose, but God's intention as well, both dependent upon the notion that we don't remember our time spent with God before birth.
Once you have this extra-biblical idea firmly in place, FFOZ will teach you that Jacob's journey out of the Promised Land and back (necessary because of how thoroughly he had cheated his brother) is an analogy for our journey from heaven, to earth, and back again. Why on earth (no pun intended) would Bible believing Christians sit under this teaching? Are you going to strain this filth out of the food they're serving?
The Group Discussion question in section 3 of lesson 7 is this, "What do you think of the Jewish idea of the preexistent soul?"
*FYI, it isn't a Jewish idea, it is one form of Jewish mysticism. FFOZ wants you to view Judaism and Jewish thinkers as some sort of monolith that they can represent to you and teach you about, it is as pathetic as saying, "What do you think of the Christian idea of Calvinism?" or "What do you think of the Church's idea of priestly celibacy?" Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of Christianity and the Church knows that some Christians adhere to Calvinism but many do not, and a portion of the Church has embraced priestly celibacy, for a portion of that segment's history, but most do not and never have. Note: Torah Club/FFOZ materials rarely, if ever, cite sources for what they define as "Jewish thought" or when they say, "Judaism teaches."*
What do I think about the idea? (1) It is extra biblical, (2) more akin to the ideas of Eastern religions about reincarnation than to anything Jesus taught, and (3) a dangerous wedge to begin teaching people to embrace an authority beyond, and ultimately against, the Word of God.
I have already responded to the outrageous heresy contained in the transcript of Daniel Lancaster's The Only Begotten Son in this post: The boldly heretical anti-trinitarianism of Daniel Lancaster (One of the key leaders of the FFOZ and Torah Clubs) in his own words. However, multiple people who have listened to the audio file from Beth Immanuel's website have noticed differences in the audio (i.e. the transcript edited them out) that point even harder at a denial from Lancaster of the orthodox nature of Jesus Christ. Below, then, are these more damaging statements with the timestamp so that anyone can hear for themselves what the creator of the Torah Club materials for the First Fruits of Zion believes about the nature and person of Jesus Christ. Commentary in bold below follows each quote.
6:14 We already learned that God is the first cause that he
created the whole universe and that he did it through his paintbrush, which
is his word when he said, "Let there be." And so he created a version of himself. Like when you create a version of yourself online, what
do you call that? Yeah, an avatar, right? That's it. He created an avatar. Oh,
that's the word. OK, he created an avatar of himself to enter the world. And
and we called that the word, and this avatar is the is God as we know him in
the world.
The additional heretical material here includes, "he created a version of himself" and "He created an avatar." In the transcript the notion that the Word is an avatar of God that was created by God is edited out. What we end up with here are two heretical ideas: (1) That the Word is created by God, this is the heresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that Jesus is the highest being created by God, and (2) that when we see God interacting in the world it is only a "version" of God, leaving humanity/creation without any actual connection to God.
7:25 The word of God then divested himself, like took off his
outer garment so to speak and clothed himself in a human body. Kind of like the word would dwell in the Tabernacle or
would dwell in the temple. But this time he came to dwell in a person named
Yeshua Ben Yosef from Nazareth. Yes. {An audience member asks a difficult to hear question, "Is that like all of himself, or did he take a part of himself?"} Great question. No, this is still the avatar. This is still
the avatar is the one divesting. So it's just like this, it's this
finite version of God as we know him within the universe.
In the transcript this reads, "the Word came to dwell within the human being named Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazarth." The spoken version above is similar, but worse in that it clarifies that Lancaster believes that Yeshua Ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph) was a created human being with a separate life/spirit from that of the Word of God...The spoken question from the audience is extremely hard to hear, but as best I can tell the student wants to know if the Word is all of God (HaShem) or just a part of God? To which Lancaster replies, incredibly, "No, this is still the avatar." This again solidifies the charge against Lancaster of Modalism because neither the Word nor Jesus is truly God, only an avatar that God created of himself.
9:55 The human body of Yeshua is not God. Nor is it the word of God, the avatar of God.
What then is Jesus?? To Lancaster, Jesus is NOT God, then again, neither is the Word of God, that is only an "avatar of God." There is no hint of the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity into the one person Jesus Christ. Athanasius would have recognized this ancient heresy about Jesus, one that was rejected at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
13:15 For example, when Yeshua is praying in the garden of
Gethsemane, he says he prays. He's praying. You know, "Take this cup from me
if you can." But he says, "Not my will but your will be done." So I mean, what does that imply? That implies that he has his
own will, which is a separate will from the will of God. Isn't that interesting? OK. And also, I mean, just the fact
that he's praying is also sort of a hint, because otherwise he'd be talking to himself. {Laughter from the audience.}
The part not retained in the transcript is, "So I mean, what does that imply? That implies that he has his own will, which is a separate will from the will of God? Isn't that interesting." This, then, is an even stronger indicator that Lancaster believes that the will of Jesus of Nazareth is separate from the will of God, that they can be distinguished, even in opposition. How is this possible? (1) Lancaster believes that the Word is not God, it is his created avatar, (2) that Jesus of Nazareth is a human being that was indwelt by the Word, not that Jesus IS the Word, and (3) ultimately he is a unitarian monotheist which requires that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all lose their personhood and become instead modalistic "roles" that God plays...As it did during the Malchut conference videos, the laughter of the audience is telling, they evidently find the joke that Lancaster makes about Jesus talking to himself during the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane to be funny.
15:41 The Word that became flesh in the person of Yeshua did something
similar by divesting its identity to indwell, a man, a real human being and lived through the life of Yeshua of
Nazareth.
The transcript has, "and live a real human life through Yeshua of Nazareth." The difference is subtle, in the audio Lancaster says, "and lived through the life of Yeshua of Nazareth." It may be subtle, but it is significant, because it gives further weight to the charge against Lancaster that he's teaching the heresy that Jesus of Nazareth's life is a thing of its own apart from the Word of God. He doesn't mention the Virgin Birth, but why would it be necessary if the "human body of Yeshua is not God."?
16:57 I mean, how can God be tempted? It says, "God is not tempted." Right in the Torah. So how could, how could he have been tempted? You know, if he was aware, if he was God on an aware level?
This explosive comment is left out of the transcript altogether, and for good reason. Lancaster is hinting here at the notion that Jesus is not aware of his own deity (an absurd claim in light of the Gospel of John). While we do not fully understand the mystery of the Incarnation, nor are the Gospels attempting to be a theology textbook, this is yet another example of a lesser version of Jesus put forth by FFOZ or one of their teachers.
17:18 And and another thing, it wouldn't be any great accomplishment for him to be righteous. I mean, of course, HaShem isn't going to commit a sin. Of course, Hashem doesn't get points for being righteous. He is righteous. There's no, you see what I'm saying? But Yeshua on the other hand, earned God's merit and favor by doing so, by passing temptations and trials.
The change in the transcript is to largely omit this section. The simple comment, "But Yeshua on the other hand." is Lancaster's way of reinforcing the distinction between God and the avatar/Word/Jesus that unlike HaShem is evidently capable of sin.
Conclusion: The transcript of The Only Begotten Son that Beth Immanuel (where Lancaster serves as "pastor") is bad enough, as my previous post (link at the top of this post) demonstrated, it was full of boldly heretical statements. The original audio is worse as these seven examples show. The notion that Daniel Lancaster is "wise" or "learned" in the scriptures is laughable given the presence of these ancient heresies, and the idea that Christians would allow this man to become their teacher by becoming a part of a Torah Club is terrifying.
