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
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.
{All commentary below from Pastor Powell will be in brackets,
bold and italics to avoid any confusion as to Lancaster’s original words. The bold section titles are original.}
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON
Before being immersed, a person should be instructed in
“knowledge about the unbegotten God”
and “understanding about the only begotten son.” Under this
subject, we touch on some of the
ideas in Christology—the study of Messiah. This is among the
deepest and most mysterious
subjects in the Bible, so this lesson will only introduce a
few of the topics pertaining to the
sonship of Yeshua. The material dives into some deep waters,
so don’t feel distressed if it goes
over your head at time. It’s enough to get a rough idea of
the concepts.
{The opening paragraph reveals this to be a
pre-baptism primer for those joining Beth Immanuel, as such we would expect
that the beliefs expressed here have not been arrived at in a flippant manner,
which adds weight to their deviancy from orthodoxy.}
The Son of God
Yeshua regularly referred to himself as “the Son” and to God
as “the Father.” It wasn’t
uncommon for Jews in his day to describe God as their loving
Father. Even to this day, Jewish
prayers still address God warmly as “our Father,” and
“Father in Heaven.” But there was
something unique about the way Yeshua talked. When he
addressed God, he called him “Abba,”
a term of special endearment. When he talked about himself,
he referred to himself as “the Son”
that was sent by the Father. After his death and
resurrection, his followers began to refer to him
as “the Son of God,” and the “only begotten son.”
God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten
son, so that whoever
believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.
(John 3:16)
What do we mean when we say that Yeshua is the Son of God
and why is he called “the only
begotten Son?” It’s not just because he was born of a
virgin. It’s blasphemous to even think that
the Almighty fathered him through
his mother Miriam.
{This is the Hebraic version of the familiar Mary}
In
Greek mythology, the gods routinely impregnate human women who subsequently
give birth to demi-gods, but those mythological and idolatrous ideas have
nothing to do with the story of Yeshua’s miraculous conception or why he is
called the Son of God. So why is he called the Son of God?
{There isn’t much of note in the preceding paragraph,
it all could be a part of a perfectly orthodox explanation of the Incarnation,
if it wasn’t connected to what comes later…}
Today I have Begotten You
Let’s start with the idea of Messiah. The word “messiah”
means “The Anointed One.” It’s
directly related to the Hebrew word Mashiach and the Greek
word Christos. That’s where we get
the English word “Christ.” In the days of the kings of
Israel, a new king was anointed with oil to
symbolize that God had chosen him and put his Spirit upon
him to lead the people. Every king of
Israel was called an anointed one.
God promised that, in the future, the descendants of king
David would beget a son who would be
anointed by God’s spirit to restore the kingdom of Israel
and conquer the whole world. The
LORD promised King David, “I will be a father to him and he
will be a son to Me” (2 Samuel
7:14). We call that promised king “the Anointed One,” i.e.
the Messiah.
Son of God is a title for the Messiah. The LORD says to the
Messiah in Psalm 2, “You are my
son, today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7). The word
“beget” means “to give birth to” or “to
bring forth.” In Psalm 2, God says that the Davidic Messiah
is called his “son” because he has
begotten him.
When Yeshua was immersed in the Jordan River, the voice of
God declared him to be the
fulfillment of the promise made to David. He said, “You are
my son.” With these words, the
voice at the Jordan identified Yeshua as the Messiah.
Yeshua asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the
Messiah, the Son of living God!” (Matthew 16:16). The two
titles were connected in Peter’s
mind. Not long after that, Yeshua took three disciples with
him up onto a high mountain. They
heard the voice of God say, “This is my son! Listen to him.”
That revelation dispelled any
lingering doubts.
All of these instances point to the connection between
Yeshua’s identity as the Messiah and the
promise made to King David, “I will be a father to him and
he will be a son to Me” (2 Samuel
7:14). By saying to Yeshua, “You are my son,” the voice at
the Jordan River declared, “You are
the Messiah.” By saying to the disciples, “This is my son,”
the voice on the high mountain
declared, “This is the Messiah.”
{Up until the next paragraph, there isn’t anything of
concern here, and that’s the pattern with FFOZ and their Torah Clubs. They project an “ordinary Bible study” vibe
right up until they include unorthodox teaching that often slips by Torah Club
members, or leaves them thinking they can “strain out” the heretical bits and
keep the rest. Hold onto your hats for
what is coming next.}
The Logos Becomes Flesh
But what about the idea that the Messiah is God? How is that supposed to work?
Sometimes people say that Yeshua is fully God and fully man:
100% God and 100% human.
Mathematically, that doesn’t work very well. That would make
him a 200% being which, by
definition, would be two different things, not a single
person.
{And with this flippant math analogy, Lancaster has
rejected the Council of Nicaea. Given
that Jesus is the one and only Incarnation of God, the only example that there
ever was or will be of the divine and human combined in one person, why is he
so sure that Jesus can’t be fully God AND fully man at the same
time? Whatever comes next, whatever
lesser explanation of the humanity and divinity of Jesus that he is about to
offer, orthodoxy has already been abandoned by Lancaster.}
But Yeshua is not a math equation,
nor is he a recipe calling for equal parts God and equal
parts man, stirred together and baked in
an oven. The spiritual world doesn’t work according to those
rules or simple ideas.
{More mockery of the orthodox understanding of Jesus’
full humanity and divinity that the Early Church affirmed at Nicaea. If Jesus isn’t equal parts God and man,
either his divinity or his humanity must be lesser, as we will soon see. That last sentence jumps out at me, our
understanding of the spiritual realm comes from divine revelation, our
knowledge of how it works is up to God.
Thus we do not define the Incarnation, and we certainly don’t declare
what it can/can’t be based on our preferences.
What we must do, what we only can do, is accept what God has said about
himself, and the Word of God tells us that Jesus of Nazareth is both fully
human and fully divine.}
Let’s take a look at how the apostles solved the problem.
{Ok, let’s do that…Wait, when does he start quoting
the Apostles? The only two quotes to
follow, from John and Colossians, actually speak firmly against this notion
that Jesus can’t be fully God and fully man.}
In the previous chapter, we learned
that God is the first-cause and that he created the whole universe through the
agency of his Word. The “Word” of God
functions as his avatar, so to speak, expressing his being within the confines of
the created order.
{The warning signs should be shouting by now, “Danger!
Danger!” Why is “Word” in quotation
marks? It shouldn’t be given that it is
how the prologue of the Gospel of John describes the eternal 2nd
person of the Trinity, but it is to Lancaster because the Word that he’s
describing is NOT a person at all. We’re
heading toward a form of unitarian monotheism, something that would be
acceptable to modern Judaism (and Islam) but something that has been entirely
rejected by the Church since the very beginning…An avatar? Why are we using a term that has less than
full personhood associated with it? The
term Lancaster refuses to use is “person.”
The Word is not described as a person (and neither is the Holy Spirit),
and honestly neither is the Father, these are simply avatars (manifestations)
of the One, not persons.}
Through his Word he spoke and the
world came into being. His Word hovered over the waters of creation and said,
“Let there be light.” In the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God’s Word
appeared in the form of the Angel of the LORD, and in the days of Moses, his
Word spoke from inside a burning bush. From on top of Mount Sinai, the Word
spoke the ten commandments, declaring, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you
out of the land of Egypt.” The same Word of God came to dwell in the Tabernacle
and spoke to Moses from between the wings of Cherubim over the ark of the
covenant.
{Sloppy and careless use of scripture is a hallmark
here. The Spirit of God hovered over the
waters in Genesis 1:2, nor is the Word described by Moses as the one who spoke
Creation into existence in Genesis 1:3.
So why attribute these things, contrary to the text, to the Word? There
is a purpose to Lancaster making these attributions, and saying that the voice
of God in the Burning Bush was an Avatar of the Word along with the appearances
of the Angel of the LORD, it muddies the waters and sets the stage for what he
is about to say…}
When the time came for God to fulfill his promises to the
house of David by bringing forth the
Messiah, the Word of God divested itself of glory and
clothed itself in a human body. Much as
the Word dwelt in the Tabernacle, the Word came to dwell
within the human being named
Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth.
{Heresy. Full
stop. The Word did NOT simply “dwell within” a
human being, He was and is a human being because Jesus retains his humanity in
his resurrected body. At the Incarnation
God became a human being when the Son was born of the virgin and took
upon himself humanity in addition to his eternal deity. It was not being “clothed” with a human body,
but having one, being one of us.
When he switches gears to the Atonement below, this lesser version of
Jesus will have dire implications that leave Lancaster (and FFOZ) with a diet
version of the Gospel, one devoid of power…According to how Lancaster explains
this, Yeshua (Jesus) the man already independently existed, and the Word simply
came to dwell within him. What we have
here is full blown Monarchianism, also known as Modalism, a heresy that was
known in the Early Church and entirely rejected by it even before the Council
of Nicaea (as early as Tertullian, 160-220 AD).
Lancaster is not inventing a new heresy, he is simply recycling an old
previously rejected one.}
The Gospel of John says, “The Word
became flesh (a humanbody), and dwelt among us, and we saw his
glory: the glory of the only begotten from the Father,full of
grace and truth” (John 1:14).
Make no mistake, this is about as close as the apostles ever
get to saying, “God became a human
being.” Of course, they don’t say it in those words, but the
apostle Paul says essentially the same
thing in slightly different language. He says, “In him all
the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily
form” (Colossians 2:9).
{Yes! Amen! The
Apostle Paul does indeed say that God became a human being, and not just in
Colossians 2:9 (Also see John’s prologue), so why are you denying it? I know that FFOZ wants to make the Gospel
more palatable to the “Jewish perspective” as they define it, but abandoning
the fully deity and humanity of Jesus to do it?
Never.}
A Real Human Being
Why didn’t the apostles just come right out and say, “Yeshua
is God”? Why beat around the
bush? They refer to him as the “Son of God, the “glory of
God,” the “representation” and “image
of God,” the “exact imprint” of God, and so forth? Why do
they always seem to take one step
back from just saying, “Yeshua is God”?
{Those statements are a “step back”? Only if you want to proclaim Jesus as less
than fully God and fully man combined in one person. Nobody and
nothing has the fullness of God’s glory except God. One cannot miss that John’s Gospel proclaims
Jesus as God, equal with the Father, unless what the text is actually saying is
secondary to your agenda. For example: “before
Abraham was born, I am.” In John 8:58. Did Jesus’ audience know he was claiming
to be God? Absolutely, they immediately
picked up stones to kill him.}
Well for one thing, that’s not a Jewish way of speaking
about God. They did not want to imply
that God was two different beings, nor did they want to give
people the idea that they were
teaching polytheism. Besides, that wasn’t what they meant.
The human body of Yeshua is not
God nor is it the Word of God. When God dwelt inside the
Tabernacle, the Tabernacle did not
become God.
{He said it himself.
Lancaster has made a distinction between the human Yeshua and the divine
Word of God; they’re not the same to him, he wants them to be distinct and
makes sure to say so. The Tabernacle
analogy is ridiculous. Of course a tent
didn’t become God, what does that have to do with Jesus? Don’t miss the line, “that wasn’t what they
meant.” It points back to the early
question about why the Apostles didn’t simply say that, “Yeshua is God.” Lancaster’s answer: They didn’t say it because
they didn’t believe it. A laughable
conclusion based on the text of the NT, even the apostate Bart Ehrman accepts
that the NT text proclaims Jesus to be God (Ehrman erroneously teaches that the
Church edited the text centuries after the Apostles to add this idea).}
One might say that Yeshua is God in the flesh, so long as we
remember that his flesh is not God.
{“One might say that Yeshua is God in the
flesh”?? Oh really, we are allowed to
say that the Incarnation is God in the flesh and thus accept what Holy
Scripture says and the Church has believed from the beginning! But Lancaster needs to
add a caveat, a distinction that undermines any hope that he will accept this fundamental truth of
orthodox Christology.}
The human body of Yeshua is a real human body. Unlike God,
it began at a fixed point in time,
conceived and born of a woman. Perhaps this is one reason
why he also referred to himself as
“the Son of Man.” The term “Son of Man” is an obscure title
for the Messiah, but it is also a
Hebrew idiom that simply means “human being.” Yeshua was the
human being who took up
Adam’s job of being the image of God.
{So, at least we don’t also have the heresy that the
Divine Jesus only looked human (Docetism). Lancaster is willing to concede that Jesus of
Nazareth was a real human being. The
“unlike God” segway serves as a reminder that Jesus the man and the Word of God
are not one and the same in this heretical view endorsed by one of the primary
leaders of FFOZ and creator of Torah Club materials.}
Yeshua was not a fake person that only looked human but was
actually a deity in disguise.
In Greek mythology, the gods occasionally masqueraded as men
to fool people, but that’s not what
is happening in the gospels. Yeshua was a real person who
hungered, thirsted, tired, experienced
a full range of human emotions, felt both physical and
emotional pain, and suffered temptation.
But the living God in the form of the Word
{“in the form of the Word” is the Modalist way of not
having a true Trinity with three equal persons, the Word and the Spirit are
simply “forms” of God, “avatars” God wears for specific purposes.}
dwelt within him and permeated his whole being.
{Nope. The Word
didn’t “dwell within” Jesus, Jesus is the Word.}
The glory of God shone through him.
When it says that the Word “dwelt among us,” the Gospel
alludes to how God’s presence dwelt
in the Tabernacle and the Temple so that he could “dwell” in
the midst of his people. It’s similar
with Yeshua of Nazareth. Much as God can be said to dwell in
his sanctuary in a unique way, he
chose to dwell within a single human being in a unique way.
But unlike the Tabernacle or the
Temple, Yeshua is a person with his own will, his own
inclinations, and his own consciousness.
{Once you’ve gone off the rails, there’s no telling
where you’ll end up. Now we’re about to hear Lancaster explain how the Word and
Jesus have competing wills. So, Jesus
the man has a separate will/inclination/consciousness that is NOT the same as
the Word? Jesus is some sort of multiple
personality sufferer in Lancaster’s eyes?}
For example, when praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, he
distinguished between his own will
and God’s will. He prayed, “Not my will, but let your will
be done” (Luke 22:42). Come to think
of it, just by praying to God he was making it clear that he
made a distinction between himself
and God. Otherwise he would have been praying to himself.
{Good grief, as he often enough does, Lancaster
demonstrates no real understanding of the orthodoxy he’s rejecting. There’s a reason why we can talk about the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as their own person, it’s a mystery called the
Trinity. One God, three persons. As Athanasius put it, “one ousia in three
hypostaseis”, that is, one substance/essence with three persons. Lancaster doesn’t understand this ancient
doctrine, so he thinks that Jesus praying to the Father would be Jesus praying
to himself, which is nonsense. There was
communication and fellowship within the Trinity before Creation. That this continues when Jesus walked the
Earth in the form of prayer is to be expected.}
The Apostle Paul explains that Yeshua did not “consider
equality with God a thing to be seized” (Philippians 2:6).
{And here we’re abusing Paul to advocate for
heresy. Philippians 2:6 is not saying
that Jesus wasn’t equal with God, the Kenosis (“emptying”) passage tells of
Jesus’ humility in that he didn’t cling to the prerogatives of deity but was
instead willing to set them aside. By
the way, Philippians 2:9-11 reveals the coming glory of Jesus when his divinity
is acknowledged by all of creation. As
is common with FFOZ, the passage of scripture they’re citing means the opposite
of what they’re trying to use it for.}
Divestment
How does that work? How can the Word dwell in Yeshua, yet
make room enough for him to
keep a distinct will and consciousness of his own?
{It can’t, and it doesn’t need to unless you’ve
embraced heresy, as Lancaster here, and need to somehow try to justify it.}
God’s Word dwelt within him much the way your spirit dwells
within you. Human beings are
not merely physical creatures of flesh and blood and bone.
We are more than just mudballs, and
more than just monkeys. There is a spiritual spark hidden
inside of us that existed before we
were conceived, and it will continue to live on after we
die. The body is like a suit of clothing
that the spirit within us wears.
{Now Lancaster is dabbling in Docetism by making the
spirit the real essence of us and the body merely a covering. Our body is not at all “clothing” that our
spirit wears. Afterall, the coming resurrection
of the dead is a bodily resurrection. Given
how wrong he is about the nature of humanity, his attempt to use this as
analogy to the unique Incarnation of the God/Man is useless. With each attempt to explain his heresy,
Lancaster further cements the truth that critics of FFOZ, like myself, are not
“making this up.” This is what he chose
to publish, what he is teaching at Beth Immanuel, and what, God help us, others
are accepting because of his so-called “expertise.”}
When the spirit enters the human body at conception and
birth, it conceals itself in the person.
You wouldn’t even know its there. It functions within you on
an unconscious level, beneath the
surface of your awareness. But it’s very much the real you,
deep down inside. In order to become
you, your spirit first divests itself of its heavenly
identity and any memories it had. That’s why
you don’t remember being a spirit before you were born.
{There’s no telling how far down the rabbit hole we
will go. Now Lancaster is claiming
pre-existence in heaven of the human soul, with an identity and memories that
we “lose” when we’re born. The Second
Council of Constantinople (553 AD) condemned this belief as heresy.}
It’s not exactly the same, but the Word that became flesh in
the person of Yeshua did something
similar by divesting its identity to indwell a man and live
a real human life through Yeshua of
Nazareth:
{And now we see the fruit of the poisoned heretical
vine. God isn’t really living a human
life, Jesus of Nazareth is, God is just indwelling him through an avatar. When you abandon orthodoxy, the consequences
are legion and grotesque.}
Although he existed in the form of God, he did not consider
equality with God a thing to
be seized. Instead, he emptied himself, taking the form of a
servant, being made in the
likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a human
being, he humbled himself by
becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a
cross. (Philippians 2:6-8)
Of what did the Word divest itself? He stripped himself of
glory, divesting himself of
omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence in order to
inhabit a human life.
{You were almost there, if you replace “inhabit” with
“live” you have orthodoxy. But that’s a
bridge too far for Lancaster, his Jesus isn’t a part of any Trinity.}
This explains why Yeshua would have
appeared to anyone who knew him as a normal human being. He did not glow, and
he did not have a halo floating over his head. This also explains why he didn’t
know everything all the time, and how he could have been tempted, and why he
achieved merit for his obedience. After all, it wouldn’t have been any great
accomplishment for the omnipotent and omniscient God to pass temptations and
trials, but Yeshua earned merit and God’s favor by doing so.
{And now we see what happens with a lesser
Christology, we must also have a lesser Atonement (which actually is no real
atonement at all, as we will see below. FYI,
orthodoxy acknowledges that Jesus’ suffering and temptations were real, he was
a real human being who had laid aside the fullness of divinity’s power during
his time on earth. These “explanations”
from Lancaster are as unnecessary as they are heretical…So, for Lancaster Jesus
of Nazareth also needs to be a separate man who is only indwelt by the Word
(itself only an avatar of God, not a person) in order to make his trials and
temptations “real”?}
He himself was tempted in everything he suffered, so he is
able to help those who are
tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)
He has been tempted in all things as we are, yet he was
without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things
which He suffered. And
having been made perfect, he became to all those who obey
Him the source of eternal
salvation. (Hebrews 5:8-9)
{Nice to see Hebrews quoted, none of these are being
used in a way that the author would have recognized or accepted because he most
certainly believed that Jesus was fully God and fully man together as one, not this weird
amalgam of a human being serving as the clothing for an avatar of God.}
The Suffering of Messiah
Disciples of Yeshua believe that his death on the cross
obtained the forgiveness of sins for us.
How is that supposed to work? Doesn’t it seem strange to
believe that the death of one Jewish
man, 2000 years ago, could bring us the forgiveness of sins
today? Why would the death of
anyone bring forgiveness of sins to someone else?
{It isn’t a strange notion if you accept the teachings
of the Apostle Paul. One Jewish man’s
death couldn’t do anything for us, the death of the God/Man, the only Son of God,
is what actually matters, but Lancaster has already undermined who the Church
has always believed Jesus to be, which is who Jesus actually is, so…}
God’s Favor
To begin with, Yeshua found favor in God’s eyes. He lived a
life of complete righteousness in
perfect submission to God’s will, but he suffered unjustly.
Th apostles teach, “This finds favor
with God, if for the sake of his convictions toward God a
person bears up under sorrows when
suffering unjustly” (1 Peter 2:19).
{Over and over again.
Peter isn’t talking about the Atonement, he’s not talking about merit
that can be applied to others, this quotation is irrelevant, because it isn’t
at all about what Jesus did for us.}
That’s the same way that Yeshua
earned God’s favor. Now he is able to share that favor with all of his
disciples. When we pray to God or ask him for forgiveness for sins, we do so
not according to our own merit or righteousness, but in the merit and favor
that Yeshua earned with God. We know that we don’t deserve God’s mercy, but Yeshua
does, so we associate ourselves with him. It’s as if we say, “I know that I
don’t deserve your favor or your forgiveness, but please remember your son
Yeshua and include me along with him.”
{So, we’re missing something here. What about the punishment for sin? What about the darkness as Jesus hung on the
Cross or the symbolism of the Lamb of God at Passover? What about the deep focus in Hebrews on Jesus
as a better Priest and a better sacrifice?
The explanation that the man Jesus (remember, Lancaster already declared
that the Word and Yeshua are separate) is able to share some extra merit with
you and me is far from a sufficient explanation. This is not what the NT writers have to say
about Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection.}
The Law of Sin and Death
The Bible also speaks about a principle called “the law of
sin and death” (Romans 8:2).
According to this principle, human suffering and death come
into the world only as a
consequence for sin. If there was no sin in the world, there
would be no human suffering or
death. We would live in paradise. But this theory raises a
serious problem. How do you explain it
when innocent people suffer and die? What about when a very
righteous person suffers and dies
as a martyr? Obviously innocent people, like small children,
cannot be said to have suffered and
died to pay for their sins. They didn’t have any sins.
Neither can it be said that the righteous
suffer and die for their sins. Surely there are plenty of
worse sinners who go unpunished. Where
is the fairness?
{Lancaster is attempting to delve into Theodicy, also
known as “the problem of evil.” We do
indeed live in a world where sin is far from sufficiently punished and
righteousness often goes unrewarded. What
is lacking in this discussion is any connection to Paul’s theology in Romans. The
universality of human sin, and the inheritance of the sin nature in each
generation is not present. Also, where
is the truth that all have individually sinned and fallen short of the glory of
God? (Romans 3:23) When you leave that fundamental truth out of your
explanation of God’s response to humanity’s plight, things go awry, as the next
sentence will show.}
Judaism explains that when righteous people suffer and die,
it comes not as a consequence for
their own sins, but for the sins of others. God even uses
the suffering and death of the righteous
as a way to atone for others who otherwise would not deserve
his mercy. According to this idea,
an extremely righteous person might suffer for the sins of
his whole generation.
{“Judaism explains” is weak sauce. Where does this come from, which rabbis
taught this? Is this an idea that
predates the life of Jesus, or a modern one?
Lancaster offers no explanation.
In the end, where it comes from doesn’t really matter because it isn’t a
biblical idea. God is a just God. There are no “righteous people” who don’t
need a savior (Romans 2-3), everyone dies for their own sins, everyone needs
Jesus. How then could the acts of
righteousness done by sinners (for that is what we all are) produce extra merit
before God that could be applied to others?
This notion cannot be squared with Paul’s meticulous explanation of the
Gospel in Romans, and fails utterly to connect with Ephesians 2:8-9. If “Judaism” (Or at least Lancaster’s view of
it) believes that a human being could “suffer for the sins of his whole generation”
it is flat-out wrong. No person could
ever obtain enough merit for him/herself, let alone for others.}
The apostles applied this same reasoning to explain Yeshua’s
suffering.
{No evidence that the Apostles believed anything of
the sort is offered, none exists, because they most certainly did not.}
Since he was tempted in all things
but without sin, he accrued merit with God. When he suffered and died, it
tipped the scales of justice far out of balance. To bring the scales of justice
back into balance, his suffering must have been on behalf of the sins of
others. This is what the prophet Isaiah predicted the Messiah would do:
{The scales of justice? God has to balance the cosmic scales? The thing is, the injustice of Jesus’ death
was infinite. He had no sin, zero. This
isn’t a cosmic math problem, Jesus’ death paid for the sins of tens of billions
of people (and counting as the years lengthen) because he was fully God and
fully man with zero sin, which left death with no claim upon him.}
He bore our griefs, and he carried our sorrows. But we
considered him to be plagued,
struck by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through for
our transgressions; he was
crushed for our iniquities. Upon him fell the discipline to
bring us peace, and by his welts
(from scourging) we are healed. (Isaiah 53:4-5)
{Yes! Isaiah
53:4-5 is very relevant. Isaiah is
talking about Substitutionary Atonement, Lancaster isn’t.}
Higher than the Angels
In the Bible, angels are also called “sons of God,” but the
Messiah occupies a station higher than
the angels. He is the Son of God on a higher level than they
can claim.
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my
Son, today I have begotten
you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be
to me a son?” (Hebrews 1:5)
The Messiah is called God’s firstborn and only begotten son.
But how does that square with the
idea that he existed since the beginning of creation?
Physically, we know he was begotten
through Miriam the wife of Joseph and born in the town of
Bethlehem, but spiritually, he was
with God in the beginning. He is called “firstborn” because
he is God’s agent
{Again, the Word is an “agent” in Lancaster’s view,
not a person.}
through which all things came into
being, that is, the Word. If God is the first-cause, the Word is the action
that initiates the first effect. This is why Yeshua is called “the beginning of
God’s creation”
(Revelation 3:14) and “the image of
the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians
1:15). In the days of the Bible, a
firstborn son took a double portion of his father’s inheritance. By
calling the Messiah the
“firstborn,” this implies that the Messiah was “begotten” before the
angels were created. Because he is
the firstborn over God’s household, the angels must pay
homage to him as their superior: When
he brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship
him.” (Hebrews 1:6)
{As far as I can tell, this whole section is
justifying why Hebrews claims that Jesus (who is a man inhabited by God’s
avatar the Word in Lancaster’s view) is above the angels when he was born after
they were created. If Lancaster believed
that Jesus was the 2nd person of the Trinity, God from God, true God
from true God, light from light, etc. he could just agree with the author of
Hebrews without all of the odd talk about inheritance law.}
The Resurrection of Yeshua
Disciples of Yeshua believe some enormous claims about him.
How do we know that these
things are true? He claimed to be the Son of God and the
Messiah. He claimed to submit to
God’s will completely. The apostles claimed that he lived a
sinless life, and they claimed that,
thanks to the merit and favor he earned with God,
{Merit and favor are all we have here, nothing about
sin being paid for.)
his disciples can obtain the
forgiveness of sins and eternal life, i.e. the resurrection of the dead and a
share in the World to Come. They also claimed that he will come again and bring
the Messianic Era to earth. We believe
all of these things on the basis of his resurrection from the dead. If Yeshua
was a deceiver, a false prophet, a liar, or even a self-deluded madman, God
would not have endorsed his claims by resurrecting him from the dead. The
resurrection of Yeshua and the empty tomb that he left behind testify that
everything he said is true and valid, and everything his disciples
believed and taught about him are
also true.
{Somehow, some way, we’re found the truth again. The Resurrection is indeed foundational to
our belief in Jesus.}
The resurrection of Yeshua endorses all of his Messianic
claims and his teachings about the
coming kingdom. His resurrection also provides evidence for
hope in a future resurrection of the
righteous and a share in the world to come. Finally, the
resurrection of Yeshua proves that he is
the Son of God. In fact, it declares him to be God’s son:
He was physically descended from David, but he was declared
to be the Son of God in
power according to the Spirit of holiness by his
resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:3-
4)
In summary, Yeshua is regard as the “only begotten son” of
God on the basis of three
indisputable things. He is the Messiah the son of David, and
therefore the heir to the Davidic title
“son of God” as it says in Psalm 2, “Your are my son, today
I have begotten you.”
He is the Son of God on the basis of the divine Word made
flesh. The Word was begotten of the
first-cause from the before the beginning as the firstborn
“son” over creation, and the Word
inhabits and fills him.
{The distinction between Yeshua the man, and the Word
continues, the Word didn’t become man in the Incarnation, it merely “inhabits
and fills” a man. This is not at all
sufficient, and was rejected soundly by the Early Church as heresy.}
Finally, he is declared the “Son of
God … by his resurrection from the dead.” The evidence of
the resurrection confirms his
claims. Yeshua invites his followers to join the family as sons and daughters
of God too. When we become his disciples, we join his family. He becomes the
elder brother, and we become children of his Father. We enter into the family
and enjoy the same intimate relationship that the Father and Son share
together:
For in the Messiah Yeshua you are all sons (and daughters)
of God, through faith.
(Galatians 3:26)
And because you are sons (and daughters), God has sent the
Spirit of his Son into our
hearts, praying, “Abba! Father!” Since you are no longer a
slave, but a son, now, as a son
(or daughter), you are an heir through God. (Galatians
4:6-7)
Pastor Powell’s Conclusions: As someone who has taken
on the role of teacher, and who is actively sharing his views with a global
audience, the beliefs of Daniel Lancaster are profoundly important for they
permeate what he teaches (i.e. the published materials of FFOZ and Torah
Clubs). Contrary to what his (and
FFOZ’s) defenders claim, these teachings are deeply and profoundly unorthodox
and literally heretical given that they were specifically rejected by the Early
Church and declared to be heresy by its Councils.
1. This teaching is Modalism, it is anti-Trinitarian,
a rejection of the Council of Nicaea, and wholly unacceptable, it has more in
common with the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses about Jesus than it does
with anything in historic Christianity.
2. A lesser view of Jesus taints the purpose and
meaning of the Cross. Instead of
Substitutionary Atonement (or any variation of atonement thereof), we have here in its place the notion of the
balancing of the scales of justice, instead of sins that have been paid for, we
have sins that God chooses to ignore because of Jesus’ extra merit. This too falls short of what the Gospel
proclaims and the New Testament teaches.
3. Teachings like this eviscerate any “about us”
statements that are put forth by Beth Immanuel or FFOZ (see below). While it may be convenient or strategic to
allow people to assume that they haven’t rejected the Trinity, this is the
direction in which they are leading people, and it is neither a part of
historic Christianity nor Messianic Judaism, but instead a cult that like the
JW’s and LDS before them, have chosen to follow “prophets” into the wilderness.
Note that at first glance this statement does not appear to
be anti-Trinitarian.However, when read
in light of Daniel Lancaster’s stated beliefs above, phrases like “he reveals
himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are recognizable as a form of
Modalism.Likewise, the opening phrase, “There
is one God” is seen more clearly as not simply the assertion of traditional
Christian monotheism, but rather of a Unitarian Monotheism more akin to the “Jewish
perspective” (as FFOZ defines it).
With respect to Jesus, their statement of faith doesn’t
mention that the Word is only an avatar, or that the man Jesus (Yeshua) had a separate
will and consciousness from that of the Word (as claimed by D. Lancaster in the
text above), but if the Word is only a manifestation of God, and not a true
person, this sort of lesser Christology is inevitable.Jesus cannot be fully God and fully Man (as
Christian orthodoxy proclaims) if the deity indwelling him is only a power and
not a person.
With respect to the Holy Spirit, once again we’re looking at
what is missing.In FFOZ’s statement of faith
we only find mention of what the Spirit does, nothing that speaks to who the
Spirit is.
As such, this statement of faith from FFOZ follows the pattern
that I have highlighted over and over again: publicly acceptable softer and
ambiguous versions of their beliefs combined with deeply unorthodox teachings
mixed in and/or revealed to insiders (see for example the Malchut 2022 videos
in parts 2 & 3 of my seminar).This is
the answer to the objection that has been raised over and over by true
believers as to why their local Torah Club isn’t the same as what my research
into FFOZ has revealed: The truly disturbing beliefs are mostly shielded from
public scrutiny.This pattern follows
other cult-like tendencies that have been documented (like the severing of
family/church ties), and is yet another cause for concern about this
organization and this movement.
God
There is one God: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the
LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). “He is God; there is no other besides Him”
(Deuteronomy 4:35), the unbegotten God, first cause, and single source. He
discloses Himself in the testimony of creation and through the Scriptures of
the Jewish people, and he reveals Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
interacting with His creation as the Father working through the Son and in the
power of the Spirit. (Genesis 1:1; Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians
4:4–6)
Yeshua
Yeshua is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Eternal One in
whom all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form, and who is the Word who
became flesh and dwelt among us, and whose glory we beheld, the glory of the
uniquely begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth (John 1:1–14; Colossians
2:9).
The
Holy Spirit
The Spirit of God comforts, teaches, leads, indwells, and
empowers all whom God regenerates (Acts 9:31; 1 John 2:27; John 16:13; 1
Corinthians 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:7).
The
only way to accept the case that FFOZ is proposing in this book is to believe that the Church
Fathers were cowardly villains, the Reformers incompetent, and the Gospel a shell of
its intended message as it has been preached and accepted by everyone except the first generation after Jesus, and now this
present one in which FFOZ’s leadership has revived it. Follow this unorthodox heretical path if you will, but understand what
you’re being asked to believe. - Pastor Powell
Restoration by D.
Thomas Lancaster (2015, 1st edition 2005)
Published by First
Fruits of Zion
Below are quotations from Restoration by D. Thomas
Lancaster in italics and 11 point font, followed by my commentary in {} and 10
point font.At the end is a brief
conclusion as to my evaluation of the book as a whole.
Due to the length of the post, I have also made it available as a Word document: Restoration review/rebuttal in Word form. Links to the YouTube video version of this post are at the bottom.
It’s a book about the Torah (also known as “the Law”) and
how the Torah relates to disciples of Jesus.
It’s also a book about an ancient prophecy from 3,400 years ago coming
true in our own lifetimes- a prophecy of restoration. – p. 3
{Here the
hubris of the leadership of FFOZ is on display from the beginning, they are
convinced that God has chosen them to fulfill End Times prophecy, that this is
the very first generation since the Early Church to have the true Gospel, and
they’re the only ones who have it.}
The appearance of modern Messianic Judaism indicates that
the ancient prophecy of Moses is being fulfilled…The coming of the Messiah has
drawn near. It’s right at the door. The signs are here…” – p. 6
{Matthew
24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but only the Father.
That they
are ushering in the End Times, at God’s direction no less, is a foundational
belief of the entire FFOZ organization.
If Messianic Judaism’s growth isn’t the fulfillment of ancient prophecy,
everything that FFOZ believes and is advocating for fails. If the End Times are not near, FFOZ’s leaders
are liars, claiming to know that which Jesus promised us nobody would ever
know. They are not the first to fall
into this trap, it was after all, the false prophecy of Pastor William Miller
that Christ was going to return in 1844 that fueled the era that saw the formation of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses…There can only be one generation in which the
self-proclaimed prophets shouting, “The End is near!” will be right, all the
rest are using fear/anticipation of the End Times as a tool to serve their own
ends.}
When I wanted to allegorize a passage he always pointed
me back to its literal meaning. He
revolutionized my understanding of the Bible.
He gave me an interpretive framework for understanding how the different
books of the Bible work together – he taught me the priority of Scripture; in
other words, which books must be understood first. He showed me how the Torah forms the
foundation upon which all subsequent biblical revelation stands.” – p. 12 (the
“he” in the passage is Daniel’s brother Steven)
{Those who
emphasize the “literal” meaning of the Bible do not have a solid foundation in
proper hermeneutics, whatever they may claim.
The Bible is full of analogy, metaphors, stories, dreams, parables, and
host of other non-literal ways to convey Truth that God chose to utilize. More ominously, Lancaster is advocating for a
belief that the heart of the Bible is Torah, and it alone can be the
interpretive framework (or viewing lens) of any other portion of
scripture. While it is indeed true that
Torah is the beginning of God’s redemptive story, the heart of the story
is the Gospels where the incarnate Word of God comes as Immanuel. The Gospels allow us to more fully understand
God’s previous purposes in choosing Israel and making his covenant with them,
not the other way around. Scripture
requires a Jesus-centric interpretive lens, not a Torah-centric one. And God’s redemptive plan is progressively
unfolds in scripture, it is not static.}
…we will see that according to the way that many of the
church fathers and reformers would define the term, I am a Judaizer. That doesn’t mean that I want to make
Christians into Jews. It simply means
that I am encouraging Christians to return to what I understand to be the
original form of Christianity. I am
teaching Christians that God’s laws, in one fashion or another, apply to
them. The classic church understands a
Judaizer as one who encourages Christians to adopt Jewish practices, such as
observance of the Sabbath and the biblical festivals. According to that definition of the word, I’m
a Judaizer. – p. 14-15
{Many times both
publicly and privately in communication with me, our local Torah Club leaders
and participants have denied that this is the goal and purpose of
FFOZ. They have contradicted Lancaster’s
own admission in a book he wrote and FFOZ published. Here it is in black and white. The Church Fathers and Reformers would have
called Lancaster and FFOZ Judaizers, Lancaster admits this. His goal is to convince Christians of the
need to adopt Jewish observances such as the Sabbath and the Festivals, Lancaster
admits this as well…The obvious conclusion from this line-of-thought is that FFOZ’s
leaders consider themselves to be more authoritative than both
the Church Fathers and the Reformers, once more highlighting the hubris
involved.}
CONVENTIONAL DEFINITION OF A JUDAIZER: One who encourages
Christians to adopt Jewish practices, such as observance of the Sabbath and the
biblical festivals.
BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF A JUDAIZER: One who compels
non-Jews to become Jewish and keep the Torah as Jews in order to merit
salvation. – p. 15
{This
statement is misleading on multiple fronts.
It is typical of the FFOZ use of Straw Men to make their subsequent
arguments feel compelling. There is
indeed a distinction between becoming Jewish through a formal conversion to
Judaism, and living like a Jew through practices like those advocated by
FFOZ. However, when you look at why
FFOZ is trying to convince Christians to join them in living like Jews, the
answer you will find repeatedly in their teaching is that ONLY those who do so
truly love Jesus and keep God’s commands.
It is not, then, necessary to merit salvation, but it is (in their view)
to prove one’s salvation to be genuine, the difference being between what it
takes to become a Christian and what it takes to remain a Christian. In the end, FFOZ is a Judaizing organization
through and through because they teach that these practices are necessary for
every true genuine follower of Jesus…Note this from the same page, “I do not
believe in keeping the Law in order to be saved. I believe in keeping it because I am saved.”
(Lancaster, p. 15-16). If Lancaster
substituted “living righteously” for “keeping the Law” this would be a
perfectly orthodox statement that conforms with the emphasis in James
that, “faith without works is dead.” (James 2:17) As it is, the statement once
again affirms that Lancaster is, as he knows the Church Fathers and Reformers
would have readily concluded, a Judaizer.}
I will be seen as a heretic. According to many Christian authorities,
teaching Christians to keep the biblical laws of Torah is heresy. Wow! How does a person become a heretic? Probably by reading books like this one. Let me encourage you to keep reading
anyway. In the study of Torah, the
conclusion is sometimes less important than the process of study because the
study of Torah is the study of God’s Word. – p. 17
{Lancaster
is aware that what he is teaching is heresy as recognized by the Church. It is shocking to see him write that the
process of studying Torah is more important than the results, when the end
results of his study has been heresy! To
declare the process more important than the results is a man-centered
view. It is important to study God’s
Word with proper methodology, even if your own human failings leave you with faulty
conclusions at times because God is invested in each of us for the long-haul,
but the end result has to matter at some point!
And here’s the rub, Lancaster and FFOZ have declared themselves to be teachers
of God’s Word, the conclusions they have already reached, and are now spreading
to others, are supremely relevant.}
The Jewish people have lived in exile since the age of
the apostles. So has the gospel. The gospel is in exile because, like the
Jewish people, it has been removed from context and disconnected from its point
of origin. – P. 19
{Another
example of FFOZ’s self-awareness that what they are spreading is a “different
gospel” as evidenced by their disdain for the Church’s traditional
understanding of the Gospel.}
In the days of the apostles, Christianity was not yet a
separate religion from Judaism. An
honest reading of the New Testament from a Jewish perspective makes it clear
that the first-century church never thought of itself as separate and excluded
from Judaism. Rather, the early
disciples of Yeshua considered themselves to be at the center of the people of
Israel. The Jewish disciples never
imagined that they were introducing a new religion to replace Judaism. – P. 20
{If the
criteria is an honest reading, and it should be, this entire thesis is
false. The Book of Acts as well
as Paul’s letters present a Church well aware of its own existence, seeking its
own leadership (why else would Paul tell Timothy how to select elders/deacons
when the synagogues already had rabbis?) and path forward, all of this well
before the end of the first generation of believers, at a time when the
Apostles were still alive to object had they felt the need to do so. The Apostles and Jewish Christians of the
first generation may not have viewed their own actions as leaving Judaism per
se, but they didn’t have to leave it, it had left them. They had embraced Jesus as the Messiah, the
majority of their countrymen, and virtually the entire leadership structure of
first-century Judaism had not. They
could not be reconciled with a system that called their Messiah a fraud, they
could not continue to participate in a sacrificial system when Jesus was the
Lamb of God, the full and final sacrifice for sins…None of these discussions of
the attitude of the Apostles with respect to Judaism that Lancaster puts so
much weight in, in any way diminishes their own purposeful role in founding the
Church and in approving of the Spirit’s call to include Gentiles in it with no
preconditions, this too could not be a “branch” or “reform movement” within
Judaism, its leadership would never allow Gentiles to join on an equal footing,
and the Apostles knew this full well.}
He did not institute a new religion, nor did He cancel
the Torah. Instead, He sought to bring
restoration to the ancient faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He diligently sought after the lost sheep of
Israel – those who had turned away from Torah.
He affirmed the words of Moses and brought clarification regarding the
proper observance of God’s Law. His
followers the apostles and the believers, also remained within the parameters
of normative, first-century Jewish expression. – P. 20
{The Straw
Man in use again: the Church does not claim Jesus “canceled” Torah, rather that
he fulfilled it and brought its era of preeminence in God’s redemptive plan to
a close. While Jesus did indeed focus on
the lost sheep of Israel, first, he fully intended that his Gospel would go
forth to the Gentiles and gave that quest to his disciples after his
resurrection. While it is true that they
were stunned by how powerfully the Gospel was being accepted among the
Gentiles, they acknowledged that this was God’s will and sealed that
understanding at the Council of Jerusalem.
Lastly, to say that the Early Church fit within the parameters of normative
first-century Jewish expression would have been a huge shock to those who led
first-century Judaism given how intent they were on snuffing out belief in
Jesus, how determined they were to expel from the synagogues any who showed
signs of devotion to Jesus. How exactly
did Saul of Tarsus receive approval to “root out” the Jewish followers of Jesus
in Damascus if his followers were “within the parameters” of Judaism?…This
historical fantasy is necessary to justify the “restoration” of Judaism plus
Jesus that FFOZ is proclaiming, but it is not based in the reality of what
transpired in the generation after Jesus’ death and resurrection.}
When non-Jews began to enter the faith through the
ministry of Paul of Tarsus, they too congregated in synagogues and embraced the
standards of Judaism. They understood
themselves to be “grafted in” to the nation of Israel and made citizens of the
larger “commonwealth of Israel.”
{Lancaster
offers no Biblical support for this thesis, given that it flies in the face of
Paul’s writings, and relies upon an erroneous interpretation of Romans 11, a
view like this that overturns what we know of history cannot simply be accepted
because it fits with what FFOZ wants to believe happened. Where is the evidence that shows what first
century Gentile followers of Jesus “understood themselves to be”? None is offered, this is an argument from
silence that contradicts what we know of the Early Church from scripture.}
They ruled that ritual conversion (i.e., “circumcision”)
was not required of the Gentile disciples.
Neither were they required to forsake their ethnic identity and become
Jewish. Yet their faith was the faith of
Israel, placed in the Messiah of Israel, and they henceforth practiced the
religion of Israel. They observed the
laws of the Torah that applied to them as Gentiles among the people of Israel. They congregated with the Jewish people and
participated in the life of Torah as God-fearers and sojourners within the
nation. – P. 21
{Another
massive rewriting of history given without a single supporting bit of evidence
from scripture itself, or indeed from any historical source. It also contains the canard that the
Jerusalem Council affirmed Gentile observance of Torah, which is the
opposite of its actual conclusion and its purpose in the narrative of Acts. If we accept this premise for a moment as
true, we are left with the shocking realization that the work of the entire first
few generations of believers was undone by later generations, the work
established by the Spirit (supposedly of Gentile Torah observance) was utterly
forsaken. Where is the evidence of this
massive change? Where are the prophetic
voices calling for a return to Torah observance by the Gentile believers? They
don’t exist because such a massive shift didn’t happen.}
The Jewish war gave rise to the politics of
anti-Semitism. Jews in the Diaspora
became objects of derision, open persecution, and brutality. The war against the Jews further estranged
the Gentile disciples of Yeshua…With the addition of the Fiscus Judaicus tax,
Gentile believers had financial, political, and cultural incentives to distance
themselves from Judaism. – P. 23
{In a
remarkable twist, FFOZ blames the Early Church’s gentiles for abandoning their
supposed role within Judaism out of self-preservation and greed. According to this theory, the Gentile
believers in Jesus were harmoniously worshiping within Jewish synagogues in the
Diaspora until after the outbreak of war in 66 AD. If we saw evidence of this harmony in Acts
or in Paul’s letters we might consider the Revolt to be a proximate cause of
the estrangement that did indeed exist between Judaism and Christianity,
however that tension is evident long before the Revolt, with Paul’s scars from
his beatings as exhibit A.}
Shortly after the Jewish War and the destruction of
Jerusalem, synagogues throughout the world introduced a new benediction in the
daily liturgies. The new prayer
formulated a curse against sectarians – including the believers in Yeshua. The synagogue authorities expelled worshipers
who would not pray the curse…What is worse, the expulsion left believers with
no place to assemble on the Sabbath, or to assemble at all. – P. 23
{This is all
too surreal. The Apostle Paul founded
churches throughout his journeys before the Revolt. In these churches, which met in the homes of
believers, the primarily gentile congregations worshiped Jesus on Sunday, as
had been their practice from the beginning in honor of the Resurrection. They were not a part of the synagogues at any
point because Paul’s preaching of Jesus as the Messiah was universally rejected
there with only a few converts at each attempt.}
By the time the second century began, anti-Jewish
sentiment was so high in the church that most Gentile disciples of Yeshua no
longer wanted to be identified with Jews at all. The first-century believers were long dead
and gone. A new generation had been
raised to view Jews and even Jewishness as the antithesis of Christianity…. Gentile
Christians decided that the Christian church had replaced the Jews as the true
Israel of God. Christians were now the
true people of God; Jews were accursed and consigned to everlasting damnation.
– P. 24
{So,
according to FFOZ, the era of Spirit-led God-honoring worship in accordance
with Torah that Jesus intended and his apostles established
everywhere that Jesus was accepted lasted ONE generation
before being wiped out. In order for
FFOZ to convince people today to abandon the teachings of the Church, they must
portray the second generation of Christians as entirely apostate, as
hate-filled scoundrels… Gentile Christians did not decide what God had
to say about the Jewish people and Israel, they learned how to come to terms
with the Jewish rejection of Jesus as their Messiah through Paul’s own agony in
Romans and his discussion of the New Covenant in Galatians. Jews were not damned because the Church said
so, they were damned because they rejected Jesus, this was the exact same
standard that applied to Gentiles who rejected Jesus.}
Rome made no distinction between Jews and Gentile
believers practicing the Jewish faith.
To survive, it became necessary for Gentile believers to further
disassociate from Judaism. Paul’s
compiled letters, when read outside their original context, provided ample
justifications for that disassociation.
The emerging Christian movement read Paul’s arguments for the inclusion
of Gentiles in the kingdom backward to imply the exclusion of Torah. – P. 25
{The premise
is this: Second century Christians were unaware of the context of Paul’s
letters written one generation earlier.
They were so ignorant of Paul’s actual intent, in fact, that they took
his words to mean the opposite of what Paul intended. We are supposed to believe this ignorance and
folly was possible one generation after the Apostle Paul lived. That’s far too incredible to be actual
history, it is instead merely fantasy…It is true that the Roman Empire at first
didn’t understand the distinction between the monotheists who practiced Judaism
and the monotheists who worshiped the Jewish Messiah, one can hardly blame them
for not understanding the distinction, but that does not mean that they were identical
in the way that they practiced their religion until the second century
believers supposedly abandoned all the Jewish aspects of their faith. Again, the second and third generation of the
Early Church are portrayed as pathetic and weak. That must be a real shock to those martyred
by the Romans at this time, especially since Lancaster (and FFOZ) want you to
believe that they rejected Judaism in order to save their own skins, evidently
that betrayal didn’t work because Roman persecution of Christians was still growing.}
The effort to return to the first-century church is
praiseworthy. It reflects our desire to
conform our lives and religious expression to the authority of the New
Testament. The reformers had good
motives. Their methodology, however, was
flawed. – P. 31
{Speaking of
the Reformation, FFOZ labels Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest as failures.
In fact, they published a book in 2021: Rethinking the Five Solae: Why
Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism,
by Jacob Fronczak that claims that the Five Solae are inherently antisemitic
and in fact cause antisemitism…Why is Scripture Alone (in particular) an
insufficient basis for faith according to FFOZ?
Simple, by reading the New Testament on its own, one cannot arrive at
the conclusions reached by FFOZ, it requires the teachings of rabbis and Jewish
mystics to “inform” our understanding of Bible to conclude, as they have, that
Christianity and the Church were never meant to exist.}
Wherever the Bible was read without theological
manipulation, believers were returning to Torah. Nevertheless, the anti-Jewish faction
prevailed. The return to Torah was
stalled. The gospel would remain in
exile. The time was not yet ripe. Several more centuries would pass before the
momentum returned. – P. 33
{Once more
we see the impotence of the Spirit in FFOZ’s version of Church History. God evidently wanted the Church to “return to
Torah” during the Reformation but hate-filled men thwarted that purpose and
another five centuries without the true Gospel ensued. Again, the only way to accept the case that
FFOZ is proposing is to make the Church Fathers cowardly villains, the
Reformers incompetent, and the Gospel a shell of its intended message for all
but the first generation after Jesus, and now this present one in which FFOZ’s
leadership has revived it. Follow this
path if you will, but know what you’re being asked to believe.}
That’s the story of how the disciples of Yeshua lost the
Torah of Moses, and how we are finding it again. The long exile of the Jewish people is at its
end. The final redemption is just around
the corner. In the same way, the long
exile of the gospel is at an end. Just
as the Jewish people are returning to their native soil, we are returning the
gospel to its original matrix in Judaism and the Torah of Moses. – P. 36
{A story
filled with conjecture, fantasy, and devoid of actual evidence. We return to FFOZ’s certainty that they have
correctly predicted the Second Coming of Jesus (Jesus’ own repeated promise
that this is impossible notwithstanding), and so the establishment of the state
of Israel in 1948 becomes the rationale used to give this vast deviation from
orthodox belief the veneer of divine sanction.
Surely God must want Judaism to be the vehicle of the Gospel, after all
Israel exists again as a nation (so goes the thought). Prophetic supposition is a poor rubric for
theological interpretation. Like the
Jehovah’s Witnesses before them, FFOZ has taken a particular view of the End
Times and used it to subvert the true Gospel and replace it with another.}
Sin, properly defined, is transgression of Torah. – P. 38
{That’s not
a proper definition of sin, certainly not a biblically sufficient one. Sin is
being at variance with the nature and will of God. Sin existed, and those created by God were
held to account because they committed sins against God, long before God gave
the Torah at Sinai. Additionally, Torah cannot
be an all-sufficient explanation of what sin is because God was not finished
revealing his nature and will when Moses died.}
All Scripture is God-breathed and built upon the
revelation of Torah…In traditional Judaism, even the rabbis extended teachings
came to be termed “Torah.” The oral
traditions, customs, and law, including the Talmud and other later writings,
are regarded as additional members of the extended family of Torah. – P. 39-40
{The first
phrase is absolutely true, all scripture is θεοπνευστος(THEOPNEUSTOS),
but the remainder is both too narrow, making Torah the only interpretive lens
available for God’s Word, and too broad, as it makes rabbinical oral tradition
into an authority, even those writings that occurred after the time of Christ
and were written by those who rejected him as Messiah.}
Yeshua Himself is not above the
Torah of God, for it is His own law.
Yeshua is God’s Word made flesh; how then could He teach against God’s
Word? – P. 53
{This
is one reason why the teaching of FFOZ leads toward Subordinationism. They’re so intent upon elevating Torah that
they feel the need to lower Christ and muzzle divine prerogative. Certainly, Jesus would not teach against
the revealed Word of God, but Jesus had every right, as the eternal Logos, as
God himself, to amend, supersede, abrogate, and ultimately fulfill that Word,
as well as the right to establish another, a New Covenant.}
We don’t know exactly how
first-century Galileans conducted a Sabbath synagogue service. Luke chapter 4 provides the oldest existing
description of any synagogue service, and the details there are sparse. – P. 55
{This
is one of the most self-damning admissions from FFOZ. How then could first-century Jewish synagogue
worship be the ONLY acceptable form of worship for followers of Jesus if we
don’t even know what it was that they did?
How could this be the form of worship Jesus intended all of his
followers to imitate, for all time, and there be no accurate description of it? Once again, the plan of God they’re
portraying it is woefully inept.}
Paul did not know that his epistles
would one day be collected as Scripture.
He did not imagine himself writing new books of the Bible. He did not even live long enough to see the
written Gospels produced. As far as Paul
knew, the Hebrew Scriptures were the only Scriptures. – P. 58
{A
bizarre way of downgrading the authority of the writings of the Apostle Paul
(and thus lending more weight to Torah), and also a deeply false
narrative. Peter knew that Paul’s
writings were scripture (2 Peter 3:16), are we supposed to believe that the
Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was entirely ignorant
of his role? Also, the dates of the
writings of the four Gospel accounts are debatable, but even if Paul didn’t
influence the Gospel of Mark, and even if he didn’t live to see a written copy,
he was still deeply aware of the oral traditions of the life of Jesus, he would
have absolutely expected these to be codified into scripture.}
Near the end of his life Paul
declared himself fully obedient to the Torah of Moses. – P. 58
{This
sentence is followed by one of the few citations in the book, in this case it
simply lists Acts 25:8 and Acts 28:17.
In both verses Paul is making a legal argument that he had not done
anything against the Law of Moses or the Jewish traditions, yet was
being persecuted, that is not the same thing as an affirmation that he lived
fully obedient to Torah, something that would have prevented him from becoming,
“like one not having the law…so as to win those not having the law.” (1
Corinthians 9:21) In the end, the oft repeated argument in FFOZ’s published
materials about how the first generation of Jewish Christians, all of whom had
been raised within Judaism, lived the rest of their lives as followers of
Jesus, does NOT automatically convey to both subsequent generations of Jewish
Christians, let alone to any generation of Gentile Christians. They are tilting at windmills, even the thin “proof”
offered by Lancaster does not lend weight to the central argument regarding
Gentile Torah observance.}
They are the standard of
righteousness for which we are to train. – p. 58
{Referring
to the Hebrew Scriptures, and while they certainly contain much wisdom with
respect to the righteousness required of Jesus’ followers, they are not the
full expression of that concept. The
Fruit of the Spirit and the imitation of the life of Jesus are necessarily the
central focus of that pursuit. A common
misunderstanding in all of these arguments from FFOZ in favor of Torah
supremacy is any lack of progressive revelation. In their view, God gave the fullness first,
and everything later is simply an echo, but as the text of Genesis
reveals to us, God began with Adam and Eve and continued to reveal himself more
fully, and explain his will and purpose more clearly, through successive generations,
including those AFTER the Torah was given to Moses, until the final revelation
of grace and truth came in-person through Jesus Christ.}
The correct priority of Scripture
is sequential. We should start at the
beginning. Paul teaches that a later
covenant cannot contradict an earlier covenant. – P. 60
{The
citation offered here, Galatians 3:16-17, is yet another example of Lancaster
misusing scripture in that the Apostle Paul is actually making the argument in
this portion of Galatians as to the supremacy of Abraham’s promise OVER
the Law of Moses which it proceeded, and yet FFOZ’s entire focus is upon
elevating the Mosaic Law, which is not, as Paul emphasizes in Galatians,
God’s original covenant… Also, what is the proof offered that scripture has a
priority, or that if it does, this priority must be sequential? None and none.}
Through the books of Moses, God
made His debut to humanity. – P. 60
{This
is just laziness in service to a pre-determined outcome. God’s revelation to humanity began many years
prior to Moses writing about it. God had
been working with the children of Abraham for hundreds of years prior to the
recording of that prior work in the form of scripture, and as Paul tells us in
Romans 1, Creation was revealing God to humanity from the very beginning.}
Any subsequent revelations,
prophecies, or Scriptures need to be checked against the Torah for
authentication. – P. 61
{Torah
is a flexible word, and here it is being used as a substitute for the Law of
Moses, for it is not the promises to Abraham that consume FFOZ’s efforts, but
the attempt to revive the Mosaic Law, and invalidate any interpretation (even
when that is the plain meaning of subsequent scripture) that does not make the
Mosaic Law normative for all peoples for all time…We also see a further
reminder of the subordination of Jesus, it is not the eternal Logos to whom we
look as we seek to understand God’s Word, but only to Torah according to
Lancaster.}
According to God’s own criteria,
any prophet who contradicts His Torah is a false prophet. Therefore, if we encounter a passage in the
Apostolic Scriptures that appears to contradict an earlier revelation of
Scripture, then we are misunderstanding that passage. – P. 62
{Step
1: Create Straw Man, Step 2: Attack Straw Man…The question is not one of
contradiction, but subsequent fulfillment and amendment by Jesus Christ himself,
and the Apostle Paul speaking through the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit…Through this tactic FFOZ gives themselves permission to flip NT passages
on their head and proclaim them to mean the opposite of the author’s intention
because this counter-intuitive interpretation is upholding (in their view at
least) Torah whereas the way in which the Church has understood Romans, Ephesians,
Galatians, Hebrews, etc. for 2,000 does not (in their view).}
This is not to say that one
Scripture is more important than another.
It does not mean that Torah is more important than the Gospels or the
Epistles. But it does mean that Torah
must be regarded first, because it was given first. – P. 62
{You
can say all scripture is equal, but in reality it isn’t when the interpretation
of it is coming from FFOZ. Torah is
always superior, always what reinterprets even the words of Jesus into
conformity. In practice, Torah is the
only true Scripture, the only full revelation.}
If we pull Torah out from under
them, they all collapse, and we are left with a hopeless jumble of confusing
Scripture that seem to contradict one another. – P. 62
{I
honestly have no idea what seeming contradictions that Lancaster is trying to
scare his readers with. This reminds me
of what the apostate Bart Ehrman claims in his many books: If we don’t have a
perfectly preserved Bible, we don’t have the Word of God. A scare tactic, but nothing that true faith
need worry about. The same holds true
here.}
The bedrock on which the Bible
stands is the revelation at Mount Sinai. – P. 63
{Wow. It deserves another, wow. That isn’t even accurate within the Torah
itself. The heart of the Torah is God’s
promise to Abraham in Genesis 12. At
least he’s being honest and telling us where his love of scripture is
centered. Personally, my heart is in the
Gospels, in the story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, and that is the
true Cornerstone of our faith. “On Christ
the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”}
When one realizes that God
discloses Himself to the world in the Torah, one must also recognize the
enormous gravity of declaring parts of that same Torah null or void. Even the smallest commandment of the Torah
comes to us suffused with godliness. To
declare any commandment as irrelevant or obsolete denies the eternal and
unchanging nature of God. As soon as we
begin to discard commandments, we have begun editing God. We have started reshaping God into an image
we deem more appropriate. – P. 70
{Where
to begin, the uses of “null”, “void”, “irrelevant”, “obsolete”, and “discard” is
both inflammatory and once again a Straw Man.
That is not what the historic and orthodox understanding of the New
Covenant has done with the Law of Moses.
Most importantly, and this is key, this entire rant is man-centric,
it is all about what people choose to do with God’s revelation, but it ignores
the elephant in the room: God is the one who declared that the Law of Moses
need not apply to those who came to Jesus Christ by faith. This was not a human choice but the unfolding
of the will of God, as revealed in the New Testament, which is just as much God’s
Word as Torah.}
When we try to change the Torah or
do away with a commandment, it is God we are trying to change or do away with.
– P. 71
{Set
aside for a moment that neither Daniel Lancaster, nor any of his followers or competitors
in the Hebrew Roots Movement are fully keeping the Law of Moses as it is
written. They’re all falling short of
this, and not just because Paul declares nobody can keep the Law in Romans,
but because nobody in the world today is living like a first-century Jew (see
above where Lancaster admits that nobody knows what the first century synagogue
liturgy consisted of), and because it is far more accurate to talk about first
century Judaism as a spectrum rather than a monolith…In the end, what we have
here is a form of idolatry with respect to the Torah. It has been elevated so high by Lancaster
(and FFOZ) that not even God can develop it further, not even God (through the
inspired writings of the NT) can move beyond the model established at Sinai.}
Deuteronomy 4:5-8 says that when
Israel lives out the Torah, the world will see God. – P. 71
{A true
enough statement with respect to Israel, it does not, however, as Lancaster
contends here, mean that God intended Torah to be the final way in which he
would make himself known through his people.
Jesus himself updated this formula when he told his followers, “By this
everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John
13:35)}
The Messiah reconciles the human
race to God’s Torah. The ultimate
completion of His work will occur when the Natural Law of human society is
identical to the revealed law of Torah…This is the promise of the new covenant.
– P. 71
{Again,
we see Torah elevated to near idolatry. Jesus
does NOT reconcile the world to Torah, he reconciles it to himself, to
God. How do I know this? The Apostle Paul proclaimed it:
Corinthians
5:18-20 All this is from God, who
reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of
reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not
counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of
reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were
making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled
to God.
The
work of the New Covenant is the creation of brothers and sisters of Jesus
Christ, the enlargement of God’s family by the transformation of hearts and
minds to Christ-likeness, not Torah-likeness.
Jesus is our guide, our direction, our purpose. We will be like him, the Spirit’s power ensures
it. Romans 8:14-30 spells this out in
great detail, it is the purpose to which God is working EVERYTHING, the one
goal (telos) of history, “that he might be the firstborn among many brothers
and sisters.”}
The Spirit will never lead us to
break Torah. – P. 73
{The
word choice frames the discussion, “break” is a pejorative term, but if God
himself has decreed that portions of his Law as given to Israel no longer will
apply in the New Covenant, nobody is “breaking” anything.}
James calls the Torah the “perfect
Torah” and the “Torah of liberty.” – p. 76
{The
common word substitution fallacy employed again and again by FFOZ. It is not acceptable to substitute Torah for
Law in the writings of the NT whenever it is convenient to fit a point you’re
trying to make. In fact, in its context,
there is no reason to believe that James is thinking about the Law of Moses
(rather than the whole counsel of God, including the words of Jesus) when he
writes, “But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom,
and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will
be blessed in what they do.” James 1:25}
Our new creation identity is
premised on the notion that the Messiah now dwells within us, is being formed
within us, and lives through us. This
raises an important implication. There
is a Torah-observant, Jewish person dwelling within you! – P. 79
{This conflation
of the parts of the Trinity is a common problem with Lancaster/FFOZ, in the
previous paragraph he acknowledged that it is the Spirit that dwells within
believers, but chooses here to say that it is Jesus because it will allow him
to not very subtly hint that we must be Torah observant, “Just like Jesus.”}
It seems that the Apostle John
alludes to the Torah, to him, the Word of God is first and foremost the Torah…The
Torah is the Word that God spoke. All
things are made through God’s Word because He spoke His Word as recorded in the
Torah, and all things came into being.
The Torah is the will and wisdom of God; it is His self-disclosure to
the world. As such, it is the extension
of His being. – P. 80
{The
reference to John is about the prologue to the Gospel of John. The Logos of John 1 is not Torah, that’s not
even close to a proper exegetical analysis of that passage. Here instead we have a bizarre melding
together of Jesus, the Word, and Torah, that results in having Torah become
almost its own living thing, a personified mystical expression of God’s
being. Lancaster gets this view from
extra-biblical rabbinic literature, here it is used as the lens through which
John 1 is interpreted.}
This interpretation is consistent
with how the earliest believers understood Messiah. Clement of Alexandria, one of the early
church fathers, quotes a passage he ascribes to Peter when he says, “And in the
preaching of Peter you may find the Master is called ‘Torah and Word.’” – P. 81
{Ok,
that’s a big claim, normally FFOZ has only extremely derogatory things to say
about the Church Fathers, so what did Clement say in Stromata (1.29.182)? It turns out the term used by Clement is nomos
(law) not Torah, “And in the Preaching of Peter you will find the Lord called
Law and Word.” This is an accurate
translation from Greek to English, but Lancaster /FFOZ have vested interest in
the word substitution fallacy.}
Yeshua is not the same as the
written Torah of Moses, but He is of the same essence as the Torah. One might speak of the five books of the
Torah of Moses as the ‘Written Torah’ and Yeshua as the ‘Living Torah.’ He is the Living Torah in that He emanates
from the same source as the written Torah; that is, God’s divine Word. – P. 81
{The
claim that Jesus “emanates” from the divine Word is bizarre, it only really
makes sense if one abandons the Trinity and embraces the ancient heresy of
Modalism. How can Jesus, God from God,
light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made (to quote the
Nicene Creed) be of the same “essence” as the Torah and how can he “emanate”
from the Word when he is the Word???}
The Living Torah writes the
commandments of the written Torah onto our hearts. That is Messiah being formed within us.” - P.
81
{We
have, in our opposition to the Torah Clubs/FFOZ been told many times that they
don’t teach that Torah observance is necessary for salvation. How else could one interpret this claim? If becoming Christ-like is having the Law of
Moses written on your heart, how could observing it fully not be necessary to
demonstrate salvation? This teaching is
far more radical than the public impression of being, “just a Bible study.”}
If there is no universal standard
of right and wrong, how could God have punished the Gentiles in the story of
Noah? - P. 83
{This
quote is followed by several other examples of people judged by God without
knowledge of Torah. The answer is no
mystery at all, that Lancaster seriously asks it demonstrates a shocking
ignorance of biblical theology on the part of someone claiming to be a
teacher/prophet. Paul makes the case in
Romans 1 that general revelation was more than sufficient for God to judge
humanity before special revelation was given.
Romans
1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness
and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since
what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his
eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from
what has been made, so that people are without excuse.}
No one thought the Torah was
canceled, and no one suggested that Jewish believers in Yeshua no longer needed
to observe the Torah’s commandments. The
argument was about something else altogether.
The argument was about whether or not Gentile believers should be
required to become Jewish and keep the whole Torah, just as the Jewish
believers did. – P. 91
{Here
the book of Acts and the writings of Paul are framed in a way that makes
other arguments put forth by FFOZ seem more plausible. The problem, however, is that this isn’t
based in history, let alone the text of the NT itself. Paul may not have used the pejorative
“canceled”, but he certainly wrote about the fulfillment of the Law and the
freedom that was now to be enjoyed by those in Christ. Likewise, the writer of Hebrews
extensively lays out the case that not only was Christ the superior form of all
things related to the Mosaic Law (Priest, Temple, sacrifice), but that everyone
who had ever been justified was justified by faith (as is Paul’s consistent
message as well)…The argument at the Jerusalem Council was NOT about whether or
not Gentile Christians needed to become Jewish, it was about whether or not ANY
preconditions could be placed upon them related to the Mosaic Law’s ceremonial
and purity regulations and the answer from James and the whole council was an
emphatic, “No.”…This whole line of argument is in service of the false reading
of Paul’s writings where Lancaster and FFOZ will claim that Paul’s only concern
is circumcision and full Gentile conversion, that in fact he was in favor of
Gentiles keeping every aspect of the Law except circumcision. This is a false reading of Paul, and one that
has a massive internal fallacy, as if the Law of Moes is eternal, for all
peoples and all times, except circumcision?
How can we possibly justify NOT including circumcision if “living like
Jesus” means full Torah observance for everyone? Lancaster and FFOZ have no answer for why
circumcision is allowed to be “replaced” by baptism when the Law of Moses is supposedly
immutable and eternal.}
Paul believed that Gentiles needed
to keep the basic ethical standards of the Torah – essentially the equivalent of
the seven Noachide [sic] laws – but they did not need to keep the commandments
specifically given to the Jewish people as identity markers and tokens of the
covenant, such as the sign of circumcision, the Sabbath and holy days, and the
complex dietary laws, various Levitical regulations, and ceremonial regulations.
– P. 92
{This
is a true statement, and an accurate assessment of Paul’s theology. It will be undermined, however, by the rest
of Restoration and the ongoing teaching of FFOZ. Lancaster can see the truth, but won’t hold
onto it.}
Simon Peter interpreted this event
as God’s own testimony on behalf of the Gentile believers. It indicated that He received them as they
were, without any contingencies about future circumcision or conversion or Torah.
– P. 94
{Another
accurate understanding of Acts 10 as Peter recognizes God’s hand at work in the
household of Cornelius. And yet, this
too will be undermined and discarded by Lancaster and FFOZ.}
The decision exempted the Gentiles
from circumcision and the particular commandments that pertain specifically to
Jewish identity. It prohibited the
Jewish believers from forcing those issues on Gentiles. Nevertheless,
the apostles did not forbid the Gentiles from voluntarily participating in the
Sabbath, the dietary laws, or any aspect of Torah-life. – P. 95
{Emphasis
mine. Also an accurate description of
James’ verdict at the Council of Jerusalem, but it is immediately discarded by
the next sentence, where “nevertheless” wipes out the previously stated views
of Paul, Peter, and now James. All will
be set aside in favor of “voluntary” observance of Torah by Gentiles that is then
elevated beyond “voluntary” by teaching that all true disciples who love Jesus
will want to participate, in fact, that all true disciples will participate (so
much for “divine permission” instead of “divine mandate.”}
The Gentile believers were more
than “sons of Noah” or simple God-fearers.
Through his allegiance to King Messiah, a Gentile believer entered into
close fellowship with the Jewish people and became an adjunct member of the
nation. In the language of the Torah, he
became a ger toshav, i.e., “a stranger who sojourns among you.” – P. 96
{Immediately
after stating the teaching of Paul, Peter, and James AGAINST this idea,
Lancaster begins to weave a narrative they would have rejected. For FFOZ, the idea of the “sojourner in the
land” does a lot of heavy lifting to justify Gentile Torah observance. No NT writer makes this claim, or even
mentions the idea, and almost none of the Gentile followers of Jesus were
living IN the Promised Land itself.
Supposition is being used to overrule the stated beliefs of the
Apostles, conjecture to overturn the clear teaching of scripture.}
Since Gentile believers have been
“grafted in” to the nation, - P. 100
{The
oft cited non-contextual false interpretation of Romans 11, Lancaster and FFOZ must
simply assume this to be what Paul means, without it their whole system will
crash and burn.}
It’s absolutely wrong to say that
the Torah does not apply to Gentile believers.
When we combine all of the seven Noachide [sic] laws and their various derivatives
with the four laws of the apostolic decree and all of their implications, we
discover that many of the Torah’s 613 commandments, particularly the
prohibitions, do apply directly to Gentile believers and are incumbent upon
them. Therefore, one cannot say that the
Torah is only incumbent upon the Jewish people.
Most of the Torah’sprohibitions apply equally to both
Jews and Gentile Christians. – P. 101
{Emphasis
mine. Here we have an argument that
works against the belief of Lancaster and FFOZ that the Torah is
unchangeable and universally mandated.
How can Torah be a direct reflection of God’s nature (in all of its parts,
an argument Lancaster made just a few pages ago) and yet only “most of” it
apply to Gentiles? Either it stands for
all time and all peoples, or it can be modified (by Jesus, who certainly had
the authority, as is the orthodox belief).
How you get from the ethical standards given to Noah and the 4
prohibitions in the Jerusalem Council to the 613 commandment of the Mosaic Law
is beyond me. 11 is not “most of” the
way to 613. Ultimately, it is not the
ethical standards of the Mosaic Law that are at issue, those have always been
embraced by orthodoxy, it is the cultural distinctives, the marks of the
Covenant, precisely the types of things NOT covered by Noah or the Jerusalem
Council that Lancaster and FFOZ want to lay upon Gentile Christians as a
yoke. The gap between scripture and
their position on this issue is enormous.}
James maintained that the
God-fearing Gentile believers should be held to the legal standard that the
Torah applies to a stranger in the midst of Israel even if they lived outside
the geographic borders of the nation state. – P. 102
{Thus
in Lancaster’s thinking, Acts 15:21 flips the entire Council of Jerusalem from
a statement that prohibited placing extra burdens (i.e. Torah
observance) on the backs of new Gentile believers, to a statement that requires
just that. Set aside that this topic is
never brought up in the NT writings, never commented upon, let alone affirmed
by Paul. Acts 15:21, contrary to
Lancaster’s view, can readily be interpreted as the rationale for James asking
the new Gentile Christians to respect the well known teachings of Judaism so as
to not cause offense to the Jewish Diaspora, no more than this is request for
kindness is needed to understand his motivation or the plain words of the Greek
text of Acts.}
In those days, the Gentile
believers still assembled within those synagogues. They considered the synagogues (both
messianic and non-messianic) as their houses of worship. – P. 102
{As is
the case throughout the book, Lancaster offers no historical proof of these
thesis, no archaeological finds, no writings of the Church Fathers, no evidence
from the NT. The claim fails the smell
test: Why would Jewish communities who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah
welcome and influx of Gentile believers in Jesus into their midst? When they violently opposed Paul again and
again, how are we to believe that the Gentile Christians worshiped among them
in peace? Did the Gentile Christians
muzzle themselves and say nothing about Jesus while worshiping in the
synagogues year after year? In those
synagogues, they would find no instruction about the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus, how could this be what Jesus and the Apostles intended
for them (instead of the Church which Paul labors so long and hard to build)?}
James took Gentile participation in
Sabbath and synagogue Sabbath services as a forgone conclusion. The apostles did not require the Gentile
believers to observe the Sabbath, but they assumed that they would celebrate
the LORD’s holy day to some extent. They
assumed that the Gentile believers would attend the prayer services and
Scripture readings as they participated in Torah life along with the Jewish
people, in accordance with the custom of the Master. As yet, no alternative, competing holy days
existed. The God-fearing Gentile believers
participated in almost every aspect of Torah life – whether or not they were
obligated to do so. – P. 102-103
{The
last sentence is a subtle attempt to argue later for that supposed
obligation. As with the rest of the
book, no portion of the NT is quoted in support, nothing from the Church
Fathers, just another bold statement that fails to fit within what we read in
the NT, particularly in Acts where the Church very early worshiped on
Resurrection Day, calling it the Lord’s Day…The fantasy version of Christian
history, we can’t call it Church History when they contend that the Church was
never meant to exist, actually we can’t call it Christian history, as
Christianity wasn’t meant to exist either.
Ok, so the fantasy version of the history of the followers of Jesus
(Yeshua), sees both Jew and Gentile alike worship on the Sabbath in synagogues
until the 2nd century, where both those who believed in Jesus and
those who rejected him utterly live in harmony, all together observing Torah,
until evil men destroyed this symbiosis with Judaism and created the Church and
Christianity to take its place. It may
not be calling the Moon Landing fake, but it is a total fantasy, a theory
without proof, but a fiction necessary for the conclusions to come from
Lancaster (and FFOZ) that the Gospel proclaimed by the Church has always been illegitimate.}
Now, for the first time in
centuries, we are beginning to understand the real intention behind Paul’s
epistles and the decision in Acts 15.
The apostles agreed that Gentile believers did not need to undergo
circumcision and full obligation to the Torah as Jews. The obvious corollary requires that Jewish
believers are obligated to observe the Torah. The thought that a Jewish believer might also
be exempt from the whole yoke of Torah did not enter the minds of the apostles.
– P. 106
{Emphasis
original. If you think the statement,
“the real intention behind Paul’s epistles,” is ominous and radical, you’d be
correct. In the end, Lancaster and FFOZ
will twist Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. into pretzels
to claim they mean the opposite of what the Church has taught for two thousand
years. In addition, we see again the
misrepresentation of the Council of Jerusalem, which did far more than simply eliminate
full conversion to Judaism as an option, it forbade ANY
preconditions for Gentile believers…The twisted version of the Jerusalem
Council is used, without evidence from any other NT text or any Christian
theologian, to claim that the Apostles never even thought about the yoke of
Torah being taken from Jewish Christians.
This too is false, and while any Jewish Christian may participate in any
aspect of Torah observance as a cultural/ethnic practice, it is not an ethical
question of obedience or sin if they do or do not do so. Ephesians 2:14-18 is one of the relevant
passages from the hand of Paul that speaks of Jesus creating, “one new humanity
out of the two.”}
The things that define Christian
life are Torah-based. For the most part,
the Christian life is one of Torah lived out. – P. 110
{One
can indeed find the foundations of what Jesus taught in the Torah, as the
eternal Word of God we entirely expect this from him, but Jesus repeatedly gave
to his followers a “new commandment” that went beyond the requirements of Torah,
that strove with matters of the heart and not just the letter of the Law. Christian life surpasses the Torah, by
design, because we have been given the Holy Spirit. The irony here is that our obligation before
God is HIGHER than Torah observance, but FFOZ wants to impose these exterior
observances under the mistaken premise that they are the true full form of
devotion to Jesus.}
The apostles never intended to see
the Gentile believers divorced from Judaism.
Acts 15 was meant to keep Jews and Gentiles together, not to separate
Gentiles into a new religion. – P. 112
{One
part of this statement is true: The Apostles wanted Jewish and Gentile
Christians to be one body. The other is
false, false because the Jewish Christians were already aware that they had no
home in Judaism. First Century Judaism had already rejected their Messiah, and
while the Temple was still sacred ground for them as a place to gather for
prayer, they no longer answered to the Sanhedrin, nor required the services of
the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood, no sacrifice for sin remained, none was
needed by a single follower of Jesus, Jew or Gentile. The curtain in the Temple had been torn
(Matthe 27:51) at the death of Jesus, the way to God no longer ran through the
priesthood.}
The church lost all of that
surprisingly early in the development of Christianity…Christianity lost her
connection to Torah and the Jewish people.
This happened in fulfillment of the Master’s words. (followed by a
quotation of Matthew 24:9-12) – P. 112-113
{Thus,
Lancaster and FFOZ make their case for the impotency of the Holy Spirit. It only took a couple of generations for the
entirety of the purpose of Jesus and the Apostles to be subverted and
destroyed. Did the Church move away from
Judaism? Absolutely, but this began
while the Apostles were living, it was not an act of defiance of their
work. From this second century failure,
in the minds of FFOZ, the Gospel will go into captivity until they were personally
chosen by God to bring it back into the light and usher in the End Times. The hubris on their part is astounding, the
lack of faith in the Early Church, in our ancestors in the faith who remained
true to the Gospel in the face of Roman oppression, is telling. They have all the faith in the world in
themselves, none in those who claimed Christ as Lord in generations past.}
They are things we all lost a long
time ago, and I am obligated to restore them to you. – P. 113
{While
I have been criticized for having certainty with respect to orthodoxy,
something I did not create nor does it rest upon my wisdom or authority, the
leaders of FFOZ, including Daniel Lancaster, have a towering sense of their own
self-importance, in their own rightness in opposition to the entirety of Church
History. It is just this sort of
self-aggrandizement that pushes FFOZ from being a heretical sect (which it also
is) to being a dangerous cult.}
Paul says that the Sabbath is a
shadow of things to come and the substance of Messiah. The Sabbath is about the Messiah. Therefore, the Sabbath has something for all
the followers of Messiah – both Jews and Gentiles. – P. 116
{The
note in the text offers Colossians 2:16-17 as justification for this statement,
“16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with
regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17
These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is
found in Christ.” This is once again
twisting Paul around to the opposite of his meaning. Paul calls Sabbath keeping a shadow of what
was to come, but reality, Jesus, has now come.
He is here. He is our rest and we
rest in him. The idea of taking a
Sabbath rest, as outlined in the creation account in Genesis has value
to Christians, as a principle, but the literal observance of it according to
the Law of Moses is not at all what Paul is trying to say in Colossians where
he warns AGAINST those who would judge others based upon religious observances…Also,
Paul does not say that Sabbath “is the substance of Messiah.” How he gets that from Colossians 2:16-17 is a
mystery to me.}
Gentile believers…keep the Sabbath
along with the Jewish people as a sign of solidarity with the people of God and
as servants of our Master Yeshua, as it says, “So that your male servant and
your female servant may rest as well as you.” (Deuteronomy 5:14) – P. 116
{Having
been accused, many times, wrongly, of teaching Replacement Theology, it is
ironic to see Lancaster applying commands given to the theocratic kingdom of
Israel as if they apply now equally to Gentile believers. In contrast, orthodoxy sees the distinction
between what the Mosaic Law commanded of Israel, a specific people in a
specific time and place, and what God requires of the disciples of Jesus, a new
people called from the ends of the earth, an act of God’s grace that goes
beyond his previous work through Israel.}
The Sabbath is not burdensome, as
some suppose. The Master of the Sabbath
declares, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you
rest.” (Matthew 11:28) – P. 116
{The
problem here is that Jesus in Matthew 11 is not talking about Sabbath keeping,
but rather about the far more profound rest that our souls can find in
him. It is not our weary bodies that he
offers rest to, but our lost souls and our striving toward
self-righteousness…In that respect, this use of Matthew 11:28 also twists
Jesus’ words around to the opposite meaning, making them about human obedience
to an external code rather than Christ’s sufficiency.}
The apostles teach that the Sabbath
foreshadows things that come. The book
of Revelation tells us that the coming of Messiah will institute a one
thousand-year era of peace – the kingdom on earth, also called the Messianic
Era. This one thousand-year era can be
compared to the Sabbath. The six days of
the week correspond to the six thousand years of redemptive history. “With the Lord one day is like a thousand
years, and a thousand years like one day,” Peter reminds us (2 Peter 3:8). The seventh-day Sabbath foreshadows the
coming kingdom of heaven on earth – the Messianic Era. – P. 117
{Here
we see the numerology that has led Lancaster and FFOZ to conclude that the End
Times are nigh (despite Jesus’ warning that such knowledge is impossible). Because he evidently believes in Young Earth
Creationism, he concludes that God’s work with humanity has lasted for six
thousand years, and thus we stand on the precipice of the Sabbath thousand
years. Creative, I suppose, IF we knew
the exact age of the earth (we don’t) and IF God wanted mankind to know when
Christ was going to return (he doesn’t).}
Nowhere in the Bible does it say,
or even imply, that Yeshua or His followers met and worshiped on Sunday. – P.
121
{This
combines a Red Herring and simple ignorance of the history of the Early Church. Of course, Jesus didn’t meet on Sunday with
his disciples to worship, Sunday worship came about in honor of his
resurrection, prior to this it would not have had any relevance. However, evidence of Sunday worship can be
found in Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, and Revelation 1:10…It is a canard
utilized by FFOZ to contend that the followers of Jesus didn’t worship on
Sunday until Constantine made it so, but by then this common practice of the
Church was a dozen generations in the rear-view mirror.}
When we realize that the substance
of the appointed times is Messiah, we are more inclined to keep them. It becomes a matter of discipleship. – P. 137
{One of
a host of examples where the supposed FFOZ teaching of Divine Permission (i.e.
that Gentiles are allowed to keep Torah, that is, live like Jews) gives way to
the previous FFOZ support for Divine Mandate (i.e. that Gentiles must/should
keep Torah if they truly love Jesus).
The Torah’s reminders of Jewish
identity are not commandments that apply directly to Gentiles. There’s nothing at all wrong with observing
these things, and many Gentiles in the Messianic movement do so. When I first learned about the Torah, I was
eager to wear a tallit, put up a mezuzah, and wrap tefillin just like everyone
else. For many years I did, but I found
that when Gentile disciples of Yeshua adopt Jewish identity markers, it
confuses everyone, including the Gentile disciple. It makes others think that he is Jewish, and
it makes the Gentile think of himself as the same as a Jew. For that reason, I now choose not to observe
these particular identity-marking commandments. – P. 146
{While it
is refreshing to hear that Lancaster is aware of the confusion caused by
Gentiles living like Jews, and that he is willing to listen to Paul in Romans
14 and limit himself accordingly so as not to cause others to stumble, this
conclusion does NOT at all fit within the theological framework of FFOZ. Afterall, according to FFOZ these identity
markers are commandments, part of the immutable and eternal Law
of Moses, necessary if we are to imitate Christ, that would thus be required of
every believer, Jew or Gentile. To obey
them should not be a matter of conscience, IF they are a reflection of God’s
nature and not subject to any deviation for any reason. I’m glad he made the choice, for the sake of
others, but in his own book he offers reasons why he shouldn’t have done so
according to his worldview.}
Many Gentile believers choose to
take on more than just that minimum standard.
The Didache (a first-century Apostolic-era catechism for new Gentile
disciples) recommends that Gentile believers, while not technically obligated
to do so, should consider voluntarily adopting Jewish dietary standards:
Concerning food, bear what you can, but scrupulously guard yourself from what
has been offered to idols, because it is the worship of dead gods (Didache
6:2-3) – P. 149
{The
minimum standard he’s talking about are the restrictions put in place by the
Jerusalem Council. This singular
reference to the Didache, that doesn’t actually mention Jewish dietary
laws at all, is typical of the house of cards erected by FFOZ to reach
conclusions not at all envisioned by the original authors. From this they contend that the Early Church
urged all Gentile believers to keep the dietary laws, this of course without a
single reference in the NT to any such practice.}
On the other hand, the thought of
all that might feel overwhelming. Don’t
be discouraged. You don’t have to try to
take on everything all at once. Just
take one step at a time. Every step
toward God and His Word is a step in the right direction. – P. 151
{This
is a mind-blowing statement. (1)
Lancaster admits that his end goal is for Gentile believers to fully keep Torah,
“take on everything,” and live like Jews.
I have pointed this out again and again, but local Torah club leaders
and participants continue to insist that I’m making it up. (2) Lancaster believes that failure to keep
the whole Torah is sin, and yet he is encouraging people to take “baby steps”
toward not sinning?? Is this his idea of
discipleship, “just sin a bit less for now, don’t worry about it”? (3)
Lancaster also reveals that his idea of Christ-likeness, i.e. moving toward
God, is bound up primarily in Torah keeping.
Whereas the Apostle Paul is fixated on the Fruit of the Spirit,
Lancaster’s obsession is the Law of Moses.}
Some expositors try to make these
words say something other than what they say: But the Midrash Rabbah… - P. 153
{In
reference to Matthew 5:17-19. It is part
of a long section where Lancaster interprets Jesus’ words in the Gospel of
Matthew based upon the assumption that Jesus was referencing a midrash
(commentary on the text) about Solomon from Deuteronomy 17. While an interesting theory, Lancaster treats
this Midrash as authoritative, letting it restrict what the Gospel of Matthew
could mean.}
He pointed out that Solomon and men
like him are temporal and passing, but the Law of God is eternal. – P. 157
{The
Word of God stands forever, God and his nature do not change, but that’s not
the same as saying that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, which is where FFOZ and
Lancaster veer off into making an idol of Torah (which for them is almost
exclusively the Mosaic Law) by depicting it nearly with as much finality as
Muslims speak of the Quran.}
His reinterpretation of the Torah
gave him permission to ignore the Rule of Law.
He considered himself above the literal meaning of the commandment
because he understood the text at a “deeper” level. – P. 159
{Here
the Midrash about Solomon is taken as fact, and is used to both judge the
thoughts and motives of Solomon AND take a shot at any Christian who looks at
the principles upon with the Law of Moses were built rather than the specific
manifestations of them. Also, anytime
someone talks about the “literal meaning” of the Bible the hair on the back of
my neck stands up, very few good ideas come after a rant about the “literal
meaning” largely because that’s not an exegetical rubric that fits with true
scholarship. We could talk about the
historical context, about the grammatical context, and perhaps about the
plain/evident meaning of a text, but the term “literal” has scant meaning with
respect to a text full of idioms, analogies, allegories, parables, poetic language,
and the like.}
Unlike most of us, Bonhoeffer
refused to trivialize and explain away the words of the Master. He took Yeshua literally. Bonhoeffer did not feel the need to be wiser
than Yeshua. He did not try to be
smarter than the gospel. He did not
substitute rationalization for obedience.
Because of that, Bonhoeffer met martyrdom in the death camps of Nazi
Germany while most of his seminary colleagues were goose-stepping around with
swastikas on their uniforms. Bonhoeffer
believed in the Rule of Law, and to him, a theology that did not confess the
Rule of Law was a theology of “cheap grace.” – P. 160
{If you
don’t embrace Gentile Torah observance, you’re no better than the German
Christians who embraced the Nazis. Not
very subtle this time. Wow, in addition
to twisting Bonhoeffer’s words (this follows a quote from The Cost of Discipleship),
it totally misappropriates what he was trying to teach about “cheap grace,” to
make a point that Bonhoeffer would never have tolerated, he would have been
horrified to have his words used to promote legalistic Torah observance. Yes, Lancaster is using “literally”, again. He also is literally comparing those who
don’t see Matthew 5:17-19 as a call by Jesus for everyone to live like Jew,
with those who went along with the Nazis…And yes, the use of Bonhoeffer’s
martyrdom to bolster Lancaster’s cause is disturbing as well. Bonhoeffer died for his own reasons, for his
own convictions and faith, not to enable Lancaster, or anyone else, to use his
blood to make their own unrelated point.
We see this same troubling trend every MLK Jr. day when politicians and
pundits latch on to him to promote ideas that MLK Jr. opposed during his life.}
Typically we reconcile the problem
by dividing the Torah into three domains of legislation. The Torah contains laws pertaining to
morality, laws pertaining to civil government, and laws pertaining to
ceremony…The three-fold explanation has one serious flaw. There are not three Torahs. There is only one Torah. The Torah makes no distinction between
different categories of laws. – P. 167
{Here
Lancaster addresses the question of why Christians are willing to affirm that
Homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22) but not the failure to keep kosher
(Dt. 14:3): Christians distinguish between different categories in the Law of
Moses. Lancaster, and FFOZ, reject this effort. While these distinctions are ones that every
Reformation era credal statement embraces, Lancaster see only a timeless Torah
that would be instantly back in full-force should the people of Israel create a
new Temple, priesthood, and Sanhedrin.
However, we do not live in a theocracy, nor do any of the NT authors
suggest that Jesus’ followers should seek to establish one. We are not a specific ethnic people living in
a specific place, we are called out of every nation around the globe. To say that the Law of Moses must be
all-or-nothing, that God’s only program is one he crafted for a kingdom in the
Ancient Near East, is not only contrary to the vision of Jesus and the NT
authors, reinstituting that program would end any hope of a pluralistic society
where Freedom of Religion is valued.
While this idea may appeal to “Christian” Nationalist, it certainly does
not to this Baptist pastor.}
God has not distinguished between
ritual laws and ethical laws, but we have.
And because we have, it is possible for some theologians and seminarians
to condone homosexuality even in the clergy of the church. Any Scriptures condemning such behavior can
be readily dismissed as antiquated ceremonial laws, not part of the essential
morality of the Bible. Following this
line of reasoning, nothing can be said to be absolutely wrong or right. Rather, everything is subject to possible
interpretation and dismissal as part of the obsolete body of ceremonial
legislation. By dividing the Word of God
into arbitrary categories, some of which we have declared no longer valid, we
have dug our own theological grave and handed the shovel to the opponents of
the gospel. – P 168
{Lancaster
goes full-on Culture War “sky is falling!!” fearmonger. IF we don’t embrace Torah observance,
Lancaster is in essence saying, the “Libs” will win. Any argument for a theological position that
is in actuality a political or cultural argument, is inherently suspect and
weak. This one happens to also be a poor
discussion of the theology of homosexuality as well. The NT authors did not base their views on
this topic on the Law of Moses. They
could have, but they didn’t. Instead, when
Jesus in the Gospel, and Paul in his epistles, want to talk about sexuality and
marriage, they turn to God’s created order and the Genesis account. In the end, Lancaster’s whole point is a Red
Herring, an attempt to elicit fear on the part of the reader that is no
different than the political tripe we hear from those bemoaning a loss of
cultural hegemony in the West who claim that Christianity needs a strong-man
dictator like Viktor Orban or Vladimir Putin to “save” it. We don’t need Torah observance to defend the
authority of God’s Word, the Church has managed to stand up for what God’s Word
teaches on a host of issues for two thousand years, fear of changing cultural
norms about sexuality is not a reason to embrace the theological heresy that
Lancaster is promoting.}
If, however, we maintain that the
Torah is unchanging and immutable, as our Master did, we find ourselves on
firmer ground. – P. 169
{The
thesis from Lancaster: The Culture War justifies taking up the yoke of the Law
of Moses. At least he’s made his
argument out in the open so we can evaluate it.
The answer is, “No, no it doesn’t.”
In addition, we have here repeated the false claim that Jesus believed
that Torah was unchanging and immutable.
And yet, he himself is the Word of God, the author and finisher of our
faith. He himself instituted a new
commandment, a new institution (the Church) and a New Covenant. The argument Lancaster is making would appeal
to Christian Fundamentalists, whose answer to modernity was greater legalism
(for example, the retreat into a King James Only attitude), but it is not one
that fits with who Jesus was or what he said and did.}
The New
Testament metaphorically refers to Yeshua’s suffering
and death as a sacrifice for sin, but that’s not the same as cancelling the
sacrifices. – P. 169 (emphasis mine)
{This
was a jaw dropping moment for me. I had
said multiple times that FFOZ was diminishing the sacrifice of Jesus only to
have their supporters here locally and online claim this to be a lie, but here
Lancaster lays it out and signals his skepticism (at least) of substitutionary
atonement. Jesus wasn’t metaphorically
a sacrifice for sin, he was actually a sacrifice for sin. There is disagreement among the various
Christians traditions as to how to explain this process, but the testimony of Hebrews
is definitive on this subject. Jesus was
the last, perfect, and final sacrifice.
No additional sacrifice could ever be needed, he paid it all, all to him
I owe (to borrow a line from the hymn). Every
follower of Jesus is forever freed from the need of animal sacrifices. The curtain is torn, the way to the Father is
open. Here is a link to a longer essay
on this topic that quotes this passage: Did the Apostles fully keep
the Torah after the death and resurrection of Jesus?
The book of Acts shows us that the
believers remained engaged in the Jerusalem Temple system long after the death
and resurrection of the Master.
Obviously they did not regard Temple worship as obsolete. – P. 169
{This
is a bait and switch attempt. Yes, the
Apostles and early Jewish Christians continued to pray, preach, and worship in
the Temple courts, and why wouldn’t they?
They lived in/around Jerusalem, the Temple was the natural place to
gather and the best place to evangelize their kinsmen. However, this is not the same thing as saying
that they were full participants in the Temple’s sacrificial system after
Jesus’ death/resurrection. There is zero
NT evidence of that happening. The only
potential one would be Paul’s Nazarite vow, but the sacrifice to fulfill a vow
is NOT a sin offering. FFOZ makes much
of that instance, but it isn’t the smoking gun they claim it to be, not
remotely. In the end, the NT never tells
us that the Jewish Christians participated fully in the Temple (i.e. Judaism)
as if Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection hadn’t changed anything, and it
certainly never even hints that Gentiles Christians should start living as
Jews, if that had been Paul’s intention, at all, he would have had dozens of
questions to answer in his letters, but instead there is only silence.}
Ever since the destruction of the
Temple in 70 CE, the sacrifices detailed in the Torah have not been possible
and will not be possible until God’s Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt…If the
Temple were rebuilt in Jerusalem tomorrow, every worshiper going to that Temple
would be bound to observe the laws of clean and unclean. – P. 170
{Lancaster’s
vision includes a rebuilt Temple with animal sacrifices resuming exactly as the
Law of Moses prescribed (remember, in his mind the Law is eternal). Sin offerings would abound, and followers of
Jesus would be right in line to offer them.
Ceremonial laws would be in force, with Gentile Christians (and all
women) unable to approach the inner courts, with a priesthood having the only
full access. This flies in the face of
the NT’s vision of a singular Body of Christ, of an equal right to approach the
throne of grace because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This diminishes Jesus and everything he
accomplished.}
If such a court existed today and
had civil jurisdiction in Israel, and if the accused Sabbath-breaker was not a
Gentile, but was demonstrably obligated by Torah to keep the Sabbath as a
Jew…an execution under the auspices of the court could commence. – P. 172
{Music
to the ear of the Christian dominionist movement which hopes to create an
American theocracy. Lancaster sees zero
distinction between the theocratic kingdom of Israel and the modern-nation
state. He can’t allow such a
distinction, the Law of Moses must be supreme and applicable in every way
because he believes it to be immutable and eternal.}
We don’t make sacrifices today, but
only because the Torah forbids us from doing so. Without a Temple and priesthood, sacrificing
is a sin. – P. 173 (emphasis
mine)
{The
life, death, and resurrection of Jesus changes nothing in his view. Not a single thing. The entire system should be operating right
now, and it would be if only a new Temple were built and the priesthood
reconsecrated. The further I dig into
the teaching of FFOZ, the more the most radical assessment of them, that
they’re a heretical cult, is confirmed by their own words.}
Sometimes disciples of Yeshua –
both Jewish and Gentile disciples – are eager to take hold of the Torah, but
they are reluctant to acknowledge the role of Jewish tradition and authority in
interpreting the Torah. We would prefer
to interpret the Torah’s meaning ourselves and not bother with consulting
Judaism, but that’s not how the Torah works. – P. 175
{Note
that the section on Oral Torah that contains this quote is all about how
Gentile Christians can figure out how to live like a Jew. Once again, we see that this is the end goal
of Lancaster and FFOZ, the path they urge others to follow. It also helps explain the pattern in FFOZ
published materials of having little, if any, quotations from Christians
scholars and theologians, instead when outside sources are quoted there are
almost always from rabbis. While it
makes sense to consult the history of Jewish interpretation with respect to the
Hebrew Scriptures, it cannot be the final understanding of even these because
that viewpoint does not reflect those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and
Savior (either because they wrote before he lived, or wrote after but reject
him). The traditions of the rabbis may
be a useful tool in Christian interpretation, but it cannot be the last word,
although that’s the premise Lancaster is setting forth in this chapter.}
When God entrusted the Jewish
people with the Torah, He also entrusted them with the responsibility of
interpreting its commandments and applying them. – P. 175
{This
is true, as far as it goes. They had
that responsibility for the people of Israel during the time of the Mosaic
Covenant. They do not, however, retain
that authority over the Church, we are not beholden to rabbinic traditions when
we seek to apply the principles of the Law in the age of the Spirit. This is also a subtle way of rejecting any
viewpoint on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) that is put forth by Christian
theologians because they were not “entrusted” with that text.}
Yeshua firmly endorsed traditional
Jewish authority when He told His disciples “The scribes and the Pharisees have
seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do
and observe” (Matthew 23:2-3) – P. 180
{This
would be hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous.
Lancaster’s ability to interpret scripture is woefully inadequate
here. It is either a failure of basic
skills or a deliberate misuse of the text, both are dangerous in a published
work intended to teach others. What’s so
funny? Jesus is being sarcastic in these
lines. He’s mocking the scribes and
Pharisees who claim such authority, not endorsing them. How do we know this? Lancaster didn’t quote all of verse 3, and for
good reason. The sentence continues
with, “But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they
preach.” Lancaster quotes this verse to
prove that Jesus “firmly endorsed traditional Jewish authority”? Misquoting and misusing scripture is a
dangerous game, sadly FFOZ does this blatantly with out-of-context quotations.}
Yeshua was a part of that context,
arguing with the sages just like the famous Hillel argued with Shamai. – P. 181
{No,
no, a thousand times no. Jesus did not argue
with his contemporaries just like other rabbis did. Jesus spoke with authority, his own
authority. Mathew 7:28-29 “When Jesus
had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29
because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the
law.” This is a subtle diminution of
Jesus’ person, but it follows the pattern in FFOZ’s writings of hinting at
Subordinationism and Modalism.}
You don’t need to be a Torah scholar
to observe the Torah. If you do have
questions about specifics, consult your local Messianic Jewish rabbi, or if that’s not an option, you might want to consult a few basic books about
Judaism. Just make sure they come from
reliable sources such as First Fruits of Zion or other Jewish publishers with a
traditional perspective. – P. 186
{Aside
from the shameless self-promotion asking people to buy books from the company
he works for, calling FFOZ a reliable publisher with respect to Judaism is a slap
in the face of actual Jewish publishing houses.
Given the near uniform disdain among both Jews who follow Judaism and
Messianic Jews for the work of FFOZ (and those like them) in trying to convince
Gentiles to live like Jews, this is a very tone-deaf statement from Lancaster.}
In addition, Gentile disciples felt
enormous social pressure to become Jewish.
Paul’s letter must be understood within this larger Jewish context. Remember that when we read Paul’s letter, we
hear only one side of an argument. – P. 193
{I’ve
been asked many times by incredulous fellow pastors and lay Christians, “How
can they ignore Paul?” This quote
illustrate the process: (1) They change the context by postulating a fantasy first
century where Gentile Christians worship on the Sabbath in Synagogues with
non-Messianic Jews where they were Torah observant, (2) they then dismiss
anything Paul has to say about the Law as ONLY a reaction against full-on
Judaizers, and (3) smother this with relentless word-substitution fallacies by
replacing the Greek term for law (nomos) with Torah whenever it helps change
the meaning of the text in their favor.
Lancaster goes so far on the previous page as to add “[of Torah]” to the
end of a quote of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and “[i.e Torah} to the middle of 1 Timoth
6:14}
Paul taught a life of imitation of
Yeshua. Disciples are more than just
converts. Disciples must meet
expectations of discipleship…To be like Yeshua, Paul needed to observe the
Torah, and his disciples needed to observe it as it applied to them. – P. 195
{Another
example where “Divine Permission” is replaced in FFOZ’s actual teaching with
“Divine Mandate”, they are a One Law organization in truth if not in their public
façade. How else does one interpret a
call to be like Jesus when Lancaster defines that solely (or at least
primarily) as observing Torah? Note that
there is no distinction made between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians
with respect to Jesus’ expectations of their relationship to Torah. This follows after quotations of 1
Corinthians 11:1-2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7 where Lancaster claims the
“traditions” that Paul is speaking to the Gentile Christians about are Oral
Torah. In fact, he was referring to the
oral traditions about Jesus, his life and teaching, knowledge of which Paul
imparted to them directly because they did not yet have access to the four-fold
Gospel account. Because “traditions”
means Oral Torah to Lancaster (and FFOZ), he has no problem with reading that
idea into the writings of Paul.}
Paul warns us against the Man of
Torahlessness: the Antichrist. Paul
indicates that we will be able to recognize this imposter because he will be
opposed to the Torah of God. – P. 195
{Good
to know he wasn’t willing to stop at painting his opponents as Nazi
sympathizers, here we see that Christians who don’t embrace Torah observance
are antichrists in Lancaster’s view.
This is once more word substitution, Paul didn’t use the word Torah in 2
Thessalonians 2:3-10, no effort is made to show that this is contextually
valid, Lancaster just inserts it as a matter of course.}
According to God’s own criteria for
determining a false prophet, Judaism’s rejection of the traditional Christian
presentation of Jesus is a matter of obedience to Torah and loyalty to
God. The traditional presentation of the
Christian Jesus offers a prophet…who canceled the Torah. Such a person fits the Torah’s description of
a false prophet perfectly. – P. 198
{The
Straw Man returns. Jesus did not
“cancel” the Torah, he fulfilled it. He
became the ultimate High Priest, sacrifice, and Temple and instituted a New
Covenant in his own blood. No doubt some
Christians have wrongly portrayed Jesus as anti-Torah in their efforts to
evangelize Jews, but that error does not prove Lancaster’s opposing contention
that Jesus changed nothing in the Torah.}
The real Yeshua of the Gospels is
no such. He has little affinity with the
traditional depiction of the Christian Jesus in regard to the Torah and the
Jewish people…He taught the enduring, unchanging Torah and called Israel to
submit to the highest standards of Torah. – P. 199
{What
more can be said? The thing that strikes
me most in this quote is the portrayal of Jesus as merely a new prophet who
came to say, “Obey Torah, just like always.”
The Jesus of the Gospels, contrary to Lancaster’s assertion, is the Son
of God, the Word made flesh, who draws all men to himself, and thus to the
Father. He teaches with authority, his
own, and offers both new commandments and a new covenant. To make the heart of his message, “Return to
Torah!” does a great disservice to the Gospel account of Jesus.}
If the Word of God is true, it must
be consistent. If Messiah is true, He
must be consistent with the Torah of Moses. – P. 200
{I hear
echoes of the arguments made by the most radical King James Only
advocates. They see the only choice being
between a “perfect” Bible (with no textual variants, no errors in copying) and
one that cannot be trusted. Lancaster’s
eternal and unchanging Torah allows for no shred of progressive revelation of
the redemptive plan of God. Sinai is the
last stop, nothing new, nothing amended, nothing fulfilled, after this
point. Much as the KJV Only zealot says
God’s revelation ended in 1611 when the English language was perfected, here
Lancaster cannot countenance Jesus having the power to fulfill Torah and
establish God’s new program by his own authority.}
For nearly two thousand years, the
Jewish people have languished in exile, without a king, without a Temple, and
without a home. How did this
happen? According to the Bible, it
happened because the Torah was neglected…The Temple was destroyed because the
people transgressed the Torah...If turning away from the Torah inflicted the
wound, then returning to Torah is the balm. – P. 200-01
{Stop
for a minute and absorb the antisemitism: The Roman destruction of the Temple
in 70 AD was the Jews’ own fault according to Lancaster. It happened because this people failed to
keep the Torah. How, when, where? He doesn’t say. The zeal of those like Saul of Tarsus to keep
the Torah was evidently not enough. In
this way, Lancaster has made himself a prophet, declaring that he knows the
mind of God and can proclaim that what happened in 70 AD was for the same
reason as the destruction of Solomon’s Temple in 586 BC…He then uses this “prophetic”
assessment as the reason to proclaim that Torah observance by Christians is now
necessary. FFOZ goes to great lengths to
blame the Church for its antisemitism in charging the Jewish people with
deicide (I agree thus far, it was foolish, even sinful, from the beginning to
do so), but here he has simply changed the charge, it wasn’t the rejection of
Jesus that brought about 2,000 years of woe to the Jewish people, but rejection
of Torah. He blames them for their own
tragedy, just with a different crime as the cause. And yes, this is yet another example of Torah
idolatry, Torah not Jesus is the focus, Torah is what caused the misery of the
Jews, and Torah is the solution.}
In a sense, the gospel has been in
exile since the days of the apostles.
Like the Jewish people sent into exile to wander among the nations, the
gospel has been dispersed among the nations and subject to the Gentiles. – P.
201
{So,
the Gospel among the Gentiles is a Gospel in exile? Paul proclaims multiple times that in Christ
the old distinctions and categories of people have fallen away, that we are all
members of One Body. Yet, here we see
Lancaster’s two-tier understanding of humanity peak through the surface, as a
Gentile himself, he can’t accept the Gospel being “subject to the Gentiles” as
anything other than unnatural.}
Conclusions from Pastor Powell: D. Thomas Lancaster’s Restoration,
published by FFOZ, is exceedingly thin on evidence and outside authority, and long
on bold claims and unproven assertions.
It is cavalier with its scriptural citations, a significant number of
which are taken out-of-context and used in a manner that works against the
author’s original intent. In addition, Lancaster
continues the FFOZ practice of freely substituting the term Torah into any NT
quotation in place of the Greek nomos (Law) whenever it serves his
purpose. As a work of scholarship, due
to these deficiencies, it offers very little.
I saw one review of this book that called it “scholarly,” I couldn’t
disagree more as it is far from a scholarly analysis of anything.
With respect to the book’s evident and repeated disdain for
the traditional Gospel and the Church, Lancaster is at least honest in
admitting how these fit with his true goal of convincing Gentile Christians to
live like Jews in order to bring about the End Times. FFOZ publicly maintains that it has abandoned
One Law (“Divine Mandate”) and instead embraces a “Divine Permission”
attitude. This book shows that public
stance, one that our local Torah Club’s participants have accused me of not
believing (to the extent of calling me a liar), to be just that, a public
relations effort and no more. In Restoration,
Lancaster doesn’t hide his own personal embrace of full Gentile Torah
observance, nor his belief that this is what Jesus and the Apostles intended. At least he doesn’t run away from how radical
his teaching is or try to hide it.
In the end, Restoration is consistent with the other
published works of FFOZ in that it too is full of unorthodox and heretical
teachings, disdain for Christianity and the Church, radical reinterpretations
of scripture, and an End Times inspired self-appointed prophetic missionary
zeal. Far from easing my desire to warn others
about the teachings of FFOZ, this book only further confirms how necessary it
is to protect the Church from the new “gospel” that FFOZ is selling.
