Sermon Video: We do not grieve like those without hope - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14

Death and the grief that it causes are as real for followers of Jesus as they are for everyone else.  Because we have faith our grief is not eliminated, it is transformed, transformed by our hope.  Hope in what?  the resurrection of those who are in Jesus Christ.

Area pastors sign a letter responding to the blasphemous Trump-as-Jesus image.

Several local pastors have joined together to issue a statement about the 4/12/16 Trump-as-Jesus AI that was shared on the President's social media feed.

If additional pastoral leaders in Venango County wish to add their name to the letter, they should contact Pastor Powell directly (pastorpowell@hotmail.com), at which point the Google drive link will be updated to reflect that addition. 

Pastoral response to the AI image depicting Donald Trump as divine/Jesus

Trump's AI image blasphemy: A biblical response

 

The AI-generated image shared by President Trump

On April 12th, 2026, the President of the United States,  Donald Trump, posted a blasphemous image of himself. 

This image portrayed Donald Trump as a divine healer using the well-known artistic iconography (white/red robe, divine power in his hands akin to stigmata) associated with Jesus Christ, and the reception of worship/prayer from the people looking up at him adoringly

A typical artistic portrayal of Jesus

 

In addition to the dangerous and unbiblical promotion of Christian nationalism and glorification of militarism that the image also contains, this action by President Trump violates a fundamental and unshakeable belief of every true follower of Jesus Christ:

There is only one God.

This belief leads inevitably to its corollary: God alone is worthy of worship

If anyone claims, then, divine status, or accepts worship, it is blasphemy.  It is also a grave heresy that marks one who makes such a claim as a false teacher. Whatever the motivation and intent was behind this creation and sharing of this image, the result was blasphemy and heresy.  In addition, any who would lead others away from devotion to our true Lord and Savior are, by definition, an anti-Christ.

Scripture, as well as history, offers dire warnings in this area, ones that should never be ignored.

The following is but a brief summary of what the Word of God teaches about the danger inherent in false worship and false teaching, and the judgment of God it invokes.

The Biblical warning against blasphemy and false worship:

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Jonah 2:8 

“Those who cling to worthless idols turn away from God’s love for them.

Habakkuk 2:18

“Of what value is an idol carved by a craftsman?

Or an image that teaches lies?

For the one who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak.

John 10:32-33 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

The warnings in the Biblical narrative against blasphemy and false worship:

Daniel 3: King Nebuchadnezzar glorifies himself with a golden image, requiring all to bow down and worship.  God protects Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from the fiery furnace when they refuse.

1 Kings 18: Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

Elijah’s epic contest to see which God is real and which god is not.  God sends fire from heaven to affirm his power, Baal can do nothing for his false prophets.

Acts 12:19b-23 Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there. 20 He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. After securing the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king’s country for their food supply.

21 On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” 23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

Revelation 19:19-21 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Historical examples beyond sacred scripture:

In 167 BC, Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Jewish Temple in 

Jerusalem by sacrificing a pig on the altar to Zeus. This act of sacrilege, considered a major abomination, was part of his efforts to eradicate Jewish religious practices. It prompted the Maccabean revolt.

In the Early Church, both Jews and followers of Jesus (both Jewish and Gentile) were persecuted, and many martyred, for refusing to worship an image of various Roman Emperors who were considered divine.

The problem of human pride:

Proverbs 16:5

The Lord detests all the proud of heart.

Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.

1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

James 4:6

But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:

“God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”

1 John 2:16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.

Conclusion: A fellow Christian, and a friend, described Donald Trump’s ai-generated image as, “One of the grossest images I’ve ever seen.”  On this I concur.  

When the most powerful man in the world elevates himself with divine imagery, the only biblical response is to condemn this action with no reservation.  It is blasphemy, it is heresy, and it is the spirit of antichrist.

We have one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, there is no other.

When the most powerful man in the world elevates himself with divine imagery, the only biblical response is to 

Sermon Video: Jesus: Destroyer of Death & Bringer of Life - 2 Timothy 1:9-10

 

In this Easter message, we look at Paul's inspiring explanation of what Jesus Christ has accomplished through his death and resurrection.  Among its many blessings, this hinge moment of history achieved: (1) Our salvation and calling to live a holy life, (2) the fulfillment of God's plan of grace set forth before time, and (3) the final triumph of life and immortality in Christ over death.

Christ is Risen!  He is Risen indeed!

"How the Gospels Should Have Ended" - D. Lancaster (FFOZ), The Gospels are God's 'Plan B'??? - response by Pastor Powell

"How the Gospels Should Have Ended" - rebuttal part 1 (of 2)

If the Gospel story was we know it God's "Plan B"?  Daniel Lancaster of First Fruits of Zion thinks so.  In this pro-Torah fan fiction version of the Gospels, Lancaster imagines a better version of Jesus' story that sees him crowned King Messiah by a people who follow him back to Torah observance.  

Chief among the many questions this perversion of the Gospel story raises is this: It has not time for Gospel proclamation to the Gentiles.  No Great Commission, no giving of the Holy Spirit.  What does Lancaster envision instead for the Gentiles?  God's wrath, immediately poured forth after the resurrection of Jesus (killed by the Romans after God lets them slaughter the Jewish people who had trusted in Jesus).

In the end, FFOZ hopes that guilt over the "failure" of Jesus' generation to embrace the Torah (i.e. the better version of the Gospel story) will prompt people today to take up Torah observance as the means of "hastening" the return of Christ.  The hubris to think they can change the timing of God's plan is astounding.

To read the whole article: How the Gospels Should Have Ended - D. Lancaster

"How the Gospels Should Have Ended" - rebuttal part 2 (of 2)

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

Lesson 48, page 12

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

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

Lesson 48, page 14

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 48, page 14b

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

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

Lesson 48, page 15

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

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

Lesson 48, page 16

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

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

Lesson 48, page 17

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

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

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

Lesson 48, page 17b

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 48, page 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

sermon video: Christ and the Church - Ephesians 5:29-33

In the beautiful conclusion to his analogy between Christ and the Church and husbands and wives, the Apostle Paul emphasizes what we already know from history: Christ loves the Church as much as he loves himself.  In fact, there is no relational love that can surpass the love of Jesus Christ for the Church, not even that of a husband for his wife (or a parent for their child).  God's love for us, in Christ, is perfect in every way.

Our response, then, as we seek to be Christ-like in our discipleship, is to recommit to loving our spouse as we love ourselves.

 

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

 

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

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

Sermon Video: Children of Light - Ephesians 5:8-14

Light vs. Dark imagery is very common in the Bible.  In fact, when seeing a vision of God, or meeting an angel, the text typically describes the scene by reference to dazzlingly bright light.  The Apostle Paul utilizes this analogy often, telling us that we were in darkness but now have seen the Light of Christ.  Here in Ephesians, however, Paul goes a step further.  He proclaims that we WERE darkness but now in the Lord we ARE light.  It isn't about the place, but the person.  God's power not only transforms this world, it transforms human beings.

As Children of the Light, we now must embrace goodness, righteousness, and truth.  Additionally, we cannot have anything to do with the deeds of our former darkness, instead we must expose such deeds that the light may continue to overcome evil.

Sermon Video: Walk in the Way of Love - Ephesians 5:1-2

 

Imitate God. That's a directive that prompts many questions in response. The Apostle Paul has one particular aspect of God's nature and actions in mind: Love. We are to love others like God loves us. It's that's simple, and that daunting.

FFOZ updates their "What We Believe" page, it (mostly) now reflects what they teach.

 

Having dealt with FFOZ club leaders and followers these past three years who are adamant that FFOZ "doesn't teach that" even after I show them the exact thing they are denying, it is refreshing to see that FFOZ now has a "What We Believe" page that (mostly) reflects what they actually teach.  This transparency is a big step in the right direction toward warning pastors and others about the unorthodox/heretical teachings coming from FFOZ.

In the video I break down each of the 15 statements, paying particular attention to the most dangerous (unbiblical) ideas and pointing out one big omission.

FFOZ now teaches that gentile followers of Jesus will eternally be 4th class citizens of heaven...The heresy keeps getting more bold.

 

This new teaching, 2025, from FFOZ is a bold new heresy, one utterly rejected by every N.T. author. In a nutshell, FFOZ is now teaching that the "radial" geography of the tabernacle/temple is eternal. Thus, they teach that gentile followers of Jesus are eternally 4th class citizens of the kingdom of heaven (behind the priest/Levites, Jewish men, and Jewish women) in accordance with the physical layout of the Temple. There are also two statements that hint toward the conclusion that because the Jewish people are eternally the "people of God," with permanent status of closer access, they don't need to accept Jesus as Savior.

Sermon Video: A Life Worthy of the Calling - Ephesians 4:1-2

Given what God was willing to do to save you, how should you respond?

The Apostle Paul tells us that we must live our entire lives in a way that is worthy of our calling.  Calling from who?  From God.  Calling to what?  To self-sacrifice and service for the sake of the Gospel. 

How do we do this?  Paul begins to answer that question by telling us to be: humble, gentle, patience, and loving.  When we can demonstrate these virtues here among the people of God, it opens the door to being able to share them with everyone we meet.

Professor Solberg and The Bible Roots Ministries joins the dialogue about the dangers of the First Fruits of Zion

 I'll be honest, it hasn't been easy to be the primary online voice discussing the First Fruits of Zion these past almost three years.  I've put a lot more effort and passion into the effort to warn the Church about FFOZ than I ever imagined I would when I first heard about Torah Clubs in the Fall of 2022.  From the beginning the entire Franklin Christian Ministerium has supported me, that has been invaluable.  My whole church, including my board, have supported me, that has been crucial.  But until now, I had only been able to have private conversations with people in leadership at various groups affected by this movement, the public element was missing.  Today that changed.  The reach of Professor Solberg's platform is roughly 1,000 times that of my own, this dialogue about FFOZ has needed to be moved into the mainstream conversation within the Church, that reality moved much closer with the release of this interview.

If you're new to my blog, or my YouTube channel, note that all of my research has been primary source.  I don't write about what people say about what FFOZ says, I write about what FFOZ teaches in their own publications, the things they choose to publish and profit from.  You may not agree with all of my conclusions, that's ok, they come from an Evangelical Baptist perspective, I wouldn't expect them to be universally understood and embraced.  If my thoughts get in the way, look at the direct quotes, I flood my posts and videos with them.  I  believe in the priesthood of all believers, and I believe that the Holy Spirit is more than capable of guiding each follower of Jesus Christ into Truth.  Weigh what FFOZ is saying against the Word of God for that is the ultimate judge, not me.  I am doing my best to apply God's Word to these weighty matters, if I fall short God's Word will not.

HaYesod's 2023 edition (First Fruits of Zion, Torah Club) heretically redefines grace: "grace is earned" and claims humans can atone for sins by suffering

 

HaYesod is the primary disciple-training material for the Hebrew Roots Movement aligned organization: The First Fruits of Zion

This analysis is from the 2023 edition.  My initial seminar warning of the dangers of FFOZ utilized the 2017 edition.  As will be shown here, the amount of unorthodox and heretical material has significantly increased from that edition to this.

The following analysis is not based upon this one lesson alone.  These same false teachings have appeared in dozens of other Torah Club and FFOZ published materials.

What this lesson reveals is that Torah Club leaders are being taught to embrace these teachings, not gloss over them.  The “correct” answers provided are truly damning.

FFOZ has a fascination with, and an allegiance to, the 2nd Temple Judaism of the 1st century.  As such, they work to integrate beliefs from that era of Judaism into the theology they’re attempting to bring into churches.

Theodicy is the study of the “problem of evil.”  It is a rich field that includes the wisdom of books like Job.  However, to say that when godly people suffer it must be because of the sins of other people is a human-centered view that was rejected by Job’s insistence that his suffering was not the result of his sin (or any sin), and by the testimony of Jesus Christ.

John 9:1-3 (NIV) As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Because suffering and sin are not directly corelated, the entire premise of the so-called “Law of Atonement” is false.  Even if the righteous suffered for the sins of others, there is zero biblical evidence that such suffering is connected to, let alone effective at, sin atonement.  On what basis is this claim made??  The suffering and death of human beings never atones for sin.  It cannot, at all.  We are not a spotless sacrifice.

1 Peter 2:20 (New American Standard Bible) For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.*

[* “finds favor” is not a universal translation, it was chosen to connect to the story of Moses that is coming.  Beware of theology built on cherry-picked translations.]

The use of 1 Peter 2:20 is an out-of-context abuse of Peter’s original intent.  There is zero reason to assert that Peter believed that the suffering of Jesus’ followers could atone for their own sins, let alone those of anyone else.  This whole concept is antithetical to the Gospel message: Only the Son of God is worthy.

“An innocent person who suffers and dies accrues extra merit and favor with God.  This merit can be credited to someone else’s account.”  This is blasphemous and deeply heretical.  No human being has ever had enough merit to earn God’s favor, let alone extra.  There is ZERO hint in God’s Word that a human being could apply merit, even if he/she had extra, to anyone else.  Note that FFOZ simply makes this massive claim with zero attempt to support it from a single scriptural source, or even from their usual trope “the sages.”

FFOZ’s hermeneutical methodology is deeply flawed.  Word usage determines word meaning, claiming that two words in different languages simply mean the same thing is overly simplistic and misleading.

ḥên occurs 66 times in the OT, where in the NASB it is translated into English as: adornment (1), charm (1), charming (1), favor (51), grace (8), graceful (2), gracious (3), pleases (1).

χάρις (charis) occurs 157 times in the NT, where in the NASB it is translated into English as: blessing (1), concession (1), credit (3), favor (11), gift (1), grace (122), gracious (2), gracious work (3), gratitude (1), thank (3), thankfulness (2), thanks (6).

Too simply say that both of these words mean favor (and only favor), and both are equal to each other, is simplistic at best, misleading at worst.  FFOZ uses this technique to mislead…To what end?

To a disastrous redefinition of grace: “The merit and favor a person acquires in the eyes of another.” 

The long-standing Christian interpretation of grace as “unmerited favor” is purposefully thrown out, earning God’ favor (that is, earning grace) is in.

Where could FFOZ possibly turn to find an example of a human being earning God’s grace?  To Moses.

Note: This house of cards depends upon equating favor in the OT with grace in the NT.  The example of Moses earning favor, even if it were valid, leads to a false conclusion because Moses and the Apostle Paul do not mean the same thing when using hen and charis.

Is God saying in Exodus 33 that Moses’ obedience has earned God’s favor?  Yes.  

Is that favor equal to atonement? No  

Is it equal to redemption? No  

Is it equal to righteousness? No  

Is it equal to salvation? No

None of these ideas that are part of our understanding of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice as the Lamb of God are in any way connected to Moses.  In fact, these concepts as they are understood in the NT are not in the OT (See my Torah in its Ancient Israelite Context series on the YouTube channel).

“The LORD agreed to extend His favor for Moses to the entire nation:”

Did God bless others because of the favor in which he held Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, David, etc?  Yes. 

Is that blessing in any way connected to the righteousness that is ours because of the atoning power of the Blood of Christ?  1,000 times No.

“The story also demonstrates that grace is not ‘an unmerited gift.’ Moses did merit God’s favor when he interceded with God on behalf of a guilty nation.” – This so-called interpretation of scripture is an abomination.

On the basis of a false equivalence of favor in the OT with grace in the NT, by which FFOZ declares that grace is not “unmerited favor” but instead acquired/earned favor, it has set up a false equivalence between Moses and Jesus, all to pave the way for the coming insistence that Paul’s objection to the “works of the law” is not about legalism at all.  This is the goal to which this lesson is striving, to remove the stigma associated with keeping Torah as works-righteousness.

“Remember what happens when a godly and righteous person suffers and dies undeservedly…Through His righteous life and His undeserved suffering, Yeshua merited even more favor in God’s eyes, so much favor that He has an abundance to share.”

{Why is “only begotten son” in quotation marks?  Why not simply say, “As the Son of God,”?  Given their track record of denying the Trinity, such things make my Spidey-sense tingle}

Jesus is the only person to ever earn the righteousness that atones for sin, full stop.  No solely human being could earn atonement, it is impossible.  When you put atonement, favor, and grace in a mixer as FFOZ has done here, the result is grotesque. 

In this section, FFOZ argues that Paul’s only issue is with full-on adoption of Jewish identity through the conversion process.

“It’s not a question of working to earn eternal life by keeping the Law.  It’s a question of whether someone needs to become Jewish to be eligible for eternal life.”

They make this specious case by saying that when Paul writes about the, “works of the law” it always means only Jewish identity (i.e. circumcision, full conversion) never Torah keeping (Sabbath, kosher, festivals).

In order for this line of reasoning to hold water, every usage of “works” and “works of the law” by Paul would need to be about full-conversion only, never about legalistic attempts to keep Torah to earn righteousness.

That, of course, is not a tenable position, but when FFOZ interprets Galatians, for example, it does so assuming Paul only cares about full-conversion, they claim he was 100% in favor of Torah keeping for Jew and Gentile as long as it didn’t lead to conversion for Gentiles.

Faith does not equal belief?

True, faith does not ONLY equal belief, it is more than just belief as James rightly clarifies, but given FFOZ’s stated hostility toward the Early Church credal statements…

Where is this going?  To a butchered paraphrase of Ephesians 2:8-9…

“By God’s favor, you have been saved for eternal life though your allegiance to Yeshua as the Messiah, but that favor is not something you earned.  It is the gift of God, not as a result of the works of conversion.  So no one, neither Jews nor Gentiles, have anything to boast about.”

“Paul sometimes used the term ‘works’ as shorthand to argue against Gentiles becoming Jewish.” – p. 2.8

Once again, we see the effort to drive a wedge between full conversion (including circumcision) and Torah keeping with respect to “works.”  In FFOZ’s warped view, human beings can earn God’s favor (which they say equals grace), and relying on works is ok provided that they are the Torah-proscribed ones.  Do you see why they want to downplay Paul’s concerns about legalism?

And what are the “good works” of Ephesians 2:10?  What has God prepared in advance for the followers of Jesus?

“These ‘good works’ are the good deeds and acts of obedience described by the Torah’s commandments.” – p. 2.10

Once you divorce “works of the Law” from Torah keeping, the next goal is to transform it into a substitute for the Fruit of the Spirit.  Once legalism has been downplayed, Torah keeping can become the new test of true discipleship.

“When a righteous person dies unjustly, they accrue favor with God.”

“This favor can be bestowed on someone else.”

So absurd that followers of Jesus ought to run screaming from this madness.

“Paul refers to the process of becoming Jewish as the ‘works of the law.’”

‘‘’We are not saved by works’ means that we are not saved by becoming Jewish.”

To reject Paul outright is too obvious, redefining him into a pro-Torah keeping champion is a much more dangerous approach.

“Is grace unmerited favor?  If not, how does one acquire it?”

“No; grace is earned. One acquires it by doing good and living a difficult life or having it bestowed on them by someone else who earned it.”

Is the utter rejection of the Gospel by FFOZ not fully evident yet?  What further evidence is needed?

Conclusion: FFOZ ought to be labeled a dangerous cult for their views of the Trinity alone…

The HaYesod discipleship manual proves once again that they teach equally dangerous and heretical falsehoods about grace, atonement, faith, works, and the Law of Moses.

To watch this material in my YouTube version:

Sermon Video: The Mystery of Christ - Ephesians 3:1-13

Paul interrupts his own thought about being a prisoner of Christ Jesus to reflect upon the journey that brought him to the place of being the Apostle to the Gentiles.  That act of God's grace was part of the revelation of the mystery of Christ: God's plan to include the Gentiles in his covenant people by calling all men equally to repent and  believe in Jesus.

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #36 - Subjective Reality & Diminishing all revelation except what was given to Moses

“The mirror analogy describes our experience of life, the universe, and everything.  We think of ourselves as seeing the real world, but what are we experiencing?  Only electrical sensory inputs channeled through a bio-chemical nervous system connected to a central processing unit of tangled neurons struggling to render some sort of interpretation of those signals.  Our brains work like computers to simulate the environment around us.  No one sees reality; we see our brain’s best attempt to process sensory input.”- p. 12

“That’s part of what Paul was getting at when he said, ‘For now, we see in a mirror dimly’ (1 Corinthians 13:12).  It’s not a polished mirror.  We aren’t getting the whole picture.  We can see only in part.  The world we think of as reality exists only inside our head.  Every person creates his or her own personal reality.” – p. 12

“To be in close conversation with Absolute Reality is prophecy at the highest level: the level of Moses.  As explained above, the Hebrew world for vision also means mirror.  Numbers 12:6 could be translated to say, ‘If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a mirror.’  But it’s not a polished mirror.  For most prophets, it’s merely a dim reflection – not the personal experience of God that Moses knew.  It’s only an imperfect reflection, many times removed.” – p. 18

“Playing on the double meaning of the word – vision and mirror – the Midrash Rabbah contrasts Moses’ exalted level of prophecy against that of the other prophets.  All other prophets saw their prophetic visions dimly through nine mirrors.” – p. 18{quoting Leviticus Rabbah 1:14}

Why do I have the feeling that Daniel Lancaster wants me to take the Red Pill?  If that Matrix reference didn’t connect with you, in that 1999 movie Keanu Reeve’s character Neo is told by a guide named Morpheus that the reality he thinks that he is living in isn’t real.  Not really real anyway, it is just a computer simulation.

It may seem like a post-modern idea to doubt that reality exists beyond our own perception of it, but in reality, apologies for that double-usage, the idea had its heyday in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Empiricist philosophers John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.  Long before computer special effects, there were philosophers who doubted that we could have any genuine knowledge of what is real beyond our own perception of it.

The great debate between the Rationalists and the Empiricists that set the stage for modern Western thought is too big a topic for this venue, but one effect of the Empiricist’s rejection of the tenants of Rationalism speaks to the danger of what the First Fruits of Zion are teaching here: Individual realities.  If reality is an individual construction, not a thing with its own true nature and existence, notions such as Fact and Truth invariably become fuzzy, antiquated, even ridiculed.  There is no longer any Truth, just “my truth” and “your truth”.

This example reminds us of some of the deep contradictions and dissonance within the belief system that FFOZ’s leaders have constructed: On the one hand, they claim to represent 1st century Jewish Christian thought and practice, on the other hand, they embrace the individualistic mystical experience of medieval Kabbalah, which of course is full of concepts that were entirely foreign to the cultural stream of 1st century Judaism and/or Christianity.  Why is FFOZ teaching extreme individual relativism?  Where is this headed?  

The second topic in this lesson that jumps out as deeply dangerous is the insistence drawn from the Leviticus Rabbah (Midrash), that ONLY Moses had full and clear revelation from God.  The prophets Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist?  They only saw a dim mirror, 9 reflections of reality, not “Absolute Reality” itself.  The practical, and intended by FFOZ, effect of this foolishness is to elevate the Torah and diminish all other scriptures to a secondary status.

Why?  Because to them Torah is eternal.  Torah is the essence of God’s nature.  Torah surpasses all.  Wait a minute, what about the Word of God?  What about Jesus Christ, God of God, God dwelling among us?  Surely the Gospels have at least an equal level of clarity and wisdom as that given to Moses?  Nope, the Torah Club lesson doesn’t say that, “Our highest level of the revelation of God in this current world does not attain the level of Moses.” (p. 19)

The thing is, the Gospels don’t say any of this, FFOZ is saying it.  This is what Jesus says about what he is revealing to his followers:

John 14:6-7,9  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”  Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

In addition to diminishing the portions of scripture not given to Moses directly at Sinai, this bizarre “mirror theory” of FFOZ also treats the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church Age as an inferior revelation.  How can we know Truth and Reality beyond the Torah?  Lancaster tweaks Luke 7:28 on p. 19 to emphasize our limitation in this era, the brackets are his: “Among those born of women, there is no [prophet] greater than John, yet [the prophet] who is least [in the Messianic Era will be] greater than he.”  Yes, this is more of Lancaster changing scripture through his own translations to make it fit what FFOZ is teaching, he follows it up with this conclusion: “In the Messianic Era, we will attain the level of Moses – the level of face-to-face.” (p. 19)

Lesson 36 of The Beginning of Wisdom leans heavily on extra-biblical sources {Wisdom of Solomon, Ascension of Isaiah, Talmud, Midrash, and even Irenaeus’ The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching} to sow the seeds of doubt about reality being anything greater than our own perception, and doubts about any/all revelation given by God to anyone other than Moses.   In the end, this journey of doubt will leave only one source of Truth standing, by design: the Torah of Moses.

* Note, this analysis first appeared as a YouTube video on my channel on 11/20/24: The Beginning of Wisdom, lesson #:36 Cataloging the unorthodox teachings of the Torah Club materials

Sermon Video: Brought Near to God by the Blood of Christ - Ephesians 2:11-14

The amazing salvation provided by Jesus Christ has implications that ripple across every area we might consider.  In this case, the Apostle Paul focuses on how the Blood of Christ has brought us near to God.  Previous barriers have been eliminated.  Previous assistance (Temple, Priest, animal sacrifice) has ceased to be needed.  Now, because of Jesus, was can commune directly with God.

To illustrate this wondrous development.  Paul tells us that Jesus has destroyed the dividing wall that separated into groups (Gentiles, Jewish women, Jewish men, Jewish priests) those who sought God's presence at the Temple.