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?

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 47, page 4

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

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

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

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

Lesson 47, page 7

"The Apostolic-era rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah"

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

Lesson 47, page 9

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

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

Lesson 47, page 11

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 47, page 12

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

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

Lesson 47, page 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 47, page 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 47, page 19

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

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

Lesson 47, page 19

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

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

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

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

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.

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: One Humanity United in Christ - Ephesians 2:15-18

Having made peace with God through his own sacrifice, how does Jesus envision his followers moving forward?  Jesus sees us as one humanity.  All divisions, distinctions, barriers, and whatever else the human heart may attempt, are made null and void.  In Christ we are one.

In Paul's day the focus was upon unity between his Jewish brethren and the gentile believers who had come to God through Jesus.  The Covenant of Moses at Sinai stood between the two groups, which is why God as its original author chose to set it aside in the New Covenant.

The Dangers of the First Fruits of Zion and their Torah Clubs: summarized in one page

To everyone who follows Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior,

While we all ought to enthusiastically support deep study of the Bible, including its Jewish cultural and linguistic roots, all such study should occur within the framework of a Church history-based orthodoxy, and an Apostolic understanding of the Gospel.  The First Fruits of Zion with their Torah Clubs, are not an acceptable option.

Why are groups associated with the Hebrew Roots Movement, like the First Fruits of Zion dangerous?  Ample documentation* has demonstrated from primary sources, in their own words, that the First Fruits of Zion organization, and the Torah Clubs materials they publish, are replete with the following theological errors and/or heresies:

1.        A non-Trinitarian view of God in the forms of two ancient heresies rejected by the Early Church: Modalism and Subordinationism.  Through these heresies, they deny full personhood and/or full deity to Jesus Christ.

2.        A foundationally flawed hermeneutic {including the use of paraphrases, “my translation,” out-of-context quotations, and word substitutions resulting in more palatable texts} for interpreting scripture that proclaims that all relevant passages have been wrongly understood throughout Church History, and in fact mean nearly the opposite of what the Church has nearly universally taught.

3.        A consistent hostility toward the Church which is seen as the ‘mission field’ in need of correction to bring it back to its supposed roots as a Torah observant movement within Judaism.  They teach the Church should never have existed.

4.        That the books of Moses, the Torah, are more fully the words of God than other portions of holy scripture, making them the lens through which all scripture must be interpreted.  Even Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, has no authority to establish anything beyond the Mosaic Law.

5.        That Jesus did not fulfill the Mosaic Law, rather it is still operative and normative for all of God’s people, Jews and Gentiles alike.  That it was designed by God to be the only rubric for holy living for all peoples, in all places, and at all times.

6.        That there is no covenant with the Gentiles, thus all followers of Jesus Christ who accept the Gospel must be grafted into Israel by ‘becoming a Jew’ in spirit through Torah observance.

7.        That on this basis true Christian discipleship requires the keeping of the Mosaic Law, including the dietary (kosher), Sabbath, and festival provisions, which is how Christians demonstrate their love of God as these have been redefined by FFOZ as the true “fruit of the Spirit.”

If the tree is diseased, so will its fruit be.  Christians have already been warned against the use of bible study materials produced by the Watchtower Tract Society (JW) or LDS (Mormon) organizations, and would not use them even if locally 100% of the parent organization’s theology was not being adopted.  The risk that heretical teachings would gain a foothold is simply too great.  The same danger exists when using materials published by FFOZ.  If the desire is to learn about Judaism or from Messianic Judaism, a host of materials from an orthodox point-of-view are available for Christians to utilize.  To use that which comes from the FFOZ is an unnecessary risk, in addition, purchases support an organization whose stated goals would harm the Church and warp the Gospel.

In the end, while protesting that they do not offer a works-based salvation, and claiming that faith in Jesus is sufficient, this movement is built upon and structured around the claim that all faithful Christians will begin observing the Law of Moses once they become followers of Jesus, that faithful Christians will, in essence, live like Jews.  They may not outright claim the Law of Moses as the gatekeeper to salvation and Christian discipleship, but when you make it the gauge of genuine faithfulness you are adding it to the Gospel message, casting dispersion upon the faith of 99% of the world’s Christians, both past and present, and spreading doubt and division within the Church.  This movement is no benign appreciation of the scriptures, but rather an aggressively proselytizing misappropriation of them contrary to the established teachings of Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant Churches, and Messianic Jewish congregations, alike.

Given this, it is necessary to warn individual Christians and congregations against participation in these groups, and call upon those who do so now, and especially those who are promoting them, to repent and return to the faith our ancestors rejoiced in as, “you are not under the law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:12)

* For documentation, see the page on this blog with the same title.