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 being 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:

Why Legalism doesn't work: Footloose and the self destruction of Jerry Falwell Jr.

 I recently watched the movie Footloose for the first time, and can concur with Peter Parker's response to Star-Lord's assertion in Avengers: Infinity War that it is indeed not the greatest movie of all time.  It is, however, an attempt to assert, although through a flawed vehicle, the known truth that Legalism does not work.  In the movie, Kevin Bacon's character Ren McCormack moves with his mom to a small town in the Rocky Mountain foothills only to discover that the town council under the leadership of John Lithgow's character, Rev. Shaw Moore, have instituted a total ban on youth dances (along with youth drinking) following a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of several of the town's teens, including Rev. Moore's son.  Of course, Ren considers the ban to be oppressive, and is helped in his rebellion against it by the Rev. Moore's own daughter, Ariel (Lori Singer), who rebels against her father through promiscuity, drinking, and a pair of death-wish style stunts.  In the end, Rev. Moore realizes his zeal has gone too far when his acolytes organize an impromptu book burning on the steps of the library.  Moore reluctantly backs down, fearing the worst but resigned to face it, as the teens enjoy their victory with a senior prom.

You might be wondering, what does a movie about the older generation trying to rein in teens via a ban on dancing in 1984 have to do with the cascade of news about the President of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr? {Jerry Falwell Jr. says he's resigned from Liberty Univ. after sex scandal revelations, confusion over future - Fox News}  Footloose is a fictionalized repudiation of Legalism, Liberty University and Jerry Falwell Jr. are a real life testimony.  Liberty University under Jerry Falwell Jr.'s leadership has become one of the largest Evangelical institutions in the world, with 15,000 students on campus, and 95,000 students online.  As such, they carry tremendous influence, influence that has increased dramatically following Jerry Falwell Jr.'s very public foray into American politics in 2015.  Liberty University has an honor called called The Liberty Way, like many Christian educational institutions, which prohibits premarital sex, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and of course, social dancing.  The Liberty Way also requires that students submit to random drug tests, and declares that, "Students must dress modestly and appropriately at all times."

To be sure, organizations need rules and regulations.  Schools need to set boundaries for their students, parents need to define for their children what is, and what is not, acceptable, and have appropriate consequences when those rules are broken.  The opposite of Legalism, Anarchy (Individualism) is certainly not the solution either.  But why doesn't Legalism work?  Why can't we simply list every possible negative behavior, prohibit them all, and watch people follow the rules?

1. Rules by themselves have no power.

The University that I graduated from, Cornerstone University, had rules.  In decades past those rules were not that different from those of Liberty, but from the outside looking in, the attitude behind the use of rules seems very different.  At Cornerstone, our professors were consistent in their quest to teach student how to think, not what to think.  Why?  Cultural mores change, constantly.  What belongs on the 'list' of prohibited behavior is a snapshot of today's standards.  To teach young people to memorize a list is not to teach then how or why such things end up on the list, and it doesn't help them to understand how to react to situations not covered by the dreaded list.  In other words, sustainable and effective morality depends upon enlightened and discerning minds and upon self-awareness and self-control, not upon perfecting a system to take agency away from the individual.  

Without a corresponding attitude of the heart, rules will always fail.  In the Gospels, Jesus contends with the Pharisees, a 1st Century group of zealous Jews who believed they could legislate their way to a moral society.  To be sure, the Law of Moses contains rules, and Jesus was not a rebel who denounced the Law, but he could also see that his opponents were placing burdens upon the people that could not be kept, rather than focusing upon building up the character qualities that would enable people to freely choose to embrace morality.

Matthew 23:1-4 New International Version  23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

2. Making actions forbidden/taboo altogether gives them an allure or mystique.

Romans 7:7-12 New International Version 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The Apostle Paul, no fan of immoral behavior, recognized the danger associated with making rules, even though many of them are necessary.  This is not news to any parent, one need only tell a two year old that they can't do something in order to encourage that very behavior.  

Take dancing, for example, rather than forbidding all social dancing, why not seek to educate young people on appropriate forms of dancing?  Surely there isn't anything morally objectionable in many forms of dancing, nor to much of the music to which people would dance?  If some kinds of dancing, by some people, lead to temptation, must we ban it all for everyone?  So, why the total ban, what does it accomplish except to encourage young people to engage in the same behavior, but on the sly rather than in public, off the radar, rather than openly.  In other words, Legalism creates some of the very temptation that it thinks that it is suppressing by making the behavior more desirable as an act of rebellion. 

3. Rebellion against unnecessary rules becomes its own snare.

Romans 14:16-23  New International Version  16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.  22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Continuing with the dancing example.  If a Christian is firmly convinced in his/her own mind that social dancing is not immoral, that he/she can engage in it without temptation to sexual sin (the typical rationale for banning it), then he/she should be able to do so, unless that action causes another person to stumble.  This is Paul's way of balancing Christian liberty and responsibility to others.  However, when an authority over a Christian (parents, church, school) prohibits a behavior, even one that would NOT be sinful for that person to engage in, if that person does it anyway, he or she is still committing an act of rebellion in the process of doing what ought not be for him/her an immoral act.  In other words, the existence of the rule requires rule breaking to engage in behaviors that the Word of God has not prohibited, that conscience and the indwelling Holy Spirit have not warned against.  An offense is created where none need exist.  Rebellion is fostered among those who simply want to be disciples of Jesus.

Back to Jerry Falwell Jr.  In the past, Falwell has been photographed at a dance club, apparently enjoying alcoholic beverages, and recently with his arm around a young woman whose pants are unbuttoned, as are Falwell's, while he holds what he assures in the caption is not really alcohol.  

The bottom 1/3 of the photo was cropped, no need to show the whole thing.

Here's the thing, if Falwell wasn't the head of Liberty University, with its Liberty Way that applies to all students, he would be free to go to a club and enjoy dancing, even drink alcohol in moderation (I know that's taboo for many Evangelicals, but there is no Biblical prohibition on consumption, only drunkenness).  The picture with the young woman would have been over the line, but it wouldn't also reek of hypocrisy as he once again flaunts to the world that he doesn't need to follow the rules that he requires of others.

4. Boundaries can still exist without attempting to limit all possible sources of temptation.

When I was in Antigua,Guatemala, many years ago, I saw an odd sight.  An arch built over the road.  What was its purpose?  To prevent the monks in the monastery on one side from seeing the nuns in the nunnery on the other.  Lust is certainly a temptation to be wary of, and on guard against, but if the only way that we can tame it is to make sure that men and women don't see each other, we're in deep trouble.  Rather than detailed rules that spell out every conceivable temptation and prohibit as much of them as possible, why not teach young people how to think about morality, how to discern between right and wrong, and how to face temptation without succumbing to it?  We need guard rails to keep young people, and ourselves, from going off the road to our destruction, rather than straight jackets to keep them (and us) from doing anything but stay in our cell.  Legalism doesn't work, it never has.  It is far better for the Church, and other Christian organizations, to focus upon teaching and training hearts and minds, and importantly, leading by example.

Sermon Video: The False Hope of Legalistic Asceticism, Colossians 2:16-23

{Due to a technical glitch, this week's original sermon video was not recorded, this video is the audio from Sunday combined with the PowerPoint slides from the sermon; sorry for any inconvenience}...

What is the path to greater piety and devotion to God?  One attempted answer to this question that has been active throughout Church history has been the related methods of legalism and asceticism.  Legalism seeks to impose rules, as if becoming closer to God were a simple matter of following them, while asceticism seeks to deny biological impulses and needs (such as food, drink, sex), as if being biological they are somehow inherently unholy and opposed to the things of the spirit.  Church history has featured hermits and monks attempting to be holy along these paths, as much as their efforts were self-centered, and self-powered, they were doomed to failure.

Paul addresses this issue at the church at Colossae, where a mixture of Mosaic legalism and Greek philosophical asceticism had combined to tempt the believers there away from their trust in the all-sufficiency of Christ, a danger that Paul warns strongly against, reassuring them that the path of legalistic asceticism is doomed to failure because it has lost its connection with Christ, and thus the power of God, the only true source of spiritual growth.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Woe to the phony believers - Luke 11:37-54

What is it about some Church going people that causes people who don't go to Church to stay away?  Two of the most common complaints are that Church people are judgmental and that they are hypocrites.  That this attitude exists should be no surprise to us, after all, Jesus confronted the same issues when interacting with the outwardly religious members of the Pharisees.  During a dinner to which Jesus had been invited by a Pharisee, Jesus offers a scathing rebuke to the outward piety and inward immorality of people like his host.  He goes on to offer six "woes" aimed at those who have zeal without love, are full of pride, have a facade of piety which hides wickedness, are beholden to legalism, ignore the spokesmen of God, and finally stand in the way of others coming to God for forgiveness.  The common theme in the list is that in each case those committing the transgression are guilty of shallow belief/obedience that only impacts the surface, it does not continue on to transform the heart.  Such surface belief naturally leads toward judgmentalism, for those who have not truly been forgiven often fail to forgive others, and hypocrisy, for how can anyone practice what they preach if not by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit?

To watch the video, click on the link below: