This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
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.
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.
In a fascinating conversation, Abraham humbly pleads with God on behalf of the soon-to-be condemned city of Sodom. Why? We know that his nephew Lot and his family live there, but Abraham's concern is broader, including for the fate of people who are strangers to him.
In our world today this reminds us of an acute issue within the Church where far to many now view the Lost as part of the "them" that they would rather destroy than rescue. Do we desire mercy for those we think of as "the enemy" or only their ruination?
In the end, Abraham's plea with God reminds us of our own necessary mantra when considering those who do evil in our world: There but for the grace of God, go I.
Through the lens of God's conversation with Abraham and Sarah about the impending birth of Isaac, consider the question of limitations on God's power: Are there any limits? In fact, there are, but they're self-imposed. Nothing constrains God except his own character and promises.
As the Flood narrative begins, God expresses his intention to pour out his wrath on the human population which had embraced evil, especially violence. At the same time, we note that Noah is different, his life is characterized by righteousness and a deep relationship with God. As this re-creation through the Flood unfolds, we will see Noah's faithfulness and note that the righteousness of even one person can change the course of history.
What does an ideal government do with respect to crime and punishment? The Apostle Paul was well aware of the shortcomings of human governments, all of them fail to varying degrees to live up to the standard of being God's servant in this category, but there is still value in understanding what the responsibility of a government should be even when they fall short.
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
You're probably wondering right away, how on earth is he getting from the Chicken Dance to the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector? Stay with me, there's a method to the madness.
The Chicken Dance performed at weddings is a glaring example of how idiosyncratic culture can be. The things people wear, say, and do at weddings, and the celebrations afterwards, vary greatly depending on where on the planet and when in history we look. Future generations may look on in horror at the prominence of the Chicken Dance at American weddings and see it not as a whimsical bit of nonsense, but a sign of some deeper disturbance that confirms what they think of our culture from their point-of-view. Personally, I'm not a fan, evidently others love the silliness of this dance. In the end, there probably isn't anyone who thinks of the Chicken Dance as a moral imperative either way, but much of our cultural heritage, the things we hold near and dear to our hearts as THE way they must be done, are just as morally neutral as the Chicken Dance.
The Pharisees that Jesus contends with so often in the Gospels had elevated their own cultural expression, based on Mosaic Law, but still just their own viewpoint as to exactly how that Law should be interpreted and applied, and made it normative for everyone, period. In other words, the Pharisees were so convinced that they were right, about everything, that they scorned the way that fellow Jews worshiped God as something between insufficient and outright sacrilegious. They were far too sure of themselves, and it showed. It takes confidence like that to be militant, to hold that you know exactly what the government, society, or your religion needs and nobody else has a piece of the truth, nobody else can be trusted, they must all be opposed and crushed if they disagree with you.
Here is where 'Christian' Nationalism comes in. It has decided that one particular expression of the Church, from one time and place, should dominate not only all other current expressions of the Church, but the entirety of society as well. It is only our own pride and ignorance that would allow us to think that Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christianity as expressed in America {that's a pretty specific sliver both globally and historically} deserves total power in society over both other variations of orthodox Christianity currently alive America and also over those following other religions, or none at all. If you think that 'Christian' Nationalism can equally embrace all facets of the Church and America today, you don't know how power in this world works, sharing is not in its nature.
Do I think that I'm following God correctly according to the scriptures and the wisdom of Church history? Of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't be an American Baptist I'd be something else. But I am far from being prideful enough to think that there is no possibility that I'm wrong on some aspects of the way that my faith is interpreted from the scriptures and expressed in the life that I'm living. My brothers and sisters in Christ here in America that follow different traditions have things to teach me, not to mention the majority of the Church that isn't American, Protestant, White, or Western.
'Christian' Nationalism doesn't exist without certainty of its own superiority to everything else. Unfortunately, much of that certainty is based upon a particular cultural expression, not timeless truth, and it fails to reckon with God's work not only throughout history, but throughout the world today.
Contrary to post-modernism, American culture, and the tendency of Baptist theology, we are NOT autonomous individuals. Here's the thing, there's only two choices: (1) Continue to be a slave to sin, or (2) become a slave to God (and righteousness). That's it. "Free agency" is not a thing when it comes to your immortal soul.
In case you're wondering, slavery to God is the path to hope, purpose, fulfillment, and joy.
Having described the condition of the redeemed Christian as being 'dead to sin' and 'alive with Christ' and 'alive to God', the Apostle Paul focuses on one key implication of this changed status: Sin can no longer reign in our lives.
Given that we have the power, via the Holy Spirit, to have victory over sin, we must do so. Instead of simply being a 'just say no' campaign, Paul tells us what must take sin's vacated place: the offering of our lives to righteousness.
Lastly, Paul ends with an additional reason for that we can achieve this transition from sin to righteousness, one he will develop fully in the book of Galatians: We are not under Law, but Grace.
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
When Peter Jackson adapted one of my favorite books, the LOTR, he and his screenwriters kept a line from Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring uttered by Frodo Baggins when he chooses to accept the burden of seeking the ring's destruction in the fires of Mt. Doom: “I will take the Ring", he said, "though I do not know the way.” Frodo was willing to attempt the quest, but he admitted up front that he would need guidance if he had any chance of getting there. The movie version adds a comical note when Frodo leads the Fellowship out of Rivendell asking at the very first fork in the road, "Mordor, Gandalf, is it left or right?"
What has this to do with 'Christian' Nationalism? Everything. As Christians, we already know our destination AND unlike Frodo we know the way to get there. When God established the New Covenant, appointing the Church to be its steward and sending his Spirit to empower it, he also explained in more than sufficient detail how the journey from Dark to Light, Death to Life, Wickedness to Holiness, Fallen Humanity to Christ-likeness, had to be conducted. God's kingdom has to come first, and it has to be pursued with righteousness.
'Christian' Nationalism has this wrong on both fronts. It offers the siren's call of earthly power, of 'winning' here and now, instead of the far more impactful, and difficult, commitment to the Kingdom of God. In fantasy terms, 'Christian' Nationalism is distracted by a side quest, not the true hero's journey, they've embraced Boromir's suggestion to go to Minas Tirith instead of Mordor. In addition, 'Christian' Nationalism subsumes methods beneath goals, embracing such lies of the Devil as, "might makes right", "the ends justify the means", and "fight fire with fire." In nerd terms, they think they can master the Ring and use it for good. Tolkien new better than such nonsense, and so should we.
In the end, the focus of Christians, and the Church MUST be first and foremost the Kingdom of God, the kingdoms of this earth will come and go, but God's kingdom is forever. The means of advancing and supporting that Kingdom MUST be righteous, or they will fail. Any other goal, and any other method is a fool's errand.
Before offering hope in the subsequent verses, the Apostle Paul emphasizes the conclusion that ON OUR OWN nobody is good enough for God. All, both Jew and Gentile alike, are "under the power of sin" therefore tainted and corrupted by it, unable to keep the whole Law of God.
Why the emphasis on the negative? Stark reality is needed to overcome human pride and pave the way for people to seek God in repentance and by faith.
By way of answering a question about why our sinfulness doesn't make God's holiness more glorious, the Apostle Paul refutes a heretical path that might potentially be ascribed to Christians, "Let us do evil that good may result."
Why can't evil methods or processes lead to good (righteousness)?
Among the reasons why this is fundamentally impossible are: the nature of evil, the nature of God, the power of God, the wisdom of God, and the will of God. In order to believe that evil can result in good one must misunderstand all of these things.
In what ways are (have) Christians accepted this dangerously false premise? In our personal relationships, our collective actions as a Church (think Crusades, Inquisition, burning people at the stake, and a host of immoral behavior to gain power and control over various portions of the Church), and growing more toxic each year, our politics as American Christians.
In the end, we must reject the false siren's call that we can utilize evil without being corrupted by it, whatever else it is, such a path is not God's.
Long story short, the only ones whom God will declare to be righteous are those who obey his Law (that of Moses for the Jews of the Abrahamic Covenant, that of Jesus' Gospel for everyone after he fulfilled the former). That nobody can live up to this standard is the conclusion Paul is building toward, but for now he lays part of the foundation by proclaiming that those without divine revelation will be judged by their consciences, and those who have received divine revelation (i.e. God's Word) will be judged by what it proclaims.
To those of us who have been blessed to hear God's Word this is not a comfort, but a hard dose of reality reminding us that only perfection will suffice (in a few paragraphs Paul will proclaim how Jesus resolved this fatal flaw in humanity). To those who only have conscience as a guide, the specific accountability will be less, but the judgment to come remains. In the end, both those who know more and those who only have what is common to all humanity made in God's image will have to reckon with the fact that with God knowledge is not enough, only obedience is acceptable.
It was the study of Romans, in order to lecture upon the letter, that led Martin Luther to question the accepted understanding of the relationship between faith and righteousness, and it was these two verses, in particular, that brought Luther into conflict with his contemporaries.
Romans 1:16-17 is Paul's thesis statement, the idea that he will prove in his letter moving forward. Paul proclaims that the Gospel (the Good News about Jesus Christ) is the power of God on display for EVERYONE who believes. How? The Gospel combines both God's justice, for payment for sin is indeed necessary, and God's love/mercy/grace because that payment comes not form ourselves but through Jesus by faith in him.
It is not our righteousness that is revealed by the power of the Gospel, for we have none and that's the heart of the problem, but God's, which he has in abundance in the sinless life of Jesus Christ. Thus it is not the wonders of Creation that most reveals the power of God, but the willingness to die upon a Cross.
The psalm chosen to begin the collection of music brought together as the book of Psalms highlights two stark and divergent paths. The righteous path delights in God's Law (his Word), studying it and living by it, and is rewarded with a steadfast and fruitful life (prosperity using God's definition). In contrast, the wicked lack this anchor and nourishment and are ultimately unable to stand in the face of God's judgment.
As Robert Frost wrote, there is a choice of paths, but it isn't a question of which is more or less traveled by, the true question is: which path leads to God?
Having reprimanded the religious leadership of Judaism for clinging to tradition without sincerity, now Jesus focuses upon one example of a second problem: tradition without integrity. They had used a loophole in the Law to negate the command to honor one's parents by allowing resources to be offered to God instead, a case of greed masking itself as piety. Whatever traditions, habits, or cultural norms we use to excuse immorality and/or excuse a lack of righteousness, it won't work with God. God sees the heart, and knows our intentions. We need to examine ourselves, remove our excuses, and rededicate ourselves to devotion to God and family; no excuses.
After preaching yet again to large crowds, Jesus decides to add to his group of disciples by making an unorthodox addition: the tax collector Levi (Matthew). After this stunner, for the tax collectors were viewed as traitors and thus outcasts in Jewish society, Jesus goes a step further and has dinner with Levi and his friends. The Pharisees, shocked by this co-mingling with 'sinners' ask for an explanation. Jesus famously replies, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, bu the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Jesus reaches out to society's outcasts, 'lost causes', and villains, hoping to find there those who recognize their lost state who might be willing to repent. Jesus calls us to do likewise, finding ways to connect with those who aren't like us, remembering the grace we have received, that we too might help the 'sick' find the Great Physician.
Having warned about the danger of those denying Christ and using God's grace as an excuse for sin, Jude concludes that 'these people' (false teachers, divisive troublemakers, fanatics, and other fake Christians) are harmful within the Church because not only do they fail to produce the Fruit of the Spirit (nor could they, not having the Holy Spirit), they also confuse the Gospel message. Our response, as a Church, to fake Christians? (1) Don't let those without orthodox belief AND a demonstrated commitment to righteous living have any role in church leadership. (2) When necessary, remove from fellowship those who refuse to abandon heresy or renounce gross immorality. Lastly, and crucially, STOP believing the lie that a person can be a Christian without acting like Christ. To watch the video, click on the link below:
Are good people in heaven? The problem with this question is that it assumes a definition of the term "good" that is not connected to the holiness and righteousness of God. If we ask the question according to that standard of purity and perfection, the answer would be "yes", but with the important caveat that there are no such people. A theme in the Bible, expressed here by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, is that humanity is fallen, in open rebellion against God, and without hope on our own of rectifying the situation. It is not enough to claim to do 99 morally upright deeds for every 1 immoral act, nor even 999 to 1, for even such lofty aspirations fall short of the standard of righteousness that God set forth for the Messiah: sinless perfection. Thus our need for a savior, a Messiah, comes into focus, if God had not come to save us, humanity would have remained in hopelessness.
It has become readily apparent that a significant number of Christians have decided that those who oppose them, in a variety of settings that include church controversies, business, and politics, ought to be treated as an "other" and defeated by nearly any means necessary. For too many of us, the ends justify the means because we have pridefully defined our chosen end as God's will. And while history has shown how dangerous this attitude can be even when a nation is facing an existential threat {see for example: the firebombing of Dresden, and the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII}, it can in no way be argued, according to the Scriptures {which is what ought to matter to a Christian}, that this is the morally appropriate choice for an individual, or group, of Christians.
Romans 3:8 New International Version (NIV) 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! Romans 12:21 New International Version (NIV) 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Matthew 5:43-48 New International Version (NIV) 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
We, as Christians, have been called to a higher standard. We have been charged with living as disciples of Jesus Christ and thus imitating our Savior in this world. To "win" a battle utilizing immoral means is to lose the war.
Hear this, and hear it well: God is the judge of the world. It is better for us to lose morally than to try to win immorally. We have not been given a command to be winners, we have been given a command to be righteous. In this world, they're not typically the same thing. Each time Christians choose to try to be winners rather than righteous, they demonstrate that they don't have sufficient faith in God's final victory and they taint the message of the Gospel {as hypocrites}.
Zechariah 4:6 New International Version (NIV) 6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.
