As a disciple of Jesus, do you need to "compensate" for not being able to offer animal sacrifices through a Levitical priest at the Temple? First Fruits of Zion teaches that you do.

 

The Straw Man in action again, these texts are not what prove that Jesus' death and resurrection canceled the sacrifices, but plenty of others do just that.

Three statements on one page claiming the animal sacrifices must continue to be made.

A question that assumes the false premise that there is a "lack" of sacrifices.

God does indeed delight in obedience more than sacrifice, but in the New Covenant nobody needs to "compensate" for not giving the latter with the former.

I think this line of thought will seem rather bizarre to most of the world's Christians.  For those who place their faith in Jesus Christ to save them from their sins through his accomplished sacrifice of atonement (the resurrection proving it was accepted), the idea that the animal sacrifices of the Law of Moses would somehow still play a role flies in the face of what we've been taught from the New Testament.  The following, false, premises are demonstrated as being a part of FFOZ's teachings in The Beginning of Wisdom, lesson 25:

1. That the animal sacrifices of the Law of Moses through the Levitical priesthood and the Temple will never cease.

2. That Jesus did NOT bring the sacrificial system to an end through his own death and resurrection.

3. Therefore, all followers of Jesus "owe" God animal sacrifices, which they cannot make without a priesthood or a Temple, and thus all followers of Jesus must "compensate" for that deficiency with other Torah-observant acts of devotion.

In the end, not a single New Testament author even hints at either of these premises, let alone that outrageous conclusion.  Quite the opposite in fact occurs as Jesus' words in the Gospels combined with the writings of Paul, and especially the book of Hebrews, paint a picture of freedom in Christ over and over again.  Jesus fulfilled the Law, from first to last.  Jesus is the Great High Priest, we need no other.  Jesus is the Holy Temple, we need no building.  Jesus is the Lamb of God, we absolutely need no other sacrifice.  

What is our "sacrifice" as followers of Jesus that is acceptable to God?

1. Our whole lives:

Romans 12:1-2  Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

2. Supporting Gospel witness to the Lost:

Philippians 4:18  I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.

3. Praise:

Hebrews 13:15  Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.

4. Doing what is good, sharing with others:

Hebrews 13:16  And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

5. "Spiritual sacrifices":

1 Peter 2:5  you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

This isn't a comprehensive list, just the ways in which the Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews wrote about sacrifices with respect to what we owe God.  Any mention of Levitical priests, the Temple in Jerusalem, or the blood of animals?  Nope.  There's a reason for that, and it is one that FFOZ cannot accept.

I preached Romans 12:1-2 last July, contrary to what Daniel Lancaster (Torah Club) thinks, it doesn't have anything to do with Jesus' followers making up for being unable to offer animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem

 

"sacrifices can't be offered today," remember that line

When you see beginner level mistakes in the interpretation of scripture happen repeatedly in published materials from an author or organization, it makes you wonder how such a thing could happen.  Then again, in this case, the oddball interpretation serves a larger purpose because it needs to connect to a theory that the author really wants to be true: The Law of Moses is still 100% in effect and one day the entire Temple sacrificial system will be reinstated exactly as written in the Torah.

If you as an individual or an organization need the Law of Moses to be eternal, and you want to make it look like scripture supports this thesis, there are going to be a lot of passages that get twisted into shapes the Church won't recognize.  In Lesson 24 of the Beginning of Wisdom, Romans 12:1-2 gets that treatment.

In Romans 12:1-2, the Apostle Paul explains the proper Christian response to God's merciful and glorious will as laid forth in the doxology that ended chapter 11.  In 12:1-2 Paul utilizes the metaphorical imagery of the Mosaic sacrificial system to point to something better: the living sacrifice of service and worship that we can make to God.

To serve his purposes, Lancaster declares that the Greek word latreia, which is typically translated into English in this context as "worship", "refers specifically to the sacrificial services."  This isn't true, and it is easy to see why.  Yes, the Apostle Paul is using the imagery of the sacrificial system to make his point, a common rhetorical technique of building on the familiar (as the non-Jews among his readers would also be familiar with sacrifices made in the Greco-Roman religious rites as virtually all Ancient Near Eastern civilizations utilized such sacrifices) to point to what the New Covenant has replaced that familiar thing with.  Rather than animal sacrifices carried out by priests, the familiar pattern, the New Covenant requires our very lives.  Not in human blood-spilling sacrifices, but as a living rejection of our own self-centeredness in favor of being servants of God.  The emphasis on the living sacrifice is a point of discontinuity with the Mosaic system, not continuity, Lancaster is proclaiming the opposite of what Paul's metaphor is intended to convey.

Contrary to Lancaster, Paul isn't using this imagery because the Roman followers of Jesus lived too far away from Jerusalem to offer up animal sacrifices there.  He states a whole litany of various sacrifices that these followers of Jesus are supposedly obligated to keep.  That's eisegesis, Lancaster is reading into the text what he wants to find there.  The evidence is lacking in the NT or in Early Church writings that Jesus' followers in the Church had any interest in participating in the Mosaic system that continued to function in Jerusalem until its destruction in 70 AD.  Nowhere does Paul, or any other NT author, write about how Gentile Christians need to travel to Jerusalem, how they ought to celebrate the Festivals, keep the Sabbath, or keep Kosher.  The Jerusalem Council specifically rejects any such mandate {Yes, FFOZ also flips that text around to proclaim that it means the opposite of Luke's intention}.  As my exhaustive study of every relevant passage in the book of Acts demonstrates so clearly, the Early Church was not under the tutelage of the synagogues, they were not learning how to live like Jews, it just wasn't happening. {The evidence from Luke's history of that first generation is one of hostility not cooperation, new beginnings and new solutions, not continuation of old forms.  Read the analysis for yourself and see.}

What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?

As Lancaster shows here in lesson 24 (and goes much further in lesson 25), FFOZ believes and teaches that the Mosaic system is still firmly in effect, that the only reason that Jesus' followers are not obliged this very day to travel to Jerusalem to participate in sacrifices there is that the Temple itself was destroyed.  They envision that when the Temple is rebuilt, the Law of Moses will resume in full force for everyone, nothing will have changed because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ with respect to the Law's obligations upon God's people, now including Gentile believers in Jesus.  In the future, they believe, everyone will fully keep the unchanging Torah.

In the end, Jesus has provided his followers with something far better than the Law of Moses.  The Law had provisions that kept the people away from God's presence: foreigners, women, lepers, eunuchs, and more were kept at a distance from God's presence within the Holy of Holies.  Even Jewish men could not directly approach God, only the priests could enter the inner areas of the Temple, and only the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, bringing with him blood for the Ark, could see God's visible glory in that place... But the curtain tore in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51) when Jesus breathed his last.  What had kept humanity away from God, our unpaid-for sins, was gone; gone forever.  Instead of fear and trembling, instead of extremely limited access and layers of separation between God and his people, because of Jesus we can approach the Father directly, we can cry out, "Abba!"  The only priest we will ever need to stand between us and God is our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ.

Until the Incarnation brought about Jesus' death and resurrection, an entire system was needed to allow God's presence to be among a stubborn and sinful people.  That system never took away sins (at least Lancaster stresses this point several times), it only held God's wrath at bay lest his people be destroyed before he could show them his coming mercy.

But that age has ended, thanks be to God.  It served its purpose in God's will, but that purpose has been surpassed by one that is far greater.  Now all the world's people can approach God, all equal before the throne of grace because all have come to it by grace through faith in Jesus.

Dear followers of Jesus, your "worship" offered to God is not a substitution for a sacrifice in the Temple that would otherwise be required of you, it is not an obligation laid upon your shoulders, it is a heartfelt act of gratitude because Jesus has set you free, free to serve the Living God.

For the sake of comparison, here is my sermon from July of 2023 on Romans 12:1-2

Sermon Video: Creation is God's Temple - Genesis 1:3-25

The Creation narrative in Genesis 1 accomplishes two primary things, both for ancient Israel and for the Church today, it tells us who is responsible for everything, and why what was made was made.  The who is simple, the answer is God, nobody else is involved in the Creation account.  The why has a two-fold answer: (1) to be God's temple: his kingdom, abode, and resting place, and (2) to foster the relationship between God and man.  The second task is accomplished thanks to the wonder and awe associated with what God has made, a variety with purpose and beauty that causes us to ask, "Who was it that made it thus?"

Did the Apostles fully keep the Torah after Jesus’ death and resurrection? A response to the claim of FFOZ

In the past year and a half, I’ve read a lot of things written by the leadership of First Fruits of Zion.  While individual misinterpretations of the biblical text and Early Church history abound in their published materials, correcting these errors does not seem to move the needle with those who have fallen under the sway of Boaz Michael, Daniel Lancaster, and the rest.  What would it take?  How much of a rejection of God’s Word is necessary to demonstrate the danger of this path?

FFOZ’s claim: The Apostles (and the entirety of the first generation of followers of Jesus, both Jew and Gentile) fully kept Torah.  In their view this was as Jesus intended, his life, death, and resurrection changed NOTHING with respect to full participation in the first-century expression of Judaism, full obedience to the Law of Moses continued to be expected in every aspect of everyone.

This reflects the central historical claim of FFOZ, that until later generations dropped the affiliation with Judaism, Jesus’ followers (both Jew and Gentile alike) were full participants in synagogue life, full participants in Temple worship, fully obedient to every aspect of Torah.

Here is an example of this thesis from FFOZ in action:

The New Testament metaphorically refers to Yeshua’s suffering and death as a sacrifice for sin, but that’s not the same as cancelling the sacrifices.  The boof of Acts shows us that the believers remained engaged in the Jerusalem Temple system long after the death and resurrection of the Master.  Obviously they did not regard the Temple worship as obsolete.  Ever since the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the sacrifices detailed in the Torah have not been possible and will not be possible until God’s Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt. – Restoration by Daniel Lancaster, p. 169-170

We don’t make sacrifices today, but only because the Torah forbids us from doing so.  Without a Temple and priesthood, sacrificing is a sin. – Restoration by Daniel Lancaster, p. 173 (emphasis mine)

Caveat: After the destruction of the Temple, the ending of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, and the disbanding of the Sanhedrin, many of the requirements of the Torah no longer applied.  This FFOZ freely admits, it would be absurd to contend otherwise as these requirements were literally impossible to keep without the priesthood and sacrificial system being in place.  FFOZ does, however, expect animal sacrifices to resume if/when the Temple is rebuilt, to them Jesus’ “metaphorical” death hasn’t changed anything in this regard.  As Lancaster writes, “the Law of God is eternal.” (Restoration, p. 157) {Note: He isn’t saying the Word of God, context makes it clear that he means the Mosaic Law in its entirety is intended to be an eternally operating system.}

This leaves nearly a 40-year period after the resurrection of Jesus Christ when Jesus’ followers could have participated fully in Torah, as he and they had before his death and resurrection, if it had been Jesus’ goal and purpose for them.

However, to do so would have been to trivialize the sacrifice of Christ to the point of sacrilege.

Here’s why: Leviticus 4:1-2 says this,

The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands…

The rest of the chapter outlines the required animal sacrifice.  In the case of an unintentional sin by any of the covenant people, the animal was to be a goat or lamb,

29 They are to lay their hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. 30 Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. (Lev. 4:29-30)

This was God’s command to the Israelites given at Mt. Sinai; it would have been absolutely necessary for the Apostles (and the growing number of Christians) if they were fully Torah observant to take part in this particular sacrifice many times during those decades, for each of them would have had numerous unintentional sins on their ledger, so to speak. 

{Remember, however that the Gentiles Christians would have been barred from in-person participation in the Temple system, the physical reminder of their inferiority that kept them from the inner courts of the Temple would have been enforced on pain of death.  See Acts 21:28}

But neither the Jewish Christians nor the Gentile Christian could have made these sacrifices, not if they understood even in rudimentary terms what the sacrifice of Jesus had already accomplished.  The book of Hebrews would not yet have been available to them, but does FFOZ really want us to believe that Jesus’ disciples were this ignorant of what he had accomplished on the Cross up until they read Hebrews?  Or does the testimony of Hebrews that confirms the abrogation of the sacrificial system not count when you’ve already concluded that, “the Law of God is eternal”?

The writer of Hebrews spells this purposeful God-authored change out in detail:

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4:14-16)

The resurrected and ascended Jesus was already the Great High Priest, there was no longer a need for the services of one descended from Aaron.  Why would a follower of the post-resurrection Jesus go to a mere man with a sacrifice?

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:11-14)

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 11:11-14)

Jesus’ blood had fully and forever paid for the sins of the Apostles, how could they continue to offer that of an animal knowing that they had been washed clean?  The choice was between obeying Torah by repeating sacrifices Jesus had already paid for, or recognizing that his death and resurrection had fundamentally changed the very nature of the sacrificial system by forever eliminating any need for it, and thus changed the Law of Moses itself.

19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:19-22)

Even the Temple itself, while it still stood until the Romans destroyed it, no longer contained the true Most Holy Place, for the very body of Jesus Christ was the true living Temple, the one that he promised would be raised three days after it was destroyed.

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary. (Hebrews 10:18)

It was no longer necessary, the sins of the Apostles, even those they had yet to commit, had already been forgiven.

How then could they be fully Torah observant by offering animal sacrifices without hypocrisy, even sacrilege?  How could Jesus have expected them to remain fully participating in first-century Judaism without continuing in the sacrificial system?

The answer is: They weren’t, nor did Jesus expect them to be.  For Jesus is our Great High Priest, the Holy Temple, the Blood of the Covenant, and the final sacrifice that God ever required.

For convenience this post is also available as a Word document: Did the Apostles fully keep the Torah after Jesus' death and resurrection?

Sermon Video: "the end is still to come" - Mark 13:1-19

Days before his own Passion, Jesus drops a bomb on his disciples that the Temple in Jerusalem is going to be completely destroyed. The disciples follow up with the most pressing question, when? Rather than offer up a timeline, Jesus begins to develop a theme of preparedness and faithfulness through the coming trials and tribulations.

Sermon Video: "Have faith in God" Mark 11:12-14, 19-23

 Mark arranges this two-part episode before and after Jesus' cleansing of the Temple in order to highlight its use as a symbolic representation. The fig tree in the story is 1st century Israel, specifically the Temple and what transpires there. From a distance it appears healthy, busy even, but up close there is no fruit. Like the fig tree, judgement is at hand for the Temple. This contrasts strongly with the Messianic expectations of many, coming only two days after the Triumphal Entry. Given this reversal, that judgement not a Golden Age is on the horizon, Jesus offers a timeless truth, "have faith in God". Faith is necessary for God's people, in good times or bad, and even when this world seems the darkest (like it was about to on Good Friday), hope remains because faith in God can move mountains. The Temple's day of judgment was at hand, but God had already provided a new and better way to approach him, through faith in Jesus Christ.

Sermon Video: "A house of prayer for all nations" - Mark 11:15-18

Having entered the Temple courts on Monday of Holy Week, before his upcoming time spent teaching the people there for the last time, Jesus drives out of the Court of the Gentiles those who were doing the business of the Law of Moses (selling kosher animals for sacrifices and exchanging foreign money for coins that could be put into the Temple treasury) in that supposedly sacred space.  Gentile converts, those who had chosen to join Judaism, could not enter the temple itself (warning signs on the entrances reminded them they'd be executed if they tried) and could only worship/pray to God from a greater distance than Jewish women, who were kept further away than Jewish men.  However, for convenience sake, the sacred space they're supposed to worship God in was turned into a marketplace (and a short-cut from one side of city to the other).  

Can a church negate the sacred nature of its house?  Certainly, among the way happens is: (1) By not making everyone welcome {racism, sexism, class divisions, unwelcome attitude toward ex-cons, those with addictions or questions about their sexuality, etc}, (2) Through a focus on perpetuating the ministry, primarily through emphasizing money, more than fellowship and worship, (3) through a focus on earthly power instead of God's kingdom, typically by making the church a Red Church or a Blue Church, or (4) by failing to be a place of Love and the Fruit of the Spirit (a spirtually dead church).  In each case, depending on the severity {a church could suffer from more than one, many do}, the worship done in that space is wasted, for naught.  

May God help us to see where we fall short, as a church, of creating/maintaining sacred space, and may God grant us the humility to change.

Sermon Video: "In this place I will grant peace" Haggai 2:1-9,20-23

As the people have already returned to working on the temple following the urging of the prophet Haggai, what message does God have for them one month later?  Surprisingly, God chooses to point out to the people the vastly diminished scope of their effort in comparison to the glory achieved by their ancestors.  The Jewish remnant, now a province of Persia, have no hope of matching the results of their ancestors who built Solomon's magnificent temple during the height of the power and wealth of the Kingdom of Israel.  So why would God remind them of the fact that things are not what they once were?  Because they already knew it.  God chose to confront the issue head-on because he wanted to reassure the people that he was still with them, that his Spirit would still be among them, and that he would indeed be glorified in the temple they were rebuilding, even if it was but an imitation of the temple destroyed in 586 BC.
Here at 1st Baptist of Franklin we can understand the emotions of the Jewish remnant when they contemplated the glory of a few generations previously.  One hundred years ago our church building had 2,100 seats in the sanctuary (since renovated into an auditorium and recreation area, capacity now about 300), and the Sunday School attendance books show weeks with over 1,000 people.  Those huge numbers were doing the height of the oil boom, an era long past in Venango County.  What then do we do with less than 1/10th of their numbers?  Mourn the loss of that "golden age"?  No, we hold fast to the promises of God that he is with us in our generation as well, that God has a place for us in his will, that his Spirit remains among us, and that he most certainly will be glorified in our generation as he was in their generation.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Honoring God through the House of the LORD - Haggai 1

What is the value of the place at which the people of God gather?  We know that the Church is the people of God, not the buildings they meet in or the institutions they create to organize themselves, but does that negate the value (spiritual, primarily, but also emotional) of the worship space of God's people?  The prophet Haggai was sent by God to the Jewish people returned from exile in Babylon to Jerusalem to reassert the need for God's people to rebuild the temple of Solomon that had been destroyed in 586 B.C.  Why did they need to rebuild the temple?  "so that I may take pleasure in it and be honored" (Haggai 1:8).  The place in which God's people meet to worship and fellowship is of immense value.  The returned exiles had neglected for rebuild the temple for 16 years and had thus incurred God's displeasure.  The place where God's people meet doesn't have to be fancy, it doesn't have to be costly, but it does have to function as a meeting place where the presence of God can dwell among his people.  Whether a church meets in a storefront, a simple brick building, or a massive cathedral, they ought to treasure that sacred space, honorably maintain it, and put it to the use intended by God as the Spirit of God dwells among them when they are gathered in his name.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video - The Danger of a Mob Mentality, Acts 21:27-36

Fueled by racial hatred and an over-inflated sense of their own importance to God, a dangerous combination, a crowd among the worshipers gathered for Pentecost in Jerusalem seize the Apostle Paul and accuse him of violating the prohibition against bringing a gentile within the inner sanctum of the temple.  That this is a false accusation does not stop the mob that quickly forms from trying to kill Paul, nor does the fact that Judaism requires multiple witness and a trial before any capital punishment (nor the fact that the "crime" in question is not one based upon Scripture).  In the end, Paul is saved, not by any follower of God, but by a gentile Roman soldier who rescues Paul from the clutches of those who claim to be doing the work of God.  Aside from the obvious warning about racism and self-assurance for us today as Christians, this passage also strongly warns us about the danger of losing self-control, of giving in to emotional outbursts, whether part of a crowd or on our own, and of being a blind follower who does not verify the truth of the matter on one's own.  As Christians, we cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to either a mob mentality nor a herd mentality.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "My house will be called a house of prayer" Matthew 21:12-13

When Jesus entered the outer court of the Temple, after his recent triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he encountered something that had no place in that sacred space: commerce.  What was supposed to be a place for worship and prayer, in particular for Gentile converts to Judaism, had been transformed into a place of business.  Zeal for the purity of the worship due to God led Jesus to drive the merchants from that space, in the process quoting Isaiah's warning that God welcomed outcasts among his people, and Jeremiah's warning that impure worship/immorality would cause God to expel the people from the sacred space in which they had put their trust.

The most readily apparent parallels for the Church, today and throughout its history, are the twin pursuit of money and power, both of which have infected portions of the Church, tainting the worship of God's people and blunting the effectiveness of their ministry.  We too have failed to make all welcome with us as we worship, and we have certainly in some cases allowed the pursuit of money and/or the desire to influence political power to creep into both the ministry of the church, and even more alarmingly, for some churches the worship time/space as well.

If both the temple in Jeremiah's day, and the one that Jesus walked in, were destroyed because of impure worship on the part of the people, ought not churches whose worship is diluted by their own interests and priorities and hence not wholly devoted to God be fearful that they too will face God's displeasure?

To watch the video, click on the link below: