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
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 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.
“The sages said that the Messianic Era might have commenced at that point, but the children of Israel lost the opportunity. Likewise, in the days of the apostles, the kingdom was again at hand. If the generation had heeded the message of Yeshua and the twelve disciples, they could have entered the Messianic Era. They failed to do so. They lost the opportunity.” – p. 4
So, unnamed “sages” think that had Israel while journeying out of Egypt been more obedient God would have sent the Messiah right then and there. That’s a bold theory, it certainly isn’t derived from Scripture. Likewise, FFOZ is teaching that the Jewish community to whom Jesus came had the power to usher in the Messianic Era immediately after the death of Jesus? How is this supposed to work? If they had accepted him fully, the Kingdom would have been founded without his death? But if he was rejected, as the prophets foretold, how exactly was there ever a chance of the Kingdom being founded right away? I have no idea why they want to teach this, but they’re not getting it from the Word of God.
“Then they gathered around him and asked him, Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom of Israel?” – Acts 1:6
“The soul descends into this world on a mission. Why does it leave a place of comfort and repose to enter a world of hardship and struggle? Only to take advantage of this world’s opportunities to serve God, seek His presence, and love others…the soul knows there are no guarantees of success. The soul enters the world at great personal risk.” – p. 5
Once again, we have theology being built upon the heretical teaching of the pre-existence of the human soul. For whatever reason, FFOZ/Lancaster believe so much in this idea that it comes up over and over again in lesson after lesson. The whole idea doesn’t make any sense. God and our souls were dwelling together “in comfort and repose” but decided to risk eternal separation from God by becoming ignorant of that past and living here on the chance that they would find their way back to God?? Do the people who were raised in the Church and now sit in Torah Club meetings really buy this nonsense?
“How many opportunities to experience the Messiah and contribute to the redemption do we forfeit every day? He stands at the door and knocks, but the slumbering soul, comfortably tucked inside the physical body, does not want to get out of bed.” – p. 7
You are a whole person: body, soul, and spirit. You do NOT have a spirit “tucked inside” your body. You are every part of you, indivisible. The irony of these ideas borrowed from medieval Jewish mysticism is that they have far more in common with Greek Gnostic Dualism than with 1st Century Judaism. Also, we say “no” to Jesus because our soul is too lazy and comfortable?? That’s no version of the sin nature that I’ve ever read in scripture. Hold that thought…
“Whenever you have a difficult choice to make, choose the harder thing. The harder thing usually turns out to be the better choice. The more lenient path should always be viewed with suspicion.” – p. 11
This fits right in with someone trying to replace Grace with Law, Faith with Works. You need to work harder to please God is what they're selling to you. Don’t get me wrong, Christian discipleship is very hard work, but that’s because we’re trying to purge our hearts and minds of the sinful nature we were born with, not because we’re supposed to default to the “harder thing.” FYI, this is not how a moral compass works. We are supposed to do the right thing, the righteous thing, whether or not it is easy or hard.
“For example, suppose you were thinking about hosting Sabbath guests on a Friday night…This isn’t a good week for that? I have a busy schedule this week, and the house is a mess. I would have to spend extra on groceries. And who knows what their dietary standard might be? My kitchen’s surely not kosher enough for them. It’s exhausting to even thing about cooking in this heat, Shabbat starts so late at this time of year…” – p. 12
And here we have a casually inserted example of the thing that so many Torah Club members insist FFOZ isn’t doing: Convincing Gentiles to live like Jews. Why this particular example of something that is hard that we may be too lazy to do? Why is the context kosher eating and Sabbath keeping? If you are lazy, that is, a bad disciple, you won’t put in the effort to obey the Law of Moses, but if you’re really dedicated like Boaz, Daniel, Aaron, Jacob and the rest, you will gladly take upon yourself the yolk of the Law. The proof of their goal is right on the page!
“If his bodily movements are sluggish, the movements of his spirit also become dull and lifeless. This is verified by experience.” – Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzatto, The Path of the Upright “The sages teach, ‘One sin leads to another sin’…The sages teach, ‘One mitzvah leads to another mitzvah.’ Soon both the spirit and the flesh are strong.” – p. 14
In an effort to equate physical activity with spiritual health, this lesson goes so far as to quote Benjamin Franklin. But that’s not the reason to note this section. This may sound like a broken record, but once again we have a Torah Club lesson that quotes “the sages” without ever saying which one, when, or where. That’s just sloppy scholarship and the kind of thing one can’t ask in follow-up, “Do they really teach that?” It is also another lesson where not a single Christian theologian of any century is quoted, rather Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzatto’s book is quoted twice at length. Was this Rabbi a follower of Jesus? Actually, he was an 18th century mystic who claimed to have received direct divine revelation. Is this someone whose ideas the followers of Jesus ought to study uncritically? Should we be taking advice on Christian discipleship from this source? Significant danger signs that FFOZ doesn't even acknowledge.
“Group Discussion: Read Romans 8:5-14 out loud and discuss. Keep in mind that the term ‘flesh’ is short for the Hebrew idiom ‘flesh and blood,’ an idiom that refers to the physical human body.” – p. 15
{For comparison, what Romans 8:5-14 actually says is below}
Romans 8:5-14 New International Version Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[a] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. 12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. 14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.
No, no, no, a thousand times no. The Apostle Paul is NOT warning the church at Rome about the physical human body. This is a bastardized interpretation of Paul that has no basis in the context of Romans nor the argumentation of Paul in any of his writings. You are a whole human being, not a spirit at war with your physical body. These are heresies that the Early Church soundly rejected when they took the form of Gnosticism. FFOZ is repackaging that ancient heresy, evidently assuming its followers will be unaware that the Church long ago rejected a spiritual vs. physical dualism, or that they won’t care. Either way, this is NOT what Paul is teaching.
“The physical body, which seeks comfort in this world, does not understand the gravity of the loss, but the soul will later lament every lost opportunity…When the soul leaves the body and returns to the place from whence it came…During that accounting, the soul grieves more over the many lost opportunities to do good and carry out its mission on earth than it does over the transgressions and sins it committed.” – P. 20
Where to begin. We have in full force the Gnostic dualism and pre-existence of the human soul that the Early Church rejected as heresy. Here in FFOZ’s Torah Club materials they are taught as facts without any biblical support, one should instead simply trust the extra-biblical sources from which this ideas were taken. Lastly, will we (not just our souls apart from our body as depicted here) regret more the things we failed to do than the sins we committed? That probably depends a lot upon the life a person lived, what they did and did not do. If you’re wondering if this assertion is supported by a text of scripture properly quoted in context, you haven’t gotten the hang of how these Torah Club lessons work yet.
“The mirror analogy describes our experience of life, the universe, and everything. We think of ourselves as seeing the real world, but what are we experiencing? Only electrical sensory inputs channeled through a bio-chemical nervous system connected to a central processing unit of tangled neurons struggling to render some sort of interpretation of those signals. Our brains work like computers to simulate the environment around us. No one sees reality; we see our brain’s best attempt to process sensory input.”- p. 12
“That’s part of what Paul was getting at when he said, ‘For now, we see in a mirror dimly’ (1 Corinthians 13:12). It’s not a polished mirror. We aren’t getting the whole picture. We can see only in part. The world we think of as reality exists only inside our head. Every person creates his or her own personal reality.” – p. 12
“To be in close conversation with Absolute Reality is prophecy at the highest level: the level of Moses. As explained above, the Hebrew world for vision also means mirror. Numbers 12:6 could be translated to say, ‘If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a mirror.’ But it’s not a polished mirror. For most prophets, it’s merely a dim reflection – not the personal experience of God that Moses knew. It’s only an imperfect reflection, many times removed.” – p. 18
“Playing on the double meaning of the word – vision and mirror – the Midrash Rabbah contrasts Moses’ exalted level of prophecy against that of the other prophets. All other prophets saw their prophetic visions dimly through nine mirrors.” – p. 18{quoting Leviticus Rabbah 1:14}
Why do I have the feeling that Daniel Lancaster wants me to take the Red Pill? If that Matrix reference didn’t connect with you, in that 1999 movie Keanu Reeve’s character Neo is told by a guide named Morpheus that the reality he thinks that he is living in isn’t real. Not really real anyway, it is just a computer simulation.
It may seem like a post-modern idea to doubt that reality exists beyond our own perception of it, but in reality, apologies for that double-usage, the idea had its heyday in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Empiricist philosophers John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Long before computer special effects, there were philosophers who doubted that we could have any genuine knowledge of what is real beyond our own perception of it.
The great debate between the Rationalists and the Empiricists that set the stage for modern Western thought is too big a topic for this venue, but one effect of the Empiricist’s rejection of the tenants of Rationalism speaks to the danger of what the First Fruits of Zion are teaching here: Individual realities. If reality is an individual construction, not a thing with its own true nature and existence, notions such as Fact and Truth invariably become fuzzy, antiquated, even ridiculed. There is no longer any Truth, just “my truth” and “your truth”.
This example reminds us of some of the deep contradictions and dissonance within the belief system that FFOZ’s leaders have constructed: On the one hand, they claim to represent 1st century Jewish Christian thought and practice, on the other hand, they embrace the individualistic mystical experience of medieval Kabbalah, which of course is full of concepts that were entirely foreign to the cultural stream of 1st century Judaism and/or Christianity. Why is FFOZ teaching extreme individual relativism? Where is this headed?
The second topic in this lesson that jumps out as deeply dangerous is the insistence drawn from the Leviticus Rabbah (Midrash), that ONLY Moses had full and clear revelation from God. The prophets Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist? They only saw a dim mirror, 9 reflections of reality, not “Absolute Reality” itself. The practical, and intended by FFOZ, effect of this foolishness is to elevate the Torah and diminish all other scriptures to a secondary status.
Why? Because to them Torah is eternal. Torah is the essence of God’s nature. Torah surpasses all. Wait a minute, what about the Word of God? What about Jesus Christ, God of God, God dwelling among us? Surely the Gospels have at least an equal level of clarity and wisdom as that given to Moses? Nope, the Torah Club lesson doesn’t say that, “Our highest level of the revelation of God in this current world does not attain the level of Moses.” (p. 19)
The thing is, the Gospels don’t say any of this, FFOZ is saying it. This is what Jesus says about what he is revealing to his followers:
John 14:6-7,9 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
In addition to diminishing the portions of scripture not given to Moses directly at Sinai, this bizarre “mirror theory” of FFOZ also treats the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church Age as an inferior revelation. How can we know Truth and Reality beyond the Torah? Lancaster tweaks Luke 7:28 on p. 19 to emphasize our limitation in this era, the brackets are his: “Among those born of women, there is no [prophet] greater than John, yet [the prophet] who is least [in the Messianic Era will be] greater than he.” Yes, this is more of Lancaster changing scripture through his own translations to make it fit what FFOZ is teaching, he follows it up with this conclusion: “In the Messianic Era, we will attain the level of Moses – the level of face-to-face.” (p. 19)
Lesson 36 of The Beginning of Wisdom leans heavily on extra-biblical sources {Wisdom of Solomon, Ascension of Isaiah, Talmud, Midrash, and even Irenaeus’ The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching} to sow the seeds of doubt about reality being anything greater than our own perception, and doubts about any/all revelation given by God to anyone other than Moses. In the end, this journey of doubt will leave only one source of Truth standing, by design: the Torah of Moses.
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.
Building an End Times chronology on the pseudepigraphal (i.e. the Apostle Barnabas had nothing to do with writing it so it lacks any genuine authority) Epistle of Barnabas.
Predicting that we are about to be in the last 1/7th of God's redemptive program based on the combination of Young Earth Creationism (i.e. the Earth is 6,000 years old) and the Epistle of Barnabas.
Using brackets, {In the Messianic Era} and {In the World to Come} to change the meaning of the book of Hebrews away from its intended target of comforting the Church today.
Admitting the truth about Acts 15, this flatly contradicts what Lancaster wrote in Restoration and FFOZ's belief that the Jerusalem Council imposed the Law of Moses on Gentile believers by "assuming" they would be taught it in the synagogues (Where, as Acts makes painfully clear, they were not welcome).
I know a lot of pastors and committed Christians, among them friends, relatives, and fellow workers in the field of the Lord, that subscribe to Young Earth Creationism. When I was a young man I did too. While my study of the scriptures and the wisdom of teachers like Professor John Walton (the Lost World series of commentaries) have drawn me toward some version of Theistic Evolution because I believe it best explains both what we know of the world around us (i.e. science) and the theological emphasis of Genesis (rather than a scientific one) which doesn't offer information about when or how the universe, earth, and humanity were created but rather the much more important question of why God created.
That being said, given that none of us were there at the time, being dogmatic about an interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't very helpful to the Church, so I certainly have no issue with those who embrace Young Earth Creationism as long as they're not attacking those who also respect God's Word but understand this text differently.
Which brings us to Daniel Lancaster, the Beginning of Wisdom, and what the First Fruits of Zion are teaching about the End Times. Trust me, there's a connection. When learning about Boaz Michael and his supposed prophetic vision of God's plan to entice the descendants of Abraham to accept Jesus in this generation by convincing gentile Christians to live like Jews, one might rightly wonder why God would have allowed the Gospel to be deficient for 2,000 years before revealing the truth to only this man and his movement. Honestly, a healthy douse of skepticism is required when anyone proclaims that he/she understands something in a way that many generations before have not. For every Einstein who correctly glimpses relativity, there are hundreds of quacks and frauds whose ideas of perpetual motion, transmutation, or eugenics were rightly scorned and rejected by their peers. So, why do Boaz, Daniel, and the rest of the leaders at FFOZ think that God is acting now to finally reveal the true Gospel? Answer: The End Times are upon us.
Here's the thing, you and I know that, "about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32, NIV) Jesus repeatedly in the Gospels tells his followers that there will be signs pointing toward his return and coming Kingdom, but that by design we aren't supposed to know when that day will come. Throughout the past 2,000 years of Church history there have been many who have believed they were the exception. In fact, it was Baptist Pastor William Miller whose prediction that Jesus would return in 1844 started us on the path that led to the 7th Day Adventist Movement, which itself laid the groundwork for the Hebrew Roots Movement and now the First Fruits of Zion. Ironically, then, erroneous End Times prophecy helped usher the false teaching of the Hebrew Roots Movement (FFOZ) into existence, and now another erroneous End Times prophecy is being used by them to justify their worldview.
In lesson 26 of the Beginning of Wisdom set of Torah Club materials, Daniel Lancaster uses the pseudepigraphal / apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas as the framework of an argument that in essence is saying that the End Times must happen around the year 2,000 AD because the world must now be, using Young Earth Creationism chronology (there's the tie in), 6,000 years old, and Jesus will return to usher in a "seventh day" 7th thousand year Sabbath era. Beyond the obvious contradiction with Jesus' words that tell us that all such calculations are a fool's errand, we also have the burning question of why we should put any stock in the words of the Epistle of Barnabas given that this letter has zero connection to the Barnabas found in the book of Acts. While it is true that some of the Early Church Fathers believed it to be genuine, it was ultimately excluded from the canonical collection of scriptures, a decision we now know was the right one.
By definition, non-canonical writings are non-inspired writings. It works the other way too, canonical writings are inspired writings. This is a circular argument, it can't help being one, but one that has deep implications for the authority of any writing/teaching that isn't included in the canonical scriptures. The Reformers wished to emphasize this distinction by championing the belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone) as the ultimate authority for faith and practice. We know that FFOZ considers this idea to be antisemitic (as per: Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic), which makes sense given that they want to impose the traditions and teachings of various rabbis, both those who lived before and after Christ, on the New Testament as its interpretive lens.
So, why FFOZ think they have the Truth when dozens of generations of Jesus' followers have in their view missed out on it? Young Earth Creationism's timeline combined with a letter written by an unknown 2nd century author using Barnabas' name. I don't know about you, but I'm going to pass on that line of thinking.
Two other things jump out at me from lesson 26: (#1) The insertion of [in the Messianic Era] and [in the World to Come] into the text of Hebrews 12:22-24. This follows a pattern of word substitutions and "my translations" used repeatedly by FFOZ in their publications, as the 3rd way in which FFOZ alters the text of scripture to suit their own purposes. Scripture does indeed need interpretive assistance to be understood in our own time, that is why we have things like commentaries and study bibles, but this level of eisegesis (reading into the text what one wants to find) is extremely dangerous.
So, why do they insert these references to the future into the text of Hebrews 12:22-24? It looks like the goal is to shift the emphasis away from the author of Hebrew's intended target, that is, the Church today, toward the upcoming Messianic Kingdom. It is, then, just another attack on the Church in keeping with FFOZ's stated core belief that Jesus never intended to found a religion, therefore the Church has always been illegitimate.
(#2) The second noteworthy thing in lesson 26 is a candid admission during a discussion about dietary laws that the Council of Jerusalem, "did not foist the whole gamut of Jewish dietary laws upon the Gentile disciples" (p. 19) While this may not seem remarkable to those familiar with the way in which Acts 15 has been understood for the past 2,000 years, it is a shocking admission from FFOZ given that Daniel Lancaster wrote a whole book built around the false premise that gentile followers of Jesus should be living under the Law of Moses (Restoration by D. Thomas Lancaster (FFOZ): A review - This is "another gospel" built on a foundation of lies). In many of their published materials, podcasts, and videos, a radical reinterpretation of Acts 15 is a fundamental ploy of how FFOZ hopes to convince gentile Christians to abandon orthodoxy in favor of their version of rabbinic messianic Judaism. I don't know why they were willing to admit in this one place (while denying it in many others) that the Jerusalem Council did indeed choose to not place the Law of Moses on the backs of new gentile believers, but here it is.
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've taken the material from my previously published study {What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?} and turned it into a series of YouTube videos in order to make its 53 pages of argumentation more accessible to the public, and hopefully encourage further study of what God's Word actually says about this topic on the part of those who have been tempted to take up the yoke of the Law of Moses.
I've taken the material from my previously published study {What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?} and turned it into a series of YouTube videos in order to make its 53 pages of argumentation more accessible to the public, and hopefully encourage further study of what God's Word actually says about this topic on the part of those who have been tempted to take up the yoke of the Law of Moses.
I've taken the material from my previously published study {What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?} and turned it into a series of YouTube videos in order to make its 53 pages of argumentation more accessible to the public, and hopefully encourage further study of what God's Word actually says about this topic on the part of those who have been tempted to take up the yoke of the Law of Moses.
