Sermon Video: The sign of God's covenant with Noah, Genesis 9:1-17

Symbols can be powerful, they can evoke love or hate, assurance or fear.  They can be put to righteous purposes, or evil ones.  In Genesis 9 God chooses to make a covenant with Noah and promises that no other cataclysmic flood like the one that had just ended will occur in the future.  In doing so, God begins a pattern of making covenant with humanity, offering promises to help us navigate this life in connection with him.  God also offers a sign of the covenant, the rainbow, a fitting reminder that one can only see a rainbow when the sun is shining in the midst of a storm.

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #26: End Times speculation based on Young Earth Creationism combined with the Epistle of Barnabas

 

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.

Sermon Video: After the Flood - Genesis 8

 

The literary structure of the Flood narrative in Genesis draws the reader to 8:1 where we read, "But God remembered Noah." Just as the first half of the story highlighted God's provision for Noah, his family, and the animals during the coming and executing of his wrath, the second half highlights God's provision for them during the time of the waning of the effects of God's wrath. Through it all God cares for his people, for the righteous, and through it all Noah demonstrates tremendous patience and trust.

"A singular focus on preparing students for meaningful jobs and careers" would be the death of Christian Higher Education - A response to the essay by Cornerstone University's President Moreno-Riaño on Fox News

 

Here's what American universities should teach instead of activism Industry and moral skills are essential for our students and the future of our country By Gerson Moreno-Riaño Fox News Published July 27, 2024

Honestly, when my alma mater, Cornerstone University sent me an email touting this essay by President Moreno-Riaño and asking me to share it on social media, I don't think they had this in mind.  However, the excellent professors of the Humanities Department, the one that President Moreno-Riaño demolished this year {The Cornerstone University I graduated from is no more, my daughter won't be going there.} me how to think, so that's what I'll do.

{The Fox News essay is below in italics, my commentary will be in brackets [and bold]}

Colleges and universities are failing our country. This seems to be the growing consensus among an increasingly large percentage of Americans and business leaders.

[From the very start this essay bothers me a great deal.  This is being written by the President of Cornerstone University, I had great respect for this university's past presidents, but I have no respect for the attitude of President Moreno-Riaño which in this essay is being derived from business concerns and survey results.  Why?  Because Cornerstone University is supposed to be a Christian organization.  That's why it was founded, that was its mission for generations, and that is one of the main reasons why most of its students chose to go there, it brought me there in 1994.  A Christian organization, be it a church, a publishing house, a homeless shelter, or a school, is not supposed to be swimming with the current of our culture, business world, and politics, instead we are to serve a different master, on a different mission.  As an essay about secular Higher Education this opening line would still be disturbing as it frames the conversation about higher education as an ordinary business, which it is not, but coming from the President of Cornerstone University, it is ominous indeed.]

The recent Gallup and Lumina Foundation report shows that an increasing number of Americans have little to no confidence in higher education. For the first time since Gallup begin to measure the confidence level in higher education, America is "now nearly equally divided among those who have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence (36%), some confidence (32%), or little or no confidence (32%) in higher education."  

This finding represents a seismic shift from 2015, when almost 60% of Americans had a high level of confidence and 10% had little or none. 

[Opinion surveys reflect what the people who respond to them are ingesting, not necessarily what is real.  It isn't a coincidence that Fox News and similar outlets run stories and opinion pieces attacking higher education (and public education in general) on a regular basis.  Perhaps this steady drumbeat of doom and gloom has something to do with the changing attitudes found in the survey?]

Many business leaders equally reflect the growing lack of confidence. In a recent interview, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, criticized colleges and universities for the little focus they place on helping graduates find good employment. 

This unwillingness, so argues Dimon, not only places an exorbitant amount of pressure on businesses to train their employees – something pre-employment education should do – but also disenfranchises large sectors of society.  

Kiersten Barnet, executive director of New York Jobs CEO Council – a group of 30 of America’s top CEOs and their companies – was perhaps more direct than Dimon, stating: "When you think about what you need to do a job, it is skills. It's not a degree."

[I don't know Jamie Dimon or Kiersten Barnet, so this is nothing personal about either or them, but is the goal of higher education to please the CEO of a giant corporation or the executive director of an organization representing our nation's largest business interests?  Again, this may legitimately be one of the goals of secular higher education, to bolster the economy by providing workers suitable to what businesses want, but nowhere in this essay is the question asked, let alone answered, "What kind of students ought Christian Higher Education be aiming to form?  What role does Christian discipleship play in the process of educating young people?  How can our professors be mentors to students, not simply teaching them job skills but how to mature into God-honoring adults?"]

America’s growing doubts about colleges and universities are rooted in a list of causes too long to detail here, but it is worth noting that the lack of confidence is connected to certain factors. The most notable of these being what colleges and universities teach and do not teach. 

In Gallup’s report, of the Americans who register little or no confidence, almost 40%, criticize colleges and universities "for not teaching relevant skills, for college degrees not meaning much, or for graduates not being able to find employment."

Indeed, a new survey released this week by Cengage Group found that 55% of recent graduates said their degree programs did not prepare them for the workforce, with 70% saying basic AI training should be taught. These are, in essence, the same concerns of business leaders like Dimon and Barnet.

[Basic AI training?  God help us.  So much for being taught how to think biblically.] 

Gallup’s report goes a step further, however. Slightly over 40% of Americans in this same low to no confidence group think that our colleges and universities "are pushing certain political agendas." In short, many believe that higher education is miseducating our students. Rather than preparing for careers and a productive life, colleges and universities appear to be preparing students to be radical activists.  

[I don't disagree that today's students could use less politics in their lives, so could the millions of adults who spend way to much time engaged in the bashing of "them" and uncritical praising of "us."  Politics is a drug, much of America is addicted, and it isn't healthy.  But is the answer to focus on job skills and give up on the Humanities??  Such a notion would have horrified our ancestors in the faith, men and women who were deeply educated in languages, art, history, philosophy, music, and more.]

Further, the miseducation of our students as it relates to gainful employment – "good jobs" – is a serious problem since it robs from our students the opportunity for a fuller humanity. Jobs and compensation are essential for our humanity. But good jobs and good compensation are even more essential for a flourishing humanity and, by extension, a flourishing society. 

Amid its many laudable goals, higher education must focus on preparing students for good jobs and compensation. To do any less is to perpetrate a great injustice on our students and our future. 

[A good job is better than a bad job.  Is that all higher education should be about?  If people earn more money will they have better lives, will society be uplifted if our graduates have career success?  The answers to such questions aren't simple, at least they shouldn't be.  The university that I graduated from in the 1990's had a much more holistic approach to the flourishing of its students, both while they attended and preparing them for the future.]

When students are miseducated to become radical activists, the injustice perpetrated is even greater and the damage is even more corrosive. Students are duped into believing that radical activism adds value to their own life and to society when in fact it is the opposite. Such pursuits rob from students the exercise of their productive full potential, thus undermining their good as well as that of all society.

[That is a really bold statement, one worthy of a pundit or politician, but one that should be unworthy of a university president.  You know what adds value to life?  Having a purpose greater than earning money.  You know what uplifts society?  People willing to sacrifice for causes they deem greater than themselves.  I'm too young to remember college campuses in the 1960's, but would our country really be better off if students there had focused on job skills and not worried about Civil Rights or the Vietnam War?  Should students stick their heads in the sand and shut up about the injustices they perceive in the world?  You know what else is radical?  Following Jesus.  Not saying that you are a Christian, but really and truly following Jesus, living like him.  Thinking and feeling like Jesus, trying to echo his passion and compassion.  Radical activism, when propelled by truly Christ-honoring worldview, is the stuff of legends.  If you seek to starve the activism you don't like (because it is blue not red, or red not blue), you destroy the activism that the world truly needs alongside it.]

To re-ignite public and business confidence in their work, colleges and universities must have a singular focus on preparing students for meaningful jobs and careers. This begins with implementing industry-ready skills-based educational outcomes for their general education curriculum and all academic majors. 

[A singular focus on jobs and careers is the death of Christian Higher Education.]

Colleges and universities should also require internships or apprenticeships for the honing of soft and industry-specifics skills as well as to create employment opportunities. And colleges and universities should require all academic departments to have industry and business partnerships for the continual refinement of curricula and preparation of students for the market.

While there may be additional market-related refinements that could be implemented, there is no doubt that the above initiatives would go a long way to re-igniting our confidence in higher education.

[I understand why business leaders would cheer this essay, workers ready to do their job is what they want the most, but don't we want more out of education than job skills?  Aren't we trying to foster holistic human beings and not just employees that help keep corporate costs low and profits high?]

 The focus on jobs and market preparation must also consider and integrate the enduring questions and answers to what it means to be human. This is what the humanities used to address.

Today, much of the humanities are characterized by a turn toward a contrarianism and deconstructionism that emphasize moral ambiguity and skepticism. Such an approach has resulted in generations of students who at best are sophisticated critics and at worst are radical activists. These students are too often unable to discern, affirm and defend truth and what it means to be human. 

A case in point are the recent protests in which students were clearly unable to discern good from evil. Some college presidents also fared no better. 

Colleges and universities must develop and implement moral skills educational outcomes for their general education curriculum and all academic majors that prepare all students to discern and affirm what is true, beautiful and good.  

[And how will Cornerstone University's students develop these skills without a Humanities Department and with only part-time adjunct professors teaching these classes??  That President Moreno-Riaño has chosen to publicly rail against the Humanities Departments of other unspecified universities while gutting that of his own, one that had been both high class and high quality for generations, is deeply upsetting to alumni such as myself, truly it is heartbreaking.]

All students should also have a significant service requirement during each year of college that is a prerequisite for graduation. This service requirement would be connected to the moral skills outcomes allowing students to apply and refine their moral reasoning and judgment in preparation for life beyond college.

[One brief moment of agreement.  My cross-cultural ministry experience, a month in Guatemala, was a life-changing positive experience.]

Our colleges and universities must educate students with industry skills that position them for great market contributions. This education must also include moral skills that position our students for living a great life characterized by truth, beauty and goodness.  

[At the end of the essay, the idea of truth, beauty, and goodness as part of education is briefly mentioned, but only after declaring that Humanities Departments are what is wrong with higher education, and only in the context of what has happened to Cornerstone University under his tenure.  It rings hollow.]

Both industry and moral skills are essential for our students and for the future of our country, and a serious focus on these would go a long way in re-igniting the confidence in America’s colleges and universities.

[It is sad for me to say it, but I don't have any confidence in Cornerstone University under its current leadership.  I know that good people remain, although many good people have been fired or forced out since President Moreno-Riaño took over, but this current direction is watching a train-wreck in progress.]

To learn much more about how Cornerstone University has been reduced to a shell of its former glory (I don't say that flippantly) through censorship, firing, and politics, please listen to the podcast of Pastor Noah Filipiak a fellow Cornerstone graduate as he interview Dr. David Turner, former professor at the seminary: The Flip Side podcast

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.