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.
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.
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.
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.
“Remember what happens when a godly and righteous person suffers and dies undeservedly…Through His righteous life and His undeserved suffering, Yeshua merited even more favor in God’s eyes, so much favor that He has an abundance to share.”
{Why is “only begotten son” in quotation marks? Why not simply say, “As the Son of God,”? Given their track record of denying the Trinity, such things make my Spidey-sense tingle}
Jesus is the only person to ever earn the righteousness that atones for sin, full stop. No solely human being could earn atonement, it is impossible. When you put atonement, favor, and grace in a mixer as FFOZ has done here, the result is grotesque.
In this section, FFOZ argues that Paul’s only issue is with full-on adoption of Jewish identity through the conversion process.
“It’s not a question of working to earn eternal life by keeping the Law. It’s a question of whether someone needs to become Jewish to be eligible for eternal life.”
They make this specious case by saying that when Paul writes about the, “works of the law” it always means only Jewish identity (i.e. circumcision, full conversion) never Torah keeping (Sabbath, kosher, festivals).
In order for this line of reasoning to hold water, every usage of “works” and “works of the law” by Paul would need to be about full-conversion only, never about legalistic attempts to keep Torah to earn righteousness.
That, of course, is not a tenable position, but when FFOZ interprets Galatians, for example, it does so assuming Paul only cares about full-conversion, they claim he was 100% in favor of Torah keeping for Jew and Gentile as long as it didn’t lead to conversion for Gentiles.
Faith does not equal belief?
True, faith does not ONLY equal belief, it is more than just belief as James rightly clarifies, but given FFOZ’s stated hostility toward the Early Church credal statements…
Where is this going? To a butchered paraphrase of Ephesians 2:8-9…
“By God’s favor, you have been saved for eternal life though your allegiance to Yeshua as the Messiah, but that favor is not something you earned. It is the gift of God, not as a result of the works of conversion. So no one, neither Jews nor Gentiles, have anything to boast about.”
“Paul sometimes used the term ‘works’ as shorthand to argue against Gentiles becoming Jewish.” – p. 2.8
Once again, we see the effort to drive a wedge between full conversion (including circumcision) and Torah keeping with respect to “works.” In FFOZ’s warped view, human being can earn God’s favor (which they say equals grace), and relying on works is ok provided that they are the Torah-proscribed ones. Do you see why they want to downplay Paul’s concerns about legalism?
And what are the “good works” of Ephesians 2:10? What has God prepared in advance for the followers of Jesus?
“These ‘good works’ are the good deeds and acts of obedience described by the Torah’s commandments.” – p. 2.10
Once you divorce “works of the Law” from Torah keeping, the next goal is to transform it into a substitute for the Fruit of the Spirit. Once legalism has been downplayed, Torah keeping can become the new test of true discipleship.
“When a righteous person dies unjustly, they accrue favor with God.”
“This favor can be bestowed on someone else.”
So absurd that followers of Jesus ought to run screaming from this madness.
“Paul refers to the process of becoming Jewish as the ‘works of the law.’”
‘‘’We are not saved by works’ means that we are not saved by becoming Jewish.”
To reject Paul outright is too obvious, redefining him into a pro-Torah keeping champion is a much more dangerous approach.
“No; grace is earned. One acquires it by doing good and living a difficult life or having it bestowed on them by someone else who earned it.”
Is the utter rejection of the Gospel by FFOZ not fully evident yet? What further evidence is needed?
Conclusion: FFOZ ought to be labeled a dangerous cult for their views of the Trinity alone…
The HaYesod discipleship manual proves once again that they teach equally dangerous and heretical falsehoods about grace, atonement, faith, works, and the Law of Moses.
To watch this material in my YouTube version:
