|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Mar 8, 2010 6:23:33 GMT -8
I've just recently visited FFOZ having not been there for quite some time. I noticed that they have abandoned what they now call "The One Law Movemement." Meaning, they no longer endorse the concept of one Law for Jew & Gentile in Mashiakh. They now teach that the Gentile believers in Yeshua HaMashiakh are NOT obligated to keep the same  as the Jewish brethren. Needless to say, I was shocked to read of this news. They even cut ties with Tim Hegg! Anyone know what's going on over there, and why the sudden change in doctrinal belief? |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Mar 8, 2010 9:23:29 GMT -8
Shalom David, There is a lot of confusion over this issue. FFOZ is still highly encouraging those of the Nations to take hold of the , they are only stopping short of saying that they must be completely observant from the get go. But, as a witness on their behalf I can say that the ministry of FFOZ is doing more than any other to bring those of Gentile origin into a foundation and is doing more than any other ministry to equip those of the Nations to live a life. They make it very clear that they encourage those of Gentile origin to take as much of the as possible. They just are choosing to describe all of this in a different way than before. Although I would describe it differently than FFOZ the result has been and will be the same...the only difference is I believe there actually will be more fruit. I encourage people that want to be critical to postpone judgment and watch the fruit that comes from it. I believe that the result of FFOZ's ministry will be that greater numbers from the Nations will take hold of the of Adonai and will become better talmidim of Yeshua The Messiah. Our synagogue has been employing FFOZ's newly released HaYesod disciple program and it has been nothing but encouraging when it comes a Gentile believer in Messiah taking hold of the . Boaz Michael will actually be speaking at our synagogue tomorrow during one of our HaYesod classes and we will speak more about these things. FFOZ will also be speaking at the upcoming UMJA conference (www.umja.net). The UMJA is a growing group of congregations that embrace the Gentile when it comes to the keeping of . And, even though we would communicate the subject of and those whom come from the Nations (those who have become part of the commonwealth of Yisrael) differently from FFOZ...our goal is the same. To see the Goyim take hold of the God of Yisrael, Yeshua The Messiah, and The . Although, instead of describing the relationship of the Gentile to the as "Divine Invitation"...I would perhaps describe it as "Divine Embracing", for Adonai embraces all those who want to take hold of His , although He is patient with all those whom are just learning it. This is why those of the Nations who were just coming to Messiah were not immediately required to become circumcised. I believe the same applies to all of Adonai's Kingdom, but that obligation to strict adherence to it is a matter of maturity (Mattityahu/Matthew 5:16-19). Those who were born Jewish and raised in a Jewish home are more responsible and are without excuse as they have been around the their whole life, but those whom have just have been brought into Adonai's home are given room to grow. But, the fact remains...the Emissaries of Yeshua didn't obligate the Goyim to keep all the right of the bat. Shalom, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Mar 8, 2010 10:56:13 GMT -8
Thanks for your input, Reuel. I'm currently reading the .pdf white paper they have available for download discussing the change in doctrine. There was a certain article authored by Stuart I read that disturbed me, that's why I'm investigating the issure more. Stuart seemed more concerned about Jews having some kind of identity crisis in the body of Mashiakh, rather than a concern with what Scripture really teaches on the issue. I'll comment more after I'm properly informed of their position.
Shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Mar 8, 2010 17:56:10 GMT -8
Also, I should say that it is not so much that FFOZ has cut ties with Tim Hegg...FFOZ still encourages people to learn from him and they still consider him to be a brother and probably would still love for him to work with them in some way. But, it seems that it is Tim who has cut ties.
I greatly respect Tim Hegg, but I wish that he wouldn't attack FFOZ and its ministry in the way that he is. I don't think it is healthy for the Messianic community and it grieves me to see it. I have communicated with him about it, but to no avail.
Shalom,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Mar 8, 2010 18:37:58 GMT -8
Also, I should say that it is not so much that FFOZ has cut ties with Tim Hegg...But, it seems that it is Tim who has cut ties. After having visited torahresource.com, it would appear that your correct. However, it seems to be a mutual feeling as well. But I would agree that Tim is more dogmatic in his beliefs. Have you read Tim's response to the Divine Invitation paper? If not, I've provided a link to it below. *EDIT*For those of you interested, you can download FFOZ's white paper on "Divine Invitation" here: LINK (It requires Adobe Reader to open, which can be downloaded for free at adobe.com) Tim Hegg's response to the Divine Invitation paper can be downloaded here: LINKFor the record, I agree with Tim Hegg on this issue for a plethora of reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Mar 8, 2010 21:59:26 GMT -8
I have read Tim's paper and agree that much of what he states is true, but I also see some over-reaction, misunderstanding, and presumption. If you read FFOZ's position on the matter they teach that they believe those of the Nations should take hold of as much as they are able and they give many reasons why they should. All you have to do is read FFOZ's Messiah Journal from pages 61-69 to see their heart in the matter. FFOZ IS FOR GENTILES TAKING HOLD OF THE The following is their major theme text for "Divine Invitation". On pg. 61 of FFOZ's Messiah Journal | Summer 2009/5769 they write: They go on to say: FFOZ than goes onto expand with several pages of material based on these six points. From this anyone can see the true heart of FFOZ in the direction that they are heading. FFOZ deserves to be supported and defended. Make no mistake, Adonai is using them to teach the to the Nations. I for one stand with them. Chen v'shalom aleychem, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Mar 9, 2010 6:51:58 GMT -8
The following is their major theme text for "Divine Invitation". On pg. 61 of FFOZ's Messiah Journal | Summer 2009/5769 they write: When discussing the question of how much a Gentile is obligated to keep, the Didache recommends keeping all of it, but leaves the matter up to an individual's capacity. Reuel, the Didache isn't Scripture. Let's see what Tim Hegg has to say in his response to leaving it up to the individual's capacity....according to what the Scriptures actually have to say on the matter: That's crystal clear, my friend. Make no mistake, Adonai is using them to teach the to the Nations. I agree. But I also believe they are wrong in teaching Gentiles the so-called Noachide Laws as the limit for a Gentiles means of righteousness. Sha'ul taught there is no difference between Jew & Gentile in Mashiakh...FFOZ doesn't. Their abandonment of One Law theolgy was borne from an increasing problem (as they see it) with a Jewish identity crisis within the body of Mashiakh, or rather, the Messianic communities (Messianic, as opposed to Christianity). Then proceeded to espouse a theology which makes a clear distinction between Jew & Gentile in Mashiakh, for that very reason. Their premises on "Divine Invitation" have no Scriptural basis. I for one stand with them. So do I...to a certain degree. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Mar 9, 2010 9:11:48 GMT -8
Thank you David, Rest assured, I know the Didache is not scripture, although it has potential as I believe it is in agreement with the canon of scripture that we have. Regardless, even though I don't hold the Didache as holy scripture...I simply quote FFOZ quoting the Didache as to explain their heart and direction in the matter. They quote the source as a valid historical instruction from the early observant believers in Yeshua who are giving instruction to the Messianic community...not too far off from what Sha'ul (Paul) does in his letters. The Didache probably wasn't accepted into the canon of scripture later on because the anti- church fathers probably thought it was too embracing of the . I don't think they actually teach this. If they did I certainly would disagree. Do you have a quote from them where they teach this? And, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything that FFOZ is stating. I certainly don't. But, I think we can come to a middle ground of understanding here. I agree that the is also for the Gentile and FFOZ agrees with this as well for those Gentiles who of their own free will decide to take hold of it. I have had personal discussions with Boaz about this. But, the pesky fact that we have to consider is that the Emissaries of Yeshua didn't require the Gentiles to immediately take hold of the . Just one case in point would be brit milah (circumcision)...but, it was still a hard and fast standard for any Jew being brought up as a Jew. What does this tell you about obligation when it comes to the and the Gentile? Once you answer this question for yourself...you will not be too far off from the direction that FFOZ is teaching. This doesn't mean that the is not relevant for the Gentile...only that there is not as great of an obligation right away for the Gentile. The distinction of being a Jew speaks to someone who was raised in a Jewish environment who has had around them all their life and who has chosen to take hold of the complete of Adonai. They have a greater obligation to keeping all the aspects of the than a Gentile who not only hasn't even heard all of the yet...but may not hear it all until a few years pass by. The Gentiles were not put under oath to keep the complete of Adonai before they came to faith in Messiah. This was a decision that they would have to make of their own free will in the future. If it was a hard and fast rule that the Gentiles must understand that they will have to be fully observant after coming to Messiah...than why was not this very important information clearly spelled out in Acts and in the other letters? I do believe this is the eventual goal for all those of the Nations as they become better disciples of Yeshua The Messiah as the is certainly the Kingdom Law. Again, I am not too concerned with FFOZ because they still are bringing the Nations into a life and from the reports I am hearing...now even to a greater degree. The fruit is good. I see it first hand in our community and in several others. Shalom, Reuel |
|
tonga
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by tonga on Mar 9, 2010 11:31:10 GMT -8
What is FFOZ? Is it a group that is recognized by most Messianic organizations? Is it only an
educational site? In other words, what's it's purpose and authority?
Just curious since I know nothing about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Mar 9, 2010 17:55:50 GMT -8
I don't think they actually teach this. If they did I certainly would disagree. Do you have a quote from them where they teach this? That was your response to my comment... To which I must appologize. I had confused FFOZ's stance with that of MJTI ( www.mjti.com/ ). That's why I said in an earlier post that I was shocked at "Stuart's theology." Stuart Dauerman is a resident author of MTJI, not FFOZ......OOPS! It's him and Mark Kinzer who I have issues with. Have you read any of their stuff on "bilateral ecclesiology?" It's yet another theological gymnastics exercise geared toward solving the Jewish identity crisis in the body of Mashiakh. I'll address the questions you raised in your last post tomorrow. I'm pretty beat right now, Reuel. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Mar 9, 2010 17:59:54 GMT -8
What is FFOZ? Is it a group that is recognized by most Messianic organizations? Is it only an educational site? In other words, what's it's purpose and authority? Just curious since I know nothing about them. It's an educational site. You can find it here: ffoz.org/They hold no authority in the Messianic movement, but have been highly respected for their educational material. Hope that helps somewhat. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Mar 10, 2010 17:21:38 GMT -8
But, the pesky fact that we have to consider is that the Emissaries of Yeshua didn't require the Gentiles to immediately take hold of the . Just one case in point would be brit milah (circumcision)...but, it was still a hard and fast standard for any Jew being brought up as a Jew. What does this tell you about obligation when it comes to the and the Gentile? Once you answer this question for yourself...you will not be too far off from the direction that FFOZ is teaching. This doesn't mean that the is not relevant for the Gentile...only that there is not as great of an obligation right away for the Gentile. I believe that Gentiles are indeed obligated to perform brit milah. It is the sign of the eternal covenant. Neither Yeshua, his emissaries, or Sha'ul taught otherwise. I believe the texts that "seem" to teach otherwise are very misunderstood. Sha'ul has a different meaning attached to circumcision when he appears to be speaking of it in the negative, than what most of think he means. He's not merely talking about the physical act of circumcision, but the Rabbinic ritual of circumcision, and all the negative consequences that were sure to go along with it. A few examples would be that a Gentile that undergoes a Rabbinic circumcision ritual would be required to have nothing to do with their fellow Gentiles [per the 18 measures of Shammai] including those of their own family. Another problem that Rabbinic circumcision rituals would cause is that the Gentile who undertook this would be eligible for the Fiscus Judaicus tax. Many new believers were poor to begin with, and there's no way they could have survived under this tax. There were extreme social pressures that went along with the act of submitting to Rabbinic circumcision rituals, and this is what Sha'ul was opposed to, not simply the act of identifying with the eternal covenant of HaShem through circumcision, which is the sign of the covenant. If Yeshua, his emissaries, or Sha'ul taught against brit milah for Gentiles, they would be teaching against a commandment. Which none of them did. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Mar 14, 2010 20:34:45 GMT -8
Shalom David, I understand what Jewish cicumcision involved and meant during the first century. I often teach this when I explain what some of the Purishim were trying to make for prerequesites for salvation. Not only was ritual circumcision not required for salvation, but the Emissaries of Yeshua went a step further to clarify what the prerequesites were. It was made clear that any observance beyond the first four requirements was not a prerequesite to salvation through Messiah Yeshua. Also, the point I am trying to get across is that as they continued in their sanctification they would take on more and more of the mitzvot. But, for a native born Jew...they would already be expected to be completely observant past the age of 13. Are you suggesting that Gentiles have to become circumcised according to Brit Avraham before they can come to Messiah Yeshua and be saved?? If not, than my points stand valid. Right? Of course right  Chen v'shalom aleychem, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Mar 15, 2010 23:20:58 GMT -8
Shalom David, I understand what Jewish cicumcision involved and meant during the first century. That's good, because most students of the NT have no idea what the 18 measures of Shammai entailed, nor do they know about the Fiscus Judaicus taxation. This taxation was extremely oppressive, and some Jews even underwent a surgical procedure [epispasm] to appear as though they were not circumcised [1 Cor 7:18] just to avoid this Roman oppression that was thrust upon them. Jewish oppression is what Kefa describes as the "yoke which neither us, nor our fathers were able to bear." [Acts 15:10] Surely, Kefa is not talking about the [written or oral] as an unbearable yoke in that verse. He's undoubtedly referring to the oppression that comes along with simply being identified as a Jew. Protestant theology clearly misses the mark in interpreting Acts chapter 15. I often teach this when I explain what some of the Purishim were trying to make for prerequesites for salvation. Not only was ritual circumcision not required for salvation, but the Emissaries of Yeshua went a step further to clarify what the prerequesites were. It was made clear that any observance beyond the first four requirements was not a prerequesite to salvation through Messiah Yeshua. Can you please show me where the Apostles taught these four requirements that must be met before salvation? I hope you aren't going to direct my attention to Acts 15, because that's not at all what the Apostles were contemplating. Also, Yeshua made it very clear what one must do in order to inherit eternal life: (Mat 19:16-17 Complete Jewish Bible) A man approached Yeshua and said, "Rabbi, what good thing should I do in order to have eternal life?" He said to him, "Why are you asking me about good? There is One who is good! But if you want to obtain eternal life, observe the mitzvot." (Also see Mk 10:17-19) Straight from Mashiakh's mouth we learn that observance of the mitzvot is required to obtain eternal life. This begs the question, are Gentiles who wish to attach themselves to the G-d of Israel, and enter into covenant with Him, required to observe brit milah? Yes! Just as the Scriptures teach concerning Pesach for ALL the congregation of Israel [native born, as well as stranger]: (Exo 12:43-49) And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it; but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No sojourner or hired servant may eat of it. In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth any of the flesh outside the house; and you shall not break a bone of it. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." So we see that ALL the congregation of Israel is commanded to keep Pesach. And that no uncircumcised shall be allowed to observe it. Furthermore, Yeshua taught that anyone who does not keep Pesach, by eating his flesh, and drinking his blood [which is metaphorical language concerning Pesach] does not posses eternal life: (Joh 6:53-54) Then Yeshua said to them, "Yes, indeed! I tell you that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life -- that is, I will raise him up on the Last Day. Pretty straight forward wouldn't you say? I do not believe that Yeshua, nor any of his Apostles taught that believing Gentiles are exempt from the commandment of brit milah, nor the observance of Pesach. Quite the contrary. Are you suggesting that Gentiles have to become circumcised according to Brit Avraham before they can come to Messiah Yeshua and be saved?? Before coming to faith in Yeshua? Of course not. However, I would need to know how you define salvation before I can answer that question completely. Personally, I believe the Scriptures teach that salvation is a gradual process, not something that happens immediately upon confession that Yeshua is the Mashiakh. That's Protestant doctrine, and completely unscriptural. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 9, 2015 18:44:16 GMT -8
I contacted First Fruits of Zion some time ago as I was thinking of taking some of their classes. However I asked them their position, though I worded my questions like I might be Two House myself, and they confirmed to me they were solidly Two House. They did not teach that "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo 12:49). Or at least not that this verse meant what it so clearly states. Guess they had decided to "sojourne" in another camp because it was more lucrative at the time.
Well, just so you all know, they are trying to reinvent themselves again. Still Two House, but they are attempting to redefine the terms. I just received an email wherin was a document written by FFOZ which stated first that theological discussion was counterproductive, then tried to trivialize all their doctrinal reversals, then gave a generic definition of Messianism that I'd agree with in most any other context. But that is the hook ... if you read past things like that too fast you internalize and come into agreement with all before and allow them to frame the debate thereafter. It is logically fallacious and a cheap, detestable trick.
I'll not glorify FFOZ with too much space here. Just wanted to let you know to beware. Use your minds when reading anything from them. And beware they may come to you disguised as a friend; whether well meaning or not this stuff is poison and the end result is death whether the poisoning was intentional or not.
Dan C
edit: I'd heard that they were not very forthcoming if just asked, so yes I too resorted to a bit of trickery. 
|
|
as the Jewish brethren. Needless to say, I was shocked to read of this news. They even cut ties with Tim Hegg! Anyone know what's going on over there, and why the sudden change in doctrinal belief?
