Michael Rood claims that John 6:4 was added much later after the Gospel of John was written. As a result, Rood believes this scripture is, therefore, a forgery. Rood’s motivation for this seems to be the desire to have a 70 week ministry of Yeshua as set forth in his “Chronological Gospels.” He then offers what he considers to be substantial evidence to support his claim, that the earliest Greek manuscripts do not include verse 4 of John 6, and that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament with critical apparatus (27th Edition) gives clear evidence of this. This 3 page article investigates Rood’s claims and shows them to be utterly false and without supporting evidence, including that of the Nestle-Aland critical text. The paper ends with an exhortation for people not to follow his imaginative teachings.
In several articles, as well as in his book, The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, Nehemiah Gordon teaches on Matt. 23:3. Gordon teaches that the correct reading of Matthew 23:3 is found primarily in the reading of a single Hebrew manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew. This manuscript is known as the Even Bohan or Shem Tov Matthew. The upshot of Gordon’s assertions is that Yeshua rejected all rabbinic authority and was Himself a Karaite. This paper shows why such an assertion is wrong. Read Gordon’s response, and Tim’s rejoinder to his response.
In this article, Rob Vanhoff assesses Rabbi Lichtenstein’s view of the Law by translated passages for his own works, particularly his commentary on Rom 10:4. Vanhoff challenges Lichtenstein’s views, showing that he has completely misinterpreted the verse and thereby misunderstood its true meaning.
In this 25 page article, Tim Hegg looks at a 2008 issue of Kesher which focuses on Soteriology (the way in which God saves His elect). Within this article Hegg challenges the views from leading Messianic teachers on their understanding of eternal salvation and relies upon the Bible itself to make his case.
Are you hearing Messianic teachers say that we need to submit to “greater Israel” in our pursuit of Torah? Are you curious about the mystical method of interpreting the Bible, formed on the word Pardes (peshat, remez, d’rash, sod), and whether it is a correct way to explore the meaning of the biblical text? Then you need to read this essay.
In this open letter, Tim Hegg responds to the accusation (made by the IAMCS in their recent position paper entitled “One Law, Two Sticks: A Critical Look at the Hebrew Roots Movement”) that he “equates Torah observance to the gospel itself,” a “gospel of obedience to the law.” Accompanying the letter are quoted examples for some of Hegg’s published works which show conclusively that the charge made against him by the IAMCS is unfounded and blatantly false.
This article is primarily a critical review of “One Law and the Messianic Gentile,” Messiah Journal 101(Aug 2009), 46–70, published by First Fruits of Zion. Tim Hegg investigates the Divine Invitation teaching put forth by FFOZ. Divine Invitation teaches that the Torah is for the Jewish people. Gentiles, on the other hand, are not obligated, but invited to keep the Torah. This theology separates the body of Messiah into two groups. Hegg shows this teaching to be biblically baseless.
In this 9 page book review, Rob Vanhoff looks at Tent of David by Boaz Michael, FFOZ 2013. Vanhoff begins by presenting a short two page article named Slippery When All Wet (found on TR) to show how Michael uses terms without giving a definition. Vanhoff then goes on to look at some of the finer points of this book.
In this article, Tim Hegg responds to an article entitled “One Law Movements: A Challenge to the Messianic Jewish Community.” This article was written by Russ Resnik and Daniel Juster, who state that the Torah is not for Gentiles, but given to the Jewish people alone. Hegg goes to the Bible itself to test the thesis of this article and shows that it is actually contrary to what the very word of God teaches.
Some have suggested that Yeshua is a lesser reality of YHVH and by so doing, give an “explanation” to the dual natures (divine and human) of the Messiah. This paper shows the fallacies in such thinking.