©2011-2026, David E.
Robinson: At the Gates of Yerushalayim Ministries
Lessons from the Wilderness:
Special Edition – Part 1
False Teachers: A Biblical Perspective[i]
[ii]
[iii]
[iv]
Matthew 7: 15-29
15 j“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are kravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them lby their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, mevery healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 nEvery tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them lby their fruits. [v]
21 o“Not everyone who psays to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will qenter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who rdoes the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 sOn that day tmany will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not uprophesy in your name, and cast out demons vin your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 tAnd then will I declare to them, ‘I wnever knew you; xdepart from me, yyou workers of lawlessness.’
24 z“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like aa wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
26 And everyone who
hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like aa foolish man who built
his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods
came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great
was the fall of it.”
28 And when Yeshua finished these sayings, bthe crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 cfor he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. [vi]
Introduction
I am going to advise all who read from the very start: this series will be long, a bit technical, and some will say it is even boring. But if you, my beloved readers, truly want to know how to discern sound doctrine and good teaching, you have to know how to separate “the wheat from the chaff”. The internet is full of teachers, and without proper discernment, some may be led down a path that could ultimately take them out of a covenantal relationship with YHVH and Yeshua.
That is what I am attempting to do with this series: to lay before you a solid foundation for you to discern the sacred from the profane. Please stick with it – not for my sake, but for yourselves and those you love or teach. For too long, the wolves have had their way with the flock – this needs to change. So, rather than defining false teaching through the restrictive lens of modern denominational playbooks, we will explore how a contextual reading of scripture demonstrates that true discernment must evaluate leaders by their covenantal fruit and 'believing loyalty'—a standard that bridges the practical ethics of the Gospels with the supernatural, cosmic battlegrounds of apocalyptic prophecy. May all who come here find the truth you are seeking. Be blessed, my beloved, Amein.
…We begin…
Today on social media, I have seen “believers” denigrating others because they do not hold to “their” particular bent or interpretation of God’s sacred word. The cry of “false teachers” is even worse, these “believers” are claiming that since God only spoke through prophets in the Tanakh (or “Old Testament”), that the “New Testament” (or as I prefer to call it, the ‘Messianic Writings”) is nothing more than “commentary” and that certain books of it may be disregarded because the “Apostles” or “disciples” of Messiah are not prophets, therefore, their words have not any value as Scripture.
I have seen posts where “they” (the so-called “believers”) denounce or dismiss the writings of Luke, Paul, even Peter and John, as “false teachers” while using the Apostles own words from the Messianic Writings as “proof” texts for “their” positions or interpretations. Now, this is a more common occurrence than one might think - there are many groups out there in “Christian Middle Earth” [vii], some who call themselves “Christian” and others who call themselves “Torah followers” or “Sabbatarians” who regularly hold what can only be called extremist views, views that fly directly in the face of what Messiah Yeshua actually taught.
Now, some may find my putting “believers” or “Christian” in quotes provocative. It is, and is grammatically necessary to distinguish historic Biblical faith with what we see today. What these folks hold onto as the inspired Word of God is a twisted reality, one not found in Scripture: it stands opposite of believers who practice true exegesis and hermeneutics. The ones who stand opposite of true believers find their “echo chamber” in the following ways by invading “Christian Middle Earth” and then scroll their way into:
Theological Zones: The space existing between the ivory tower of academia and everyday church pews.
Content Found Here: Prophecy circuits, charismatic movements, Christian conspiracy theories, Nephilim/UFO end-times speculation, and alternative earth theories, Sabbatarian movements or congregations.·
The Bad: Low discernment
where much of the popular teaching lacks academic or exegetical correctness. [viii]
·
Some even find The Good: That which is populated
by believers who desperately hunger for deeper scriptural understanding and
actively seek out content, and engage in thoughtful discussion using logic,
original material, exegesis, and hermeneutics.
The late Dr. Michael S. Heiser coined the phrase “Christian Middle Earth” because he saw the same things I am seeing today, on social Media or places like “YouTube®” or other like platforms. This is a quote from his explanation found at https://drmsh.com/gandalf-ministry-going-forward/ :
“…First, to really understand the Bible, we need to interpret it in light of its own contexts, not post-biblical contexts. The Bible was written for us, but not to us. It wasn’t written with modern questions and the modern worldview in mind. The right contexts for interpreting the Bible are the contexts in which it was produced. Second, I’m interested in interpretations that the biblical text can sustain when interpreted in its own contexts. That means I think it something of a waste of time to study Scripture to perpetuate Christian sub-cultures (e.g., denominational preferences and theological systems). None of those things are self-evident from the text. To say they are, is to be dishonest (all the opposing viewpoints to your denomination or system will presume their conclusions are self-evident)... “
So going forward, I believe that believers today need a clear explanation, a biblical explanation about what constitutes a false teacher/prophet. This will be an in-depth study, but do not let that deter you from going through it, because there are a lot of “wolves in sheep’s clothing” out there that will try to deter you from follow the Messiah’s true mission. And what was that? Messiah Yeshua had but one mission: to go the House of Israel and recover his lost sheep, whether they be Jew or Gentile, and provide the way for restoration to the Father. So then, why were they lost in the first place?
That is a deep story, starting with the prophets of old. The prophets of old, men like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the writer(s) of 1 Kings, Micah, even Zechariah; all had prophesized about the lost “sheep” (the House of Israel and Judah).
Even Yeshua Himself told his disciples to:
Matthew 10:5-710
10:5 Yeshua sent out these twelve, instructing them as follows:13 “Do not go to Gentile regions14 and do not enter any Samaritan town.15 10:6 Go16 instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
10:7 As you go, preach this
message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near!’[ix]
He re-iterated this sentiment again in Matthew 15:21-28:
15:21 After going out from there, Jesus went to the region of Tyre25 and Sidon.26
15:22 A27
Canaanite woman from that area came28 and cried out,29
“Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is horribly
demon-possessed!” 15:23 But
he did not answer her a word. Then30
his disciples came and begged him,31 “Send her away, because
she keeps on crying out after us.”
15:24 So32
he answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
15:25 But she came and bowed down33 before him and said,34 “Lord, help me!”
15:26 “It
is not right35 to take the children’s bread and throw it
to the dogs,”36 he said.37
15:27 “Yes,
Lord,” she replied,38 “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that
fall from their masters’ table.”
15:28 Then39
Jesus answered her, “Woman,40 your faith is great! Let
what you want, be done for you.” And her daughter was healed from that hour. [x]
Without getting so technical we get ourselves lost in the weeds, Yeshua’s initial response to the Canaanite woman was to teach his disciples a valuable lesson. Not only was He to bring His lost sheep back into the fold, but the lesson for His disciples was that He would save the faithful Gentiles also. Faith was what He was looking for, from the Jew first and then the Gentiles. Now, looking deeper into the text, why did He think the house of Israel was lost?
The
reason the “sheep” (the people of Israel) had become “lost” is primarily due to
their spiritual and political leaders that had failed to guide them. This led
to the people to turn to idolatry, sin, and eventually, spiritual blindness. Thinking
in terms of Biblical imagery, being “lost” does not mean one is missing from God’s
sight, but it rather alludes to the fact that they are scattered, defenseless,
and separated from their True Shepherd. We can see this if we go back,
back into the Tanakh (or Old Testament) and see where their kings and priests abandoned
God’s law, consequently dispersing God’s “sheep” because of their bad
leadership and false worship:
· Ezekial 34:2-6:
34:2 “Son of man, prophesy
against the shepherds1 of Israel; prophesy and say to
them—to the shepherds: ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: Woe to the
shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not shepherds feed
the flock? 34:3 You
eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the choice
animals, but you do not feed the sheep!
34:4 You have not
strengthened the weak, healed the sick, bandaged the injured, brought back the
strays, or sought the lost, but with force and harshness2 you have ruled
over them.
34:5 They were scattered
because they had no shepherd, and they became food for every wild beast.3
34:6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every
high hill. My sheep were scattered over the entire face of the earth with no
one looking or searching for them.[xi]
Here God directly blames those “shepherds” (the kings; the priests), Israel’s leaders, for ruining the flock. See the highlighted above? The “sheep” are scattered, wandering from high place to high place, alone with no one searching for them, nor correcting them.
· In Jeremiah 50:6, the same thing is repeated (remember, Jeremiah and Ezekial are contemporaries):
50:6 “My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds13 have allow them to go astray.
They have wandered around in the mountains. They have
roamed from one mountain and hill to another.14
They have forgotten
their resting place. [xii]
· In First Kings 22:17, the prophet of God, Micaiah, has a vision says the same again right before the wicked King Ahab goes to fight a disastrous battle in which Israel is defeated:
Micaiah18 said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains like sheep that have no shepherd.
Then the Lord said,
‘They have no master. They should go home in peace.’ ”[xiii]
All of this led to practices and locations where both legitimate and illegitimate worship occurred. In our examples above, over and over we see reference to “high places”, “mountains”, and “hills”. Why? First, we have to understand that these words can be used an idiom, defined as: “… noun- a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g. over the moon) → a form of expression natural to a language, person, or group…” [xiv]
In these cases (and elsewhere) mountains and high places in Scripture could carry multiple layers of meaning, and their association with idolatry is significant but contextual rather than universal: “…Elevated terrain served as legitimate settings for encountering God and offering worship—particularly Mount Sinai and Mount Zion, which became established as places where the divine met humanity.” [xv] However, these same geographical features became primary centers for idolatrous practices in Israel’s history [xvi], and the nations occupying Canaan before Israel served their gods specifically on high mountains and hills and under green trees. Moses instructed those in the wilderness to destroy these places of illicit worship when they entered into the land. (Deut 12:2–3)…” [xvii]
This pattern appears quite frequently though. Idols were worshipped in multiple topographical settings— upon mountains and hills because worshippers believed themselves closer to heaven, by rivers for reasons of purity, and in valleys for their shadowy, solemn character. [xviii] Altars of sacrifice were consistently placed on elevations, and these “high places” were predominantly idolatrous in nature. [xix] Yet this wasn’t absolute: some altars dedicated to YHWH existed at high places, though such worship became illegal after the temple’s establishment and likely had become corrupted with Canaanite elements.
So, while “high places” *can* function as a metaphorical shorthand for foreign worship in many contexts, they’re not exclusively metaphorical—they describe actual physical locations where both legitimate and illegitimate worship occurred. The idiom’s force derives from the historical reality that Israel’s persistent choice was to worship other gods precisely at these elevated sites.
We see again in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 where a false prophet is identified as one who presumes to speak in God’s name without divine commission, or whose predictions fail to come to pass. This establishes predictive accuracy [xx] as a verification test. However, Deuteronomy 13:1–5 introduces a more complex scenario: even when a prophet performs genuine signs and wonders, if that person directs people toward other gods, believers must reject the teaching—because God uses such moments to test whether His people truly love Him. This reveals that external validation (miracles, fulfilled predictions) cannot be the sole criterion. The prophetic books substantially deepen this analysis.
·
Jeremiah 23:16–22 identifies false
prophets as those who “speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of
the LORD,” filling people with “vain hopes.” False prophets are characterized
by self-deception—they “prophesy the deceit of their own heart” and attempt to make
God’s people forget His name through their fabrications.
·
(Jer 23:25–32) Micah 3:5 reveals their mercenary nature: they
proclaim peace when fed but declare war against those who don’t support them.
·
Jeremiah 6:13–15 shows that greed and
moral corruption accompany false teaching—they “deal falsely” and “heal the
wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.”
To be able to truly detect a “false teacher or prophet”, believers must develop a framework of understanding or patterns that help a learned person detect falsehood. The Tanakh[xxi] then, is where we begin to establish the foundational framework for identifying false teachers that Yeshua and the Messianic Writings authors would build upon and refine. Now, let us go back to our opening Scripture.
The seminal passage in the New Testament is Matthew 7:15–20, where Yeshua warns against false prophets who appear harmless outwardly but are destructive inwardly, stating that “you will recognize them by their fruits.” [xxii] This passage establishes the foundational principle for identifying deception: examining the actual outcomes and character produced by a teacher’s influence rather than accepting surface appearances. What you see isn’t always what you get.
The metaphor, though, for “recognizing fruit” is straightforward—just as thornbushes cannot yield grapes and thistles cannot produce figs, a spiritually corrupt teacher cannot generate genuine spiritual health, nor can a healthy teacher produce spiritual damage. (Matt 7:15–20) Yeshua was describing ministers who present themselves “with a bland, gentle, plausible exterior” [xxiii] and appear as “an emblem of innocence, sincerity, and harmlessness,” [xxiv] while being fundamentally different within.[xxv]
While Matthew 7:15–20 provides the primary diagnostic framework [[xxvi]], the New Testament develops this principle through multiple angles. 1 John 4:1–3 emphasizes doctrinal testing [xxvii], instructing believers to “test the spirits” and identify false prophets by whether they confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Other Scriptures include:
·
2 Peter 2:1 identifies false teachers as those who “secretly bring in
destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them.”
·
Galatians 1:8–9 establishes that any gospel contrary
to apostolic teaching warrants condemnation, regardless of the messenger’s
apparent authority. The convergence of these passages reveals that discerning
false teachers requires examining both fruit (moral and spiritual
outcomes) and doctrine (alignment with apostolic revelation).
· Romans 16:17–18 warns against those who “cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine” and “deceive the hearts of the naive” through “smooth talk and flattery.” False teachers characteristically combine doctrinal deviation with behavioral corruption and manipulative communication.
So, we see yet another pattern developing, one that includes combining doctrinal deviation, moral corruption, self-interest, and deceptive communication— and these deviations directly parallel Yeshua’s teaching.
Old Testament prophets expected false teachers in the “latter days,” but Yeshua’s innovation was explaining that false teaching and the kingdom now coexist and run parallel, rather than false teaching preceding the kingdom’s establishment. [xxviii] Yeshua warned His disciples to beware when people speak only positively of them, for this was how people treated false prophets in the Old Testament.[xxix] The Old Testament thus provided the diagnostic vocabulary [xxx]—doctrinal falsehood, moral degradation, and manipulative intent—that Yeshua synthesizes into His fruit-based assessment.
So,
what then is at the core of “false teaching/prophecy”? Well, we need to answer
this by using the original context of the Scriptures; in other words, the
context of the writers and the words contained in the original documents (the
Hebrew and the Greek); their worldview,
cultural background, and spiritual connections.
Some may say though, “How does any of that matter or even relevant in our modern day?”
It matters greatly. Take exegesis for example. Exegesis is simply exposition or explanation. [xxxi] The longer explanation is “…the process of critically analyzing and interpreting a text to discover what the original author actually meant. It literally means "to lead out" or "draw out" the true meaning, rather than forcing your own opinions or biases into the words.” [xxxii] What might the combination of Yeshua's words and those from the Tanakh, read like today when coming against or showing the faithful what a false teacher truly is? It is in this context, without assuming the biases, prejudices, misconceptions, and traditions of today being read into back into Scripture, that I want to introduce to others.
Simply put, today’s doctrines should at best be derived from the worldview understanding of the ancient Israelite and first-century Jewish communities. It is they that would have recognized the defining characteristic of false teaching: the severing of covenant relationship with the living God of Israel.
At the core of genuine prophethood and teaching was “covenantal integrity” [xxxiii] embodied in personal contact with the living God, obedience to covenant provisions, and loyalty to his Davidic kingdom promises. [xxxiv] This wasn’t merely doctrinal—it was relational and communal. Hebrew prophets were described as having revelations only from Israel’s God, YHVH, and revelations alleged to be from any other deity were regarded by YHVH’s community as inherently false, even if accompanied by signs and wonders. [xxxv]
In this context then, the false teacher’s fundamental crime was and is spiritual misdirection masquerading as divine authority. The “prophets of the Lord,” who spoke his word whether favorable or not to the regime, were frequently in conflict with false prophets who flattered the kings of Israel. [xxxvi] These false prophets were typically either idolatrous “prophets of Baal and … prophets of the Asherah” or “who prophesy the delusions of their own minds,” but claimed to represent the Lord.
Yet the most
insidious deception wasn’t outright idolatry—it was superficial comfort
masking deep spiritual sickness. False prophets were guilty of
superficially treating the people’s fracture by prophesying that all was well
when nothing, in fact, was well. [xxxvii]
God critiques Jerusalem’s false prophets for not correcting the leaders and
people for their sins, who needed “healing,” saying the physicians—the false
prophets and priests—were “greedy for unjust gain” and therefore “have treated
the wound of my people lightly, saying ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no
peace.” ([xxxviii])
Therefore, Yeshua’s warning in Matthew 7:15–20 operates within this exact framework: examine whether teachers are producing covenant faithfulness or spiritual compromise. “Prophets” and teachers continue to arise proclaiming that the kingdom will be fully realized and Christ will establish his rule if only we adopt a new social-political program or a new psychological technique, even claiming to be our “Christs” [xxxix]. The false teacher offers an alternative path to restoration—political revolution, psychological technique, or personal enlightenment—while claiming divine sanction, all while their actual influence produces spiritual fracture rather than covenant healing.
Practically speaking, the original writers of the New Testament viewed false teachers as an existential threat to the survival of the ecclesia - the community of believers, treating heresy, not as a difference of opinion, but as spiritual treason. Authors like Paul, Peter, Jude, and John operated in a highly volatile environment where the boundaries of believing loyalty were still being drawn. The phrase “believing loyalty” was coined by the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser in his Book The Unseen Realm where he defined it as the true, biblical meaning of faith. It goes beyond merely agreeing with theological facts; it is an active, lifelong allegiance to YHVH and Yeshua our Messiah (or Jesus Christ if one prefers this) that requires demonstrating one’s trust through obedience and exclusiveworship. ([xl]) ([xli]) ([xlii]) ([xliii])
Dr. Heiser, an Old Testament scholar, believed this concept directly addressed why the word “faith’’ {Greek G4102 πίστις pístis; gen. písteōs (to win over, persuade. Faith) [xliv] or Hebrew H530. אֱמוּנָה ʾemûnāh fem. Noun (faithfulness, steadfastness) [xlv]} can sometimes be misunderstood in modern parlance. He further emphasized some key aspects of his decision to use the phrase “believing loyalty”: [xlvi]
- Faith as
Allegiance: Rather than passive mental assent, "believing loyalty"
requires taking a side in the unseen spiritual realm—meaning one cannot
claim to believe in God while giving their loyalty to other gods, worldly
idols, or self. ([xlvii]) ([xlviii])
- Consistent
Across Both Testaments: Heiser argued that
salvation works exactly the same way in the Old and New Testaments.
Whether it is an Israelite under the Law or a Christian following Jesus,
salvation belongs to those whose actions and lives reflect their exclusive
loyalty to the true God. ([xlix]) ([l]) ([li])
([lii])
- The "How" of Salvation: It is not about human perfection or being entirely free of doubts; rather, it is a persistent, enduring commitment to God's plan and Jesus as the only means of salvation. ([liii])
This concept was a cornerstone of his teaching on discipleship, emphasizing that true belief will inevitably manifest in action. ([liv])
With that in mind, let us take a closer look again at our lead-in Scriptures. Matthew 7:21–28 is essential to this conversation and actually completes Yeshua’s teaching on false teachers rather than standing apart from it. Verses 21–23 expose the deepest deception: those who invoke Jesus’s authority through prophesying, casting out demons, and performing mighty works in his name, yet remain fundamentally disconnected from him—he declares, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” (Matt 7:15–27) This passage reveals that the false teacher’s core problem is not merely wrong doctrine or visible moral failure, but a severed relationship with the living God. The false teacher operates under the appearance of divine authorization while remaining unknown to Christ.
This directly confirms and reinforces the fruit principle. A diseased tree cannot bear good fruit, nor can a healthy tree bear bad fruit. (Matt 7:15–27) But here’s the crucial addition: entry into the kingdom depends not on verbal confession—“Lord, Lord”—but on doing the will of the Father. (Matt 7:21–28) The false teacher’s fundamental error is substituting words and works (prophecy, miracles) for obedience and covenant alignment. These require certain steps and actions to uphold:
·
Obedience
requires an active response, one that means doing
what God/Yeshua says, how He says it and when He says it. What this means is we
do not rely on our own reasoning or convenience. It also relies on relational
love as an expression of love and trust in God’s authority, as seen in John
14:15. 1 Samuel 15:22 shows us that a submissive heart is better than rout ritual or empty
traditions.
· Covenant alignment is simply surrendering daily unto the Lord’s ways with our values, choices, and responses. This way we set out to prove that by our lifestyles and characters that we have a genuine relationship with God. (see Matthew 7:16). If we stumble or drift away from the narrow path, we are quick to return through t’shuva (repentance).
Faith is fractured when it is not accompanied by trust, belief, and truth. We must ask – does the one who will teach the Word of God – does his words line up with Scripture?
Now this is where it can get confusing. Verses in Matthew: 24–27 establish that hearing Yeshua’s words without doing them is equivalent to building on sand—a foundation that collapses under pressure. (Matt 7:21–28) In the original context, this means the false teacher teaches that which sounds authoritative but produces no actual transformation toward covenant obedience. The community that follows such teaching lacks the structural integrity to withstand spiritual crisis and the passage also connects to broader New Testament witness: they “profess to know God, but deny him by their works,” (Titus 1:16) and whoever claims to know him but does not keep his commandments is a liar (1 John 2:3–6). Matthew 7:21–28 thus completes the diagnostic picture—false teachers are identifiable not by their claims or even their apparent spiritual power, but by their fundamental disconnection from covenantal obedience to the Father’s will.
So then, with the patterns established in the Tanakh, and then refined in the Messianic Writings, the behavioral profile of false teachers/prophets emerge. Biblical writers explicitly linked bad doctrine with bad behavior. False teachers were routinely characterized by greed, sexual immorality, pride, and a rejection of authority (2 Peter 2, Jude). They were viewed as wolves infiltrating the flock to exploit believers for money or personal power. Also, the doctrinal profile began to emerge: in the first century, the core heresies were primarily theological and ontological. For example, the Apostle John fought the underlying ideas and early seeds of proto-Gnosticism [lv] and early docetic views [lvi], which denied that Jesus had physically come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3). Paul fought Judaizers who claimed that Gentile converts had to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law to be saved (Galatians 2:16).
There were consequences to this: The scriptural authors did not preach tolerance toward these figures. They called them "damnable," "accursed," and "spots and blemishes," warning that they were dragging people to hell. Yeshua explicitly used the term "false prophets" to warn his followers about deceptive religious figures, but he reserved his most direct, scathing attacks for the established religious leaders of his day: the Scribes and Pharisees. While he did not use the exact phrase "false teacher" (a term that became more prominent later in the New Testament epistles), he treated these leaders exactly as such by arguing that their teaching was spiritually lethal because it corrupted the true intent of God's law.
Yeshua's criticisms were not polite theological debates; they were severe structural and moral takedowns.
[ SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS ] ───► Paraded virtue while rotten inside.
[ SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS ] ──► Led followers into a ditch.
[ LEGALISTIC BURDENS ] ───► Imposed rules they wouldn't follow.
· "Blind Guides" and "Blind Fools" (Matthew 23:16-17): Jesus attacked their spiritual competence. He stated that if the blind lead the blind, both fall into a ditch. He argued they lacked the spiritual insight required to teach anyone.
· "Hypocrites" and "Whitewashed Tombs" (Matthew 23:27): This was his most frequent label. He compared them to beautifully decorated graves that look clean on the outside but are full of dead bones and uncleanness on the inside.
· "Brood of Vipers" (Matthew 12:34): By calling them a family of snakes, Jesus directly linked their origin and character to Satan (the serpent), rather than God.
· "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" (Matthew 7:15): In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." He stated you would recognize them by their "fruit" (their ultimate actions and character).
Yeshua viewed these figures as a catastrophic danger to the community of believers. He concluded his longest public denunciation of them in Matthew 23 with a terrifying rhetorical question that mirrors the harshness later used by the New Testament writers: "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23:33).
Now, to understand what Yeshua truly meant when he attacked the religious leaders, we have to strip away 2,000 years of Western church tradition and look directly at the Second Temple period (approx. 516 BCE – 70 CE), but we will have to save that for Part Two of this study.
I hope and pray that
this study will enlighten you and help guide you in all your endeavors.
May our God of Avram, Issachar, and Yakob bless you all today.
Amein
[i] FAIR USE DISCLAIMER: This blog site may contain content that is not authorized for use by its owner. All such material will be cited back to its original source. According to Section 107 of the Copyright Act: “…the fair use of a copyrighted work […] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright…” I have made and will continue to make every effort to stay within all ethical and moral guidelines in the use of material presented here, and the use of these materials is solely intended for educational purposes only, and all efforts to obtain or sustain fair use of non-owned material will be made.
[ii] Author’s note: This site is for education only and is not affiliated with any institution, organization, or religious group. It is the sole production of its editor/author. Use of information from Jewish-themed websites (or any other source material) should not be construed as these sites endorsing or confirming any thesis introduced by the author of this epistle. I present the information from their respective sites for instructional purposes only and/or to aid in the readers understanding of the subjects discussed.
[iii] Author’s note: Throughout these studies, I will be using the NET Bible® and the NET Notes®: within the notes you will see symbols like this: ( א B Ψ 892* 2427 sys). These are abbreviations used by the NET Bible® for identifying the principal manuscript evidence that they (authors and translators of the NET Bible®) used in translating the New Testament. Please go to https://bible.org/netbible/ and see their section labeled “NET Bible Principals of Translation” for a more complete explanation on these symbols and other items pertinent to the way the NET Bible uses them. This is not to say that the NET® Bible will be our only source of God’s word but will be used as seen fit.
[iv] Author’s Note: In these studies, I have used the notes that come along with the passages I cite from the sources that I cite: these need a bit of a disclaimer though. As in all things, not everything that is footnoted is something that I necessarily agree with, especially if it contradicts what I believe pertains to any matters of the Torah or the commandments of God. I give you the notes as they are written by the authors of the material I cite from, so that you can see the information contained within them. It truly is not my place to edit them; if they state anything that is in opposition to what I teach, then so be it. I will address these issues if requested. That is not to say I should not challenge something I believe, in my humble opinion, might contradict the truth of God’s word; that I will do in the main body of my epistles for that is where my gentle dissent belongs. Most (but not all) of the differences will come when I quote from a source that displays a decidedly Western/Greek mindset, as opposed to a Hebraic perspective. I must be intellectually honest – I am biased toward the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and His son, Yeshua the Messiah. I pray then we all can find common ground as we study the Scriptures. Also, some may be put off by the length or depth of the notes; not everyone has access to the references I do, therefore I try to include the notes that come with the material I use, so each can see for themselves the information the originator has pointedly gleaned. I hope you avail yourselves to these inclusions – they help us to understand how the material in scripture is laid out – the thought process of the original writer.
j ch. 24:11, 24; Deut. 13:1–3; Jer.
14:14; 23:16; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1
k Ezek. 22:27; Acts 20:29; [Mic.
3:5; John 10:12]
l Luke 6:43, 44; James 2:18
m ch. 12:33–35
n See ch. 3:10
l [See ver. 16 above]
[v]
The Holy Bible: English
Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles,
2025), Mt 7:15–20.
p [Hos. 8:2]
q [John 3:3, 5]
r ch. 12:50
s ch. 25:11, 12; Luke 13:25–27
t Mal. 3:17, 18
u [Num. 24:4; John 11:51; 1 Cor.
13:2]
v See Mark 9:38
t [See ver. 22 above]
w ch. 10:33; [Ps. 101:4]
x ch. 25:41; Ps. 6:8
y ch. 13:41; Ps. 5:5
z For ver. 24–27, see Luke 6:47–49
a ch. 25:2; [Ezek. 13:10–14]
a [See ver. 24 above]
b ch. 13:54; 22:33; Mark 1:22; 6:2;
11:18; Luke 4:32; [Acts 13:12]
c
John 7:46
[vi] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2025), Mt 7:21–29.
[vii] The late Dr. Michael S. Heiser defined “Christian Middle Earth” as the middle realm between academic biblical scholars and the local church. It is a space where serious biblical content is rare, and where Christians with a strong hunger for scripture turn to the internet and YouTube to teach themselves. [Please reference https://drmsh.com/what-is-christian-middle-earth-a-brief-explanation/ or https://drmsh.com/gandalf-ministry-going-forward/ .]
[viii] Watch here for a deeper understanding: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxpYe9I0fvwSugNjCUo1SdCyFDT0C5qVKh .
13 tn Grk
“instructing them, saying.”
14
tn Grk “on the road of the Gentiles.” That is, a path that leads to
Gentile regions.
15
tn Grk “town [or city] of the Samaritans.”
16
tn Grk “But go.” The Greek μᾶλλον (mallon,
“rather, instead”) conveys the adversative nuance here so that δέ (de) has not been translated.
[ix]
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First
Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible
(Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Mt 10:5–7.
26
map For location see Map1-A1;
JP3-F3; JP4-F3.
27
tn Grk “And behold a Canaanite.” The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English
equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1).
28
tn Grk The participle ἐξελθοῦσα (exelthousa)
is here translated as a finite verb. The emphasis is upon her crying out to
Jesus.
29
tn Grk “cried out, saying.” The participle λέγουσα (legousa) is redundant here in contemporary English and has not been
translated.
30
tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “Then.”
31
tn Grk “asked him, saying.” The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant here in contemporary English and has not
been translated.
32
tn Grk “And answering, he said.” The construction in Greek is somewhat
redundant and has been simplified in the translation. Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of
the disciples’ request.
33
tn In this context the verb προσκυνέω (proskuneō), which often describes worship, probably means simply
bowing down to the ground in an act of reverence or supplication (see L&N
17.21).
34
tn Grk “she bowed down to him, saying.”
35
tn Grk “And answering, he said, ‘It is not right.’ ” The
introductory phrase “answering, he said” has been simplified and placed at the
end of the English sentence for stylistic reasons. Here δέ (de) has not been translated.
36
tn Or “lap dogs, house dogs,” as
opposed to dogs on the street. The diminutive form originally referred to
puppies or little dogs, then to house pets. In some Hellenistic uses κυνάριον (kunarion) simply means “dog.”
sn
The term dogs does not refer to wild
dogs (scavenging animals roaming around the countryside) in this context, but
to small dogs taken in as house pets. It is thus not a derogatory term per se,
but is instead intended by Jesus to indicate the privileged position of the
Jews (especially his disciples) as the initial recipients of Jesus’ ministry.
The woman’s response of faith and her willingness to accept whatever Jesus
would offer pleased him to such an extent that he granted her request.
37
tn Grk “And answering, he said.” The participle ἀποκριθείς (apokritheis) is redundant and has not
been translated.
38
tn Grk “she said.”
39
tn Grk “Then answering, Jesus said to her.” This expression has been
simplified in the translation.
40
sn Woman was a polite form of address (see BDAG 208–9 s.v. γυνή 1), similar to “Madam” or “Ma’am”
used in English in different regions.
[x] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Mt 15:21–28.
1 tn The term shepherd is applied to
kings in the ancient Near East. In the OT the Lord
is often addressed as shepherd of Israel (Gen 49:24; Ps 8:1). The imagery of
shepherds as Israel’s leaders is also employed (Jer 23:1–2).
2
tn The term translated “harshness”
is used to describe the oppression the Israelites suffered as slaves in Egypt
(Exod 1:13).
3
tn As a case of dittography, the MT
repeats “and they were scattered” at the end of the verse.
[xi]
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First
Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible
(Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Eze 34:2–6.
14
sn The allusion here, if it is not
merely a part of the metaphor of the wandering sheep, is to the worship of the
false gods on the high hills (2:20, 3:2).
[xii]
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First
Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible
(Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Je 50:6.
18
tn Heb “he”; the referent (Micaiah) has been specified in the
translation for clarity.
[xiii]
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First
Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible
(Biblical Studies Press, 2005), 1 Ki 22:17.
[xiv] Todd J. Murphy, in Pocket
Dictionary for the Study of Biblical Hebrew (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2003), 87.
[xv] Willem VanGemeren, ed., in New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 4:827.
[xvi] Camden M. Cobern, Ezekiel and Daniel, ed. D. D. Whedon, Commentary on
the Old Testament (New York; Cincinnati: The Methodist Book Concern,
1901), 8:70–71.
[xvii] Adapted from text generated by
Logos Study Assistant, 52.0.307 Max, Copyright 2000-2026 Faithlife, LLC, Accessed
07/16/2026, “Idioms”
[xviii] John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, The Baptist Commentary Series
(London: Mathews and Leigh, 1810), Ezekiel 6:27.
[xix] Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., in Concise
Oxford English Dictionary
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
[xx] In the Scriptures, predictive accuracy refers to the exact, hundred-percent fulfillment of prophecies; it is meant and usually used to build faith, confirm God’s sovereignty, and bring about repentance and hope.
[xxiii] Steve Gallagher, Walking in Truth in a World of Lies (Dry Ridge, KY: Pure Life Ministries, 2020), 281.
[xxiv] IBID, pg 281
[xxv] IBID, pg 281
[xxvii] Doctrinal testing forms the foundation for the best defense against false teaching; the key is mastering the truth itself—studying the authentic message so thoroughly that counterfeits become obvious.
[xxix] G. V. Smith, “Prophecy, False,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988), 3:986.
Sedlacek,
D. (2010, November). The Biblical Diagnosis of Spiritual Conditions.
Paper presented at the NACSW Convention 2010, Raleigh-Durham, NC. Accessed at https://www.nacsw.org/Publications/Proceedings2010/SedlacekDBiblical.pdf
[xxxi] “Exegesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exegesis. Accessed 15 Jul. 2026.
[xxxii] Adapted from https://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html
[xxxiii] Covenantal integrity is the ethical and moral practice of honoring the mutual promises, loyalties, and relational bonds that connect individuals to one another, a community, or God. It emphasizes long-term, trust-based responsibility, holding individuals to their word regardless of personal consequences or shifting circumstances.
[xxxiv] Martin Accad and Jonathan Andrews, eds., The Religious Other: A Biblical Understanding of Islam, the Qur’an and Muhammad, Institute of Middle East Studies (Carlisle, Cumbria: Langham Global Library, 2020), 313.
[xxxvi] Simon J. De Vries, Prophet against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 145.
[xxxvii] Willem VanGemeren, ed., in New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997)
[xxxviii] See Jeremiah 6:14, 8:11; compare with Matthew 23:27-28 & Luke 19:42
[xxxix] Robert H. Smith, Matthew, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1989), 287.
[xlii] Naked Bible Podcast Transcript,
Episode 350 “Loving Loyalty and Believing Loyalty” https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/NB-350-Transcript.pdf
[xliii] https://cerebralfaith.net/how-gospel-allegiance-solves-two-of-the-churchs-biggest-problems/
[xlv] Warren Baker, The Complete Word Study Concordance: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 1318.
fem.
(feminine)
[xlviii] https://drmsh.com/kingdom-of-heaven-kingdom-of-god/
[xlix] Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, Episode 350 “Loving Loyalty and Believing Loyalty”
[l] https://drmsh.com/kingdom-of-heaven-kingdom-of-god/
[li] https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/981827.Michael_S_Heiser anti-semitic attitudes
[liv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVf8AqdFlL4&t=804s
[lv] Proto-Gnosticism or pre-Gnosticism refers to: “… movements similar to Gnosticism during the first century of Christianity. Proto-Gnostics did not have the same full-fledged theology as the later Gnostics but did prefigure some of their views. There is, however, some debate regarding the existence of proto-Gnosticism in the first century. Some believe that the opponents mentioned in 1 John, Jude and 1-2 Corinthians are proto-Gnostics or partly proto-Gnostic..” Text taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Gnosticism , accessed 06 August 2026 . The proto-gnostic environment was where ideas blending Hellenistic philosophy, Jewish mysticism, and eastern dualism were active, though they had not yet crystallized into the large 2nd-century systems of Valentinus or Basilides. [see also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7oCpV_xKKk&t=65s ]
