This webpage is one portion of a much longer profile of the ministry of Michael Rood on this Field Guide website. Click here to go to Michael Rood and His "Rood Awakenings".
Self-
If the content of his presentations was all just solid fact, as might be so in a
technical presentation about computers or tse-
He regularly makes statements which are not supported from either scripture or standard
Biblical reference works, and yet offers no foundation for such statements from other
sources. His listeners, many of whom have not been grounded in extensive study of
the scriptures and Biblical history before becoming fascinated by Rood's teachings,
are often ill-
The purpose of this webpage is to offer just a small sample of instances in which
it appears Rood has not differentiated for his audience the difference between the
Bible, established history and linguistics-
In light of these samples, which are only few of many that could be offered, those who have come under the influence of Rood's ministry might do well to consider how much they have taken for granted in his teachings.
Details regarding the life of John the Baptist
From: Tape 3 of Prophecies in the Feasts of the Lord
[Rood is here speaking about John the Baptist]
Ancient Jewish writings indicate what happened to John's father.
[Note that there is no reference to just which "ancient Jewish writings" are being referred to.]
And why he [John] was raised out in the wilderness. He ate locusts and wild honey. He lived off the land. He was not a farmer. And he stayed out there until he was told by God to speak up. And he stayed out in the wilderness, he stayed out by the Jordan and didn't even come into where the Roman government was in charge of things and the control of things. Why?
Because, when the Chaldean astronomers came from Babylon and brought those gifts, the gold and frankincense and myrrh, and when Herod told them that they would be … that the Messiah would be in Bethlehem …because that's what the scribes said, then, when those Chaldean astronomers were warned of the Lord and went back into Babylon another way, Herod was wroth. And he went out to kill all the male children about two years of age, according to the time that he had diligently inquired of the Wise Men.
In all the hill country of Judea who is the number one candidate for being the Messiah in all of the nation of Israel? It's not Jesus who was born in obscurity and the only people who knew about it were a handful of shepherds that came to the sukkah on the first day of the feast of Sukkoth when the Messiah was born. But yet it says that when Zachariah spoke out those words, the people marveled, said "What manner of child is this gonna to be?" And it was noised throughout all the hill country, the miracle child of this aged priest and his old wife at the end of their days and which everyone who left the Temple mount on that Pentecost, that Shavuoth, says "What is going on?" They knew something had happened in that Temple. And then nine months later this child is born who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.
You tell me who the number one candidate for the Messiah in the land of Israel is. It was the son of Zacharia and Elishaba.
And when Zacharia went back up to the Temple after the birth of the child to do his duty in the course of Abiya, now it was the time of Hanukkah. And when he went up there, what happened according to these ancient Jewish writings, what happened when he went up there was the temple guard said, "Where is your son?" And he said, "How should I know? I'm up here doing my duty according to the course of Abiyah as the Torah instructs. I'm sure he must be with his mother."
They had already been out to his home. Elizabeth wasn't there. John wasn't there. Zacharia had told them to get out into the wilderness and when they went out into the wilderness, then they couldn't find 'em, the soldiers couldn't find 'em and they came back to find John. When they got back there, that is where it was brought to pass what was said, that "upon you is gonna come all the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zacharia whom you slew between the altar and the Holy Place".
While he was doing his duty as a priest, that's when they came in, right then, and they slew him, chopped him down with swords and he died right between the altar and the Holy Place.
That's why John lived out in the wilderness. That is why he didn't stay in the polite company of people.
All of this sounds "plausible," but note that Rood gives absolutely no references to where he got his information.
All of this is not in the Bible at all, and yet it is likely that most of Rood's audience would just accept his word for the details he has offered here in explanation for John living in the wilderness at the beginning of his public ministry. Without some authentic source indicating that this was exactly what happened, the reasoning sounds strained.
After all, even though Mary and Joseph fled with the infant Jesus to Egypt, they eventually returned once Herod had died, and were able to live peacefully. Why wouldn't John come back from the wilderness if he was really there just because he had escaped the "slaughter of innocents?"
So where did Rood get the information which he weaves into the Biblical account? The "ancient Jewish writing" was quite likely the Protevangelion of James, an apocryphal/pseudepigraphic work usually attributed to the second century … and not as a "Jewish" writing, but a Christian writing.
This non-
Chapter 16
Then Herod, perceiving that he was being mocked by the wise men, and being very angry,
commanded certain men to go and to kill all the children who were in Bethlehem, from
two years old and under. 2 But Mary, hearing that the children were to be killed,
being under much fear, took the Child, and wrapped Him up in swaddling clothes, and
laid Him in an ox-
9 But Herod made search after John, and sent servants to Zachary, when he was at the altar, and said to him, "Where have you hidden your son?" 10 He replied to them, "I am a servant of God, and a servant at the altar; how should I know where my son is?" 11 So the servants went back, and told Herod everything, at which he was incensed, and said, "Is this son of his likely to be king in Israel?" 12 Therefore he sent his servants again to Zachary, saying, "Tell us the truth, where is your son? For you know that your life is in my hand." 13 So the servants went and told him all this.
14 But Zachary replied to them, "I am a martyr for God, and if he shed my blood, the Lord will receive my soul. 15 Besides, know that you shed innocent blood." 16 However, Zachary was murdered at the entrance of the temple and altar, and about the partition. 17 But the children of Israel knew not when he was killed.
18 Then at the hour of salutation the priests went into the temple, but Zachary did not, according to custom, meet them and bless them, 19 But still they continued waiting for him to salute them. 20 And when they found he did not come in a long time, one of them ventured into the holy place where the altar was, and he saw blood lying upon the ground, congealed.
21 Then, behold, a voice from heaven said, "Zachary is murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped away, until the avenger of his blood comes." 22 And when he heard this, he was afraid, and went forth and told the priests what he had seen and heard. And they all went in, and saw the fact. 23 Then the roofs of the temple howled, and were rent from the top to the bottom, 24 and they could not find the body, but only blood made hard like stone. 25 And they went away, and told the people that Zachary was murdered, and all the tribes of Israel heard of it, and mourned for him, and lamented three days. 26 Then the priests took counsel together concerning a person to succeed him. 27 And Simeon and the other priests cast lots, and the lot fell upon Simeon. 28 For he had been assured by the Holy Spirit, that he should not die, till he had seen Christ come in the flesh.
And then there are these other tidbits from the book. Let the reader decide if this is a useful document from which to glean accurate historical information.
Chapter 6
AND the child [the infant Mary, mother of Jesus] increased in strength every day,
so that when she was nine months old, her mother put her upon the ground, to try
if she could stand; and when she had walked nine steps, she came again to her mother's
lap. 2 Then her mother caught her up, and said, As the Lord my God liveth, thou shalt
not walk again on this earth, till I bring thee into the temple of the Lord. 3 Accordingly
she made her chamber a holy place, and suffered nothing uncommon or unclean to come
near her, but invited certain undefiled daughters of Israel, and they drew her aside.
4 But when the child was a year old, Joachim made a great feast, and invited the
priests, scribes, elders, and all the people of Israel; 5 And Joachim then made an
offering of the girl to the chief-
Chapter 7
BUT the girl grew, and when she was two years old, Joachim said to Anna, Let us lead her to the temple of the Lord, that we may perform our vow, which we have vowed unto the Lord God, lest he should be angry with us, and our offering be unacceptable. 2 But Anna said, Let us wait the third year, lest she should be at a loss to know her father. And Joachim said, Let us then wait. 3 And when the child was three years old, Joachim said, "Let us invite the daughters of the Hebrews, who are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them be lighted, that the child may not turn back again, and her mind be set against the temple of the Lord." 4 And they did thus till they ascended into the temple of the Lord. And the high priest received her, and blessed her, and said, "Mary, the Lord God has magnified your name to all generations. And to the very end of time, the Lord by you will show his redemption to the children of Israel." 5 And he placed her on the third step of the altar, and the Lord gave to her grace, and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.
Chapter 8
And her parents went away filled with wonder, and praising God, because the girl did not return back to them. 2 But Mary continued in the temple as a dove educated there, and received her food from the hand of an angel.
3 And when she was twelve years of age, the priests met in a council, and said, "Behold, Mary is twelve years of age. What shall we do with her, for fear lest the holy place of the Lord our God should be defiled?" 4 Then the priests replied to Zachary the high priest, "Stand at the altar of the Lord, and enter into the holy place, and make petitions concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, do that."
5 Then the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies and, taking away with him the breastplate of judgment, made prayers concerning her. 6 And behold, an angel of the Lord came to him and said, "Zachary, Zachary, go forth and call together all the widowers among the people, and let every one of them bring his rod, and he by whom the Lord shall show a sign shall be the husband of Mary."
7 And the criers went out throughout all Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all the people ran and met together. 8 Joseph also, throwing away the hatchet, went out to meet them, and when they were met, they went to the high priest, taking every man his rod. 9 After the high priest had received their rods, he went into the temple to pray. 10 And when he had finished his prayer, he took the rods, and went forth and distributed them, and there was no miracle attending them.
11 The last rod was taken by Joseph, and behold, a dove proceeded out of the rod, and flew upon the head of Joseph. 12 And the high priest said, "Joseph, you are the person chosen to take the Virgin of the Lord, to keep her for him."
13 But Joseph refused, saying, "I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, and I fear lest I should appear ridiculous in Israel." 14 then the high priest replied, "Joseph, fear the Lord your God, and remember how God dealt with Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, how the earth opened and swallowed them up, because of their contradiction. 15 Now therefore, Joseph, fear God, lest the like things should happen in your family." 16 Joseph then, being afraid, took her to his house, and Joseph said to Mary, "Behold, I have taken you from the temple of the Lord, and now I will leave you in my house. I must go to mind my trade of building. The Lord be with you."
Of course, if Rood has actually used some different … and reliable … source for the information he has presented about the death of John's father, he need only state clearly his reliable "ancient Jewish" sources and the confusion would be cleared up immediately.
Regarding the Day of Pentecost record in Acts 2
From Tape 3 of Prophecies in the Feasts of the Lord
"And then it appeared unto them cloven tongues of fire". What they saw was that pillar of fire that came down and separated Israel from Pharoah's army, they saw that pillar of fire that led Israel through the wilderness. And they saw that pillar of fire come down and split off onto all of those disciples.
This may be a "plausible" conclusion, but there is absolutely nothing in the account in Acts that makes this connection between the Pillar of Fire and the "tongues of fire" seen at that Pentecost gathering. As usual, however, Rood makes this statement just as confidently as he makes any statement that is totally corroborated by the Biblical material in the context within which it is found.
DANCE OF THE PIERCED ONE
From Tape 3 of Prophecies in the Feasts of the Lord
And how it [the feast of Shavuot-
And so there it was, when that flute player, which is the picture of the Messiah, who is pierced with those five holes, in his feet and his wrists and that in his side, that was the culmination because that mighty rushing wind was as he is blowing his … playing his song, filling his disciples with the Holy Spirit, that was the fulfillment of the Feast of Shavuot.
Here Rood is indulging in a habit common among Hebrew Roots teachers. (See the Hebrew Roots Movement profile elsewhere on this Field Guide site for more details about this type of teaching.)They will glean historical or linguistic hints about some minor aspect of scripture and then weave it into a symbolic pattern which their listeners often assume was inspired by God Himself, but which cannot be traced to any authoritative passage of scripture.
They have, in effect, invented their own symbolism and imbued it with an aura of Biblical fact. And yet frequently these Hebrew Roots teachers will disagree among themselves exactly what the symbolism stands for or how it should be applied.
For instance, Hebrew Roots author Eddie Chumney places this "Dance of the Pierced One" not as a part of the Feast of Pentecost, but as part of the Feast of Tabernacles.
From the Chumney Book: The Seven Festivals of the Messiah
As they marched toward the city of Jerusalem (Yerushalayim), the willows made a swishing sound in the wind as they approached the city. The word wind in Hebrew is Ruach. The word spirit in Hebrew is also Ruach. Therefore, this ceremony was symbolic or representative of the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) of God coming upon the city of Jerusalem (Yerushalayim).
As each of the party reached their respective gates, a trumpet (shofar) was blown.
Then one man would stand up and play the flute (the flute represents the Messiah).
The flute player is called "the pierced one." The flute is pierced, and Yeshua was
pierced during the crucifixion (Psalm [Tehillim] 22:16; Zechariah 12:10; John [Yochanan]
19:34-
The flute player led the procession. The pierced one blows the call for the wind
and the water to enter the temple. The priests from Motzah swishing the willows come
into the temple (Beit HaMikdash) and circle the altar seven times. The priests that
were slaying the sacrifices are now ascending the altar, and they begin to lay the
sacrifices on the fires. The high priest and his assistant ascend the altar and all
the people of Israel are gathered into the courts around there. The people start
singing the song Mayim, saying, "With joy we will draw water out of the well of salvation
[Yeshua]" (Isaiah [Yeshayahu] 12:3; Mishnah, Sukkah 5:1). The high priest takes his
vase and pours its contents on one of the comers of the altar where the horns are.
There are two bowls built into the altar. Each bowl has a hole in it. The water and
the wine are poured out over the altar as the priests who had the willow start laying
the willows against the altar, making a sukkah (a picture of God's covering). As
each of the party reached their respective gates, a trumpet (shofar) was blown. Then
one man would stand up and play the flute (the flute represents the Messiah). The
flute player is called "the pierced one." The flute is pierced, and Yeshua was pierced
during the crucifixion (Psalm [Tehillim] 22:16; Zechariah 12:10; John [Yochanan]
19:34-
Once again, this is all very "plausible," and makes for a pleasant symbolism. But there is nothing in the context of the scriptures that indicates that there was any intentional connection between a flute which has holes bored in it to allow it to play melodies, and the "piercing" of Jesus via nails and a soldier's sword.
This is representative of another typical method employed by Hebrew Roots teachers. They often try to imply that only if a Christian understands all sorts of nuances of Hebrew words and Jewish customs will he or she be able to "get" all the most "profound symbolism" and deep spiritual understanding in the Bible.
Yet this little tale of the symbolism of The Pierced One is just that … a tale evidently invented by Hebrew Roots teachers themselves and passed around among their own circles!
To the naïve, it certainly might seem that you could go to a Jewish synagogue and talk to a rabbi there and ask about The Dance of the Pierced One and he would know just what you were talking about. But this is in error.
There never was any special ceremony dubbed by the Jews as The Dance of the Pierced One. And the Hebrew word for flute players in general would not be translated correctly into English as "The Pierced Ones."
Someone, likely in modern times, has gone fishing in the ceremonies of the Temple
period as described in such writings as those of first century historian Josephus,
and looked for ways to "find Jesus" pre-
But in order for this to be a solid "teaching," it would be necessary to assume that
all the ancient "extra-
Although there may be nothing inherently wrong with attempting to create symbolism out of whole cloth in the way Hebrew Roots teachers such as Michael Rood do with this ceremony and with many other customs of the Jews, it is wrong to imply that such derivations have Biblical or divine sanction. Unless a teacher has had a direct communication from God regarding these matters, they are all utter speculation.
And yet this information about the Messianic symbolism of the so-
The Samaritans of Shechem
Rood discusses this topic in Tape 3 of his teaching titled Prophecies in the Feasts of the Lord
At one point in this tape, Rood describes the circumstances surrounding Jesus' encounter with the woman at the well, as presented in this passage in the Gospel of John:
John 4:4-
And he must needs go through Samaria. Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar [a small village near Shechem], near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans … 28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? Then they went out of the city, and came unto him. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did. So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. And many more believed because of his own word; And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.]
Later in the tape, he arrives at the following point in the Gospel of Luke:
Luke 9:51-
And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him .And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem . And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Note how Rood "explains" why the Samaritans in this case refuse to welcome Jesus.
"They were going up to Jerusalem . They are still 36 Kilometers N of the city of
Jerusalem. And he sends his disciples into a city of the Samaritans, Shechem, to
buy some provisions for the journey. It is still 18 hours on foot up to Jerusalem
at this particular point. He stays outside the city again. James and John this time
go in, and when they go in it records in the Gospel of Luke , when those Samaritans
, when those Gentiles-
They spent two days with those Gentiles, the Messiah spent two days with them, and now he is going back up to the Feast at Jerusalem. When James and John go in there, it says that those Samaritans, those Gentiles, knew that he set his face as though he would go to Jerusalem and they refused to sell anything to James and John. James and John were absolutely livid.
What is going on? Those Gentiles who at that time four months earlier confessed that he was Messiah, now when they realize he is not going to stay with them and celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles on Mt. Gerizim, and do their religious rules and rituals with them, and how they have changed the Torah, they have concocted their own religion and when they realize that he's not going to stay with them, but he's going back up to Jerusalem, they refuse to sell 'im anything."
Compare Rood's words above with the actual scriptural accounts of this incident. There is nothing in the context of Luke 9 that identifies this Samaritan city by name, and thus Rood's insistence that it is Shechem is puzzling.
Nor is there anything in the context that indicates just why the people of this city did not welcome Jesus. Most commentators merely note that the historical animosity between the Samaritans and the Jews made the Samaritans cranky towards Jews in general, and particularly those who were headed to the annual feasts in Jerusalem traveling through Samaritan territory.
There is nothing in Luke 9 that indicates the inhabitants of this city even know who Jesus is, only that He is a person with an entourage headed to Jerusalem.
There is nothing in the context of this passage in Luke 9 that ties this city back to the city of the Samaritan woman at the well at all.
Nor is there any mention of a celebration of a Feast on Mt. Gerizim, much less that these folks were expecting Jesus to "do their religious rules and rituals with them."
Rood gives no hint in the context of his comments that indicates just how he has decided that these people rejecting Jesus at this point in time are the same people who earlier accepted Him as the Messiah. Again, this is a typical feature of much of Rood's teachings … adding details to Biblical accounts for which he offers no source … and adding details that are not just "common knowledge" among Bible scholars and found in standard Bible reference works, but details that seem to have no foundation at all except in Rood's own mind.
Hanukkah as a Biblical Feast
From Tape 4 of Prophecies in the Feasts of the Lord
At one point in this tape, Rood is explaining the relevance of Hanukkah as a "Biblical feast." Although he admits it is not given as one of the pilgrimage feasts in Leviticus (because, of course, the events that it commemorates didn't happen until over 1000 years after Leviticus was written) he seems to want to imbue it with a similar level of sanctity to the three annual pilgrimage feast times, Passover/Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and the Feast of Ingathering.
"But then as we see in the Gospel of John, in the tenth chapter, it says that it was winter time, and it was the feast of Hanukkah, Dedications, and Yahshua went up to the Feast. Whenever it uses the terminology, "to go up" or "he went up to the Feast", it is a legal terminology that was specified right in the Torah that three times a year you must go up, and you must go up to Jerusalem."
The problem with this statement is that the Gospel of John does not say "He went up."
John 10:22-
And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Thus whatever point Rood was trying to make about the importance of the Feast of Hanukkah, it cannot be made with this one Bible reference to that Feast. These verses merely mention the time of year, and the fact that Jesus was at the Temple at the time.
Whatever "legal terminology" Rood was wanting to attach to this act of Jesus appears to be moot. At the same time, it is doubtful if Rood could make a legitimate case for there being some sort of "legal terminology" to the phrase "went up." Jerusalem was "up" on higher ground than most of the area. Thus anyone traveling there for any reason any time of year would "go up to Jerusalem."
But even more relevant, no, it does not say "right in the Torah" that "you must go up to Jerusalem." Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the Torah at all, for it was centuries after the first five books of the Bible were written that the city of Jerusalem become the center of their worship.
If there is any "legal terminology" that is used in referring to the Feasts, it might be "keep the feast" and "appear before the Lord", as in this passage:
Exod 23:14-
Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:) and the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.
But the notion that one could establish anything about the need for believers in Jesus to observe the Feast of Hanukkah based on the single mention that Jesus "walked in the temple" on that day one time in His life seems a real stretch. One could easily correctly say that “on Christmas,” Michael Rood himself walked in Jerusalem, if he happened to be there on December 25. But Rood would be the first to take great offense if you would say that established that he was “celebrating Christmas in Jerusalem”!
The Hebrew Name of Jesus
Throughout the Hebrew Roots movement, most teachers advocate that believers should avoid the terms God, Lord, and Jesus, and use instead the Hebrew name of the Almighty (transliterated variously as Yahweh, Yahveh, YodHeVavHe, Yahovah, and more) and Hebrew name of the Messiah (Yashua, Yeshua, Y'shua, Yahoshuah, Yahshua and more.)
As a Hebrew Roots teacher, Rood does indeed advocate this. But, in an evident attempt to foster a sense of elitism in his own supporters as compared to even others in the Hebrew Roots movement, he comes down strongly on the absolute importance of saying the name of the Messiah in precisely the way he uses it himself:
From Tape 1 of The 70 Week Ministry of the Messiah
And so when I say the name of YAHshua, I am saying the most beautiful name in heaven and earth. This is the name by which you MUST be saved. So I like to pronounce it correctly.
And you'll notice I do not pronounce it the way that many Messianic Jews have been raised to pronounce it as Yeshua, which misses the point of YAH. It is not Yeshua, the emphasis is not on salvation, the emphasis is on YAH, the Name of God. YAHshua. Because it is our God whose name is emphasized in every Hebrew name. That is where the emphasis is. But because of a tradition that has turned people away from the truth, as it talks about in Titus 1:14, it says, "Do not give heed to Jewish fables or Jewish traditions and the commandments of men which turn away from the truth."
The primary problem with this position is … that the word "YAHshua" is evidently itself "a tradition of men." And it is not a tradition of Jewish men, but rather of Gentile men wishing to address the Almighty in a language not their own.
The author of the following excerpts is someone who is part of the Hebrew Roots and Sacred Name movement himself, and he advocates using the Hebrew names. But he is evidently more honest than some regarding how important exact pronunciation is to the piety of the believer.
Excerpts from The Messiah's Hebrew Name: "Yeshua" Or "Yahshua"?
Dr. Daniel Botkin explains the Hebrew linguistics of the names "Yeshua" and "Yahshua"
and how "Yahshua" is a mistransliteration by Sacred Name advocates to fit an erroneous
interpretation of John 5:43 and how "Yeshua" is far more accurate. He also clearly
establishes the fact that the English name "Jesus" has absolutely no pagan connection
and is simply a derivation of "Yesous," the Greek transliteration of "Yeshua." Most
important, Dr. Botkin addresses that slander and criticism surrounding the name controversy
is entirely non-
… The opponents of the Yeshua form claim that this pronunciation is the result of a Jewish conspiracy to hide the Savior’s true name. Those who call the Messiah Yeshua are accused of perpetuating a Jewish conspiracy and "denying His name" or "degrading Him" by their use of the Yeshua form. If you have never read or heard these outlandish accusations, you probably will eventually. From time to time I receive personal letters to this effect.
The proponents of the Yahshua form claim that the Messiah’s name was the same as
Joshua’s, written [vwhy or [wvwhy (Strong’s #3091). The only problem is that neither
of these Hebrew spellings of Joshua’s name can possibly be pronounced "Yahshua."
The third letter in Joshua’s name (reading from right to left) is the letter vav
(w) and a vav cannot be silent. The letter vav must be pronounced as either a "v"
or an "o" or an "u." (In the case of Joshua, it takes an "o" sound, giving us "Ye-
I do not know of a single individual that knows Hebrew well enough to actually read it and understand it and converse in it who uses the Yahshua form.
Please do not misunderstand. A person does not need to know Hebrew and Greek linguistics
in order to be spiritual. However, if a person is going to take it upon himself to
instruct others about subjects of a linguistic and Hebraic nature, he should know
the Hebrew language and he should know some basics about linguistics. This is especially
true if he is going to use his Hebrew-
To people who actually know Hebrew – people like Dr. Ben-
If no Hebrew-
… So where did the transliteration Yahshua come from? This form of the name can be traced back to the beginnings of the Sacred Name movement, a movement that grew out of the Church of God, 7th Day, in the late 1930s. I have in my files an article entitled, "A Brief History of the Name Movement in America" by L.D. Snow, a Sacred Name believer. According to this article, "John Briggs and Paul Penn were the FIRST to pronounce and use the name Yahshua" (emphasis Snow’s). This was in 1936 and in 1937, the article states. No information is given about how Briggs and Penn came up with this (mis)translation.
Later Sacred Name literature appeals to the Messiah’s statement in John 5:43 as "proof" of the Yahshua form: "I am come in My Father’s name," He said. In the minds of Sacred Name believers, this means that "Yah," a shortened form of Yahweh, must appear in the name of the Son. However, the Messiah did not say "My name contains My Father’s name" or "My Father’s name must appear inside My name" or any such statement. He said absolutely nothing here about His own name. The only "name" mentioned here was the Father’s name. He said, "I am come in My Father’s name," which simply means that He was coming by His Father’s authority, on His Father’s behalf. If we take Yeshua’s statement "I am come in My Father’s name" to mean that His own name must contain the Father’s name, then we ourselves cannot do anything "in the Father’s name" unless our own personal name happens to contain the syllable "Yah." The folly of this interpretation is also evident if the same line of reasoning is applied to the rest of Yeshua’s statement: "…if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." If the logic of Sacred Name believers is applied to this half of the verse, it would be saying "a person’s name must contain his own name," which is meaningless. If, on the other hand, "in his own name" means "by his own authority," then the statement makes sense.
Why is the Yahshua form used by no one but Sacred Name believers and people who have
been influenced by Sacred Name believers? Probably because no such name exists in
the Hebrew Bible and, to my knowledge, no such name exists in any extra-
See the link above for more details on this matter.
Personal from the Web Author
All teachers make occasional errors of fact in their presentations, all occasionally rely on incomplete or inaccurate research materials. It is not the purpose of this profile to merely "nitpick" isolated instances of error in the teachings of Michael Rood.
If Rood was merely viewed by those who listen to his tapes and attend his Rood Awakenings as one of many teachers from whom they can "glean" interesting information, this profile would be unnecessary. But the reality is that Rood is not just an interesting source of theological novelties for many people. For a growing crowd he is becoming a "guru," one to whom they look almost exclusively for spiritual guidance and help to understand the fearful times in which we live.
And in a number of circles he is viewed as an "expert" in both prophetic understanding and in "restoring the truth of the Bible" to what they believe is an apostate Christianity. And to many he is a teacher "gifted by God", looked to not just for better Bible exegesis, but for insight believed to come directly from divine inspiration.
The major profile of Rood on this Field Guide website outlines many concerns regarding the claims made by Rood's ministry. There are increasing numbers of people making serious life decisions, including those related to family relationships, finances, plans for the future and so on based on the speculative prophecy and idiosyncratic theology of Rood.
People who are looking to Rood as a source of spiritual leadership need to have as much information as possible about his record and his teachings in order wisely to decide if they ought to continue that level of trust for the man's ministry. The following scripture contains an admonition that many need to take seriously.
James 3:1
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (NIV)
Or, as the KJV even more ominously puts it, "we shall receive the greater condemnation."
And then there is the admonition by Jesus…
Matt 23:8
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers." (NIV)
Rood has chosen for himself the title "Rabbi." Perhaps he has an excuse for why this verse in Matthew doesn't apply to him. Perhaps it is that he considers that the modern Hebrew connotation of the word is just "teacher" rather than Master. But if so, that still leaves him with the admonition of James regarding the fact that those who would be teachers are subject to greater scrutiny by God than their students.
And one such area for scrutiny might include the issue of intellectual honesty. There is no question, when looking at the examples above and others like them, that Rood frequently fails utterly to differentiate his own opinions and speculations from solid fact when addressing his audiences. His breathless, glib delivery makes it almost impossible for his audience to even have a chance to do so for themselves. And thus he has created a large following of people whose minds are full of garbled information.
This website information allows those who would like to look more closely at Rood's "credentials" as a teacher the opportunity to slow down his delivery long enough to think through what he has said, compare it to the Bible and history and other legitimate sources of information, and come to an informed evaluation of what he has offered.
Although Rood has never claimed the "title" of a Prophet, he has made numerous references to incidents which he claimed to be divine intervention throughout his ministry, which he has obviously shared with his supporters to imply God's stamp of approval on his work.
And at one point in 2002, he went beyond this, in the following description of how
he "re-
Now, I must remind you of the scenario. I am laying in bed on the Sabbath during the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. I am scribbling in the oversized margins of my freshly printed 8.5 X 11 inch paper, as I am translating this text without so much as a dictionary with me. I am seeing a picture develop that I had never entertained in the thirty years that I have been studying the prophet. I came to this verse, sat up in bed and shouted out, "This is not a woman – this is a fire. This is not a woman in a basket – this is a fire in a container." Going down a couple verses I said, "These are not two women, these are two fires."
Now, I know what a hare-
… That is the moment that I knew that this had come by revelation, and not by my mind.
He then began using this "revelation" as one more stamp of approval on his ministry.
It likely did the job of solidifying the enthusiasm of many his followers. Yet, out
of all of the prophetic speculations he has offered since 1998, including this one
regarding the Book of Zechariah, there has been not one tangible, real-
The value, therefore, of considering his more mundane teachings regarding the Bible and evaluating his teaching methods, as represented in this small collection of examples, is in seeing if one can find there any evidence of "expertise" either.
If neither his prophetic speculations nor his Biblical exegesis can be shown to be reliable, then it seems very foolish to look to the man as having any unique role as a "rabbi" for the End Time.
Unless otherwise noted, all original material on this Field Guide website
is © 2001-
Careful effort has been made to give credit as clearly as possible to any specific material quoted or ideas extensively adapted from any one resource. Corrections and clarifications regarding citations for any source material are welcome, and will be promptly added to any sections which are found to be inadequately documented as to source.
Return to Top of Page and the Navigation Bar
Mixture of Speculation and Fact in the teachings of
Michael John Rood