Torah Observance

The Hebrew Roots Movement

Like all movements, the Hebrew Roots Movement has its factions, levels, and variants. But it would not be called a “movement” without having some unifying principles among the various groups. We will take a look at those unifying principles, and warn of an inherent danger. Let's begin with some good points made at an article no longer available online:

The Hebraic Roots or Jewish Roots movement refers to various organizations with a common emphasis on recovering the “original” Jewishness of Christianity. This recovery comes through studying the Bible in its Jewish context, observing the Torah, keeping the Sabbath and festivals, avoiding the “paganism” of Christianity, affirming the existence of original Hebrew language gospels and, in some cases, denigrating the Greek text of the New Testament. Writers such as Roy Blizzard, David Bivin, Brad Young and Robert Lindsay have given much impetus to this movement.

Hebraic Roots teachers call upon believers to study Hebrew and learn about Jewish culture, which most of us can appreciate. More often than not, however, they call Gentiles to a Torah-observant and/or festival observant lifestyle as a means of drawing closer to Jesus and being conformed to His image. The implication is, if you really want to please God, if you really want to be holy, here are the rules. Even though most do not believe these observances are necessary for one's salvation, there is often an implication that this is the higher way. Scripture warns against such things.

Believers who wish to learn more about the Jewish roots of Christianity do well. Learning about the Jewish roots of Christianity can transform a black and white understanding of Scripture into “living color.” A deeper understanding of first century Judaism can also help people better understand Y'shua and His contemporaries.

(Also see this article on whether the Sabbath was commanded and observed for all mankind from the beginning of creation.)

The line we must not cross is between going back under Torah, and studying the Old Testament for insight into Hebrew thinking, customs, and language, in order to help us better understand the New Testament. Appreciation is one thing, but legalistic performance is quite another. There is much in the way of a false or romanticized view of Christianity's early years being promoted by this movement. What danger does this pose for Christians today?

Dwight Pryor, a leading voice for evangelicals in the Jewish Roots movement, warns that some believers are forsaking Jesus and Christianity because of their growing fondness for Judaism and its teachings. They are crossing a line from appreciation to adulation of their Jewish roots. It almost seems as though these lapsing Christians believe that a special insight into their roots somehow elevates their status—as though there is an inherent superiority in being Jewish.

These people have forgotten that God loves every nation, and that all cultures have unique contributions to make to the Body of Messiah. Gentiles who say, “We are no longer Gentiles, regardless of our background” are confused and on the road to spiritual trouble. Adherents of the so-called “Two House Theory” constitute one group that has fallen into this kind of error.

The “Two House Theory” basically states that it is not the Gentiles who are the “wild branches” in the illustration of the olive tree (Rom. 11), but the “lost tribes” of Israel, the Northern Kingdom. In almost, but not every, instance where Gentiles are understood to be the subject, the 10 tribes of Israel are inserted instead. Yet at the same time, they also want to insist that Gentile Christians are grafted into the natural branches instead of the Tree; their rationale is that the natural branches are one and the same with the trunk, so to be grafted into one is to be grafted into the other. So depending on whether it suits them, they pick whichever symbolism works for their interpretation.

We must also remember that it is utterly impossible for the Mosaic Law to be observed without a Temple and a Priesthood of Levi. These are required components; all the Festivals cannot be properly observed without them. The response of course is to just allegorize; we can make substitutions at will and pretend we're still observing Torah. It's very unlikely that God would buy that.

Old Testament passages about the separation of Israel and the church

We see in 2 Kings 21:7 that God has chosen Jerusalem and the temple in it for himself. This verse is very clear; there is nothing in the context to justify taking it allegorically or symbolically. In Jer. 31:31-36 the New Covenant is “with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah”, not any Gentiles, and not with the Body of Christ which is neither. The passage identifies literal, physical Israel and Judah by their attributes: They broke God's covenant with them specifically. Further, “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight, declares the Lord, will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.”

Now consider Dan. 12:1. Here, the angel Michael is identified as the one who protects Daniel's people— not the Gentiles and not the Body of Christ. There will also be a time of distress like no other, which Jesus also referred to in Mat. 24:15— for Daniel's people, Israel.

New Testament passages about the separation of Israel and the church

First we need to look at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. The purpose for the meeting is stated in Acts 15:5. Some claim that they were talking about the Talmud or oral traditions, but it explicitly states that the Gentiles must keep the law of Moses. After a lengthy discussion, Peter stood up and said that what the former Pharisees were trying to do was “to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear”. James then cited a prophecy in Amos about a time when God would “return and rebuild David's fallen tent”, and for a purpose: “that the rest of mankind— the Gentiles— would seek the Lord.” Paul described this also in Rom. 11:25: Israel is partially hardened against God until “the full number of Gentiles has come in”, as covered in more detail under Did the church replace Israel?.

As shown in that study, God had not rejected his people Israel, which Paul identifies as physical and literal descendants of Abraham, specifically the tribe of Benjamin. The divine plan was to use Israel to make Gentiles want God, and then to use Gentiles to make Israel want God. His unfinished business with Israel will be addressed once the Body of Christ has all its members. That's what Rom. 11 is teaching. No one is grafted into Israel, and Israel has not been replaced by either Gentiles or the Body of Christ. Rom. 11:25-32 mentions the patriarchs (plural), meaning much more than just Abraham. More importantly, God's gifts and calling are “irrevocable”. These were literal and physical in the Old Testament, so there is no justification for making them figurative in the New.

The rest of the New Testament has much more to say about observance of the law, especially in the letter to the Galatians. To read these letters, especially considering them all together, is to be impressed with the forceful opposition made to anything that would rob the cross of its power and Jesus of his glory. Hebrew Roots proponents would say that the “law” referenced is not Torah, yet we would reply that Gentiles are described as “those without the law” (Rom. 2:14). Of course Gentiles had civil laws; it was only the Torah they did not have.

The letter to the Hebrews stresses the fact that with a change of priesthood comes a change of law, and Jesus is the High Priest of a new order, that being Melchizedek (Heb. 7:12-13). He was not from the tribe of Levi at all and therefore not qualified to serve as a priest under Torah. There is just no way around this fact; there is no way to claim Torah can be kept without Temple or Priesthood, so there is no way to practice Judaism honestly and Biblically.

Many will try to hold up examples found in Acts to prove the requirement of keeping Torah. This ignores the transitional nature of that period, and that the Temple and Levitical Priesthood were still active. The Apostle Paul explained why he sometimes continued to observe parts of it: He did not want to put any unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of anyone. Yet he also made it unmistakably clear that the Law was annulled and no one is obligated to keep it; in fact, he publicly rebuked Peter for lapsing back under Torah (Gal. 2:14). And again, now that there is no Temple or Priesthood to go with it, Judaism cannot be practiced.

Finally, in 1 Cor. 10:32 we see it explicitly stated that mankind is divided into three— not two— groups: Jews, Gentiles, and the church of God (the Body of Christ). We are neither Jews nor Gentiles, yet we inherit the Promise to Abraham— not the law of Moses. In fact, the entire letter to the Hebrews is all about the temporal nature of the law of Moses. Heb. 8:13 says as well that the new covenant means the first one is old and obsolete. Gal. 3:19-29 clearly teaches that the purpose of the law of Moses was to serve as a temporary guide until Christ came.

You could say that this Hebrew Roots Movement is the “evil twin” of Replacement Theology. The latter claims that Israel was absorbed into the church, while the former claims the opposite. But when all scripture is considered in context, there is no way to escape the conclusion that the Law and the Promise are two mutually exclusive elements, that Torah was a “custodian” that brought us to the time for the Savior to come (Gal. 3:24), and that the Assembly is a “mystery” unknown to the Old Testament (1 Cor. 2), yet also that God is not finished with the nation of Israel, per the prophecies of Daniel, Ezekiel, and John in the Revelation.

Conclusion

Besides the clear separation of Israel and the Body of Christ established to this point, we cannot brush aside the Millennial Kingdom passages as discussed in this article and this video. They speak in very down-to-earth terms especially in the Old Testament: crops, herds, long but mortal life, generations, animals, etc. Once allegory or the presumption of non-literalism is invoked, all discussion is reduced to mere speculation or personal preference. So anyone attempting to put the burden of the law of Moses on Christians is in clear violation of the whole of scripture.

Study Hebrew roots, but don't go back to the Law. Understand context, but don't trade our freedom in Christ for that which was unable to save and whose purpose was to symbolize what we now have. We died to the Law; let's not act like we didn't. Above all, remember Gal. 5:14.

Detailed Analysis

This article defines British Israelism:

British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a pseudo-archaeological belief that the people of the British Isles are genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel. With roots in the 16th century, British Israelism was inspired by several 19th century English writings such as John Wilson's 1840 Our Israelitish Origin. Numerous British Israelite organisations were set up throughout the British Empire as well as in the United States from the 1870s onwards; a number of these organisations are independently active as of the early 21st century. In America, the idea gave rise to the Christian Identity movement. The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern archaeological, ethnological, genetic, and linguistic research.

This one is about Hebrew Roots:

These [religious organizations] included Messianic Judaism (to a very limited degree) in 1916, the Sacred Name Movement (SNM) in 1937, and the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) in the 1930s, and, later, the Hebrew Roots Movement. Thus far, the WCG has had the greatest impact on all organizations which teach these beliefs, including obedience to much of the Old Testament law, both nationally and internationally until about 1994–5.

In contrast, Hebrew Roots (or sometimes, Hebraic Roots) is a grassroots movement without an ecclesiastical superstructure and it does not adhere to the COG belief system, nor does it adhere to Messianic Judaism, or to the SNM, although there are commonalities. A number of their founders began teaching about the need to keep the 7th Day Sabbath, to observe annual Feasts, and to obey Old Testament commandments years before these topics were taught and accepted by some in the Christian churches… Batya Wootten's curiosity about the Gentile majority in many Messianic-Jewish congregations resulted in her first book about the two houses of Israel in 1988. This was later followed by her 1998 book entitled Who is Israel (now renamed in its 4th edition as Redeemed Israel).

The primary impetus for this modern movement named after the law of Moses (Torah) seems to have come from Batya Wootten's book The Two Houses of Israel and the organization Torah Life Ministries. Another branch is known as the Ephraimite movement or Sons of Ephraim. While the modern Torah observance movement isn't exactly British Israelism, it definitely came from it. Whenever the Bible speaks of Gentiles, it really means the alleged ten lost tribes of Israel, such that all people in the world who come to faith in God are thus shown to be Israelites. It is sometimes known as the Two House/Two Sticks theory. This teaches that in Ezekiel 37:16-28 the ten lost tribes (Judah and some Israelites) will be grafted into the two non-lost tribes (Joseph/Ephraim and some Israelites), and that the ten are really the Gentiles. What all these groups have in common is obedience to Torah and rejection of Christianity.

Analysis

One rebuttal to this can be found here. Notice that Ezekiel 37:28 mentions “the nations”, and later chapters in Ezekiel describe how these nations will bring tribute to Israel. This means that they're still Gentiles rather than part of Israel or Judah. All the language of this passage is about the twelve tribes descended from Jacob/Israel, not any Gentiles.

Eph. 2:11-21 clearly indicates that the two groups joined into one were Jews and Gentiles, not Israel and Judah or Israel and the church. It was Gentiles who were separated from Christ and excluded from Israel and Abraham's promise. And the way these two were united was by voiding the law with its commands by means of the cross. None of this references Ezekiel's “two sticks” prophecy.

Scripture also indicates that all twelve tribes were accounted for in the first century AD (Acts 26:7, James 1:1). When Jesus was presented at the temple, a prophet named Anna spoke of him, and she was from the allegedly lost tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). The Bible itself never speaks of any tribes being lost or unrepresented, and it called the nation Israel in Jesus' day (Mat. 2:20, 10:6, Mark 15:32, Luke 2:25, John 1:49, Acts 21:28, Heb. 8:8-10, Rev. 7:4). At Pentecost, Jews were in Jerusalem from all over the region, speaking many languages (Acts 2:5-11). They were all called Jews no matter where they lived. So the terms Jew and Israelite are used interchangeably throughout the New Testament.

The law of Moses cannot be obeyed without a temple and priestly class of Levi, including the necessity that the nation is agrarian and will bring crops and herds to sacrifice and to support the priests and poor. The sacrifice of animals was required (see Ex. 29:36, Lev. 4:31, 9:7, 14:19, 15:15, 17:11, Num. 15:25). Blood was required to consecrate things and people to the Lord (Leviticus 16:19, Hebrews 9:22). This law was being practiced in Jesus' day but ended in 70 AD. No one interpreted Hosea 6:6 as an excuse to stop the sacrifices until after the Jews were scattered and the temple destroyed.

There are two separate new covenants, one with Israel and one with the church (chart and article). Jer. 31:31-34 specifies this for Israel's new covenant:

1. It is to be with united Israel and Judah.
2. It is contrasted with the Mosaic covenant, which also was with Israel only and not with any other people.
3. It will be fulfilled after the days of judgment and affliction described in the preceding context.
4. The Law is to be written in their hearts, in contrast to the Mosaic law which was written in tables of stone.
5. YHWH will be their God and Israel will be His people; this relationship will be mutually and publicly recognized by both parties.
6. There will be no need to proclaim the truth concerning YHWH since everyone will know Him.
7. Their sins will be forgiven and forgotten.

Isaiah 61:8-9 is even more specific about the new covenant:

1. It is everlasting.
2. Israel's physical progeny will be known by the rest of the world (ergo not Israel) as blessed by God.

Jer. 32:37,41 states that the new covenant is conditioned upon Israel's return from exile, and that they will be reestablished in their ancient land. None of this pertains to the church, and the modern state of Israel is filled with unbelievers, which is required in order for remaining prophecies to be fulfilled. Now for references to covenants in the New Testament:

1. Abrahamic
   • Luke 1:72 the holy cov. with our ancestors
   • Acts 3:25,7:8 heirs of the prophets and the cov. with our ancestors
   • Gal. 3:17,4:24-28 the late-coming law does not negate the promise
   • Heb. 8:7-13 the new cov. w/Israel is not like old one
2. Mosaic
   • 2 Cor. 3:14 the veil when the old cov. is read is removed only in Christ
   • Heb. 9:15 Christ mediates the new cov. of promise
   • Heb. 9:20 the old cov. was between God and Israel
3. General
   • Rom. 9:4 Israel had the covenants
   • Eph. 2:12 Gentiles were excluded from Israel and the Promise
4. New by context
   • Mat. 26:28, Mark 14:24 Jesus signed the new cov. in his blood
   • Rom. 11:27 Israel and Gentiles are saved via the new cov.
   • Heb. 8:8-12 quotes Jer. 31:31-34 and is the only reference to the new cov. pertaining to Israel

The name game

Characteristic of this anti-Christian sect is the issue of the so-called Sacred Name teaching. Though the ancient Hebrews went out of their way to avoid speaking or writing the proper name of God out of a respectful fear of misusing it, this teaching insists upon doing exactly the opposite. But the precise spelling and pronunciation of this name has changed often, such that if someone came to faith using whatever is currently deemed improper, they must confess again for salvation. Yet this is all easily debunked by reading the Israelite-approved Greek scriptures translated before the time of Christ, the Septuagint. It used only two names for deity: Theos (God) and Kurios (Lord), regardless of the variety of Hebrew names. This proves that it was the meaning, not the syllables, that mattered most.

But the greater error is that Torah observance changes the meaning of the New Testament word “faith” from trust and confidence in the risen Jesus to “faithfulness to the law”. That is, Jesus came not to fulfill the law on behalf of others but to show us how to perfectly obey it. Though this would make his sacrifice for sin pointless since sacrifices were already central to that law, Torah pushers use it as the reason they no longer need the sacrificial system— yet somehow the keeping of feasts and holy days must continue.

Another claim is that in Mark 7:19 Jesus wasn't saying that all foods were now clean (kosher), but that in the process of elimination all food is cleansed. This is ridiculous; digestion does not clean food. What's eliminated is waste, not clean food.

Yet another attempt to twist scripture is that whatever the New Testament says in criticism of the law, it either means the Talmud (traditions) or only the penalty of the law. Yet Gal. 4:4 says that Jesus was born under law, which would mean he was born under its penalty, which in turn would mean that he was guilty of breaking it. The fact that he never broke it refutes this claim. And if, as some may say, we're only under the law if we break it, then Jesus could not have been born under it. This claim hopelessly contradicts scripture, not to mention the fact that being under law is a statement of obligation, which could not be sinful in itself since Jesus was under it.

All of these claims completely ignore Heb. 7:11-19, which states that the law and its priesthood stay or go together. But though some insist that Christians are antinomians (lawless), we are under the Law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), which is to love God and people, to show compassion and be of help. This essentially encompasses the two greatest commandments of Torah (Mat. 22:36-40)— only this and nothing more, since love fulfills the law (Rom. 13:8-10, Gal. 5:14). Here is a list of passages showing the limitation and end of the law in favor of grace:

Mat. 5:17	Jesus fulfilled law
John 1:17	law came from Moses, but grace & truth came from Jesus Christ
John 6:28-29	the work God requires is to believe in the One he sent
Acts 15:10-11	salvation is only by faith, not the burden of the law
Rom. 3:19-31	what law says is to those under it; its purpose is to expose sin, not justify anyone
Rom. 3:27,4:1-5	The law we uphold is the law of faith
Rom. 6:14-15	not under law but under grace, not a license to sin
Rom. 7:1-6	we died to the law and now belong to Jesus
Rom. 8:2-3	law of sin and death is the law of Moses
Rom. 8:15,23	Christians adopted by God through faith in Jesus
Rom. 14:5-6	sacred days are a matter of personal conviction, not law
Rom. 14:10-17	kingdom not about food/drink but justice, peace
Rom. 14:19-22	don’t judge personal convictions, but be considerate
Rom. 14:23	whatever is not from faith is sin
1 Cor. 9:20-21	not under the law of Moses but of Christ
1 Cor. 15:56	sting of death is sin, power of sin is THE law
2 Cor. 5:10	Bema of Christ to give/take Christians rewards
Gal. 2:9	Paul accepted by Peter, James, and John
Gal. 2:14	Paul rebuked Peter for making Gentiles observe Judaism
Gal. 2:21	righteousness by grace not law, or Jesus died for nothing
Gal. 3:19-29	law was temporary guide, didn’t negate the Promise
Gal. 4:5	Christians adopted by God through faith in Jesus
Gal. 4:8-11	no need to observe sacred days, months, years
Gal. 4:21-23	heirs of promise, not law
Gal. 5:1-12	justification by law = fallen away from grace
Gal. 5:14	we have the blessings of Abraham (not Jacob/Israel)
Gal. 6:2	we are under the Law of Christ, love and compassion
Eph. 2:8-10	saved by grace, not works which are for rewards
Phil. 3:9	not our own righteousness but only in Jesus through faith
Col. 2:8	Christ, not philosophy and tradition
Col. 2:16	no judging about food, drink, festivals, moons, or sabbaths
Heb. 7:12-13	a change of priesthood requires a change of law
Heb. 8:13	the old law was fading away
Heb. 10:1	law is only shadow, not reality
Rev. 2:9, 3:9	those who say they’re Jews but aren't

The Torah became flesh?

Perhaps the most bizarre teaching associated with some Torah pushers is the cabalistic belief that the Torah is a living entity which literally became tangible in the form of Jesus. This of course makes Jesus a created being and lesser expression of God; they reduce him to a talking book. Thus, to follow Jesus really means to follow Torah. But extreme as this view is, all degrees of Torah observance boil down to a degrading of Jesus in some way, but above all that he only came to bring the world into Torah observance.

Conclusion

Torah observance essentially teaches that whoever is not of the bloodline of Jacob/Israel can never be saved. But it's circular reasoning to claim that if someone comes to faith in the God of Israel it proves they were of the alleged lost tribes and just didn't know it. And then they're obligated to obey everything written in the law of Moses— well, except for the parts that require a temple, priesthood, and sacrifices, or to bring offerings of crops and animals, or to forgive debts and return land to original owners in Jubilee years. In addition to keeping festivals and holy days such as the Sabbath, one must also renounce the so-called pagan names of God and Jesus for whatever Hebrew words are deemed most accurate at the moment, as well as the English names for months and days.

In a nutshell, Torah observance is a religion of works like any other, and it seeks to eliminate Christianity. It is both racist and fatalistic. It directly renounces salvation as a gift received by faith alone in the risen Jesus alone. Never does God tell Christians to show their love by obeying Moses. Much of the New Testament was written in refutation of what it calls Judaizers, and the apostle Paul was persecuted and eventually martyred for opposing and exposing them. We must be diligent to continue exposing this false teaching which is deceiving many who don't know the Bible well.