Introduction
Many years ago, Answers in Genesis published an article titled "Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Movement". Well, in this article, we're finally going to debunk every lie and false statement in the AiG article concerning the Hebrew Roots Movement. First, it will be good to define what "Hebrew Roots" actually means and the implications of that definition.
"Hebrew Roots" simply means studying the Hebrew text and culture ("roots") of Scripture in order to gain a better understanding of what Scripture says. That is it. What one does with the information they gain by studying the Hebrew roots of Scripture is entirely on the individual in question. "Hebrew Roots" does not mean "non-Christian", nor does it mean "Christian". A Christian can be Hebrew Roots just as easily as an atheist, just like how a Christian can be a scientist just as easily as an atheist. Those who bring with them garbage doctrines does not make Hebrew Roots is garbage. And those who bring good doctrines does not make Hebrew Roots good. In order to be part of the Hebrew Roots Movement, all you have to do is independently study the Hebrew text and culture of Scripture.
AiG's Abstract
In their abstract, AiG claims that the Hebrew Roots Movement places a strong emphasis on "Hebrew traditions" and the law of Moses. First, it is true that most people within the Hebrew Roots Movement (including me) put a lot of emphasis on Torah (aka: the law of Moses). And it is true that many put a lot of emphasis on "Hebrew traditions" (whatever that's supposed to mean). But this does not mean that being Hebrew Roots automatically means you will do this. Remember, all that matters in determining if you are Hebrew Roots is whether you study the Hebrew Roots of Scripture for yourself. What you do (or do not do) with that knowledge is entirely up to you.
The abstract also claims that they will examine the "major beliefs" of HRM in light of "relevant biblical passages". But as we will see shortly, what they are really doing is cherry-picking a small handful of verses that appear to support their claims when taken out of context. They are counting on you to not know what those passages actually say. And they are counting on you to not take other passages (often in different books) into consideration to guide your interpretation of those passages. Keep that in mind as you read their article for yourself.
At-a-Glance Debunked
AiG lists several "attributes" of the Hebrew Roots Movement which I will dismantle here:
"Certain Jewish teachings are elevated to the level of Scripture." - This is not a trait of being Hebrew Roots. Individuals within the movement may do this depending on the individual. But you can be Hebrew Roots without doing this yourself. Plus, AiG has its own set of teachings elevated to the level of Scripture, such as their doctrine of biblical Inerrancy (which is actually not found in Scripture). Also, I'm holding back in this specific refutation.
"The Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) misunderstands the extent and scope of the Mosaic law." - Actually, it is very rare for someone within HRM to misunderstand the extent and scope of Torah. In reality, it's ministries such as AiG (and nearly all others) deliberately misleading people concerning the extent and scope of God's law. Also notice how AiG calls it the "Mosaic law". This labeling necessarily implies that it does not come from God. And guess what the so-called "Mosaic law" actually claims to come from. So right there, AiG is subtly suggesting that Torah came from Moses, and by extension, that Moses is a liar.
"The 'Jerusalem Council' rejected the notion that Gentile believers must follow the Law of Moses." - This is actually the opposite of what the Council of Jerusalem concluded. And they explicitly stated that they expected the gentile believers attend synagogue every Sabbath to learn Torah (Acts 15:21). So there's one blatant lie.
"The Apostle Paul refuted many of the most popular teachings of the HRM." - As we are about to see, Paul actually refuted most of the teachings of mainstream "Christianity". And also as we're about to see, AiG is going to take one or a few verses from various passages that Paul (and others) wrote out of context for the purpose of twisting them to fit their narrative. But AiG is partially correct here as Paul does refute some of the teachings that are making their rounds within the HRM.
Alleged Dangers of HRM
In the section titled "The Growing Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Movement", we actually see a bit of honesty from AiG. As per the definition above, HRM is not about hierarchy or leadership, or creeds or statements of faith. HRM is about studying the Hebrew roots of Scripture for yourself. And all teachings that are connected to HRM are because of what individuals or groups within HRM teach, not because that is HRM doctrine. Again, HRM has no "doctrine" except to study the Hebrew roots of Scripture for yourself.
This is where we get to the editor's note for this article. Here, AiG claims that painting all adherents of HRM with a broad brush was not the intent of their article. I'm not really sure that I believe that, but the article in its current form does acknowledge where there are major disputes within HRM, but not in all cases.
"What is HRM?" Debunked
The section past the editor's note opens with "Broadly speaking, followers of the HRM believe that all believers in Christ are obligated to follow Jewish laws and practices from the books of Moses." Not a good start. In fact, this is probably one of the worst starts one can have. AiG is outright denying that the laws and practices in Torah are from God. Though if your read Torah for yourself, you will see that the whole thing claims to be directly from God. Again, AiG is subtly saying that Moses is a liar.
They then hypocritically (though correctly) state that some groups hold extrabiblical (rabbinic) traditions and teachings to the same level of Torah. Some within HRM do indeed follow rabbinic traditions as if they come from Torah. But notice that they noted that these teachings are not from Scripture. Here's another spot where AiG is being truthful. Those who uphold the rabbinic teachings to the same level as Torah simply do not know Torah. By the way, did I mention that HRM isn't about having a perfect understanding or knowledge of Scripture?
Next, AiG hypocritically claims that HRM is inconsistent with how keeping Torah is understood and defined. What makes them hypocritical? Just look at which commandments they say we need to keep and why, and which commandments they say we do not need to keep and why. That'll tell you everything you need to know.
It should be noted that many (if not most) of those within HRM come from a gentile background. The result is that they do not have an understanding of Torah as complete as someone who has studied it from childhood. This explains a significant portion of those who appear to be inconsistent. It's because they are still learning (aren't we all?). But let's assume for a moment that there are those within HRM that have a perfect understanding of Torah and know how to properly implement it where Torah is not the law of the land. And let's also assume that this group does perfectly implement Torah. Such a group would still be seen as inconsistent in their application of Torah, because they are being judged by those who never studied Torah and therefore regard Torah as irrelevant.
Here, I'm going to say that Answers in Genesis simply does not understand Torah. Though they do show that they understand some parts of Torah. When we reach those places, I will not be so generous. The fact of the matter remains that those who are doing their best to obey God are being judged by those who refuse to obey. By the way, Paul said something about that:
"[16] So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, [17] (which are a shadow of things to come) but the body of Christ." - Colossians 2:16-17 (correctly translated).
Note: The passage quoted above is derived from the NKJV. The NKJV had a couple of translation errors that I corrected for the above quote.
We are not to let people outside the Body of the Messiah judge us for keeping God's commandments concerning the dietary laws and appointed times, because those things reflect what we will be doing once the Kingdom has fully come.
Back to the topic at hand, AiG goes on to complain about certain laws being "either broken or neglected" while a lot of emphasis is placed on keeping the Sabbath and celebrating God's appointed times (which they water down as just "feasts mentioned in Leviticus 23"). The very feasts that God explicitly states are his feasts.
Remember what I said earlier that those who become part of HRM are learning Scripture? Emphasis on the "learning" part. Well, one of the best places to start obeying God is by observing the Sabbath on the day God says to observe it. What about the other feast days? Consider this: Would they complain if a convert to Churchianity started observing Sunday Sabbath, Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Halloween, Valentine's Day, etc., all at once? Certainly not. So why complain when people start observing all of God's feasts at once instead?
AiG then proceeds to emphasize the similarities that HRM has with Seventh-Day Adventism and the Worldwide Church of God while downplaying the similarities that HRM has with the Messianic movement. For context, most ministries not part of SDA or the WCG consider those groups to be cults, but they accept Messianic Judaism.
The label of "cult" against the SDA is actually justified, as their official doctrine recognizes a false prophet as a legitimate prophet. But nearly all of their doctrines are the same as mainstream Christianity, with the notable exceptions of how they apply end times prophecies (mixing it with prophecies not in the Bible), their unconventional views on the nature of death, and of course their observance of the Sabbath on the Seventh Day.
What about the WCG? Well, their official doctrine page is strangely formatted and difficult for me to understand. To their credit, they do post a lot of verses (and I do mean a lot), but the page is still formatted in a way that's difficult for me to decipher. But a lot of it seems to match mainstream Christianity as well, with notable exceptions appearing to be their teachings on healing, observance of the whole law of God including God's holy days (they appear to teach that salvation is by faith in Jesus), and concerning the nature of the final judgement (destruction rather than eternal torment). Again, it's difficult for me to decipher what they're trying to say, so take what I say about them with a grain of salt. I cannot say either way if the label of "cult" against WCG is justified or not.
Anyways, back to the AiG article, we come across their first footnote, explaining that the Messianic Movement is comprised of ethnically Jewish believers in Jesus who keep "Jewish traditions" as part of their "cultural heritage". The same footnote then condemns HRM, saying that they are not ethnically Jewish but follow these "Jewish traditions" because they are "required for sanctification, or worse, salvation". They also state that Messianic Judaism is a dispensationalist movement and that HRM rejects dispensationalist doctrines.
That's a lot to unpack for a single footnote. But the first thing to note is their double-standard in how they treat the two groups. Both are claimed by AiG to follow "Jewish traditions". But the group that is "ethnically Jewish" is given a pass while the one that is not is condemned as "working for salvation". Broad brushes about both groups in what's supposedly a revised article that was never intended to be an overly-broad brush.
By the way, AiG is telling a half truth concerning the Messianic Movement. The Messianic Movement is comprised of both jew and gentile observing God's appointed times in unity with one other. And yes, there are extrabiblical traditions within the Messianic Movement. As for the claim that Messianic Jews are dispensationalists, I have no clue where they got that idea from. None of the Messianic congregations that I have been to are dispensationalists. In fact, dispensationalism is fundamentally incompatible with Messianic Judaism, because of the gentile believers that are grafted into the jewish olive tree as described in Romans 11. By the way, I've never met a dispensationalist HRM, so at least AiG seems to be telling the truth about most HRM groups rejecting dispensationalism.
By the way, I'm starting to notice a pattern here: AiG is mixing blatant lies and half-truths with the truth sprinkled-in. This is how deception works. When someone wants to sell you on a lie, they do not tell only lies. They sprinkle-in random bits of truth that you can verify in order to gain credibility when they speak a half-truth or even a blatant lie. Also notice that AiG is framing the issue as being about observing "Jewish traditions" rather than "obeying God". That is another deception on AiG's part.
Moving on, AiG then observes that many within HRM "give themselves Hebrew names", claim to be Torah-observant, and omit the "o" in "God", among other things. They convenient omit that Messianic congregations do the same thing. And this goes back to what they did earlier to downplay any similarities between Messianic Judaism and HRM.
It is common in Messianic circles for people to want to learn what their name would be in Hebrew, and go by that name. It's not "giving themselves Hebrew names", it's just speaking their name in a different language. Anyone within HRM that came from a Messianic background will bring this tradition with them. So yes, HRM is more similar to Messianic Judaism than AiG wants you to believe. Just like how the SDA is more similar to mainstream Christianity than what AiG would want you to believe.
Speaking of similarities, I would definitely be hypocritical if I did not acknowledge the similarities between SDA, WCG, and HRM. For example, all three observe the Sabbath on Saturday (the 7th day of the week), but that's where the similarities between SDA and HRM stop. For example, SDA only seems to recognize the Ten Commandments as God's law. WCG however, appears to acknowledge the whole Torah as God's law, which is much more in-line with mainstream HRM. Oh and by the way, Messianic Judaism also observes the Sabbath on Saturday, and observes all of God's feast days. But for some reason, AiG is giving them a pass.
And that brings us to another point: Just because someone goes against what is mainstream, does not mean that they are wrong. There are places where the mainstream is correct and places where it's incorrect. But the mainstream loves to assert that it's correct in everything and condemn those who stray too far from the established narrative.
Among AiG's criticisms of HRM is writing "God" as "G-d". But this tradition originates from Judaism, and is also prevalent in the Messianic Movement. But for some reason, AiG gives those groups a pass. By the way, I absolutely despise the tradition of writing "God" as "G-d". It's bad enough that there is a teaching that we're not allowed to write or speak his name, and we're also now denigrating his title?
What about the claim that the New Testament was written in Hebrew? That also comes from the Messianic Movement. Sort of. In actuality, it was known for thousands of years that the New Testament was written in Hebrew, but only recently is it being claimed that it was actually written in Greek. But that's a topic for a future blog post.
What about AiG's claim that some within HRM dismiss Paul's writings? This is absolutely true. And it's the Church's fault! Those within HRM that dismiss Paul's writings actually agree with mainstream Christianity concerning what Paul taught. The only difference is that those within HRM apply the Deuteronomy 13 Test to these alleged teachings of Paul, and find that these teachings blatantly fail the test.
And AiG is correct that some within HRM have indeed challenged the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus. There's another topic for a future blog post. In short: The Trinity is never defined in Scripture, and not even mentioned let alone required. The deity of Jesus (defined exclusively as the teaching that Jesus is God) is found in Scripture, but is not required by Scripture. What is required by Scripture is the doctrine that Jesus is the Anointed One (Messiah/Christ), and that he is the son of God. Most HRM believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that he is the son of God, even if they reject that Jesus is God.
Concerning Torah Observance. God is very clear throughout Scripture (eg: Deut. 13, Isaiah 29:13, etc.) that Torah Observance is the only true definition of loving and serving God. And that not obeying God is the definition of serving other gods. It's even in the Second Commandment. And loving God should be enough of a reason to abstain from eating the things that he explicitly told us not to eat. And HRM is right in condemning the traditional "Christian holidays" and beliefs as pagan.
Now, concerning the fact that some don't like to identify as "Christian": That's also the fault of mainstream Christianity, which is steeped into idolatry. Even though the one who trusts and obeys Jesus is a Christian by definition, because HRM (rightfully) sees idolatry everywhere within the Church, they view being "Christian" as worshiping false gods. And they will continue to see it this way until the Church turns away from their idolatrous practices and starts actually obeying the one they claim to believe in.
By the way, AiG at this point pulls a quote from an article by "The Berean Call" titled "Bewitching Believers Through the Hebrew Roots Movement". Oh the irony. And projection (both on the "Berean" part and the "bewitching part"). There's yet another future blog post. The deception from the Apologetics Industrial Complex has no end until the coming of the Lord Jesus.
"Covenantal Confusion" Refuted
The first point I would like to address is AiG's double-standard in what issues they address and what issues they don't. They link to an article that they use as the excuse not to address certain issues when it's convenient for them not to. I already showed that they certainly do take issue on whether Christmas, Easter, etc., are pagan holidays, which should, by all metrics, be an issue they do not take a stance on. But far be it for the Apologetics Industrial Complex to remain neutral when their narrative is under attack. So it should come as no surprise that AiG actually does take a stand concerning which interpretation of biblical covenants is the correct one when an interpretation attacks the very foundation of their narrative.
AiG attacks HRM's understanding of covenants by attacking their (correct) interpretation of Matthew 5:17 and John 14:15. For context, the Apologetics Industrial Complex says that because Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, we are no longer required to keep the law of God (thereby teaching that Jesus abolished the law). Great emphasis is put on the part of Jesus "fulfilling" the law while the part about Jesus not coming to abolish the law is ignored in the hopes that you won't notice it.
AiG rightfully notes that HRM emphasizes the part about Jesus not coming to abolish the law, but tries to downplay its significance in how we are to interpret Jesus's words. They say Gentiles were never "under the law" (AiG doesn't even know what that means) using Ephesians 2:11–13 as their proof text. Remember what I said about verses being cherry-picked? Well, in this case, they are straight-up gaslighting you! Because what the passage actually says is that, before Jesus, the gentiles were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, alienated from the covenants of the promise (which were made only to Israel, by the way), and without hope. But with Christ, this is no longer the case. No context is needed to see that this passage says the exact opposite of what AiG claims it said. Yet another blatant lie by AiG's part.
Speaking of gaslighting. Remember what I said about the Church emphasizing the "fulfilled" part of Matthew 5:17 to the neglect of the "not abolished" part? Well, AiG has decided to reverse roles and claim that HRM is "overlooking" the "fulfilled" part of Matthew 5:17. To their credit, AiG does say "or interpret it differently", but even this is part of their deception, as proved by the fact that they framed it as "different from Christians". AiG then re-emphasizes the "fulfilled" part and then incorrectly define what "fulfilled" in this context means.
The word used is the Greek word "pleroo", which has definitions such as "fill up", "fully preach", "carry-out", "accomplish", and "satisfy". And Because Jesus used "pleroo" as being the opposite of "katalyo" (destroy/abolish), we know that any definition of "pleroo" that means "we don't have to obey anymore" is impossible. And we don't even have to go back to the source text to see "fulfill" cannot mean "we don't have to obey anymore" in this context. Any law that we do not have to obey is by definition a law that is abolished.
By the way, according to Deuteronomy 13, anyone teaching us not to obey God's law is a false teacher leading us into idolatry. This puts some pretty tight restrictions on how we can interpret the New Testament writings. So whatever AiG wants us to believe "not being under the law" means, you can already know that it's not what it actually means. So it should come as no surprise that AiG decided to take Paul's words out of context to try to justify their gospel of lawlessness.
First, they quote Romans 6:14, which when taken in context, says we have been set free from sin and are now slaves to righteousness. That we are to no longer let sin reign in our mortal bodies because we are no longer under the law, but under grace. That because we are no longer under the law, we are to submit ourselves as slaves to God as instruments of righteousness. And who are the ones who are righteous? Those who keep God's law (Romans 2:13).
They then reference Romans 7:4, falling for the trap that is the fact that Paul doesn't always tell us which law he's referring to when he uses the phrase "the law". Taken in context with Romans 6, We can conclude that Romans 7 starts by saying that we have been set free from the law of sin rather than the law of God. Romans 7:7 outright says that the law tells us what sin is. So Paul defined sin as transgressing the law, and righteousness as keeping the law.
AiG finally references Galatians 5:18, out of context, as usual. Tell me: Does adultery, prostitution, idolatry, sorcery, murder, etc. (Galatians 5:19-21) sound like someone who is obeying the law, or obeying the flesh? We know those things are contrary to the law. Likewise, the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 is what keeping the law looks like. As Paul himself said, "Against such there is no law". By the way, Galatians 3:10 clearly states that it is those who break the law who are under the law. Which just goes to show that the alleged "works of the law" in that passage are actually works contrary to the law.
AiG then claims it's "highly questionable" that Jesus "had the Mosaic law in mind" when he taught his disciples to keep his commandments. They do have a footnote claiming that they use the phrase "Mosaic law" as a synonym for the "law of Moses" (a biblical term), but this is dubious at best. When people refer to the "Mosaic law", it's always an attempt to hide the fact that it originated from God, not Moses. And even if they are telling the truth in this instance, they have already told too many lies for me to believe them on a claim that I simply cannot verify, and one that is contradicted by every single instance where the term "Mosaic law" has been used.
Anyways, among the "evidence" that AiG presents that Jesus was not referring to the "Mosaic law" when he said "if you love me, keep my commandments" is Matthew 28:19-20 the very passage where Jesus says to teach the nations to obey everything that Jesus commanded. That would include passages like Matthew 4:4, where Jesus says man (all mankind) is to live on (obey) every word that comes from the mouth of God. That includes everything in Torah.
Question: What do you call it when someone who believes that Jesus is God comes to the conclusion that Jesus saying "obey my commandments" refers to (or includes) Torah in some way just by extension of Jesus being God? The answer: "Trinitarian Misdirection". Never-mind the fact that you don't have to believe in the Trinity to believe that Jesus is God. Never-mind that many in HRM genuinely believe in the Trinity. And never-mind the logical conclusion of Jesus being God meaning that Jesus wants us to obey the commandments that he gave through Moses. If it runs contrary to the narrative that Christians do not have to keep the law (or any other narrative that the Apologetics Industrial Complex wants to push), it's "Trinitarian Misdirection"! Enough said.
Next, AiG tries to convince us that those in HRM do not understand how to apply Torah. Ironic coming from those who are completely against keeping it. The example that AiG likes to use is that the command that God gave to Noah to build an Ark was only given to Noah for the express purpose of preserving life through the Global Flood. They then praise HRM proponents when they correctly state such. But this praise is just another entry point for deception. Like I said, the deception will not stop until the return of the Lord Jesus. By the way, their claim that we should expect to see many Arks being built around the world if the command to build an Ark applied today is a lie. Man does not obey God. That's why all but 8 drowned in the Flood. AiG knows this. After all, Genesis is their specialty.
AiG asks in response, "But if that reason is strong enough to avoid following such commandments, why does it not hold true when it comes to the Mosaic law?" They then say, "the Mosaic law was given by God to a specific group of people at a specific time" [emphasis mine]. But notice what they said earlier about Noah's Ark: "those commands were given to a specific person for a specific time" [emphasis mine]. A subtle admission that they know that what they are about to say is wrong, changing "for" with "at". They then quote Exodus 19:3-6. Notice that it says that Israel is supposed to be a Kingdom of priests (which did not happen, by the way). So it should be absolutely no surprise that in all of the references they cite in Torah, they would intentionally skip the one about Israel being the example for the nations to follow (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). God told Israel that they are the light of the world! Sound familiar? Jesus told Israel the exact same thing in Matthew 5:14-16.
AiG then decides to point-out that the name "Deuteronomy" means "second law". While that's true for the English version of its name, it's not true of it's Hebrew name. The actual name of the book is "Debar" (often referred to as "Debarim" [the plural form] in Messianic circles), which means "words". There is no "second law" being given here. It's just Moses re-iterating to a new generation what was already given to the previous generation. Anyways, AiG simply continues to emphasize that Torah was given to the Israelites (which they state are only the physical descendants of Jacob) and therefore does not apply to gentiles. In Exodus 12:38 however, we read that a mixed multitude went up out of Egypt with the physical descendants of Jacob. And they were all counted as Israelites, even though some bore resentment to the God of Israel. So yes, all who were with the descendants of Jacob were expected to obey all that God commanded Israel, as they were all counted as Israel.
One of the things that are not mentioned at all in AiG's article is the New Covenant. Though it may be the case that their article was written before HRM started emphasizing the New Covenant, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here and say that they simply never encountered any arguments about the New Covenant from HRM. But I'm very sure they have encountered them since the article was written.
The New Covenant, first mentioned by name in Jeremiah 31:31-34, is a covenant that God promises to the houses of Israel and Judah, where God will write his law (the same law he gave through Moses) on the minds and hearts of the people. God will forgive them all of their sins and lawlessness, and they will all know him! The New Testament is clear that this New Covenant came through Jesus. Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 14:23-24, Luke 22:20, and Hebrews 8:8-12 all testify to this. So, using AiG's own logic, gentiles should not be following the commandments in the New Covenant either. In fact, by AiG's own logic, one should conclude that the gentiles are not in need of a savior.
If that sounded ludicrous to you, it's because it is. The New Testament is full of examples of gentiles being saved just like the native Israelites. But a good way to refute an argument is to show that applying it consistently results in a contradiction with other teachings.
Let's get back to what the AiG article is responding to. By the way, my scroll bar is only a third of the way down their page. AiG correctly notes that many in HRM believe that believers in Jesus are jewish even if they don't know they're jewish. AiG took probably the worst possible approach to refuting this (then common) HRM claim (it may still be common, but I rarely hear it made these days). AiG reasserts that "fulfilled" means "we no longer have to obey". They then misapply James 2:10.
First off, James simply did not say that if you break one commandment, you have broken all of them. He simply emphasized that if you break one commandment, but follow the rest, you are still guilty of breaking the law. And if that applies to those who accidentally break one of the commandments, how much more does it apply to those who say, "we don't have to obey"? Secondly, if we take a look at the context, we see that James is clearly talking about selective obedience, with the issue at hand being showing partiality to the rich.
Next, AiG claims that HRM adherents do not follow all of the commandments in Torah. And their proof for that claim? The fact that they focus only on a small fraction of those commandments. And that we allegedly can't keep the commandments that require a functioning priesthood to keep. First off, AiG is in no position to judge those who teach obedience. They only see that which is emphasized. They never see what is done in private. So they do not have the full picture by which to judge others.
Second, AiG shows just how little they actually understand God's law. The commandments that they refer to that require a functioning priesthood are commandments that have conditions attached to them. "If A, then B." If the condition "A" is met, then you must do "B". But if "A" is not met, then "B" is either not necessary or is forbidden. So if someone does "B" when the required condition "A" is not met, then that person is not keeping the commandment, but breaking it. It is the one who does not do "B" when the condition "A" is not met that is keeping the commandment.
AiG then asserts (again) that HRM is trying to put gentiles "under the law." However, as we have already discussed, it is those who break the law who are "under the law", which means it is AiG that is placing gentiles under the law.
Yes, Gentiles Should Keep Torah
Ignoring the fact that Deuteronomy 13 renders the point on whether the apostles believed gentiles should keep Torah irrelevant, AiG once again shows how much they're willing to twist Scripture just to maintain the narrative. For example, they "cite" Acts 15:1-5, but only quote verse 5. In reality, the whole passage from verse 1 through verse 5 sets up the debate. I wrote a post on Acts 15 a while back. Go read that (I will assume you did), then come back here.
So contrary to AiG's claims, gentiles were expected to attend synagogue and learn Torah every Sabbath. But what about circumcision? Well, immediately after the Council of Jerusalem ends, Paul circumcises Timothy (a gentile believer with a jewish mother) in Acts 16:1-3. Never-mind that in Galatians 5:2, Paul said that if you become circumcised, Christ is worthless to you. So either Paul is teaching contrary to what he's practicing (and we should not be listening to him if he is), or there's something more to the circumcision part of the debate specifically that we aren't aware of. Or perhaps we just need to take a look at the context of Galatians 5:2. And the context says in verse 4-5, that the issue is trying to be justified through works, rather than through faith. Keep in mind that Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only those who keep the law will be justified.
It should be noted that there are disputes within HRM about whether gentiles would or would not eventually become circumcised. The dispute is not about whether circumcision is necessary for inclusion in the Body of the Messiah (it is clearly not), it's about whether circumcision will eventually be done at all.
Yes, the Epistles Teach Torah Observance
It's ironic that AiG accusing HRM of flipping the meaning of certain passages on their heads. Or that (implied accusation) HRM downplays the teachings in the epistles. For AiG (and most other apologetics ministries) does the exact thing that they accuse HRM of doing. This is called "psychological projection". They project what they don't like about themselves onto their opponents. Also, consider this: If a teaching isn't actually in the passage it's claimed to be in, or if that is not the intent of the passage in question, is it really "downplaying" to point-out these things? Or is it that AiG and those who agree with them are biased in their reading of the text and are not willing to critically examine their own beliefs?
AiG is really trying hard to justify their lawless gospel. Their subheading of "Jesus plus nothing else" gives that away. They just quoted Acts 15:28-29, which has rules for believers in Jesus to follow. But now with a single quote, they have thrown all that out whether they realize it or not, whether they admit it or not. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Either obedience is required of believers in Jesus, or it is not. And if obedience is not required, then faith is worthless. And to turn their own quote back onto AiG: It is not a stretch to say that the Church would end today if each of its followers understood the main argument of Galatians. Also, "Jesus plus nothing else" contradicts the Trinity mandate (not the Trinity itself, just the mandate that you must believe in the Trinity to be saved).
It is ironic that AiG thinks that the curse in Galatians 1:8-9 applies to those who teach obedience to God. Since Paul explicitly stated in his gospel that we are not to transgress the law. For example, Romans 3:31, 6:1, 6:15, 7:7, and others. Needless to say, it is those who teach a gospel that allows people to live in willful disobedience against Torah that the curse applies to. Likewise, Galatians 2:15-16 also does not apply, since there is no HRM that I know of that teaches justification by works.
AiG then tries to say that the "works of the law" for the purposes of obedience and sanctification is also contrary to Scripture. The proof of this: Galatians 3:1-3. So Paul refers to the "works of the law" as being "of the flesh". That means that either (a) Paul is a false teacher, or (b) the "works of the law" are actually contrary to the law. For "the law is spiritual" [Romans 7:14] and "the carnal do not (and cannot) submit to the law" [Romans 8:7-8]. There is only one way to harmonize Romans 7-8 with Galatians 3. And that way is to conclude that the "works of the law" in Galatians 3 refers to works that are contrary to the law. And if you refuse to harmonize those passages, then the only option left is to conclude that either (a) Paul is a false teacher, or (b) Galatians is a forgery written in Paul's name by a false teacher. Either way, it's not HRM that's doing the bewitching.
AiG also misquotes Galatians 5:1-3 and James 2:10, doing exactly what they accuse HRM of doing. The context of Galatians 5 is trying to be saved by one's works, and James 2:10 is a condemnation of breaking any part of the law, and a condemnation of selective obedience (what AiG practices). The "all or nothing" applies just as much to AiG as it does to HRM. For God does not play favorites. AiG has taken the lawless side (the "nothing" part) while HRM has taken the obedience side (the "all" part). Also remember that people learning the law over time is not selective obedience, no matter how much AiG wants it to be.
The Gospel Does Depend on Obedience
Have you noticed how much time AiG is spending in the epistles (especially those written by Paul), and how little they spend in the Gospels. The very Gospels where Jesus tells everyone that if they do not repent (turn from breaking Torah), that they will all perish [Luke 13:3]? And that, "if you want to enter life, keep the commandments" [Matthew 19:17]? And he that does not obey the son will not see life [John 3:35-36] (nearly all translations are lying to you in how they render that verse)? Did you also know that the "circumcision of the heart" is a teaching from Torah that means you are obeying Torah [Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6]?
After trying to convince us that circumcision of the heart is actually contrary to God's law, AiG quotes Colossians 2:16-17 again (just scroll up to near the top of the page to refresh your memory on what that passage actually means). But as I've said many times before, the twisting of Scripture has no end when it comes to the likes of AiG. And since this AiG article is getting a bit repetitive, I'm going to see how quickly I can address their remaining points (skipping over any repeat points that I notice). Notice that AiG wants you to believe that their backwards interpretation of the passage is the correct one, while the interpretation given by HRM is the backwards one. This is why they don't want you investigating the Hebrew Roots of Scripture for yourself.
AiG then makes the claim that "a person is saved by faith alone" (notice that nobody is saying that obedience is for salvation), and claims that anything to the contrary is "legalism". Paul never preached "faith alone". He preached "faith apart from works". The difference is simple: "Faith alone" is a license for lawlessness. "Faith apart from works" is not. In fact, the only time you will ever see "faith alone" in Scripture is when it is refuted in James 2:14-26. What was that which Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9? Cursed is anyone who brings a different gospel than what Paul gave? Well, "faith alone" is that different gospel.
So what about sanctification? Well, that simply means "to be made holy". And "holy" means "to be set apart". We are made set apart from the world by faith in Jesus. But have you noticed that there are rules concerning how we treat that which is set apart? There is always an external proof that something is set apart. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:3 says that one of the ways we are made to be set apart is by abstaining from sexual immorality. A form of obedience to God's law. So much for "faith alone". Sanctification is not merely internal (by faith). It is also external (shown by our works). The very works that AiG wants us to believe is "legalism".
It should also be noted that while AiG uses the word "legalism" a total of 3 times in the article (including 1 in a footnote), they never define the word. So any accusations of "legalism" are hereby meaningless.
The Law of Liberty and the Weaker Brother
With AiG's claims concerning Colossians 2 addressed, let's also address Romans 14. Oh wait, I already did! I will give a summary here. If you want to learn more, you can read my post on it. Long story short, Romans 14 concerns matters of opinion, and God's commandments are not matters of opinion. Anyone who says otherwise is a false teacher according to Deuteronomy 13. The "weaker brother" is the one who thinks it's a sin to do certain things that the law does not say is a sin, while the "stronger brother" is the one who does that thing which the law does not say is a sin because he is at liberty to do so. By the way, if Romans 14 says what AiG wants it to say, then the four rules of Acts 15 are nullified. Again, if you want the full story of Romans 14, read my post on it (linked above).
I believe I already addressed what it means to "walk in the spirit" (it means obeying God), so I'll skip that. Also, 1 Corinthians 8 is basically in the same vein as Romans 14, but there is one additional point that needs to be addressed. Acts 15 still prohibits one from eating foods sacrificed to idols. And Paul agreed to this.
This is an excellent example of Paul being hard to understand. Once again, we are faced with the choice of (a) harmonizing 1 Corinthians 8 with Acts 15, (b) concluding that Paul is a false teacher, or (c) concluding that 1 Corinthians is a forgery written by a false teacher in Paul's name. But this is exactly what one gets when one tries to use Paul as the foundation of Scripture instead of Torah. And what happens when we try to use Paul as the foundation of understanding the New Testament instead of Jesus.
Special Foods or Non-Foods?
AiG says that it can be "easily demonstrated" that God's dietary laws do not apply to all people. Technically this is true. It only applies to those whom God has made holy (deception by omission on AiG's part). And as we learned earlier, believers in Jesus are holy to God. I'll turn AiG's quote back on them and say that it can be easily demonstrated that you cannot properly understand Paul without using Torah as your foundation.
AiG says that HRM proponents argue that the flood account distinguishing between clean and unclean animals proves that God's instructions for Noah, permitting him to eat everything, only applies to the clean animals. This is certainly a claim I have heard from HRM. And contrary to what AiG wants us to believe, this does have merit. So long as the claim that God clothing Adam and Eve means God now wants us to be clothed (which the Bible never actually says) also has merit. I certainly hope AiG doesn't teach that God clothing Adam and Eve means he now wants us to be clothed. Otherwise, they are hypocrites for not permitting HRM to qualify God's instructions to Noah.
AiG then decides to refer to Mark 7:18-19 as proof that God changed his law. Never-mind the commandments (plural) to not add to or subtract from God's commandments [Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32]. If Jesus even tried to nullify even one commandment, then he would be a false teacher. Moreover, in Mark 7:9, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing the exact same thing! He said, "He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." In fact, the broader context of Mark 7:18-19 is a rebuke of those who serve God with their lips, but do not obey his law. So if Jesus then nullified the law in verses 18-19, he would be a hypocrite in addition to a false teacher. So it's safe to say that the dietary laws apply to everyone who professes to be God's people, be it jew or gentile.
Special Days
AiG opens their critique of the "special days" that HRM promotes as being part of the "Mosaic Covenant", as if to subtly deny that the covenant came from God while giving themselves plausible deniability like they have done with the label "Mosaic Law" that we discussed earlier. The pattern here is quite obvious: AiG is doing everything in their power to justify their refusal to take part in any of God's covenants.
AiG wants you to believe that Christmas and Easter are not pagan holidays, and that HRM is simply twisting the truth about "modern" practices and tradition to make most of their case against those days. In fact, AiG goes so far as to claim that HRM is taking part in "revisionist history, shoddy scholarship, and the misinterpretation of Scripture." The very Scriptures that make it very clear that making up your own holidays in honor of God is indeed the same as serving other gods. The irony is that it's apologetics ministries such as AiG that are taking part in revisionist history, shoddy scholarship, and the (deliberate) misinterpretation of Scripture. They then invoke Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16 again (which we've already discussed do not give us a license to make up our own holidays). Same with Acts 15, which they also alluded to but did not directly invoke.
Pretty much the only legitimate point that AiG makes in this section is their criticism that some HRM proponents are being hypocritical when they judge the unbiblical practices while themselves having unbiblical practices, such as the Easter Egg on the Seder plate. What's happening here is quite simple: Many within HRM either come from a Rabbinical Jewish background, or are using Rabbinical Judaism as a guide on how to observe the biblical holidays. What such people don't realize is that Rabbinical Judaism has so many human traditions. So on this point AiG is absolutely correct. Too bad they have shown that they are not interested at all in setting the example.
As for their questions concerning Hanukkah and Purim, I've already addressed that in a previous blog post. You can go read the article for yourself and draw your own conclusions about those days. But AiG's question here is valid. Where AiG errs is implying that if Hanukkah and Purim are okay, then Christmas, Easter, etc., must also be okay. Because the latter clearly comes from pagan backgrounds, while Hanukkah indisputably does not. And as for why Jesus would not condemn Hanukkah if it was wrong to celebrate it, look at the pattern of who Jesus rebuked and who he did not. He frequently rebuked the corrupt religious leaders while rarely rebuking the general population.
AiG then correctly states that there's nothing wrong with Christians celebrating Passover. However, I would beg to differ with their claim that doing so grants no special favors from God. For James 1:25 clearly states that those who keep Torah will be blessed in all that they do. It's observing man-made celebrations that grants no special favors.
Final "Considerations" Exposed
The reason AiG claims to be critiquing HRM is that some go far beyond simply gaining a deeper understanding of the cultural background of Scripture. But here's a question to consider: If we gain a deeper understanding of Scripture, should we not implement what we have learned? It's very telling that AiG has no problem with anyone gaining a deeper understanding of Scripture so long as they don't put that deeper understanding into practice. Very telling indeed. And they are right to say that these are not minor disagreements. However, the serious ramifications are not on the HRM side of things.
Let's think carefully about this. What are we being saved from? Our sins. What is sin? The transgression of Torah [1 John 3:4]. Everyone starts off having not transgressed Torah and therefore not needing salvation. But everyone sooner or later transgresses Torah and are now in need of salvation. This means that we were required to keep Torah before we transgressed it. But we are being told that once we are saved through faith in Yeshua (Jesus), we no longer need to obey God's law. But if that is true, then it is by definition impossible for someone who believes in the Lord to sin. If faith in Jesus means that we no longer have to keep the law of God, then that means theft, all forms of sexual immorality, deceit, murder, false testimony, and openly worshiping other gods are permissible. In fact, what AiG is essentially teaching is that once saved, the only real sin is to stop believing in Jesus for one's salvation. And committing that sin condemns you and makes keeping Torah again a requirement. AiG will deny that they teach this, but this is what their teachings boil down to.
Does it really make any sense that a person is required to keep God's law before they are saved, but not required to keep God's law after they are saved unless they stop believing in Jesus for their salvation? Of course not. Also, if the whole point of what Jesus did is to nullify the need for us to keep God's law, then there is no longer a law that can be transgressed in the first place. And where there is no law that can be transgressed, there is by definition no such thing as sin. And if there is no such thing as sin, then there is no need for salvation from sin. And if there is no need for salvation from sin, then our faith in Jesus is worthless. Not only that, if there is no need for salvation from sin, then trying to earn your salvation is also worthless because there is nothing for you to be saved from. This is actually the opposite of what AiG is trying to teach. AiG wants us to believe that trying to earn our salvation through obeying God's law results in our condemnation. But that is simply not possible if the law is no longer of any relevance as AiG wants us to believe.
But what about the opposite angle? If the law applies equally to everyone, then of course we need salvation if we transgress it. But the law can only condemn those who transgress it. It has no power to save those who keep it. This is why trying to earn your salvation by keeping Torah is useless. Because you are relying on something that has no power to save. That is where faith in Yeshua (Jesus) comes in. Our Lord does have the power to save, and will save whoever believes in him. He will not save those who are relying on Torah to save them. But since Torah applies to everyone, and because the Lord is just, he will not save those who refuse to obey Torah. But because the Lord is also gracious, all you have to do is stop refusing to obey him and he will forgive you of your previous refusal to obey him.
So what does that mean for AiG's statement that HRM proponents cross the line "set by the apostles" for condemning those who do not keep the "Mosaic law" and/or extrabiblical Hebrew traditions? Simply put, one only crosses the line for demanding the keeping of extrabiblical traditions. That is where some HRM proponents cross the law. But AiG crosses the line in the opposite direction by saying that we do not have to obey God.
AiG also claims that HRM is creating divisions within the body of the Messiah by condemning those who do not obey God and who follow the pagan practices that are incorrectly associated with Christianity. But as we can see from the Gospels, speaking the truth, regardless of intent, will always create divisions. Why? Because people do not want to hear that which contradicts what they believe.
AiG then claims that it's "works salvation" to teach that we must keep God's law to maintain our salvation. They then assert that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus, referencing Romans 11:6 and Ephesians 2:8-10, which says nothing to refute what they falsely call "works salvation". For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul gives a bunch of examples of who will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. See a pattern in those examples? All of which are linked to transgressing Torah in some way. So by AiG's own logic, Paul himself is teaching "works salvation". And we can't forget what Jesus himself said (twice) in Luke 13:3 & 5: Repent or perish. Repent means to turn from sin. And in Matthew 19:17, he said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
AiG loves pushing the narrative that HRM is teaching that it is the merits of our works that saves us rather than our faith in Jesus that saves us. This is not the case of simply not understanding that there is a difference between teaching that obedience is required to qualify for salvation, and teaching that it's your obedience that saves you. This is the case of AiG deliberately conflating the two teachings so that they can claim that teaching obedience to Torah is the same as teaching that it's your obedience that saves. Both Jesus and Paul made it abundantly clear that no obedience means no salvation.
AiG then urges you to "carefully read through the book of Galatians". Of course, I agree that you should read through Galatians. The problem here is that AiG is trying to poison your understanding of Scripture so that you will fall into the trap of Paul being difficult to understand and twist Paul's words after the pattern of lawlessness [2 Peter 3:14-18]. When they say "do not rely on my interpretation of its passages", they have already conditioned you to do just that. And when they say, "seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as you read", they have already conditioned you to not only interpret Galatians incorrectly, but also think that it is the Holy Spirit telling you that their interpretation is correct when your conditioning naturally results in you interpreting Galatians as being a condemnation of keeping God's commandments. AiG is taking full advantage of the fact that Paul is hard to understand. And they are taking full advantage of the fact that people tend to be more agreeable when they get confused.
If you really want any real hope of understanding Paul without needing to start from Genesis 1, then you should, at minimum, start in Romans 1. Take careful note about where Paul talks positively about the law of God. And take note when Paul is explicitly referring to laws other than God's law when talking negatively about those other laws. This is because Paul does not always tell us which law he is referring to when talking about "the law". Knowledge of which laws are spoken of positively and which are spoken of negatively will help you discern which law Paul is referring to when he does not specify. By doing this, you will be able to avoid falling into the trap that Paul never taught gentiles to keep God's law.
AiG quoting Romans 14:17 so say that the kingdom of God is about righteousness is quite ironic considering that they have rejected the only definition of righteousness that Scripture provides. HRM is also not nullifying the simplicity of the Gospel (none of those that I know of, anyways). HRM is simply stating that faith is not a license to transgress God's commandments, or to cherry-pick which of the commandments that we need to keep and which ones we don't. Remember that AiG themselves says that there are rules we must follow. If HRM is guilty of teaching "works salvation" by teaching people to obey Torah, then AiG is also guilty of teaching "works salvation" by teaching people to follow certain rules.
I'll leave you with this quote from John 3:36: "The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." [NASB] And yes, "does not obey the Son" is the correct translation of this verse.
