Recently the Creation Science Ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) published an article on their website
attempting to critique and warn people of what they are referring to as the
Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) (Article
linked here)[1]. I
should first probably state that, though I wouldn’t necessarily label my belief
system as being HRM, that is how a great many would probably, and almost
certainly how the fine folks at AiG would view my beliefs. In this article I
will be attempting correct some of the claims made in the AiG article, which
could have only been made if they did no actual
research but only talked people who have taken issue with the HRM (which should be done if you’re digging into a
subject, but you should also seek out qualified individuals from the other
side, as well), or if they sought out the most extreme adherents claiming to be
HRM and used their stated beliefs to define an entire denomination(?). This
would be like basing an article on the mainstream evangelical church on the
beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church, or the likes of Stephen Anderson.
In the article AiG rightly stated that, “properly defining this movement is difficult because it has no central hierarchy or leader, and no official statement of faith for members to endorse.” The article goes on to state, “while this article will explain and critique some of the major teachings connected to this movement, we recognize that some adherents to the HRM may not agree with all of the positions outline here.” I’m racking my brain, trying to remember this line being in the article the first time I read it but I’m having trouble placing it, so this second quotation seems to have been added to the article after they encountered a large amount of negative feedback on the AiG Facebook page due to the article’s many deceitful and slanderous claims. Of course, if it was in there I will admit to my error and state so publicly.
When the article was posted to Facebook the author seems to have been commenting with at least one commenter before deleting all of his comments and removing himself from any comment thread. It’s possible that AiG has a policy of not having the author interact in the comments and this is why he removed himself, though this seems to be a strange policy to have if you’re trying to promote your organization’s “research”. Another fair reason why the author (Tim Chaffey) may have removed himself from the comments is that those who felt that their personal walk with Jesus was being vilified were attacking him. If this is the case, then I stand firmly behind the author and say that he in no way deserves to be attacked. We are all followers of Messiah and a body fighting against itself is not going to make the Father happy. I have to assume that the author is doing what he’s doing because he’s genuinely concerned about some theological issues that he sees which he fears may be confusing people. We should remember what the Fruit of the Spirit are (Galatians 5:22-23) when we interact with this brother, or anyone who has a legitimate concern about proper doctrinal understanding and how we live our lives. Surely, stand firm in your convictions, but let iron sharpen iron and move into debate with love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Now that we’ve affirmed the way that we intend on moving forward with this writing, let’s look at some of the claims made by the article in question.
The original article makes four major arguments as to why the HRM is wrong and potentially dangerous. Here we will attempt to look at each claim and verify the validity of the AiG article’s argument. The major points of the article are reliant upon the following statements:
In the article AiG rightly stated that, “properly defining this movement is difficult because it has no central hierarchy or leader, and no official statement of faith for members to endorse.” The article goes on to state, “while this article will explain and critique some of the major teachings connected to this movement, we recognize that some adherents to the HRM may not agree with all of the positions outline here.” I’m racking my brain, trying to remember this line being in the article the first time I read it but I’m having trouble placing it, so this second quotation seems to have been added to the article after they encountered a large amount of negative feedback on the AiG Facebook page due to the article’s many deceitful and slanderous claims. Of course, if it was in there I will admit to my error and state so publicly.
When the article was posted to Facebook the author seems to have been commenting with at least one commenter before deleting all of his comments and removing himself from any comment thread. It’s possible that AiG has a policy of not having the author interact in the comments and this is why he removed himself, though this seems to be a strange policy to have if you’re trying to promote your organization’s “research”. Another fair reason why the author (Tim Chaffey) may have removed himself from the comments is that those who felt that their personal walk with Jesus was being vilified were attacking him. If this is the case, then I stand firmly behind the author and say that he in no way deserves to be attacked. We are all followers of Messiah and a body fighting against itself is not going to make the Father happy. I have to assume that the author is doing what he’s doing because he’s genuinely concerned about some theological issues that he sees which he fears may be confusing people. We should remember what the Fruit of the Spirit are (Galatians 5:22-23) when we interact with this brother, or anyone who has a legitimate concern about proper doctrinal understanding and how we live our lives. Surely, stand firm in your convictions, but let iron sharpen iron and move into debate with love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Now that we’ve affirmed the way that we intend on moving forward with this writing, let’s look at some of the claims made by the article in question.
The original article makes four major arguments as to why the HRM is wrong and potentially dangerous. Here we will attempt to look at each claim and verify the validity of the AiG article’s argument. The major points of the article are reliant upon the following statements:
1.
Certain Jewish teachings are elevated to the level
of Scripture.
2.
The Hebrew Roots Movement misunderstands the extent
and scope of the Mosaic law.
3.
The “Jerusalem Council” rejected the notion that
Gentile believers must follow the Law of Moses.
4.
The Apostle Paul refuted many of the most
popular teachings of the HRM.
Before I look at the arguments presented in the article I
would like to talk a little bit about
my personal faith.
First and foremost I want to state that absolutely every one of my beliefs sits firmly in line with the Apostles’ Creed:
First and foremost I want to state that absolutely every one of my beliefs sits firmly in line with the Apostles’ Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under
Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead.
Next, I want to affirm my agreement with a traditional Statement
of Faith. While the Apostles’ Creed does a good job of going over the basics, I
believe that it should be further stated. The National Association of
Evangelicals lists the following as their Statement of Faith:[2]
We believe the Bible
to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
We believe that there
is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We believe in the
deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in
His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His
bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in
His personal return in power and glory.
We believe that for
the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is
absolutely essential.
We believe in the
present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is
enabled to live a godly life.
We believe in the
resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the
resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
We believe in the
spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
There is not a single thing in that statement that I would
disagree with. There’s probably one part of that statement that some would
question if I truly believe so we’ll touch on that a little bit more closely.
When it says, “We believe … in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed
blood,” I have no problem making and believing this statement with all my
heart. There are deeper theological waters to wade in when looking at Hebrews
10:10 but the very essence of the verse (“By that will we have been sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”) implies that
the sacrifice of Jesus was the vehicle by which the sins were remitted even for
those in the Old Testament, though they at the time were offering place-holder earthly
sacrifices until the heavenly remission of sin should come through the offering
of the Son of God.
Now that I’ve covered the basics, let me expand upon what it is about my way of life that may make me different than the traditional evangelical.
1. I believe that the whole Bible is still relevant and useful for instruction (2 Tim 3:16), including the instructions (oftentimes called The Law) given to the Israelites by God, through His servant Moses.
Now that I’ve covered the basics, let me expand upon what it is about my way of life that may make me different than the traditional evangelical.
1. I believe that the whole Bible is still relevant and useful for instruction (2 Tim 3:16), including the instructions (oftentimes called The Law) given to the Israelites by God, through His servant Moses.
2. I believe, as Scripture says, that the way you show love
to God is to obey His commands (John 14:15, Ex 20:6, Deut 5:10, Deut 5:29, Deut
11:1, Deut 11:22, Deut 13:3-4, Deut 19:9, 1 John 2:1, 1 John 2:3-6…). This in
no way means that I am doing these things to attain salvation or add anything
to the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is simply an outward sign of an
inward change.
3. Yes, this means that I no longer eat pig products. The
hardest part about this is that it is extremely difficult to order pizza
because almost every pizza topping you ever loved is pig related…
There are many other subtle (and sometimes not so subtle)
differences but a great many of them will be touched upon throughout the course
of this response the AiG article so feel free to comment and ask questions if
you would like any further explanation on any matter.
One last thing before we start, I need it to be stated that I don’t believe that following or not following the Law is at all a salvific issue. I will make my case for why I think that there’s good reason to at least look into whether the Law is still important today, but that doesn’t mean that I think any less of my brothers and sisters in Christ who haven’t seen things the way I see them. It’s possible that there could be an urge to think that I think I’m “holier” than those who don’t do these things. The truth is, most Christians do keep almost as much as the law as I do, they just wouldn’t define it as such. But nobody really feels like they’re being legalistic when they fight off the urge to murder someone. My responsibility is to deal with what God is showing me, and if people want to ask me why I live the way live then maybe that means that they’ve seen Christ in me. My sincere prayer is that everyone reads this with an open heart and tests it against Scripture. I know that I’m going to say some things that are going to make some traditional evangelicals upset and, trust me, I’m going to say some stuff that is going to make some Hebrew Rooters upset. I should probably also say that I am nobody special when it comes to the Hebrew Roots community and I'm certainly not a spokesperson. I'm just a concerned believer who has felt the need to say something. I pray you are blessed by at least a small part of what I’ve written.
Alright, let’s get to it…
I’m going to do my best to follow the original article’s outline so I want to start with the first major category which is, “What is the Hebrew Roots Movement?”.
The meat of the article starts out with a pretty deceitful and misrepresentative statement which subtly shifts the way you’re thinking about the upcoming topics, “broadly speaking, the followers of the HRM believe that Christians are obligated to follow Jewish laws and practices from the books of Moses.” There are a couple problems with this sentence alone. First, and foremost, it should be stated that only a very small minority of those who would claim any part of the HRM would use a word like “obligated” when talking about following Torah. As I stated in the 2nd explanation of what makes my beliefs different than your average evangelical, you don’t follow Torah because you’re obligated, you do it as a show of loving obedience to God. The fact that the AiG article set the tone by starting out this way is disingenuous and deceitful, especially considering what they wrote in their 6th endnote where the recognize that those in the HRM do, in fact state this. So long as they had done their due diligence and asked pretty much anyone in the HRM they would have never heard the word “obligated”. The second thing to be addressed here is the use of the term “Jewish laws”. This is an easy mistake to make but, while the Torah was given to the Jews (those from the tribe of Judah), it was also given to all of the other tribes and the mixed multitude (Ex 12:38) that came out of Egypt with the Israelites. Giving an explanation for what it meant to be a Jew by the time the First Century rolled around is a little beyond the scope of this writing but I feel that I’m going to have to at least touch on it here. This will be extremely barebones, but here goes…
After the time of King Solomon the nation of Israel was split into two separate kingdoms: The Northern Kingdom, which was the House of Israel, and the Southern Kingdom which was the House of Judah (the Jews). Because of much sin and spiritual fornication both Kingdoms were eventually conquered and exiled away to foreign lands. The Northern Kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians and the people were scattered over the entire Assyrian kingdom as this was the practice of the Assyrians upon conquering a people. The Southern Kingdom was conquered by the Babylonians and they exiled to Babylon and the surrounding areas. The exiles from the Southern Kingdom were allowed to remain in community together while living in the Babylonian kingdom and eventually were allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city and the Temple. There were some from the tribes of the Northern Kingdom who had eventually found their way back to their homeland and had integrated into the peoples returning from Babylon. From this point forward those who lived in the land were traditionally referred to as Jews instead of Israelites, largely because they became a people more defined by where they lived (the province of Judea) than their tribal heritage.
One last thing before we start, I need it to be stated that I don’t believe that following or not following the Law is at all a salvific issue. I will make my case for why I think that there’s good reason to at least look into whether the Law is still important today, but that doesn’t mean that I think any less of my brothers and sisters in Christ who haven’t seen things the way I see them. It’s possible that there could be an urge to think that I think I’m “holier” than those who don’t do these things. The truth is, most Christians do keep almost as much as the law as I do, they just wouldn’t define it as such. But nobody really feels like they’re being legalistic when they fight off the urge to murder someone. My responsibility is to deal with what God is showing me, and if people want to ask me why I live the way live then maybe that means that they’ve seen Christ in me. My sincere prayer is that everyone reads this with an open heart and tests it against Scripture. I know that I’m going to say some things that are going to make some traditional evangelicals upset and, trust me, I’m going to say some stuff that is going to make some Hebrew Rooters upset. I should probably also say that I am nobody special when it comes to the Hebrew Roots community and I'm certainly not a spokesperson. I'm just a concerned believer who has felt the need to say something. I pray you are blessed by at least a small part of what I’ve written.
Alright, let’s get to it…
I’m going to do my best to follow the original article’s outline so I want to start with the first major category which is, “What is the Hebrew Roots Movement?”.
The meat of the article starts out with a pretty deceitful and misrepresentative statement which subtly shifts the way you’re thinking about the upcoming topics, “broadly speaking, the followers of the HRM believe that Christians are obligated to follow Jewish laws and practices from the books of Moses.” There are a couple problems with this sentence alone. First, and foremost, it should be stated that only a very small minority of those who would claim any part of the HRM would use a word like “obligated” when talking about following Torah. As I stated in the 2nd explanation of what makes my beliefs different than your average evangelical, you don’t follow Torah because you’re obligated, you do it as a show of loving obedience to God. The fact that the AiG article set the tone by starting out this way is disingenuous and deceitful, especially considering what they wrote in their 6th endnote where the recognize that those in the HRM do, in fact state this. So long as they had done their due diligence and asked pretty much anyone in the HRM they would have never heard the word “obligated”. The second thing to be addressed here is the use of the term “Jewish laws”. This is an easy mistake to make but, while the Torah was given to the Jews (those from the tribe of Judah), it was also given to all of the other tribes and the mixed multitude (Ex 12:38) that came out of Egypt with the Israelites. Giving an explanation for what it meant to be a Jew by the time the First Century rolled around is a little beyond the scope of this writing but I feel that I’m going to have to at least touch on it here. This will be extremely barebones, but here goes…
After the time of King Solomon the nation of Israel was split into two separate kingdoms: The Northern Kingdom, which was the House of Israel, and the Southern Kingdom which was the House of Judah (the Jews). Because of much sin and spiritual fornication both Kingdoms were eventually conquered and exiled away to foreign lands. The Northern Kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians and the people were scattered over the entire Assyrian kingdom as this was the practice of the Assyrians upon conquering a people. The Southern Kingdom was conquered by the Babylonians and they exiled to Babylon and the surrounding areas. The exiles from the Southern Kingdom were allowed to remain in community together while living in the Babylonian kingdom and eventually were allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city and the Temple. There were some from the tribes of the Northern Kingdom who had eventually found their way back to their homeland and had integrated into the peoples returning from Babylon. From this point forward those who lived in the land were traditionally referred to as Jews instead of Israelites, largely because they became a people more defined by where they lived (the province of Judea) than their tribal heritage.
Like I said, that was an incredibly quick overview of what
it meant to be a Jew at the time of Christ and I encourage you to look more
deeply into it, but I believe that it’s enough to show you that calling the
Instructions of God “Jewish laws” is a construct which stems from the Jews being
the only ones who claim to follow God’s instructions and not because they belong
to “the Jews”.
Now onto the 2nd sentence…
Now onto the 2nd sentence…
I promise you that I’m not going to go over every sentence but this next sentence, I believe, is the reason this organization built around scientific study was willing to step outside of their stated objectives[3] and clarify their view on an interdenominational dispute which does not have to do with Biblical Authority[4].
The sentence in question is as follows:
Oftentimes, extrabiblical rabbinic
teachings and traditions are elevated (if not in official doctrinal beliefs
then in practice) to the same level as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy.
As I stated before, I believe that this is the reason that a
science-based organization chose to respond to these decidedly not science-based
accusations. First let me state that in all of my years of study and fraternization
with those in the HRM I have come across a whopping total of ZERO people who would want to elevate rabinnic teachings to the level of Scripture. In fact,
the vast majority of those involved in the HRM that I’ve come across would claim
that the Mishnah and especially the Talmud are worse than the pagan traditions
that have crept into traditional Christianity. So, giving AiG the benefit of the
doubt (that they’ve done even the bare minimum amount of research of asking one
or two people what they thought about things) I have to conclude that the
article’s intent was to refer to The Book
of Enoch. Admittedly, there are a good many people in the HRM (though still
not a majority) who would say that Enoch
should be considered Scripture[5].
It is telling that this article came out directly after an article entitled, The
Book of Enoch and the Flat Earth[6].
Though it can’t be said that this is solely an area explored by those in the
HRM there is a growing percentage of
the HRM who are willing to question the shape of the earth, and cosmology is
most certainly well within the scope of the areas covered by a Christian Science
Ministry like AiG. I’m not going to go over this topic in this writing because
they chose to not mention it as a problem with the HRM. The reason that I bring
it up here is because it is seemingly evident from their lack of mentioning it
that their intent was to undermine the Theological viewpoint of those who have
probably been annoying them with claims that they’re not being Biblical because
they’re not promoting a flat earth model. I won’t deny that a great many (but
certainly not all) of those who
profess to believe in a flat earth can be overzealous and extremely annoying in
their argumentative tone. But it seems underhanded for a Christian Ministry to attack
a foundation without announcing what they’re doing. I hope that I’m wrong about
their motivations in posting this article but the timing of this article coming
after their flat earth article is extremely coincidental.
Before we move into the major points argued in the article I feel that it’s important to point out one more manipulative trick employed by the author. The article says, “One writer summarized the HRM in the following way,” but fails to inform the reader that the following quotation is from another hit-piece on the HRM which comes from a blog from another Ministry, and yet it’s presented as if it comes from a scholarly journal. In fact, though AiG tries to separate Messianic Jews from those in the HRM, and even build up Messianic Jews so that they can knock the HRM down a little further, this article that they’re using to summarize HRM lumps HRM and Messianic Jews together. But you won’t see that in the article.
The next point they make is under the heading, “Covenantal Confusion”. Their claim is that the HRM seriously misunderstands Biblical covenants and that one of the most grievous misunderstandings is “the notion that “the law” was intended to be binding on all people throughout history.” And then, after providing 2 verses which many in the HRM will quote to show why they live the way they do, over the course of the next paragraph, they throw 8 Bible verses at you (one of them being the same as one used by those in the HRM) without providing the context of any of those verses, but just making a point which is not at all backed up. I really don’t want to have to give a response for every Scripture that they twist but I think that its important in this instance in order to point out how they’re using the Bible for their own ends, regardless of what the context of the verse would actually be.
Before we move into the major points argued in the article I feel that it’s important to point out one more manipulative trick employed by the author. The article says, “One writer summarized the HRM in the following way,” but fails to inform the reader that the following quotation is from another hit-piece on the HRM which comes from a blog from another Ministry, and yet it’s presented as if it comes from a scholarly journal. In fact, though AiG tries to separate Messianic Jews from those in the HRM, and even build up Messianic Jews so that they can knock the HRM down a little further, this article that they’re using to summarize HRM lumps HRM and Messianic Jews together. But you won’t see that in the article.
The next point they make is under the heading, “Covenantal Confusion”. Their claim is that the HRM seriously misunderstands Biblical covenants and that one of the most grievous misunderstandings is “the notion that “the law” was intended to be binding on all people throughout history.” And then, after providing 2 verses which many in the HRM will quote to show why they live the way they do, over the course of the next paragraph, they throw 8 Bible verses at you (one of them being the same as one used by those in the HRM) without providing the context of any of those verses, but just making a point which is not at all backed up. I really don’t want to have to give a response for every Scripture that they twist but I think that its important in this instance in order to point out how they’re using the Bible for their own ends, regardless of what the context of the verse would actually be.
1.
Ephesians
2:11-13: These verses are referenced after the article states, “In their
view, this means that the law must still be in force today—even on Gentiles,
although they were not under the law in Old Testament times.” I’m now going to
provide the verses here so that you can see that they actually don’t talk about
what they’re article is talking about.
Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
These verses do a great deal of
talking to peoples from nations populated mostly by Gentiles and telling them
that while they were once far off from being a part of the commonwealth of
Israel, now because of the blood of Christ when they accepted Him as their Lord
and Savior, they have been grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. What the
verse does not say is that God’s instructions have been abolished.
I believe that it’s also important here point out that just because these people didn’t grow up in an area where God’s instructions were being taught doesn’t mean that once they become a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel they wouldn’t be expected to live under the constitution of that commonwealth. The Torah, which God gave to the Israelites through His servant Moses, was quite literally the constitution of the commonwealth of Israel. If they’re arguing against this it can only be because of a poor understanding of the Kingdom of God, and how the citizen of the Kingdom should react to Him to which they have pledged fealty. We read in Exodus 12:38 that there was a mixed multitude of peoples that left Egypt with the Israelites, and then we see in verse 49 of that same chapter that the strangers who were living in the land with them (the mixed multitude) were also supposed to keep the same law as the Israelites. This could easily be fleshed out into an entire post in-and-of-itself, but for now we’ll stop here so we can move onto the next verse in question.
I believe that it’s also important here point out that just because these people didn’t grow up in an area where God’s instructions were being taught doesn’t mean that once they become a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel they wouldn’t be expected to live under the constitution of that commonwealth. The Torah, which God gave to the Israelites through His servant Moses, was quite literally the constitution of the commonwealth of Israel. If they’re arguing against this it can only be because of a poor understanding of the Kingdom of God, and how the citizen of the Kingdom should react to Him to which they have pledged fealty. We read in Exodus 12:38 that there was a mixed multitude of peoples that left Egypt with the Israelites, and then we see in verse 49 of that same chapter that the strangers who were living in the land with them (the mixed multitude) were also supposed to keep the same law as the Israelites. This could easily be fleshed out into an entire post in-and-of-itself, but for now we’ll stop here so we can move onto the next verse in question.
2.
Matthew
5:17: Ok, this is the one that was previously referred to when the article
was saying that those in the HRM take a couple of Jesus’s statement out of context.
The article states that those in the HRM “reinterpret” the last part of the
verse, implying that the reinterpretation of the verse is the one in error. Let’s
look at the verse in question:
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
This is the verse which the article tries to tell you that those in the HRM are taking out of context because of the word “fulfill” at the very end of it. We’ll get to that word in a minute but first we should look at whether the article itself has left this verse in proper context. If we care to read on, the very next verse says, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Has heaven and earth passed away? If you go further, toward the end of the book of Matthew, Jesus appears to discuss a time when heaven and earth will pass away in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25). I don’t think that the argument being made is that the end times have happened already. Of course, if the eschatology in question is Preterism then this may actually be a valid argument. But, at that point, this becomes an eschatological debate instead of the warning against the HRM that we’re being told that it is.
But let’s look at that word “fulfilled”. Did Jesus fulfill the law? Definitely! Resoundingly, yes! Nobody, on either side, is denying that. The difference of opinion comes when we ask what the definition of “fulfill” is. It seems to be that the definition which would be backed by AiG is that “fulfill” really means “destroy”. In effect, this interpretation of the word fulfill has Matthew 5:17 saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to abolish them.” I think that if you would like to seek out a better definition then maybe you could read the verse as, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to do them.” Is it not possible that Jesus was actually fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law so that we could see how to walk out the law as well? Is there anywhere else in Scripture which would indicate that we should also fulfill the law? Let’s look at Romans 8:3-4.
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Where does Romans 8:4 say that the law would be fulfilled? In us, because we have the Holy Spirit and are able to walk according to His guidance. Do we get the impression anywhere else that, because of the Holy Spirit, we should concern ourselves with the law? What about the very passage of Scripture that we get the term “New Covenant” from, Jeremiah 31:31-34?
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Emphasis added)
In the New Covenant, is there a law? Are we currently in the New Covenant? If you don’t believe that we’re in the New Covenant right now then you could make the argument that God’s law has been done away with. Is this what we’re supposed to believe?
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
This is the verse which the article tries to tell you that those in the HRM are taking out of context because of the word “fulfill” at the very end of it. We’ll get to that word in a minute but first we should look at whether the article itself has left this verse in proper context. If we care to read on, the very next verse says, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Has heaven and earth passed away? If you go further, toward the end of the book of Matthew, Jesus appears to discuss a time when heaven and earth will pass away in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25). I don’t think that the argument being made is that the end times have happened already. Of course, if the eschatology in question is Preterism then this may actually be a valid argument. But, at that point, this becomes an eschatological debate instead of the warning against the HRM that we’re being told that it is.
But let’s look at that word “fulfilled”. Did Jesus fulfill the law? Definitely! Resoundingly, yes! Nobody, on either side, is denying that. The difference of opinion comes when we ask what the definition of “fulfill” is. It seems to be that the definition which would be backed by AiG is that “fulfill” really means “destroy”. In effect, this interpretation of the word fulfill has Matthew 5:17 saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to abolish them.” I think that if you would like to seek out a better definition then maybe you could read the verse as, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to do them.” Is it not possible that Jesus was actually fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law so that we could see how to walk out the law as well? Is there anywhere else in Scripture which would indicate that we should also fulfill the law? Let’s look at Romans 8:3-4.
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Where does Romans 8:4 say that the law would be fulfilled? In us, because we have the Holy Spirit and are able to walk according to His guidance. Do we get the impression anywhere else that, because of the Holy Spirit, we should concern ourselves with the law? What about the very passage of Scripture that we get the term “New Covenant” from, Jeremiah 31:31-34?
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Emphasis added)
In the New Covenant, is there a law? Are we currently in the New Covenant? If you don’t believe that we’re in the New Covenant right now then you could make the argument that God’s law has been done away with. Is this what we’re supposed to believe?
3.
2 Corinthians
5:21: This is the next verse mentioned and it is connected in the article to
the statement that Jesus lived a sinless life. This verse reference is
seemingly just thrown into the paragraph to make it look like the article is
standing on more solid ground because of the sheer amount of Scripture
references. Pretty much everyone in the HRM will attest to the fact that Jesus
lived a sinless life. There is no argument on this one. Just so it doesn’t look
like I’m hiding anything, here’s the verse, “For He made Him who knew no sin to
be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
4.
1
Corinthians 5:7: The article uses this verse to illustrate that when Jesus
died He was our ultimate Passover sacrifice. I couldn’t agree more! In fact, the
use of this verse does more to go against the article’s intended argument than
it does to help it. Paul was writing to the believers in the city of Corinth. Corinth
is located in modern day Greece, about 25 miles west of Athens. Though there
was a synagogue there, this is definitely not a center for Jewish culture. In
fact, Corinth was one of the most pagan cities in the world of the apostolic
writings and a center for the Imperial Cult (the Roman religion of deifying the
Emperor and worshiping him). The point of saying this is that the members of
the Corinthian church that Paul is writing to would actually have to be
celebrating Passover, and the traditions not necessarily spelled out in the
Bible associated with it, if Paul was expecting that they would get the full
implications of this verse. Moreover, if you move on to the next verse (again,
the article quoted a verse but ripped away its surrounding verses which give it
greater context) you see that Paul is telling the Corinthians to keep the feast.
In this context, this reference to a feast can only be referring to the Feast
of Unleavened Bread. Furthermore, as Bruce Winter points out “Paul’s use of
Passover imagery without needing explication and his reference to the third cup
of win in the Passover meal as ‘the cup of blessing which we bless’ and ‘the
bread which we break’ again without explanation suggests that all the
congregation was well aware of the Passover precedent for the Lord’s supper
(5:7 and 10:16).[7]” Paul’s
reference to Passover implies that they are not only keeping the Feasts of the
LORD (though there’s no reason to suspect that this body of believers kept them
before their accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior), but that it is an
unspoken implication leads you to believe that it was a necessity.
5.
Colossians
2:14: First I’m just going to show the verse: “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us,
which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it
to the cross.” Presented the way it is in the article by the author saying,
“Jesus Christ fulfilled the law,” concerning this verse, you’re meant think
that (again) 'fulfilled' means abolished. We’ve already gone over that one so the
verse is not saying that Jesus Christ did away with the law. So, if that’s not what
it’s saying what is it saying? When
we read, “the handwriting of requirements that was against us,” we have to look
to what this phrase would’ve meant at the time of its writing. The commentary
for this verse in the Cultural Backgrounds
Study Bible[8]
reads as follows,
“Language such as this was used for handwritten notes, usually certificates of debt. Jewish tradition also portrayed sins as “debts” before God; they came to believe that these were canceled on the Day of Atonement. Another Greek term in this phrase was often used for Gods law as His decrees (…); decrees were often posted in public locations.”
While the article’s presentation of this verse would make you think that those in the HRM would have a problem with this verse, again, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Jesus came to the earth to cancel the debt that was being held against us. The fact that He nailed them to the cross, in a very public nature, was all the notice the devil needed to see that those debts had been paid. That these slaves had been redeemed.
Think about it like a modern-day court case. You were caught speeding and brought before the judge. You know that you were speeding. The police officer was totally within his right to pull you over. You go before the judge and he finds you guilty and hands down a $300 fine for speeding. You are now under that law. You go to the magistrate to pay your fine and when you get there you’re told that the judge actually personally paid your fine. The judge fulfilled the end of that law for you. Does this mean that you should go out and drive too fast again? Or, as I show of thanks to the judge, should you attempt to stay within the speed limit?
“Language such as this was used for handwritten notes, usually certificates of debt. Jewish tradition also portrayed sins as “debts” before God; they came to believe that these were canceled on the Day of Atonement. Another Greek term in this phrase was often used for Gods law as His decrees (…); decrees were often posted in public locations.”
While the article’s presentation of this verse would make you think that those in the HRM would have a problem with this verse, again, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Jesus came to the earth to cancel the debt that was being held against us. The fact that He nailed them to the cross, in a very public nature, was all the notice the devil needed to see that those debts had been paid. That these slaves had been redeemed.
Think about it like a modern-day court case. You were caught speeding and brought before the judge. You know that you were speeding. The police officer was totally within his right to pull you over. You go before the judge and he finds you guilty and hands down a $300 fine for speeding. You are now under that law. You go to the magistrate to pay your fine and when you get there you’re told that the judge actually personally paid your fine. The judge fulfilled the end of that law for you. Does this mean that you should go out and drive too fast again? Or, as I show of thanks to the judge, should you attempt to stay within the speed limit?
6.
Romans 6:14:
Alright, let’s just start out by quoting the verse.
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
I want start by saying that, to me, this verse and the surrounding verses are some of the most exciting verses in the entire Bible, but that’s a different thought for a different time.. As we should always do, let’s look at the context of the verse in regards to the verses around it. Romans 6:1-2 (I think we can agree that these 2 verses are connected) reads as follows, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” What exactly is sin, anyway? I grew up being told that sin is “missing the mark”. I think this is a good answer, but it doesn’t really tell us what it is to hit the mark. There is a Bible verse that tells us exactly what sin is so why don’t we go to 1 John 3:4.
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
The old King James even says it like this, “sin is transgression of the law.” With this in mind, let’s look at Romans 6:1-2 again. Another way that it could be read is, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue transgressing the law that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who have been freed from the transgression of the law continue to transgress the law?” Now, admittedly, that’s my paraphrase, but I think that it fits fairly well there. What would Romans 6:14 look like if we applied the same outlook? “For transgression of the law will have no dominion of you, since you are not under law but under grace.” Much like the illustration for the last verse, the Judge has shown us grace and paid our fine. Why would we continue in sin?
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
I want start by saying that, to me, this verse and the surrounding verses are some of the most exciting verses in the entire Bible, but that’s a different thought for a different time.. As we should always do, let’s look at the context of the verse in regards to the verses around it. Romans 6:1-2 (I think we can agree that these 2 verses are connected) reads as follows, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” What exactly is sin, anyway? I grew up being told that sin is “missing the mark”. I think this is a good answer, but it doesn’t really tell us what it is to hit the mark. There is a Bible verse that tells us exactly what sin is so why don’t we go to 1 John 3:4.
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
The old King James even says it like this, “sin is transgression of the law.” With this in mind, let’s look at Romans 6:1-2 again. Another way that it could be read is, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue transgressing the law that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who have been freed from the transgression of the law continue to transgress the law?” Now, admittedly, that’s my paraphrase, but I think that it fits fairly well there. What would Romans 6:14 look like if we applied the same outlook? “For transgression of the law will have no dominion of you, since you are not under law but under grace.” Much like the illustration for the last verse, the Judge has shown us grace and paid our fine. Why would we continue in sin?
7.
Romans 7:4:
This verse is 13 verses after the last example. This is quite literally the
exact same example just thrown in to make the list look bigger. But, if you
want to treat it differently we will. If you read another 3 verses on you will
find out that the law is not sin but it is the means by which you know sin. If the law tells you not do something,
doing that something would be sin. But, again, so that it can’t be said that I was
doing what the article has done and name verses without having shown them, let’s
look at the verse in question, “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to
the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him
who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.”
8.
Galatians
5:18: Finally, they bring up Galatians. I’m surprised it took this long to
get here…
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree with this verse. I now have the Holy Spirit and the law is written on my heart (New Covenant) so I am no longer under the law. So long as I can walk in the Spirit then the law will not be coming down on me. Let’s try another illustration. When somebody has you under their thumb they have you pinned down and you’re caught. If somebody comes along and lifts that thumb off of you that doesn’t mean that the thumb no longer exists. We don’t live in world devoid of thumbs, we have the Holy Spirit inside of us and He shows us how to walk in a way that we can avoid the thumbs out there trying to fall on us.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree with this verse. I now have the Holy Spirit and the law is written on my heart (New Covenant) so I am no longer under the law. So long as I can walk in the Spirit then the law will not be coming down on me. Let’s try another illustration. When somebody has you under their thumb they have you pinned down and you’re caught. If somebody comes along and lifts that thumb off of you that doesn’t mean that the thumb no longer exists. We don’t live in world devoid of thumbs, we have the Holy Spirit inside of us and He shows us how to walk in a way that we can avoid the thumbs out there trying to fall on us.
Alright, we’re finally done going over those verses. I hope
that you noticed how a few of them were just filler and didn’t really have
anything to do with the overall argument. Or, they made the HRM point instead
of the intended point. I’m going to speed up my response now that I’ve shown
that the article cherry picks its verses and purposely left the context out
so that you wouldn’t ask questions.
We next see that the Ministry which built a life size version of Noah’s Ark, give the worst use of the Ark to try to explain something ever. Or at least since the time of the Ark. The argument in the article is that since God gave Noah a command to build an Ark, all of those in the HRM are being hypocritical of they don’t also build Arks. This is followed up in the article by the statement,
We next see that the Ministry which built a life size version of Noah’s Ark, give the worst use of the Ark to try to explain something ever. Or at least since the time of the Ark. The argument in the article is that since God gave Noah a command to build an Ark, all of those in the HRM are being hypocritical of they don’t also build Arks. This is followed up in the article by the statement,
The HRM followers I have spoken to
about this typically reply that those commands were given to a specific person
for a specific time, and they are correct. 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? After all, the Mosaic law was given to a specific group of
people at a specific time. The Bible spells out this fact at the initiation of
this covenant and again 40 years later when the Israelites prepared to enter
the land God promised to them.
This is honestly one of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen. First of all, there’s legitimate reason to believe that the law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai had been in place before the Exodus, but we’ll do our best to end this one quickly without bringing that up[9]. Is it possible that the command for Noah to build the Ark was a one time command and that the instructions handed down to the Israelites through Moses were meant for all time? Let’s look at it a little closer. Why did God tell Noah to build an Ark? He told him build the Ark because a very specific thing was about to happen. In fact, this is a thing that we’re told will never happen again. There was going to be global flood. If God tells you to build an Ark because the world is going to flood, then build it.
But what about the “Mosaic law”? First of all, just because you call it the Mosaic law doesn’t mean that’s what it is. I just looked it up and that term does not ever occur in the Bible. It’s not Moses’s law, it’s God’s law. I feel that by ascribing it to someone who is not God, it’s easier to cheapen it and say that it doesn’t matter anymore. But, to answer the question, let’s look at a few places in the Torah where the law is given.
Exodus 12:17: So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance.
Exodus 30:1: "And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'This shall be a holy anointing oil to Me throughout your generations.
Exodus 31:13: "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: 'Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
Numbers 15:14: And if a stranger dwells with you, or whoever is among you throughout your generations, and would present an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to the LORD, just as you do, so shall he do.
There are quit a bit more of those but I think that should be enough to prove the point that the reason that it may be logical to think that the “Mosaic law” may last longer than just one specific people and time is that we (yes, “we”, that last verse makes that one a little more clear) were told to do these things throughout your generations.
There are a few other things mentioned under “Covenantal Confusion” and I can go into them in the future if you want to but I’m already running long here so let’s move on to the next section.
Did the Apostles
Believe That Gentiles Should Follow the Mosaic Law?
Again with the whole “Mosaic law” thing… Oh well, I’ll move on from it.
Here the article spends a good bit of time going over Acts 15. It’s really the same verses that are brought up every time anyone questions a Torah pursuant follower of Jesus. There are literally hundreds of websites out there that will explain this one for you but I’ll do my best to cover it quickly. In Acts 15 we have what is called the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles debated over what restrictions to place upon the converts who had once been Gentiles. Back in the 1st century there was a large debate among the different sects of the Jewish faith over what converts needed to do before they were allowed to become proselyte (a gentile who officially wanted to enter into worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). This debate naturally spilled over into the Jewish believers of the time, as the early church was largely made up of Jewish converts. I’ll post a good video to watch on the subject below. It’ll take 20-25 minutes but I think it’ll be well worth your time.
Again with the whole “Mosaic law” thing… Oh well, I’ll move on from it.
Here the article spends a good bit of time going over Acts 15. It’s really the same verses that are brought up every time anyone questions a Torah pursuant follower of Jesus. There are literally hundreds of websites out there that will explain this one for you but I’ll do my best to cover it quickly. In Acts 15 we have what is called the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles debated over what restrictions to place upon the converts who had once been Gentiles. Back in the 1st century there was a large debate among the different sects of the Jewish faith over what converts needed to do before they were allowed to become proselyte (a gentile who officially wanted to enter into worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). This debate naturally spilled over into the Jewish believers of the time, as the early church was largely made up of Jewish converts. I’ll post a good video to watch on the subject below. It’ll take 20-25 minutes but I think it’ll be well worth your time.
The AiG article plays down that after giving all of the
instructions about what the gentiles should first do (Acts 15:19-20) it directly
goes into saying that Moses has been taught in every city (Acts 15:21). The
author says, “one HRM follower told me that this verse meant that the Gentiles
would go to the synagogues in those cities to learn about following the law.
But that is not even close to what James said.” The only problem with this is
that this is precisely what the text says. You can’t make it not say that just
because you tell people it doesn’t say that. Let’s look at the actual verses.
Therefore my judgment is that we
should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to
them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality,
and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations
Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every
Sabbath in the synagogues." (Acts 15:19-21)
The author contends that the reason that last verse is
mentioned is just to say that there are Jews there and we don’t want to the new
Christians to offend the Jews. There is literally no reason to actually think
that unless it’s because you don’t have a good response. If it was only about
not offending the Jews, there would need to be no mention made of Moses or the
synagogues and it might say something about offending the Jews.
Do the New Testament Epistles Teach That Gentiles Should Follow the Mosaic Law?
This section of the article basically says, “go read Galatians,” and then goes on to quote various verses in the book of Galatians. I’m not going to go into them as I’ve already shown that the context of the quoted verses is not always up to snuff. What I will do right here is quote another Bible verse. Peter is the author of 2 books in the Bible. 1 Peter is addressed to believers in Galatia, among other places in Asia Minor. 2 Peter is not publicly addressed to any church in particular but the scholarly consensus is that, like 1 Peter, 2 Peter is also addressed to churches in Asia Minor. Keeping in mind that Peter is most probably writing to the same church in Galatia that Paul wrote the book of Galatians to, let’s look at the closing of that book.
Do the New Testament Epistles Teach That Gentiles Should Follow the Mosaic Law?
This section of the article basically says, “go read Galatians,” and then goes on to quote various verses in the book of Galatians. I’m not going to go into them as I’ve already shown that the context of the quoted verses is not always up to snuff. What I will do right here is quote another Bible verse. Peter is the author of 2 books in the Bible. 1 Peter is addressed to believers in Galatia, among other places in Asia Minor. 2 Peter is not publicly addressed to any church in particular but the scholarly consensus is that, like 1 Peter, 2 Peter is also addressed to churches in Asia Minor. Keeping in mind that Peter is most probably writing to the same church in Galatia that Paul wrote the book of Galatians to, let’s look at the closing of that book.
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting
for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at
peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved
brother Paul also wrote to you according
to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in
them of these matters. There are some
things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable
twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this
beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless
people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day
of eternity. Amen. (2 Peter 3:14-18) (Emphasis Added)
So, before you read the book of Galatians (and you should
read it because it really is a great book) make sure you read this portion of 2
Peter and take heed of Peter’s advice. I honestly don’t think that I need to
add anything more. The Apostle Peter probably knew what he was talking about.
There’s something else that I want to add concerning this article. It keeps referring to “gentile believers”. I would like to posit that there is no such thing as a gentile believer. The word gentile come from the Hebrew term ‘goy’, and they at the most basic level mean “out of covenant”. If you are an out of covenant believer in Jesus then I think you have bigger problems than whether or not you should be struggling over questions of the law. Get yourself right with Jesus. Start a relationship with Him and get into covenant with Him.
I’m going to choose to just not bother responding to the foods portion of the article. By and large every food instruction God gave has been shown to have been a good idea for health reasons. Surprisingly the article doesn’t even bring up Acts 10 in regard to food, but that may be because the traditional view that Peter’s vision is about food has become indefensible since the interpretation of the vision is given a couple times throughout the book of Acts and it has nothing to do with food when the interpretation is given. Any interpretation incorporating food would then be of private interpretation and we know that is not allowable (1 Peter 1:20).
Special Days
This is a place where I want to give some credence to what the article is saying. In the article it is stated that AiG gets hundreds of messages every Christmas from people in the HRM who castigate the ministry for talking about Christmas using it to point people toward Jesus. I fully believe this and I want to call it out as wrong. I personally don’t celebrate Christmas but that does not give me the license to make anyone else feel like any less of a Christian because they do celebrate it. Plus, as is mentioned in the article, much of the reason for people calling it pagan is because of shoddy scholarship. If you’re doing any research and you see Alexander Hislop in the cited sources, just run away. You’re probably dealing with some bad info. We, as ambassadors of the King, need to make sure that our sources are above reproach, and this has been an issue in the HRM. But, let’s not pretend that this is solely an HRM thing. I heard all of these things long before I ever heard anyone in the HRM talk about them. And, for what it’s worth, Alexander Hislop was never a member of the HRM. He was just a man who really hated the Catholic church.
There’s something else that I want to add concerning this article. It keeps referring to “gentile believers”. I would like to posit that there is no such thing as a gentile believer. The word gentile come from the Hebrew term ‘goy’, and they at the most basic level mean “out of covenant”. If you are an out of covenant believer in Jesus then I think you have bigger problems than whether or not you should be struggling over questions of the law. Get yourself right with Jesus. Start a relationship with Him and get into covenant with Him.
I’m going to choose to just not bother responding to the foods portion of the article. By and large every food instruction God gave has been shown to have been a good idea for health reasons. Surprisingly the article doesn’t even bring up Acts 10 in regard to food, but that may be because the traditional view that Peter’s vision is about food has become indefensible since the interpretation of the vision is given a couple times throughout the book of Acts and it has nothing to do with food when the interpretation is given. Any interpretation incorporating food would then be of private interpretation and we know that is not allowable (1 Peter 1:20).
Special Days
This is a place where I want to give some credence to what the article is saying. In the article it is stated that AiG gets hundreds of messages every Christmas from people in the HRM who castigate the ministry for talking about Christmas using it to point people toward Jesus. I fully believe this and I want to call it out as wrong. I personally don’t celebrate Christmas but that does not give me the license to make anyone else feel like any less of a Christian because they do celebrate it. Plus, as is mentioned in the article, much of the reason for people calling it pagan is because of shoddy scholarship. If you’re doing any research and you see Alexander Hislop in the cited sources, just run away. You’re probably dealing with some bad info. We, as ambassadors of the King, need to make sure that our sources are above reproach, and this has been an issue in the HRM. But, let’s not pretend that this is solely an HRM thing. I heard all of these things long before I ever heard anyone in the HRM talk about them. And, for what it’s worth, Alexander Hislop was never a member of the HRM. He was just a man who really hated the Catholic church.
As far as Easter, if you want to celebrate “Resurrection
Sunday”, more power to you! But why wouldn’t you just celebrate the Festivals
God spelled out in the Bible which actually are symbolic of the very things the
traditional Christian days are meant to honor. If you’re Christian and you don’t
honor the Feasts of the LORD my only question would be… why not?
Honestly, God said
He had some days He thought were significant; why wouldn’t you want to celebrate
them? If you want to learn more about them you can find a lot of information in
Leviticus 23 (I know, not Leviticus, right…) and also in Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy
16. In fact, there’s one coming up in like a week. It’s called Passover and there
are so many beautiful ways to celebrate Jesus during it. Don’t feel like you
have to, just read about it and see if you want to. See if you can find the
heart of Jesus in it.
Final Considerations
This AiG article has been full of errors and misrepresentations of the HRM, but I honestly believe that their heart is in the right place. They’ve just been unwilling to listen to the counterarguments which have come from most of the HRM community. Are there some bad eggs? You’re geegolly right there are! And unfortunately, like pretty much everything else, the crazies are the most vocal. But that’s not most of us. I go to a Bible study every week that is made up entirely of people who are not Torah Pursuant (except for myself and my fiancé), and we have more in common than we have differences. We have an awesome fellowship every week and we celebrate our differences and we celebrate our being one in Christ.
The danger in posting an article like this which just throws a huge blanket over an entire ‘denomination’ is that AiG has many supporters all over the world (including a great many in the HRM) and with this article you now have told you supporters that they should disregard anyone who is in any way Messianic. You can say that’s not what you were doing but you know that’s what the reaction will be. My hope in all this is only that you will be open to hearing the other side. That’s not totally true, my greater hope is that you’ll think better of having that deceitful and misrepresentative article posted and take it down, but I’d be willing to settle for an apology to all of those who you’ve wrongfully cast shade upon.
I’ll leave you something that Jesus once said…
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Final Considerations
This AiG article has been full of errors and misrepresentations of the HRM, but I honestly believe that their heart is in the right place. They’ve just been unwilling to listen to the counterarguments which have come from most of the HRM community. Are there some bad eggs? You’re geegolly right there are! And unfortunately, like pretty much everything else, the crazies are the most vocal. But that’s not most of us. I go to a Bible study every week that is made up entirely of people who are not Torah Pursuant (except for myself and my fiancé), and we have more in common than we have differences. We have an awesome fellowship every week and we celebrate our differences and we celebrate our being one in Christ.
The danger in posting an article like this which just throws a huge blanket over an entire ‘denomination’ is that AiG has many supporters all over the world (including a great many in the HRM) and with this article you now have told you supporters that they should disregard anyone who is in any way Messianic. You can say that’s not what you were doing but you know that’s what the reaction will be. My hope in all this is only that you will be open to hearing the other side. That’s not totally true, my greater hope is that you’ll think better of having that deceitful and misrepresentative article posted and take it down, but I’d be willing to settle for an apology to all of those who you’ve wrongfully cast shade upon.
I’ll leave you something that Jesus once said…
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:19)
[1] https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/dangers-hebrew-roots-movement/
[2] https://www.nae.net/statement-of-faith/
[3] https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/where-do-we-draw-the-line/
[4] It’s
somewhat strange that one of the areas AiG claim that they will involve themselves in is the nature of the Trinity, and yet
they didn’t really touch on this topic even though there are definitely some in
the HRM who would not claim a belief in the traditional view of the Trinity. I
would say that they made this decision because those in question are a fraction
of the movement, but the original article makes blanket statements about the
whole movement concerning things which are claimed by an even smaller portion
of the community (for example, those who would elevate rabbinic writings to the
level of Scripture.)
[5] It
should be noted that this is far from a view held solely by those who would be
considered part of the HRM. There’s a growing number of people who would say
that they are interested in “Fringe Christianity” (largely encompassing, but
not limited to, study of the Nephilim) who would also say that there’s an argument
to be made that Enoch should be considered
Scripture.
[6] https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/book-enoch-and-flat-earth/
[7] Bruce
W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The
Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Cambridge, UK: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 2001, 157.
[8] NKJV
Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2017, 2160
[9] Just
a couple arguments in favor of a pre-Exodus law would be that Cain and Abel
were making sacrifices to the LORD and they new how to do it. And, when God
told Noah to gather 2 of each unclean animal and 7 of each clean animal
(probably so there were more clean animals to sacrifice), Noah didn’t have to
ask God, “what’s a clean animal?” And God didn’t have to answer “I’ll tell your
ancestors in a couple thousand years…”
