All or Nothing: Christ's Fulfillment of the Law

The Hebrew Roots Movement is gaining popularity and deceiving genuine believers. We need to be aware of the way this movement misuses Scripture. #HebrewRootsMovement #OldTestamentLawKeeping #Bible

It's important for Christ-followers to understand the Hebrew Roots Movement because it is a growing movement in the modern church and it's taking some genuine Christians captive to its false teaching.

People involved in this movement include genuine believers who misunderstand the purpose of the Old Testament law as well as false teachers and false Christians. And the beliefs in the movement vary as well. Some in the movement would say you are not saved if you are not obeying Old Testament laws. Others would simply say you are deceived.

But all in the HRM believe Christians should follow Old Testament dietary, Sabbath, and festival laws. 

Let me state upfront: there is nothing wrong with a person observing Old Testament laws, but it's wrong to claim that such observance is God's desire for New Testament Christians.

Whether HRM teachers do so intentionally or naively, they use a method that is typical for all false teachings: creating doctrine by taking verses out of context and ignoring the full counsel of Scripture.

Two Key Verses Misused by the HRM

1. Romans 3:31: "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." 

Context: Romans 3-4 explains that we are no longer under Old Testament laws; and verse 3:31 emphasizes the important purpose of the law: to show us we can't measure up through law-keeping. Our faith doesn't nullify the purpose of the law. It confirms it.

Please read both chapters in full to understand 3:31 in context. And note verses like those below that summarize the full context meaning of these chapters:


Romans 3:20: "No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

Romans 4:13: "It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."


2. Matthew 5:19 is another verse the HRM considers key. 

The Hebrew Roots Movement is gaining popularity and deceiving genuine believers. We need to be aware of the way this movement misuses Scripture. #HebrewRootsMovement #OldTestamentLawKeeping #Bible
Matthew 5:17-20"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Verse-by-verse explanation:

Verse 17 explains that Christ has come to fulfill the Law (Mosaic law: nomosand the Prophets (Old Testament prophecies). When Christ spoke these words, this had not yet been completely fulfilled.

Verse 18 explains that the Old Testament law will not disappear until it is fully accomplished, and Christ did this soon after He spoke these words.

Before Christ’s atoning sacrifice, we were still "under the law." His death and resurrection accomplished all that the Old Testament law demanded. His death made us “clean,” something that could never be accomplished by law-keeping. 

In verse 19 the Greek word changes from the Law (nomos) to the commands (entolé). This is significant. Using both words in this passage clearly shows us that Jesus was switching from the Mosaic law (fulfilled) to the moral commands (permanent). 

In verse 20 Jesus refers to the righteousness of the Pharisees who were meticulous in their observance of the Old Testament ceremonial, dietary, and sacrificial laws. He says that kind of righteousness won’t get us into heaven. Obeying external laws will not satisfy God. The remainder of the chapter is an explanation that true godliness is revealed in moral actions. Diet and ceremonies are not mentioned.

Let me use this analogy to explain verses 17-19:

Suppose you wrecked your father’s car and you owed quite a bit of money for a car repair. You were trying to pay for it, but it was obvious you'd never be able to do it on your own.

After your father let you struggle for a few weeks (to prove your inability to pay), he came to you and said, “I paid the bill in full, every last penny of it. And I am keeping that bill as a reminder of your inability to pay it and a reminder of my love that motivated me to pay it for you. Now, because I have paid this bill for you, I expect you to drive safely, show respect for my property, and behave maturely.” 

However, your HRM friend says, “Your dad still has the bill, and that means he expects you to pay it. So you better keep trying to save money for it.”

The "Whole Counsel of Scripture" Regarding Old Testament Laws

False teachings are built on several verses taken out of context, as those above. And they ignore other clear passages on the subject. I invite you to read the whole chapters where the passages below are found. You will see that they accurately represent the context.

Galatians 2:19-21: "For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die."

Galatians 3:2-3: "Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ. How foolish can you be? After starting your new lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort?"

Galatians 3:12-13: "This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, 'It is through obeying the law that a person has life.' But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.' "

Below, Paul clearly explains that he no longer follows the Jewish laws. Instead, he obeys the commands of Christ (i.e. New Testament commands). Several times during his ministry, he followed some Old Testament laws in order to have opportunities to share the Gospel with the Jews, but he explains why below.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." 

The HRM has fantastically complex explanations for the passages above which are not based on the context, nor the original Greek, nor the whole counsel of Scripture. Beware of any explanation of Scripture that requires multiple layers of explanation to make it fit a particular doctrine.

The passage below talks about the futility of observing festivals/Sabbath and dietary laws, the very laws which the HRM insists Christians should follow:

Colossians 2:16-17:  "So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality."


Dietary Laws

The Hebrew Roots Movement is gaining popularity and deceiving genuine believers. We need to be aware of the way this movement misuses Scripture. #HebrewRootsMovement #OldTestamentLawKeeping #Bible
The passages below speak specifically about the end of dietary laws. HRM teachers claim that Acts 10 has nothing to do with dietary laws but strictly deals with Peter's acceptance of Gentiles. It's true that the overall message was acceptance of the Gentiles, but the specific aspect God used to illustrate that point was dietary laws which kept Jews from eating with Gentiles. If God still considered some foods "unclean" and forbidden, why did He tell Peter exactly the opposite three times? To believe this HRM explanation, you have to believe God says things He doesn't really mean.

Acts 10:9-16"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'  
   'Surely not, Lord!' Peter replied. 'I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.'
   The voice spoke to him a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'
   This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Discussing food sacrificed to idols, Paul makes a blanket statement about food which confirms that dietary laws are no longer applicable for Christians. The context of this passage is not dietary laws, but Paul's bold statement certainly refutes the belief that any food is unclean, whether sacrificed to idols or prohibited by Old Testament laws.

1 Corinthians 8:8: "Food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do."

Compare this verse to the words of the Old Testament dietary laws, and you will see that the HRM have ignored the New Covenant changes brought by Christ:

Leviticus 11:41:43"Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean. Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them." 

God has made it clear that we are no longer made clean or unclean by foods we eat. The HRM must deny clear, straightforward New Testament verses in order to support the claim that we are still under Old Testament dietary laws.

Dietary laws were an especially strong area of resistance in Peter's life. Read Galatians 2:11-21 where Paul rebuked Peter for reverting back to the law and not eating with Gentiles. 

In the verses below Jesus explains why dietary laws are not pertinent to New Testament believers. Let's "listen and understand" what He is saying.

Matthew 15:10-11"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.' " 

Mark 7:18-19: " 'Are you so dull?' he asked. 'Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"

Note: The words underlined in parenthesis are Scripture, translated from the original Greek.


All or nothing

James talks about the hopelessness of external law-keeping:

James 2:10"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

Old Testament laws include dietary, cleansing, sacrificial, ceremonial, and civil laws for the nation of Israel. Under the Old Covenant ("under the law"), people became unclean by foods they ate, things they touched, and by normal body functions (Leviticus 15:19-33). Some of these laws improved sanitation and health conditions during the ancient times, but some were strictly symbolic of our human unworthiness before God. 

It's interesting that the HRM chooses which Old Testament laws to observe. They obey dietary laws but not cleansing laws, yet both had the same purpose: keeping a man "clean" enough to be in God's presence.

When Christ came, He became our righteousness. We became “clean” in Him. External laws were fulfilled completely in Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27).

So why does the HRM choose to believe that sacrificial and cleansing laws were fulfilled in Christ, but dietary and ceremonial laws were not? There is no sound reason for this double standard. Either Christ fulfilled all of them or none of them. 

The Hebrew Roots Movement is gaining popularity and deceiving genuine believers. We need to be aware of the way this movement misuses Scripture. #HebrewRootsMovement #OldTestamentLawKeeping #Bible
Other pertinent 1-minute devotions about this subject
Does God Hate Shrimp?
Did Jesus Really Say That?  
Christ's Complete Fulfillment of the Law  
Laws, Commands, and Errors  
Understanding the Laws and Commands (Bible Study)  
Which Old Testament Laws? 

Some additional resources:
A Pivotal Issue: a video examining the false premise of Jewish law-keeping. This is part of a multi-part series.
What is the 119 Ministry?  
What is the Hebrew Roots Movement? 
What is the Sacred Name Movement?  
Dangers of the Hebrews Roots Movement  
Are Followers of Jesus Under the Law? 


Bible Love Notes

31 comments:

  1. I've been introduced to this and am doing deep research of this and am quite confused to tell truth. What about definition of word antinomianism, my dictionary. States that Paul may have been accused of this Roman 3.8 and6.1,15 I appreciate your insight and would like your input thank you blessings. I'm searching also for first scripture. Is it hebrew or Greek. Kim cooper 204 walnut st. Arcadia. Oh 44804

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Antinomians believe that since we're saved by grace, it doesn’t matter if we obey God’s moral laws.

      Jesus rebuked this belief: "If you love me, keep my commands” (John 14:15). He was not telling them to obey Old Testament laws. He was telling them to obey New Testament commands. This is explained above when I talk about the Greek word for the Law (nomos) and the word for New Testament moral commands (entolé). In John 14:15, entolé is used.

      Paul was not antinomiam. He actually rebuked this belief: "We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Romans 6:1-2).

      Christ did not abolish the law. He fulfilled it completely and took us out from under its control (Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 6:14). No one can be made right by obeying the law (Galatians 3:11).

      Grace now empowers us to obey the New Testament commands, becoming more like Christ, devoting ourselves to purity, love and good works (Ephesians 2:10; Philippians 2:12-13; Titus 1:1; Hebrews 13).

      You asked about the languages: The original manuscripts of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew (and Aramaic in a few places). The original manuscripts of the New Testament are written in Greek.

      Delete
    2. Please do not believe what this lady writes in her article. Believe me when I say, she does not understand anything about Hebrew roots. She is unqualified to teach about it.

      Delete
    3. Dear Readers,

      I have a seminary degree and I have studied these passages in great depth, looking up the original languages and studying the context and the historical background. I have read the research and conclusions of Bible scholars who are far more qualified than I am. But according to Momofskc, I am unqualified.

      I have carefully addressed the errors in HRM beliefs using Scripture, not name-calling or shame tactics or rude remarks about those who believe it.

      I have explained that in order to believe the doctrines of the Hebrew Roots Movement, you must think that God has purposely spoken to us in riddles that are only understood by those in the HRM. You must believe that God allowed the majority of believers to be deceived throughout church history, including Bible scholars, missionaries, and martyrs.

      Contrary to the teachings of HRM, I believe God communicates clearly and accurately in Scripture, in a way that the average reader can understand.

      God could not be clearer in Acts 10 when He tells Peter to kill and EAT things considered "unclean" in the Old Testament. And knowing Peter was inclined to slip back into Old Testament law keeping, God said it 3 times. To claim that passage has nothing to do with food directly contradicts the words and obvious meaning of the passage.

      But you are correct Momofskfc in one regard. I am not qualified to teach HRM doctrine because I could not teach a doctrine which I believe directly contradicts the teachings of Scripture and misleads thousands of sincere seekers.

      Delete
    4. Seminary degree...hmm so you were taught to think a certain way by an institution that gave you a piece of paper that says they agree with how you think? I always get a chuckle out of this claim because the teachers of the law were always flustered by the "uneducated" apostles.

      I do not claim to be part of the HRM, but I do believe the Law is eternal, and yes, I keep the feasts and the Sabbath and eat a biblically clean diet. I love you sister, but the teachers in Yeshua's day thought they had it right too.

      Let's look at this one reply to Momofskc and see if it holds up to scripture. I don't have time to break down your entire hit piece on Hebrew Roots, so we'll start small. Acts 10 - you claim the obvious meaning has to do with food. Obviously you have not read Peter's interpretation. Let's start with Acts 10 and read from vs. 34 all the way until Acts 11:18. This vision has nothing to do with food, but rather everything to do with the division between "Jew" and "Gentile." You are pulling meaning out of a passage that is not there and ignoring the obvious context of the entire passage. Very poor argument sister, but we all are learning!!! Peace and love to you!

      Delete
    5. It is always interesting to me, Travis, when a Christian believes that mocking those with whom they disagree is a good way to engage in debate.

      Why did I mention my degree? Because I was mocked as "unqualified." The woman didn't address the subject, she mocked me.

      And you started your comment with mockery as well, comparing me to a Pharisee who degrades others less educated than himself. But who have I degraded? I have stuck to the subject.

      So who is acting like a Pharisee? The one who responds to mockery without mocking the mocker or the one who starts his comment "chuckling" at someone who disagrees with him and comparing them to a Pharisee?

      Delete
    6. If you took it as mockery, I apologize. I meant it as more of a strong criticism and critique on how so many like to hold up their qualifications and then disqualify themselves so quickly. The point was not to call you a Pharisee, but rather point out how they could not understand a different point of view because of their "training." The teachers of the Law rejected and killed our Messiah. I call you sister because I am confident you believe that "for God so loved the world..."

      However, you have embarked on disqualifying an entire group of brothers and sisters who sincerely study as you do...and because they have come to a conclusion you disagree with, you call them "false teachers?" That is quite an accusation! Sister, if you are going to attack fellow believers in Christ and respond to every criticism with such a thin skin, maybe you should just turn comments off.

      You are accusing the HRM of taking things out of context, or inserting their own ideas into the scriptures (eisegesis), yet you are doing exactly that with Acts 10. That was my point. You miss the context of the entire passage, I would assume, because of your preconceived bias. Peter goes on to explain exactly what his vision meant. Yet you insist it is about food. It is disingenuous and lazy to claim otherwise. I encourage to go back and restudy that passage.

      Delete
    7. Anyone would take it as mockery, Travis. You seem to have one set of rules for your comments and another for my devotion. It's okay for you to suggest that only a Pharisee would disagree with you, but when I point out false teaching based on the subject matter without name-calling, I am in violation of Christian conduct.

      Scripture commands us to identify false teachers. But we are not commanded to name-call or degrade people with whom we disagree.

      To believe as you believe, I must believe that God cares so little about His people that He has allowed the vast majority of Bible scholars, missionaries, martyrs, and everyday Christians to live against His principles for hundreds of years. I must accept that either God is unable to communicate with sincere believers or doesn't care how much we violate His principles. And I don't believe either of those things.

      Secondly, to believe as you believe, I must believe that God sometimes says the opposite of what He means even though He knows how the human mind handled information. I must believe that when God tells Peter 3 times in one conversation to eat unclean animals, He actually means don't eat unclean animals. But I don't believe God would say the opposite of what He means. I believe He is saying more in that statement than simply eat unclean animals, but I know He is not saying less. To believe as you believe, you must be taught something not found in the Scripture passage that contradicts the passage. To believe as I believe, you must accept what God says. And this is true of multiple passages, not just Acts 10.

      You can believe that I don't think for myself and simply follow things without checking them out, but all that shows is that you are judging someone without knowing them. I was taught in seminary how to study the context and original languages in order to better understand a truth. I was not taught anything about the HRM movement because it was not prevalent during my seminary training. I studied the HRM teachings by reading the teachings of HRM teachers on HRM websites and YouTube and comparing them with Scripture.

      Furthermore, I don't believe anyone needs a seminary degree to understand that HRM is a false teaching. The only reason I mentioned my degree was because of the mockery of an HRM follower who chose to attack me instead of sharing her views.

      Delete
  2. I have just started researching both sides of this. I am not sure that the argument that I seem to be seeing against keeping the feasts/festivals and Saturday sabbath can truly be justified. Again, I just started research.

    Are we not called to do as Jesus said and did? It is correct that keeping the law is impossible for us wimpy humans, but did Jesus ever say that His fulfillment of the law was to erase all Hebrew observations of God commanded feasts and festivals and a Saturday Sabbath without daily work on which we are to study the Bible and reflect?

    The few blogs of Hebrew roots women I have read through are stating that they are not assuming they are to keep the full law, they know they are saved by grace but are attempting to live as God commanded rather than follow cultures of their earthly region.

    Again, I have just started researching this and have much praying to do about it.

    But I haven’t read that any of these women seeking the Hebrew roots of Christianity think that they can be saved by attempting to observe a more biblically prescribed lifestyle. They know they are saved by grace and cannot accomplish salvation by works or lifestyle alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amanda,
      Yes, not all groups claim law-keeping leads to salvation, but Old Testament law-keeping is still a false teaching.

      Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of those who claim we must obey Old Testament dietary and ceremonial laws is the fact that they don't keep the cleansing laws.

      All of the arguments these groups use to justify dietary laws can be used to justify cleansing laws. Just as touching and eating certain foods in the Old Testament made people unclean, body emissions made people unclean (Leviticus 15). But I'm not aware of any of those groups that require women to separate from fellowship for 7 days after their periods or tells couples they cannot attend church if they've recently had intercourse.

      You either accept that Christ fulfilled these external laws that don't have any moral value in drawing us closer to the Lord, or you accept them all. It's hypocritical to insist some still apply and some don't.

      You must learn HRM doctrine in order to interpret the many passages that directly contradict their teaching. It is indoctrination, not clarification.

      The original Greek manuscripts of Acts 10 clearly tell us that God told Peter to quit calling certain foods unclean. If you believe that God still considers some foods "unclean" you must believe God is a liar, or He purposely tried to confuse us, or He speaks in riddles that mean the opposite of what He says. It’s true that God meant MORE than foods, but He clearly meant food. If He still considered some foods unclean, He wouldn’t have lied to Peter 3 times.
      And you must believe that Bible scholars throughout history have been too unintelligent or insincere to understand these texts accurately. And you must believe that when Christ said things we put in our mouths don't make us unclean (Matthew 15:11), He must not have meant food. So what did He mean?

      You must set aside the clear teachings of Scripture and general logic to accept the complex distortions of those who teach obedience to Old Testament dietary laws.

      If you want to know the truth about Old Testament law-keeping, please read Galatians and write down the clear teachings it contains about Old Testament law-keeping. Then read 1-3 good commentaries not associated with the HRM and see what insights they can add. Then, after doing these things, read the HRM teachings about Galatians 3. And ask yourself if they are conforming Scripture to fit their beliefs or conforming their beliefs to fit Scripture. Ask yourself if anyone would see the texts as they see them without their indoctrination.

      Delete
    2. Amanda,
      Greetings sister! I think you are on the right track! We are to study to show ourselves approved, right? In Acts we find the Bereans diligently searching "scripture" to see if what Paul was teaching was true. And what scriptures did they have? I would encourage you to continue to do what you are doing. Study both sides. Pray continually for wisdom as God grants to those who ask! I stopped listening to "opinions of theologians," and started answering questions with really, the only thing that matters, The Word! God doesn't change. His plan for humanity has not changed. The ENTIRE bible flows from beginning to end. Allow scripture to interpret scripture and I think you will find that it is not quite as muddled of a picture as some would have you believe. May wisdom find you on your search for truth!

      Delete
    3. I like how you put that "Saved by Grace and not by works alone" We've got the verse in our heads as "Saved by Faith and not any works". This is a result of the OSAS stance I'm afraid. I didn't even know about the Hebrew Roots movement when I came to my own conclusions about keeping the Sabbath. All I was doing was reading the Bible; no books of men nor Bible school/seminary teachers influencing my Biblical view. I had decided to throw out everything I'd ever been taught and let the Greek/Hebrew teach me as I found repeatedly with every translation that they either had their own translation bias according to their own belief system or they were afraid to frustrate and alienate people from buying their translation because of literal true translation. I'd decided to look up "Sabbath/s" in the interlinear app that I have (hagios) and that is how I noticed that the truth was hidden. When I realized this, I became suspicious of other words such as "faith" that is literally always translated as "faithfulness" in the OT "except" for Habakkuk 2:4, where some courageous translators are at least putting an * "faithfulness" in the comments at the bottom of the page. This is key, as this could change the meaning entirely in the NT with all the verses with the word "faith". Therefore, "For by Grace are you saved through 'faith/fulness'" could mean God's faithfulness but more likely our faithfulness to the Lord. This is huge. Though I'd agree that there is no way that anyone can be reconciled to God the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ without placing our "faith" in Him, the OT form of "faith/fulness" totally implies that our faith is expected be coupled with faithfulness, and it once we receive the message by faith, we are must continue and complete the race with "faithfulness." It was very unfortunate that the Gentile believers were banished by the Jews who were not believers and maybe some were believers in Jesus as Messiah but were caught up with believing in circumcision. This brought hostility between the two and that is why there has been a great rift between the two. But we need to remember that Jesus and Paul were apart of the sect of the Jewish faith called "The Way" whose practices weren't as rigid as the Pharisees. And Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and Jesus said that our righteousness needed to better than their righteousness (this could be in reference to benevolent deeds, as righteousness is used in this context sometimes). We were to do what the Pharisees said and not what they did. I believe that we honour the Lord when we set aside His special day that He made for us to rest, Sabbath. However, for those who haven't come to that conclusion, remember, we were there at one time too. We must show forbearance and patience. I don't think it's not a matter of salvation, but I believe it is God honouring.

      Delete
    4. And it is clear to me, if you read the end of Ezekiel, that we will all be observing the Lord's special days, and those who don't, won't get any rain. Besides, the more we know the ways and thinkings of the Jews, won't miss some of the phrases that they would clearly understand such as "won't know the day or the hour" in reference to the Lord's return. This is a saying among the Jews to this day in reference to the feast of trumpets as they don't know when they will see the sliver of the new moon. So now we are wanting to be especially watchful for the Lord's coming during that feast "Rosh Hashanah". There is so much significance in all the feasts of the Jews and remember, Jesus was Jewish and He celebrated all of them. Also, the Apostles didn't know anything but Jewish custom until Cornelius in Acts 10 when finally God extended His salvation to the Gentiles without the need for circumcision! They were going regularly to the temple at the normal prayer times. They weren't told to stop worshiping on Sabbaths and instead on Sundays. This idea came years later and not in the typical verses that are used to explain Sunday "first of the sabbaths/week" verses. The boy that fell out of the window more than likely fell out around midnight between Sabbath and Sunday. God bless as you seek Him first and set aside all former indoctrinations and just look at the Greek/Hebrew and Septuagint that was "THE" Bible of the early church/ekklesia.

      Delete
    5. Hi Teresa
      The original Greek and all approved English Translations clearly state the fulfillment of Old Testament dietary, sacrificial, and ceremonial laws. The meanings are not vague or hidden. They don't require a knowledge of the original languages, but the overall opinion of Greek scholars confirms that the New Testament teaches this fulfillment.

      God may tell us something that has multiple meanings, but He doesn't say one thing and mean another. When He tells Peter to eat foods that Jews considered unclean in Acts 10, His command went beyond dietary laws, but it included them.

      When the original Greek in Mark 7:18-19 says Jesus declared all foods clean, it means Jesus declared all foods clean. God is a good communicator.

      But let me commend you for sharing your views with reasons for what you believe instead of attacking those who disagree with you. Many who believe as you believe have done that and in the process they have proven the meaning of Matthew 15:10-11: They have been more interested in what goes into their mouths than what comes out of it.

      Delete
    6. Thank you. I'm still on the fence about dietary laws. But I do know that pork is problematic anyway, because when I was learning about parasitic infections, pork is hundreds of times more infected than beef which is more like 20 worms vs. pork 100's of sightings when testing. This report was just factual and not tainted by bias. I also have a hard time seeing Jesus eating pork without there being a great upset and attacks from the Pharisees and other Jews. We have to remember that it was only 165 years earlier that the Maccabeans were confronted with defiling themselves with the eating of pork and a pig defiling the temple. This would have been very raw in their memories. Also, I read the Matthew 15:20 parallel passage and it doesn't mention this so called declaration, so called because if you look at the interlinear, it most definitely says in Mark, only: "cleansing all foods." It doesn't say "'Jesus declared' all foods clean." Not on Bible Hub anyway, and Bible Hub supports the minority text, I believe. KJV doesn't have "Jesus declares ... clean." Apparently according to Ellicot's commentary on Bible Hub, there are problems with this text not jiving with the participles not matching with verbs in both the majority text and minority text, and that "it is possible conjecture that these words were at first a 'marginal note'"! Yikes! So we are basing all our doctrines on a possible "addition" to "scripture". In Matthew, Jesus is clearly just talking about eating with unwashed hands not be defiling. In Mark, it's clearly marked as what sounds like and probably is "someone's" commentary by the brackets (Jesus declares" ...) in many of the modern translations. That's what I thought when I first read it in a translation, it sounded like a comment. Will we go to hell if we eat unkosher meat, maybe not hell, but we might go to heaven a bit sooner do to a tumor created by pig's tapeworms whose favourite place to hang out is the brain. I wouldn't use this text to support that all meat including unkosher, is now clean. Nor Peter with Cornelius in Acts 10-11. Peter didn't conclude that he could now eat unkosher meat, but instead co-mingle with Gentiles that the Lord declares clean. Further more in Matthew, it doesn't say that the disciples were eating "food" but instead "bread" which, yes, can mean food in general, but is most always used as loaves of bread, further showing that Jesus wasn't talking about the food, but that there was no defilement of the food with unwashed hands, an teaching of the elders not found in the "Torah" "Law of Moses".

      Delete
    7. You Wrote about tapeworms.

      My response: Dietary laws had some benefits physically, especially at the time they were given when men did not have refrigeration. People decide all the time which foods they want to eat for health reasons. That is not the same as following the dietary laws as moral commands. Completely different.

      You wrote: “I also have a hard time seeing Jesus eating pork without there being a great upset and attacks from the Pharisees and other Jews.”

      My response: This is strictly your opinion, Teresa. I have a hard time seeing how a pure and perfect God could save sinful men, but it happened, and it’s not my opinion. It’s Scripture.

      You wrote: “We have to remember that it was only 165 years earlier that the Maccabeans were confronted with defiling themselves with the eating of pork and a pig defiling the temple. This would have been very raw in their memories.”

      My response: The whole point of Christ’s coming is a fulfillment of the laws, Teresa. Jesus did many things which offended the Pharisees who were very careful about keeping dietary and ceremonial laws.

      You wrote: “Also, I read the Matthew 15:20 parallel passage and it doesn't mention this so called declaration, so called because if you look at the interlinear, it most definitely says in Mark, only: "cleansing all foods." It doesn't say "'Jesus declared' all foods clean." Not on Bible Hub anyway, and Bible Hub supports the minority text, I believe. … in many of the modern translations. That's what I thought when I first read it in a translation, it sounded like a comment.”

      My response: On seeing your comment, I consulted the Ellicot’s commentary and found no mention of a “marginal note.” And if Ellicot said this, he has a low view of Scripture and should not be consulted for comments on Scripture. Why? Because these words you call “marginal notes” are found in the original Greek, written by Mark under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and included in the oldest existing manuscripts of Scripture. This is not the same as scribal additions found in some of the later manuscripts of Scripture. So claiming these are not from God is a denial of the holy text, and if you do that with one passage, you can do it with any. You can even claim that Jesus never died for our sins.

      You wrote: “Will we go to hell if we eat unkosher meat, maybe not hell, but we might go to heaven a bit sooner do to a tumor created by pig's tapeworms whose favourite place to hang out is the brain. I wouldn't use this text to support that all meat including unkosher, is now clean.”

      My response: This is a very strange statement.

      “Nor Peter with Cornelius in Acts 10-11. Peter didn't conclude that he could now eat unkosher meat, but instead co-mingle with Gentiles that the Lord declares clean.”

      My response: This is perhaps the greatest sin that HRM people commit against Scripture. To believe as you believe about Acts 10 is to call God at worst a liar and at best a terrible communicator, and He is neither.

      You wrote: “Further more in Matthew, it doesn't say that the disciples were eating "food" but instead "bread" which… the "Torah" "Law of Moses".

      My response: Wow, Teresa, I wish you could realize how your explanations make Scripture sound like a riddle book, filled with words that don’t mean what they say, words that only those in the HRM can understand. And to believe what you believe, you must believe that the majority of Bible scholars, the majority of Christian missionaries and martyrs, and the majority of Jesus-lovers throughout history have not understood what you and a tiny minority claim to understand.

      Your comment is mostly your opinion, Teresa, not based on God’s written words, but based on extra biblical doctrines of the HRM movement, doctrines which contradict Scripture.

      And, I’m also a bit perplexed how you can say that you’ve not yet made up your mind about dietary laws when you have gone to such great effort to defend them.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear K. Littles,
      Thank you for sharing the beliefs of your cult. I hope this will give readers an idea of the strange non-biblical beliefs that have captured the hearts and minds of those who have not studied God's Word.

      Every thing you have recited in your comment is a cultic teaching with no basis in fact. I pray that you will be rescued from this trap of Satan in Jesus name.

      Delete
  4. Isn’t it great Gail, that your readers see how Satan puts stumbling blocks to try to trick and deceive us. You can tell from the mocking, hateful attitudes that they are not of Christ. However, seeing the way you dealt with this is a good lesson for the rest of us. You attempted to redirect their paths using scripture. They have their father to serve, and we have Christ. Shake the dust from your feet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jennifer.
      It makes me sad to see how powerful false teaching can be.

      Delete
  5. I am encouraged to see discussion that does not focus on name calling, shaming or making rude remarks. It is good to identify that we can sit and discuss our views without attacking the person personally for their view. I can also see when the scripture and treating everyone with respect is not is use, and when it is not it is indicative of the accuser of the brethren. Why do people argue vs discuss, they want what they want.
    I have been visiting a Messianic service to help Jewish people, but as a gentile see no need to become a member.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now have you heard on the rabbinical law, for the part of Peter eating with the pagans is a violation of rabbinical law not mosaic law. And I confirmed that with my pastor who is evangelical not HRM. That also includes Matthew 15:10-11 & Mark 7: 18-19. The other thing is that everyone who is against anyone who wants to research the Hebrew roots of the faith love to use the verses on circumcision. Apparently we don't need to do it anymore. But yet how many Christian males are circumcised in north America and Europe. And what I have seen in the faith, if you are not circumcised you almost considered a heathen and a unbeliever.
    But one of the biggest things I struggle with is all of the traditions of Christmas and Easter. It has come to a point wear believers and non believers can celebrate it. And none of the traditions can be traced back to the bible, if anything they have more similarities to pagan traditions including the dates. And when it does the excuse I hear is that we Christianized it. I thought we are not supposed to do what the pagans do. So who gave the it the okay, wasn't Jesus. The other is who gave the order to change the sabbath to Sunday, it wasn't Jesus. We are commanded to keep it holy, but we changed the day of worship. And I don't it was Paul who changed it. Personal who ever changed it is in great error and could be considered a false teacher. My desire and interest into the Hebrew roots does not come from various leaders that you may consider false teachers. It comes from my love of history and seeing the falsehoods through out time and how man changed a lot of things in order to bring more people to the faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Gus,
      I'm not sure if I fully understand all that you are saying in your comment, but let me respond as I understand it:

      We could go into detailed discussion about how rabbinical vs mosaic laws but it doesn’t change the fact that in Matthew 15:10-11 and Mark 7:18-19 Jesus said that diet has nothing to do with making someone clean or unclean. And the Old Testament dietary laws were based on “clean” and “unclean” foods. Add that to the threefold command of God to “Eat” in Acts 10 and no longer call foods “unclean,” and it becomes clear that we are no longer under dietary laws.

      I haven’t addressed circumcision in this article, so I’m also not sure the intent of your comment about it. I’ve been a Christian for 45 years, and I’ve never once heard a Christian associate lack of circumcision with paganism. I’ve heard people talk about preferring it for health reasons, but not for spiritual reasons.

      Christmas and Easter are a completely different discussion, and I recommend you read my post “Christmas Confusion” (https://biblelovenotes.blogspot.com/2019/12/christmas-confusion.html) to discuss that issue.

      The Sabbath commandment is the only one of the Ten Commandments not re-stated in the New Testament. That’s because Hebrews 4:9-11 says when we come to Christ, we enter a permanent Sabbath. Everyday is our Sabbath. And the New Testament clearly tells us that the day of the Sabbath isn’t important and we shouldn’t judge anyone about the day they celebrate: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Colossians 2:16.

      And Romans 14 tells us not to judge anyone by the day they celebrate: “One person regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (verse 5).

      I love history as well, and one of the things we understand as Christians is that Christ brought the greatest change in human history when He paid the price for our sins. He fulfilled the Old Testament laws and brought us into the New Covenant.

      Delete
    2. Well said Gus. I have come to a similar conclusion just by reading the Bible/Greek/Hebrew WITHOUT commentary from Biblical scholars.

      Delete
  7. Please pray for me, as I am just coming out of the Hebrew Roots movement

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Unknown,
      I don't know your name, but the Lord knows your name, and I am lifting you up to Him right now and asking that you will feel complete deliverance from these false teachings. I know that many in the HRM are sincere, but they are sincerely deceived. I pray that you will find a solid Bible-believing church with some kind Christians who can help you get rid of the misunderstandings you've been taught. In Jesus precious name. Amen!

      Delete
    2. Yes, I join with Gail in praying for you and say Amen to all she has written.

      Delete
  8. Yes, I join with Gail in praying for you and say Amen to all she has written

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
    New King James Version
    16 (A)All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, (B)and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness, 17 (C)that the man of God may be complete, (D)thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Sis, the WORD IS GOD. ARE YOU CALLING GOD A LIAR? ARE YOUR DEGREES SUPREME ABOVE GOD? ARE YOUR THOUGHTS HIGHER? We must be mindful, humble ourselves before GOD who is was and forever will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, if you believe you must obey Old Testament dietary laws, you are calling God a liar.

      I will capitalize words not to be rude as you did, but because there is no way to bold them in a comment.

      Acts 10:
      About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became HUNGRY AND WANTED SOMETHING TO EAT, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and EAT.”

      “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I HAVE NEVER EATEN ANYTHING IMPURE OR UNCLEAN”

      15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “DO NOT CALL ANYTHING IMPURE THAT GOD HAS MADE CLEAN.”

      16 This happened THREE times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

      But those who claim we must follow dietary laws say God didn't mean "EAT" even though He repeated it 3 times and even though the whole context is about EATING. Did this mean more than eating formerly unclear foods? YES. But it did not mean less. If God wanted us to continue to follow dietary laws, he would not have used food as an example to show Peter he should quit calling Gentiles unclean. He could have used any number of other examples. So if you claim God said one thing and meant another you are saying that He is a liar or a very, very poor communicator who knows His words will confuse millions of people but doesn’t care.

      In addition, in the original Greek Mark 7:18-19 says, "“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, JESUS DECLARED ALL FOODS CLEAN.)"

      The part in parenthesis is in the original Greek manuscripts, not something added by man.

      So if you believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then you know that this verse is also profitable to correct your unbiblical view of Old Testament dietary laws.

      I am always amazed how the HRM cites Scriptures claiming none of the Old Testament laws have been fulfilled. But they don't obey all Old Testament laws themselves. Dietary laws were about being "clean" before God. Cleansing laws were about being clean before God. If you are going to follow dietary laws, why don’t you follow cleansing laws? This would mean separating yourself from others after certain body emissions and being declared unclean if you touch certain things, even by accident, and all sorts of other rituals. If you believe dietary laws are still in effect, why do you not follow these other laws?

      If you genuinely have respect for God, then you will not exalt HRM teachings above these New Testament passages which explain the fulfillment of dietary laws.

      Delete
    2. I want to add this as well: I explained my degree because a previous commenter told me I was not qualified to explain God's Word. Since then, several HRM people have rudely acted as if I flaunted my degree as the reason I am teaching on this subject. And I have explained that you don't need a degree to see the error of HRM teachings.

      So I ask this question considering the repeated proud, accusatory remarks you and other HRM people have made: Do your words and attitudes matter or only your diet?

      I agree with you that "We must be mindful, humble ourselves before GOD who is was and forever will be." But I have detected very little humility in your comment or other HRM comments.

      Delete