Thoughts on the Hebrew Roots Movement

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13).

-Christ's covenant solves the problems that Moses' could not. Both covenants come from God's Grace and requires man's willed response. However, Moses' covenant (1) is external to man and can't solve the root of man's problems, sin and death; (2) can't reunite and reintegrate man's soul; (3) is learned by teaching; (4) is heeded with fearful compliance; and (5) gives imperfect forgiveness. Christ's covenant (1) is internal and heals our nature; (2) unifies the inner man - heart and mind are joined in union with God; (3) is therefore grasped intuitively; (4) is heeded with willing cooperation (synergy); and (5) gives perfect forgiveness, even of those sins the old covenant was powerless to deal with (Orthodox Study Bible pg. 1662)-

I believe that Hebrew Roots Movement (I'll be abbreviating it as HRM) is a very strong delusion. Most people that I find to be drawn to it are not much different than those who are drawn to Pentecostalism. They are searching so not to be lukewarm which is definitely commendable. They’re searching for "real Christianity" in a world where Christianity appears to have completely fallen away (which I can always commend and basically agree with partially). So when people are indoctrinated by rhetoric and teachings that draw people in by painting all Christianity as "false" and then presenting their doctrine and practices as what is actually pleasing to God I find it sad because most never and don’t realize their error. Lots of them believe they have figured it all out and everyone else are naive idiots. I find it also hilarious when some Hebrew Roots believers call Christians pagan all the while following crap like the Talmud, Cabala, the Zohar, and Babylonian mysticism (which I’m not accusing you of either). I’ve found often times when they bring up paganism that Messianics will often use a source and that if I go carefully enough sourcing I will almost always eventually find that it is the “scholar” Alexander Hyslop that they have as proof for all their claims about holidays being evil and pagan which is quite funny to be honest because Alexander Hyslop has been disproven countless times over and over again by secular and Christian scholars both Western and Eastern and in all shades of Christian thought. No one takes him serious except cult members (which I’m not claiming you are; this refers to other groups as well not just HRM) who try and use him to justify their claims.

I find that history is not on the HRM’s side either. Most of HRM reject infant baptism but truthfully, I’ve found it is relatively easy to present information about infant baptism in the early Church to those that reject the practice. However, if they refuse to admit that the entire families that were baptized together in the Scriptures might have had children & infants, then well, what can I say? It’s a denial of the obviousness that scripture is sharing and history has shown to be accurate about what the Early Christians believed. 

In ancient Judaism, male infants were circumcised at 8 days old & thus made members of God's people Israel. Baptism in the NT was the equivalent to the OT circumcision & was the Christian's entry/initiation into God's people. If the Jews made their children part of the faith why the heck would the Christian families reject this? In other words if the Jews had NO issues about circumcising an 8-day old infant, thus making him part of God's people before Christ's Incarnation, then why would Christians have had an issue with baptizing an infant and making him a part of God's people afterwards? A further ramification to me of the false theology that rejects infant baptism and insists on the person's capacity of mental awareness and accountability for salvation is that mentally incapacitated people cannot become a part of God's people; Thus, this implies that mentally incapacitated people cannot be saved which I would disagree with and ask what kind of God would do that.

For just brief history though it is interesting that in 100 AD, the Apostle John died and in 155 AD Polycarp (John's apostle) died. Polycarp was born in 69 AD right before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and was known to be historically a disciple of Apostle John himself (and an associate of the Apostle Philip). He said this at his execution:

Polycarp: "86 years I've served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" 

This means and has always been noted that the saint is claiming to have served Jesus for 86 years, therefore following that he was baptized as an infant. Another place, we are told that Polycarp was baptized by none other than the Apostle John which means he was baptized in 69 AD or very shortly after 69 AD. Case in point, with St. John and Polycarp, we can prove conclusively baptized infants. Ten years later after Polycarp we have Justin Martyr who was quoted to have said this. 

Justin Martyr: "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of 60 or 70 years." (A.D. 110-165)

Thus, infant baptism is biblical and has been historically proven to be true. So why do some continue to deny history and the infants the Christ?

Furthermore I have never been able to figure out why it is that if the Hebrew roots movement follows the first and second institution of the Law why they keep breaking their rules. For example, if they were, they should be stoning gays, eating kosher, and wearing kosher items and it should not matter what the government says because they follow God’s Law not man’s correct? This is why the New Covenant is great to be in to me bro. The old is not done but it has been rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).