The Hebrew Roots Movement is a modern Christian movement that encourages believers—usually Gentile Christians—to return to what it sees as the “Hebrew” foundations of the faith. It’s not Judaism, and it’s not Messianic Judaism, though it overlaps with both in certain practices. Think of it as Christians trying to reclaim the Jewish context of Jesus, the apostles, and the early church.

What IS the Hebrew Roots Movement?

1. What the movement teaches

Most Hebrew Roots groups emphasize:

• A. Observing parts of the Mosaic Law

• Many encourage believers to keep:

  • The Sabbath on Saturday

  • Old Testament festivals (Passover, Sukkot, etc.)

  • Kosher-style eating

  • Certain Torah commands (varies by group)

• They believe these practices reveal deeper understanding of Scripture and were never meant to be abandoned by followers of Jesus.

B. Emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus

You’ll often hear:

• Using Hebrew names like Yeshua (Jesus) and Yahweh

• Studying Scripture in a Jewish cultural and historical framework

• Learning Hebrew words and idioms to illuminate biblical meaning

C. Rejection of later church traditions

Most Hebrew Roots believers argue that:

• The early church remained Torah-observant

• Greek and Roman influences “distorted” Christianity

• Christians should recover the original practices of the apostles

2. What the movement does not typically teach

Despite rumors, most Hebrew Roots groups do not claim:

• Salvation comes by keeping the Law

• Gentiles must convert to Judaism

• Christians should reject Jesus’ divinity

But a fringe minority drifts into legalism or even denies the Trinity—this is where the movement can become controversial.

3. How it’s different from Messianic Judaism

A helpful distinction:

Messianic Judaism

• Led largely by ethnic Jews

• Aims to preserve Jewish identity while believing in Jesus

• Recognized worship style and communal structure

Hebrew Roots

• Mostly Gentile Christians

• Focused on returning to Torah practices

• Less formal, more decentralized in doctrine

4. Why people are drawn to it

Many Christians enter Hebrew Roots because they are:

• Hungry to understand Scripture in its original context

• Frustrated with shallow church teaching

• Looking for greater connection between Old and New Testaments

• Intrigued by Jewish customs that Jesus Himself practiced

There’s something powerful about reconnecting with the roots of the faith. But like any growing movement, discernment is needed.

5. Common critiques

Pastors and theologians—across denominations—raise concerns such as:

• Blurring the line between Old Covenant and New Covenant

• Cherry-picking which Torah laws to follow

• Potential for legalism or spiritual pride

• Confusion about Christian identity and grace

At its healthiest, the movement brings deeper appreciation of Scripture. At its worst, it can slide into promoting Torah observance as necessary for God’s favor.

Historical Roots of the Hebrew Roots Movement

One thing to understand from the outset: This is not an ancient movement.
It draws from ancient practices, but it’s largely a 20th-century phenomenon.

Let’s trace the path.

A. The 1800s: Roots in the “Restorationist” mindset

Several Protestant movements in the 1800s began focusing on:

• Returning to the “original church”

• Literal readings of Scripture

• End-times prophecy connected to Israel

• Renewed interest in the Jewish people returning to their land

Groups like:

• The Church of God (Seventh Day)

• Seventh-day Adventists

• Sacred Name Movement

… began reintroducing:

• Saturday Sabbath

• Festivals

• Hebrew names for God

These weren’t Hebrew Roots yet, but they formed the soil.

B. Early–Mid 1900s: The Sacred Name Movement

This movement pushed for:

• Using Yahweh, Yahshua, etc.

• Rejecting “Greek” Christian terminology

• Some Torah observance

This is one of the earliest direct ancestors of Hebrew Roots.

C. 1967–1980s: Jerusalem and Jewish-Christian fascination

After the Six-Day War (1967), Christian interest in Israel skyrocketed. This led to:

• Growth of Messianic Judaism

• Christians studying Jesus in His Jewish context

• New books, seminars, scholarship on Jewish backgrounds

Many Gentiles began adopting festivals and practices informally.

D. 1990s–2000s: Hebrew Roots becomes a defined movement

This is when the name Hebrew Roots Movement appears more clearly.

Influential groups and teachers:

• Torah-observant fellowships

• 4th-century critique teachers (arguing the church “corrupted” early Christianity)

• Internet-based Torah groups

• Ministries encouraging believers to “return to Torah”

This era brought:

• Annual Torah-reading programs (parashot)

• Hebrew word studies

• Passover seders in churches

• Gentiles observing Old Testament laws voluntarily

By the early 2000s, Hebrew Roots was a widespread, decentralized movement, mostly online and home-based.

2. Key Verses the Hebrew Roots Movement Emphasizes

These are the pillars the movement often stands on. The context around these verses matters, but here’s why the movement highlights them.

A. Matthew 5:17–19 — “I did not come to abolish the Law”

Why it’s central:
HRM teaches that Jesus affirmed the ongoing validity of the Torah for all believers.

• “Not the smallest letter… will disappear.”

• “Whoever keeps these commands will be called great in the kingdom.”

They take this as Jesus saying the Law remains binding.

B. Psalm 119 — “Oh how I love your law”

The movement uses this chapter as a vision of how believers should love Torah.

C. Acts 21 & Acts 15 — Early believers and Torah

Acts 21:20

“Thousands… are zealous for the Law.”

Acts 15:19–21

Gentiles weren’t required to keep the full Law, but the HRM emphasizes verse 21:

“Moses has been preached… every Sabbath.”

They argue that Gentiles were expected to learn Torah gradually.

D. Jeremiah 31:31–34 — New Covenant written on the heart

HRM interprets “write my law on their hearts” as God reinforcing Torah obedience under the New Covenant.

E. Romans 3:31 — “Do we nullify the Law? Not at all!”

Used to show that Paul upheld the Torah.

F. 1 John 2:3–6 — “Walk as Jesus walked.”

Since Jesus kept Torah, they argue His followers should as well.

G. Revelation 12:17 & 14:12 — End-time saints keep God’s commandments

Saints “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”

This is often used as proof that the “remnant church” in the last days will return to Torah.

H. Ezekiel 36:26–27 — Spirit empowers obedience to statutes

Used to argue the Holy Spirit enables believers to keep the Torah, not abandon it.

3. Why these verses appeal to people

There’s an honest desire behind it:

• A longing for concrete obedience

• A hunger to understand Scripture in its ancient context

• Frustration with shallow or inconsistent church teaching

• A sense that modern Christianity drifted from its roots

Movements grow where there is spiritual hunger.

COMPARISON between the Hebrew Roots Movement and mainstream Christianity

When you look at the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) and mainstream Christianity side by side, the tension usually comes down to how the Old Covenant relates to the New. Both sides use Scripture—just differently. Let's look at the key verses mainstream Christianity uses to give balance, and then the places where Hebrew Roots tends to stretch a passage beyond what it can honestly handle.

1. Key Bible Verses Mainstream Christianity Uses to Balance or Challenge Hebrew Roots Interpretations

These passages focus on:

• The New Covenant replacing the Mosaic Covenant

• The Law’s purpose being fulfilled in Christ

• Freedom from ceremonial and civil laws of Israel

Let’s take them category by category.

A. The Law Was a Temporary Custodian Leading to Christ

Galatians 3:23–25

The Law was our guardian until Christ came…
Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Mainstream view:
The Torah had a holy purpose, but it was preparatory—a tutor pointing to Jesus. Once the Messiah came, this guardian role ended.

B. The Law as a Whole Has Been Fulfilled in Christ

Romans 10:4

Christ is the end (goal, fulfillment) of the Law for righteousness.

“End” (Greek telos) means:

• Fulfillment

• Completion of purpose

• Transition point

Mainstream view:
Christ completes the Law’s mission. It doesn’t mean morality disappears, but the covenant system changes.

C. The Mosaic Covenant Is Obsolete Under the New Covenant

Hebrews 8:13

By calling this covenant “new,” He has made the first one obsolete.

“Obsolete” here doesn’t mean “bad.” It means:

• No longer the governing covenant

• Replaced by something better

This is probably the strongest New Testament contrast to HRM teachings.

D. Gentiles Are Not Required to Keep Torah

Acts 15:28–29

The Jerusalem Council deliberately did not place Torah obligations on Gentile believers—only minimal requirements aimed at table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles.

Mainstream view: The early church confronted this exact debate and concluded: Gentiles are not under Torah.

E. Dietary Laws Declared Clean

Mark 7:18–19

Thus He declared all foods clean.

Acts 10:9–16

Peter’s vision reinforces that dietary restrictions are lifted.

Even if the vision’s ultimate meaning is about Gentiles, Peter explicitly applies it to food too in Acts 11.

F. Sabbath and Festivals Not Required

Colossians 2:16–17

Do not let anyone judge you regarding Sabbath days, festivals, or new moons.
These are a shadow… the substance is Christ.

This is a direct counter to a central HRM teaching.

G. Believers Fulfill the Law Through the Spirit, Not Torah Observance

Romans 8:3–4

What the Law could not do… God did by sending His Son…
…so that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk by the Spirit.

Mainstream view:
The Law’s goal is fulfilled by the Spirit, not the Torah code.

H. One New Man, Not Jews and Torah-Keeping Gentiles

Ephesians 2:14–16

He abolished the law of commandments in ordinances…
to make in Himself one new humanity out of Jews and Gentiles.

Mainstream view:
The dividing laws separating Jews and Gentiles are removed in Christ.

2. Where the Hebrew Roots Movement Stretches the Text

Now, let’s deal honestly and fairly with where HRM tends to overreach. These are not accusations—instead, an attempt at just careful observations.

A. Matthew 5:17–19 (“Not one jot or tittle”)

HRM position:
Jesus says the whole Torah remains binding until heaven and earth pass away.

Stretch point:
Jesus is not talking about the eternal permanence of the Mosaic Covenant.
He’s saying:

• He fulfills the Law

• Nothing in the Law will fail until it has been fulfilled

And nearly every other New Testament author (all inspired by the same Holy Spirit) interprets Jesus’ fulfillment as the turning point.

Balanced reading:
The Law stands until Jesus completes it, not forever unchanged.

B. Acts 15 (“Moses is preached every Sabbath”)

HRM emphasizes verse 21 to claim Gentiles would gradually learn Torah.

Stretch point:
The context of Acts 15 is precisely the opposite:
The apostles refuse to impose Torah on Gentile believers.

Verse 21 is explaining why the apostles had to clarify this, because synagogues everywhere were teaching Torah and confusing Gentile converts.

C. Revelation 12:17 & 14:12 (“keep the commandments of God”)

HRM interprets “commandments” as the Mosaic Law.

Stretch point:
In John’s writings, “commandments” almost always means:

• Believe in Jesus

• Love one another
  (1 John 3:23)

Context matters.

D. Jeremiah 31 (“I will write My law on their hearts”)

HRM says this means Torah is permanently binding.

Stretch point:
Jeremiah’s point is that the New Covenant’s law will be internal—not that the Mosaic system continues unchanged. Even Hebrews quotes this to argue the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete.

E. Paul’s example (Acts 21, Acts 18)

HRM says Paul kept Torah and therefore Christians must.

Stretch point:
Paul himself clarifies:

• He lived “as under the Law” to win Jews (1 Cor. 9:20)
  not because he was under the Law

• He called himself “not under the Law” (1 Cor. 9:21)

• He rebuked people for Torah observance being required (Galatians)

Paul’s Torah-keeping was contextual, not covenantal.

F. Using Ancient Israel as a Model for Modern Gentile Believers

Many HRM teachings assume Gentiles should behave like ancient Israelites.

Stretch point:
The Torah was:

• A national covenant

• With Israel alone

• Given at Sinai

• Not given to Gentiles (Deut. 4:8; Psalm 147:19–20)

The New Testament affirms this repeatedly.

3. A Balanced, Grounded Perspective

Here’s the healthiest conclusion:

• The Torah is holy, good, and precious.

• Studying the Jewish context of Scripture enriches faith.

• Celebrating feasts or keeping Sabbath is beautiful and optional, not obligatory.

• The danger comes when Torah observance becomes a mark of righteousness, or when the Mosaic Covenant is seen as still binding on Gentile Christians.

The New Testament consistently teaches:

• Jesus fulfilled the Law

• Christians live under a new covenant

• The Spirit—not the Sinai code—is the guiding principle for life in Christ

Looking at this through the lens of Biblical Exegesis

Paul’s arguments aren’t superficial—they’re covenantal, ecclesiological, and eschatological. When you look closely, Paul’s anti-Judaizer polemic doesn’t merely push back against salvation-by-works; it dismantles the very theological framework that the Hebrew Roots Movement attempts to resurrect.

Here’s the educated, text-driven explanation that aligns with responsible scholarship

1. Paul’s Controversy With the Judaizers Was Not Just About “Legalism.” (It Was About Covenantal Location.)

The heart of Paul’s argument is not, “Don’t be legalistic.”
It is:
“You cannot place Gentiles under the Sinai covenant without destroying the gospel.”

This is crucial because the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) typically argues:

Believers in Christ—Jew or Gentile—should return to Torah practice because it remains the divine standard.

Paul argues the opposite:

Galatians 4:21–31 – Torah obedience places you in the wrong mother.

Paul allegorizes Sinai as:

• Hagar

• Slavery

• Earthly Jerusalem

While the new covenant corresponds to:

• Sarah

• Freedom

• The Jerusalem above

Paul’s point is covenantal identity:
You cannot voluntarily locate yourself under Sinai without relocating yourself into the slavery that covenant signifies.

This is fundamentally incompatible with Hebrew Roots theology.

2. Paul Treats Torah as a Time-Bound Administration, Not an Eternal Mandate

The Hebrew Roots Movement tends to argue:

Torah is eternal and unchanged; Jesus merely “clarifies” it.

Paul argues:

• The Torah was a temporary custodian (Gal. 3:19, 23–25)

• Added “until the Seed came” (v. 19)

• And now “no longer” in effect for believers (v. 25)

This is covenant theology straight from the apostle himself (under, of course, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), not later theologians.

Paul does not treat Torah as:

• An eternal moral ideal

• A cultural preference

• A deeper spiritual layer for mature believers

He treats it as a completed administration in salvation history.

3. Paul Insists That Mosaic Torah as a Covenant Has No Authority Over Gentiles

This is not inferred; he states it explicitly.

Acts 15:10 (Peter, but Paul concurs)

Why place on the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers could bear?

Galatians 2:14

Paul confronts Peter because his behavior was effectively compelling Gentiles to Judaize.
Paul’s basic premise:
Asking Gentiles to adopt Torah markers is a denial of the gospel’s implications.

Ephesians 2:14–15

He has abolished the law of commandments in ordinances…

This is not just about soteriology; it’s ecclesiology.
Torah functioned as a boundary marker separating Jew and Gentile.
Paul says:

• The dividing ordinances have been abolished

• Their abolition creates “one new man”

Hebrew Roots reverses this trajectory by reintroducing Torah as a cultural and covenant marker.

4. Paul Argues That Torah Observance After Christ Can Be a Regression in Salvation History

Galatians 4:9–11

How can you turn back to the weak and bankrupt elemental principles…
You observe days and months and seasons and years…

For Paul:

• Returning to Torah calendars is not spiritual progress

• It is regression into pre-Messianic categories

He views Torah observance for Gentiles not as “recovering ancient truth,” but as returning to childish elements.

This directly contradicts HRM teaching that such observance is spiritual maturity.

5. Paul Allows Jewish Christians to Keep Torah as Identity Markers—

But Explicitly Forbids It as a Requirement for Gentiles

This distinction is vital and often misunderstood.

1 Corinthians 9:19–23

Paul can:

• Live as a Jew among Jews

• Live as one “without the Law” among Gentiles

Because:

“I myself am not under the Law” (v. 20)

He participates in Torah observance only as mission strategy—not covenant obligation.

HRM collapses this distinction.
Paul maintains it as gospel necessity.

6. Paul Identifies Torah-keeping as Optional at Best, Spiritually Dangerous at Worst

When done voluntarily as cultural expression (Rom. 14), it is neutral.

When done as a covenantal or spiritual obligation, it is dangerous.

Galatians 5:2–4

If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you…
You are severed from Christ, you who seek to be justified by the Law.

The issue isn’t circumcision—it’s covenant allegiance.
Placing oneself under the Sinai covenant is incompatible with life in Christ.

HRM frequently treats Torah observance as spiritually enriching or even ideal for all believers; Paul treats covenantal Torah observance as spiritually suicidal.

7. Paul’s Apex Argument: Torah Cannot Coexist With the New Covenant as Co-Equal Systems

2 Corinthians 3:7–11

Paul calls the Mosaic covenant:

• “The ministry of death”

• “The ministry of condemnation”

• “Being brought to an end (katargoumenon)”

And says the glory of the new covenant has:

• Surpassed the Mosaic covenant

• Rendered it inactive (katargeō)

This is Paul’s most direct theological counter to HRM logic:

The Mosaic covenant is not active alongside the new covenant.
It has been eclipsed and superseded by the Spirit’s ministry.

8. Summary: Paul’s Anti-Judaizer Theology Directly Counters Hebrew Roots

Here’s the concise framing:

Paul’s position:

• The Law was temporary

• It served Israel until Christ

• Gentiles are not under it

• The Law as covenant is obsolete

• Returning to it is a backward movement in redemptive history

• Torah observance is permissible as ethnicity but forbidden as covenant identity

Hebrew Roots position:

• The Law remains binding or ideal

• Torah practice restores original Christianity

• The Law applies equally to Jew and Gentile today

• Torah observance is spiritually elevating

• Jesus’ followers are expected to return to Mosaic patterns

These systems are fundamentally incompatible.

Exegetical Comparison between Galatians and HRM Claims

Below is an attempt at a strictly exegetical, text-driven comparison between Paul’s argument in Galatians and the core claims of the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM).
- No theology imported.
- No denominational assumptions.
- Just the text of Scripture, Greek when needed, and the claims evaluated by the argument of the letter itself.

Let's walk through the major themes of Galatians and set them against the central teachings of HRM.

I. Galatians 1:6–9 — Paul’s Definition of a “Different Gospel”

Text

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting… and turning to a different gospel… if anyone preaches a gospel contrary to the one we preached, let him be accursed.”

Exegetical Observations

• Paul considers the gospel corrupted when Gentile believers are taught they must adopt Jewish covenantal practices.

• His opponents are altering “the gospel” by adding covenantal Torah obligations.

HRM Claim

Torah observance (Sabbath, festivals, food laws, Hebrew names) is the original and intended form of Christian discipleship for all believers.

Exegetical Conflict

Any system that adds Mosaic observances as covenant expectation falls into the category Paul calls “another gospel.” This is not a matter of personal practice but covenant identity.

HRM’s core identity claim is incompatible with Paul’s boundary of the gospel.

II. Galatians 2:3–5 — Titus as a Test Case

Text

Titus, a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised… Paul says he resisted those who demanded it “so that the truth of the gospel might remain.”

Exegesis

• Circumcision = covenantal Torah obligation (Gen. 17; Exod. 12).

• For Paul, compelling Gentiles to adopt any covenantal Torah marker threatens the gospel.

• “Compel” (anagkazō) = pressure to adopt Jewish covenant identity.

HRM Claim

Gentile believers should recover Sabbath, festivals, and other Torah observances as obedience to God.

Exegetical Conflict

Paul intentionally prevents Titus from taking on Torah covenant signs as a gospel-protecting act.

If Paul saw Torah observance as an ideal for Gentiles, Titus would have been exhibit A for it.
Instead, Paul makes him exhibit A against it.

III. Galatians 2:11–14 — Paul Confronts Peter

Text

Peter’s withdrawal from Gentile table fellowship is called:

• “Hypocrisy”

• “Not in step with the truth of the gospel”

• “Compelling Gentiles to Judaize” (Ioudaizein)

Exegesis

• Judaizing means adopting Jewish covenantal customs (food laws, purity boundaries).

• Paul says even voluntary withdrawal sends the message that Torah norms are required.

HRM Claim

Gentiles should embrace Torah observance because it is how Jesus lived and is God’s unchanging standard.

Exegetical Conflict

Paul treats the imposition of Torah norms on Gentiles as deviating from the gospel.
Even Peter’s behavioral pressure (not explicit teaching) distorted gospel truth.

If Paul condemns Torah pressure as gospel distortion, HRM’s Torah advocacy is exegetically impossible to reconcile with Galatians.

IV. Galatians 3:10–14 — The Curse of the Law

Text

“All who rely on works of the Law (ἔργα νόμου) are under a curse.”
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law.”

Exegesis

• “Works of the Law” = covenantal Torah observances (Dead Sea Scrolls confirm this: ma‘ase ha-torah = boundary markers such as circumcision, purity laws, calendar rules).

• The Law brings curse when used as a covenant identity system.

• Christ redeems from the Law’s curse by becoming the curse-bearer.

HRM Claim

Observing Torah is the highest form of obedience and brings believers closer to God.

Exegetical Conflict

Paul identifies pursuit of Torah covenantally as a path to curse, not blessing.
Not because Torah is evil, but because its function in redemptive history is not covenant identity for Gentiles.

V. Galatians 3:19 — The Law Was Added “Until the Seed Came”

Text

“The Law was added until (ἄχρις) the Seed should come.”

Exegesis

• “Until” is temporal and covenantal.

• The Law has a terminus point in salvation history.

• The Law’s purpose ends in Christ.

HRM Claim

The Torah remains binding for all believers forever; Jesus only clarified it.

Exegetical Conflict

Paul sees the Torah’s jurisdiction as time-bound, ending its covenant role at Christ’s arrival.
HRM maintains Torah’s unchanged binding authority—Paul denies that explicitly.

VI. Galatians 3:23–25 — The Law as a Pedagogue

Text

“We were held captive under the Law…
the Law was our pedagogue until Christ…
now that faith has come, we are no longer under the pedagogue.”

Exegesis

• “Pedagogue” = a custodian/slave-guardian for minors.

• The metaphor demands:

  • temporality

  • transition

  • discontinuity after maturity arrives

• “No longer under” is decisive (οὐκέτι ὑπὸ).

HRM Claim

The Torah is the ongoing rule of life for believers in Christ.

Exegetical Conflict

Paul says the Torah’s custodial role has ended.
HRM reinstates the pedagogue as ongoing authority—precisely what Paul rejects.

VII. Galatians 4:1–11 — Returning to the Law Is Regression

Text

“How can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements…
observing days and months and seasons and years?” (4:9–10)

Exegesis

• “Days, months, seasons, years” = Torah calendar (Sabbath, festivals, new moons).

• Paul calls returning to Torah calendrical observance “bondage” and “elemental” regression.

HRM Claim

Observing the biblical feasts and Sabbaths is spiritual growth and maturity.

Exegetical Conflict

Paul describes the same observances HRM promotes as a return to spiritual childhood and bondage, not maturity.

VIII. Galatians 5:1–6 — Taking on Torah as Covenant Obligation Cuts One Off From Christ

Text

“If you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.”
“You are severed from Christ, you who seek to be justified by Law.”
“You have fallen from grace.”

Exegesis

• Circumcision = entry into the entire Torah covenant (v. 3).

• Taking on Torah obligation means Christ becomes useless for covenant standing.

• No shared jurisdiction: Torah-covenant and Christ-covenant are mutually exclusive systems.

HRM Claim

Torah observance enhances your discipleship and deepens your walk with Jesus.

Exegetical Conflict

Paul says the moment Torah becomes covenantal obligation, Christ “profits nothing.”
He sees Torah-covenant observance as moving away from Christ’s authority system, not deeper into it.

IX. Galatians 6:12–15 — Torah Observance Is a “Boasting in the Flesh” Identity Marker

Text

“They want to compel you to be circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.”
“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but a new creation.”

Exegesis

• Torah observance as covenant identity = “boasting in flesh.”

• What counts is new creation, not covenantal Torah.

HRM Claim

Torah observance is the true identity of God’s people.

Exegetical Conflict

Paul says the true identity marker is new creation, not Torah markers.

CONCLUSION (Exegetical Only)

Based purely on exegesis of Galatians:

Paul’s Argument

• Mosaic Law was temporary and ended in Christ’s arrival.

• Torah covenant identity cannot be reimposed on Gentiles.

• Torah observance as covenant obligation undermines the gospel.

• Returning to Torah calendar, circumcision, and boundary markers is regression.

• Christ and Torah as covenantal systems cannot coexist.

• The Spirit, not Torah, defines the new covenant community.

Hebrew Roots Movement Position

• Torah remains binding on all believers.

• Sabbath, festivals, dietary laws, and Hebrew names are essential or ideal.

• Jesus-followers should reestablish Torah observance to recover original Christianity.

Exegetical Outcome

Paul explicitly dismantles every foundational structure of Hebrew Roots theology.
Where HRM sees Torah as the ongoing covenantal framework,
Paul sees it as the former covenant, fulfilled and ended in Christ’s coming.

There is no exegetical way to harmonize HRM covenant claims with the letter to the Galatians.

Comparison of Romans and 2 Corinthians 3 with HRM Claims

Below is an attempt at a scholarly comparison of Romans and 2 Corinthians 3 against the core theological claims of the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM), using pure exegesis of Paul’s argument structure, Greek terminology, and covenant logic.

This is not a re-hash of what was written from Galatians above; instead, it will show how ALL of Paul’s major letters converge to the same point: the Mosaic Law as a covenant administration has ended with Christ, and Gentile believers are not brought under Torah.

I. ROMANS vs. HEBREW ROOTS MOVEMENT

Romans is Paul’s longest, most carefully structured theological exposition.
Its treatment of the Law is expansive, nuanced, and decisive.

We’ll break it into the key sections.

1. Romans 2:12–16 — Torah and Judgment

Text

Paul says:

• Gentiles without the Law will be judged apart from the Law (v. 12).

• Jews under the Law will be judged by the Law.

• Gentiles sometimes “do the things of the Law” without having the Law (v. 14–15).

Exegetical Insight

Paul assumes:

• Two groups with two different covenant jurisdictions.

• Torah is not universal; it is Israel’s covenant charter.

• Gentiles can obey God’s moral will without Torah.

Conflict with HRM

HRM argues that Torah applies equally to Jews and Gentiles now.
Paul argues Jew/Gentile covenant distinction remains intact, but Gentiles obey God apart from Torah.

2. Romans 3:19–20 — The Law Condemns All, Justifies None

Text

“Whatever the Law says, it speaks to those under the Law…
By works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Exegetical Insight

• “Under the Law” refers specifically to Israel.

• The Law’s function is to bring knowledge of sin, not covenant identity, not justification, and not sanctification.

HRM Conflict

HRM often sees Torah as:

• Identity

• Life-pattern

• Spiritual advantage

• Pathway to deeper obedience

Paul sees Torah’s function differently:
The Law condemns, exposes sin, and cannot justify.

3. Romans 3:21–22 — “Apart From the Law” Righteousness

Text

“Now apart from the Law (χωρὶς νόμου) the righteousness of God has been manifested…”

Exegesis

• χωρὶς = “completely separate from.”

• Paul says righteousness comes not through Torah, not even Torah + Christ, but apart from Torah.

HRM Conflict

HRM insists Torah is the revealed standard believers return to.
Paul says the revelation of God’s saving righteousness happens outside the Torah system.

4. Romans 6–7 — The Believer’s Relation to the Law

Here’s where Paul gives his most direct covenantal statements.

Romans 6:14

“You are not under Law but under grace.”

Romans 7:4

“You have died to the Law through the body of Christ.”

Romans 7:6

“But now we have been released (κατηργήθημεν) from the Law.”

Exegetical Terminology

• not under Law — covenant jurisdiction

• died to the Law — severed covenant relationship

• released (katargeō) — nullified, rendered inoperative

For Paul, union with Christ results in:

• A death to the old covenant

• Release from the Law’s jurisdiction

• A new Spirit-governed life (Rom. 8)

HRM Conflict

HRM teaches:

Believers remain under Torah as an eternal standard.

Paul teaches:

• Death to Torah jurisdiction

• Release from Torah’s covenantal authority

• New life under the Spirit, not Sinai regulations

5. Romans 10:4 — The Climax

Text

“Christ is the end (τέλος) of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Exegetical Insight

τέλος = goal, culmination, termination, fulfillment.

Paul's logic:

• The Law’s role in producing righteousness has reached its goal.

• Christ is the new covenantal locus of righteousness.

HRM Conflict

HRM sees Torah as ongoing, unchanged covenant identity.
Paul sees Christ as the terminus point of the Law’s covenant purpose.

ROMANS SUMMARY

Paul’s argument in Romans:

• Torah was Israel’s covenantal framework, not universal.

• Torah exposes sin but does not justify or sanctify.

• Gentiles obey God apart from Torah.

• Believers have died to the Law and been released from it.

• Christ is the Law’s telos—its fulfillment and endpoint.

All of this directly contradicts HRM’s covenant claims.

II. 2 CORINTHIANS 3 vs. HEBREW ROOTS MOVEMENT

2 Corinthians 3 is the most devastating passage for Hebrew Roots theology because Paul directly contrasts the Mosaic covenant with the new covenant in explicitly covenantal, not moral, terms.

Let’s walk through it carefully.

1. The Two Ministries Contrasted

Verses 3–6

• Old covenant = “letter”

• New covenant = “Spirit”

• The letter “kills,” the Spirit “gives life.”

• Paul is a minister of the new covenant, not the old.

Exegetical Insight

The “letter” is not legalism; it is the Mosaic covenant itself (v. 7 clarifies this).

2. Verses 7–11 — The Old Covenant Fades and Is Being Abolished

Paul describes the Mosaic covenant (with explicit reference to Moses’ face and tablets of stone):

Key Terms

• καταργούμενον (v. 7, 11): “being abolished,” “rendered inoperative”

• ἡ καταργηθεῖσα (v. 11): “what was abolished”

Paul uses this word four times in this chapter.

Exegetical Insight

The Mosaic covenant has:

• real glory (Paul doesn’t denigrate it)

• but lesser and temporary glory

• and is in the process of being abolished in contrast to the new covenant’s permanent glory

HRM Conflict

HRM insists the Mosaic covenant remains the intended lifestyle for God’s people.

Paul says:

• It has been surpassed

• It is fading

• It is being abolished

• It is replaced by a superior covenant

This is covenant, not moral law.

3. Verses 14–16 — The Veil Remains When the Old Covenant Is Read

Text

“Their minds were hardened… the same veil remains unlifted at the reading of the old covenant.”

Exegetical Insight

• The “old covenant” = Mosaic covenant

• Reading it as an active covenantal system = veil remains

• Only in Christ is the veil removed

Paul is not anti-Torah.
He is anti-Torah-as-covenant.

HRM Conflict

HRM wants believers to return to the Mosaic covenantal system.
Paul says returning to the old covenant is returning to what is veiled and fading.

4. Verse 17–18 — Life in the Spirit vs. Life Under the Old Covenant

Text

“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

Freedom from what?
From the covenantal bondage Paul just described: the old covenant as a condemning system.

Exegetical Insight

• Transformation comes from the Spirit

• Not from Torah-based lifestyle

• The new covenant unveils God’s glory, the old covenant veils it

HRM Conflict

HRM teaches:

The Spirit leads believers back into Torah obedience.

Paul teaches:

The Spirit liberates believers from Torah's covenantal administration and leads them into the new covenant glory.

2 CORINTHIANS 3 SUMMARY

Paul’s exegetical points:

• Mosaic covenant = fading, temporary, old

• New covenant = permanent, surpassing, Spirit-empowered

• The old covenant is being abolished (katargeō)

• Reading the old covenant as binding = veil remains

• The Spirit brings freedom from the old covenant system

This passage alone makes HRM’s covenant theology exegetically impossible.

III. COMBINED EXEGETICAL CONCLUSION

Across Romans and 2 Corinthians 3, Paul’s theology is remarkably consistent:

Paul on the Mosaic Law

• It was Israel’s covenant, not Gentiles’

• It brings condemnation, not transformation

• It had a temporary function in redemptive history

• It ends as a covenant system in Christ

• Christ fulfills and supersedes it

• The Spirit replaces the Torah as the believer’s governing reality

Paul on the New Covenant

• It is not Torah renewed

• It is Torah transcended

• It is Spirit, not letter

• It is freedom, not custodianship

• It is unveiled glory, surpassing the fading Sinai covenant

Where HRM Collides with Pauline Exegesis

HRM insists that:

• Torah remains binding for believers

• The Mosaic covenant still defines Christian obedience

• The Law and Spirit work together as co-existing covenantal systems

• Believers should return to Torah calendar, food laws, and boundary markers

Paul repeatedly argues:

• The Mosaic Law does not remain binding

• It has been fulfilled, completed, and surpassed

• The believer has died to the Law, been released from the Law, and is led by the Spirit

• Returning to Torah is regression, not growth

Exegetically, Paul dismantles every foundational HRM assumption.

Exegetical Analysis of Acts, Philippians, and Colossians

Below is a focused, exegetical-only analysis of how Acts, Philippians, and Colossians each contradict the core theological claims of the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM). We’ll take them one at a time and let the text speak for itself—Greek terms, narrative structure, and apostolic rulings.

I. ACTS — THE APOSTOLIC PRECEDENT AGAINST TORAH REQUIREMENTS

The movement claims that all believers—Jew and Gentile—are to keep Torah commandments (Sabbath, kosher, feasts, etc.) as binding covenant obligations.

Acts gives direct apostolic rulings that contradict this.

1. ACTS 10–11 — Clean and Unclean Laws Set Aside for Gentiles

Key Text

Peter’s vision:

“What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” (Acts 10:15)

Exegetical Insight

• The verb ekatharisen (“cleansed”) is perfect tense—completed action with ongoing effect.

• The context is Gentile inclusion, but the imagery is Levitical food categories.

• Luke makes the analogy explicit: the “cleansing” is the removal of former distinctions.

HRM Conflict

HRM claims kosher laws still apply to all believers.
Acts shows God declaring those distinctions removed for the new covenant era.

2. ACTS 15 — The Jerusalem Council (The Decisive Text)

This is the only place in the NT where the question:
“Must Gentile Christians keep the Law of Moses?”
is formally debated.

The Judaizer Position (15:1, 5)

• Gentiles must be circumcised

• Must keep the Law of Moses

Peter’s Ruling (15:7–11)

God made no distinction between us and them…
Why put God to the test by placing a yoke… which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Exegetical Insight

• “Yoke” refers to Torah obligation as covenant system.

• Peter says Israel itself was unable to bear it.

• God made no covenantal distinction regarding Torah obedience (i.e., God is not putting Gentiles under Torah).

James’s Ruling (15:19–21)

James explicitly rejects imposing Torah on Gentiles.

“We should not trouble (παρενοχλεῖν) the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

They are given four minimal instructions, all related to table fellowship, not covenant Torah.

HRM Conflict

Acts 15 teaches:

• Gentiles are not placed under Torah

• Circumcision and Mosaic Law are not binding

• The apostles intentionally give Gentiles non-Torah requirements

This is a direct contradiction to the HRM premise.

3. ACTS 21 — Paul’s Torah Observance Was Pastoral, Not Normative

HRM often claims that Paul kept Torah as a pattern for believers.

But Acts 21 must be read in its context.

Key Facts

• Paul participates in a vow to prove rumors false (21:20–24).

• The rumor = that Paul teaches Jews to abandon Moses.

• Paul’s action is not mandated by the Council or by Christ; it’s a strategic concession.

Exegetical Insight

• Luke explicitly says Gentiles remain bound only to the Acts 15 ruling (21:25).

• Paul acts “as a Jew to the Jews” to avoid offense (cf. 1 Cor 9:20).

HRM Conflict

Paul’s temporary accommodation does not establish Torah as a requirement for the church.

Acts makes that clear.

II. PHILIPPIANS — PAUL REPUDIATES COVENANT CONFIDENCE IN TORAH

Philippians uniquely exposes the heart of Paul’s former Torah identity and how Christ relativized it.

1. Phil 3:2–3 — “Beware of the Dogs, the Mutilators”

Text

“Beware of the dogs… the mutilation (κατατομή).
For we are the circumcision…”

Exegetical Insight

• “katatomē” is a derogatory parody of “peritomē” (circumcision).

• Paul calls Torah-based covenant identity mutilation, not virtue.

HRM Conflict

HRM often promotes Torah markers (Sabbath, circumcision, kosher) as covenant identity.
Paul calls the reinstatement of such markers spiritually dangerous.

2. Phil 3:4–8 — Paul Counts Torah Credentials as Loss

Paul lists his covenant identity:

• Hebrew of Hebrews

• Pharisee

• As to righteousness in the Law, blameless

Text

“Whatever things were gain to me, these I have counted as loss…
and I count them as σκύβαλα (dung/refuse).”

Exegetical Insight

σκύβαλα = excrement, filth, garbage.

Paul’s entire Torah-based identity—including its righteousness—is now garbage in comparison to Christ.

HRM Conflict

HRM resurrects the very identity system Paul calls refuse.

3. Phil 3:9 — Righteousness Is Not From the Law

“Not having my own righteousness from the Law…”

Exegetical Insight

Paul rejects:

• Torah-based identity

• Torah-based righteousness

• Torah-based covenant belonging

He replaces it with:

• faith in Christ

• righteousness from God

• Spirit-empowered knowing of Christ (v. 10)

HRM Conflict

HRM tries to reclaim Torah-based lifestyle as essential obedience.
Paul sees that as regressive and spiritually empty.

III. COLOSSIANS — TORAH OBSERVANCE IS A SHADOW, NOT SUBSTANCE

Colossians is devastating for HRM because Paul identifies Torah observances as shadows whose time has passed.

1. Col 2:16–17 — Paul Forbids Using Torah Observances as Standards

Text

“Therefore let no one judge you in food or drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath—these are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ.”

Exegetical Insight

The list matches the triad of Torah time-markers (Num 28–29):

• annual festivals

• monthly new moons

• weekly Sabbaths

Paul’s argument:

• These practices are shadows (σκιὰ)

• Christ is the substance/body (σῶμα)

• Therefore do not allow anyone to impose them

HRM Conflict

HRM insists these shadows must still define Christian obedience.
Paul says the opposite:
Do not let anyone bind you to those shadows.

2. Col 2:20–23 — Believers Have Died to Regulations

Text

“If you have died with Christ to the stoicheia of the world… why submit to regulations:
Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch?”

Exegetical Insight

• Stoicheia refers to the elementary religious systems (including Torah, see Gal 4:3, 9).

• Paul says death with Christ means death to such religious systems.

• Torah regulations have “an appearance of wisdom” but “no value” in sanctifying.

HRM Conflict

HRM treats Torah regulations as essential sanctification.
Paul calls such regulations powerless and obsolete for spiritual transformation.

3. Col 2:11 — Circumcision in Christ Replaces Physical Circumcision

Text

“In Him you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands…”

Exegetical Insight

• Paul explicitly replaces physical circumcision (the entry rite to Torah)

• with a spiritual circumcision accomplished by Christ.

HRM Conflict

HRM treats Torah boundary-markers as present obligations.
Paul says those markers have been replaced entirely in Christ.

IV. COMBINED ARGUMENT FROM ACTS, PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS

Across these books the apostolic logic is consistent:

1. Gentiles are not placed under Torah (Acts 10, 15, 21)

2. Torah-based identity is spiritually regressive (Phil 3)

3. Torah observances are shadows fulfilled in Christ (Col 2)

4. The apostolic precedent prohibits binding Torah on believers (Acts 15, Col 2)

5. The new covenant replaces Torah’s covenantal function (Phil 3; Acts 15)

6. Torah regulations cannot sanctify (Col 2:20–23)

7. Torah distinctions are removed for Jew/Gentile unity (Acts 10; Col 2)

This is the exact opposite of HRM theology.

Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) is, in essence, a modern revival of first-century Judaizing

.

DEFINING “JUDAIZERS” IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT

1. Judaizers were not unbelieving Jews

They were Jewish Christians—fully convinced Jesus was Messiah.

2. Their core belief

That Gentile believers must adopt Torah (circumcision, food laws, sabbath, calendar) to be fully included in the people of God.

3. Their logic

They believed:

• God gave Torah eternally (Exod 31:16–17).

• Messiah could not contradict the Law.

• Gentiles must join the covenant people by embracing Israel’s identity markers.

• Torah = covenant identity + sanctification + fidelity to God.

4. Their mistake

They misunderstood:

• the shift from old covenant to new

• the finished work of Christ

• the meaning of Abrahamic promise

• the role of Torah in redemptive history

• the universality of the Spirit

This is precisely the same theological framework that undergirds HRM.

WHY HEBREW ROOTS IS HISTORICALLY PARALLEL TO JUDAIZING

To see this clearly, we compare the two movements across historical categories.

**1. Both movements believe Torah is binding for all believers

Judaizers:

• Required food laws (Gal 2:12–14)

• Required circumcision (Acts 15:1; Gal 2:3–5)

• Required calendar/Sabbath observance

HRM:

• Teaches Torah is eternal and binding

• Argues that Christians should keep:

  • Sabbath

  • Kosher laws

  • Festivals

  • Biblical calendar

  • Sometimes even circumcision

Historical Continuity

Both movements share the same premise:

“Faith in Jesus does not free believers from Torah; it restores Torah obedience.”

This is the textbook definition of Judaizing.

**2. Both movements reintroduce Torah as covenant identity markers

Judaizers believed:

Torah = belonging to the people of God.

This is why Paul calls them “the circumcision party” (Gal 2:12), since circumcision was the gateway into Torah identity.

HRM similarly holds:

• Torah practices are the restored way of life for God’s people

• The church has been “cut off from its Hebrew roots”

• Observing Torah is returning to authentic covenant identity

Historical Continuity

Same mistake: they confuse Israel’s covenant signs with universal Christian identity.

**3. Both movements assume the Mosaic covenant remains in force

Judaizers:

Believed the Mosaic covenant was still binding after Messiah’s coming.

HRM:

Argues that:

• The Mosaic law is not abolished

• Jesus did not end Torah

• The church must realign with the old covenant system

Historical Continuity

The NT’s most intense controversies occur where the early church tries to insist that covenantal law is still binding post-Christ. That is exactly what HRM proposes.

**4. Both movements misunderstand the purpose of Torah

Judaizers:

Saw Torah as:

• identity

• holiness

• covenant boundary

• moral standard

Paul argues Torah’s purpose was:

• temporary (Gal 3:19)

• a custodian (Gal 3:24–25)

• fulfilled in Christ (Rom 10:4)

• not binding after Christ (Rom 7:4–6)

HRM:

Gives Torah the same elevated status Judaizers did:

• central to holiness

• central to sanctification

• central to covenant identity

Historical Continuity

Both movements miss Torah’s temporary role in redemptive history.

**5. Both movements require Gentiles to submit to Jewish covenantal practices

This is the sharpest historical parallel.

Judaizers:

“Unless you are circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1)

Even though not all Judaizers tied it to salvation, all insisted Gentiles needed Torah for full covenant belonging.

HRM:

“Gentiles should keep Torah because it is eternal, holy, unchanging, and God’s standard.”

Even when not tied to salvation, the functional message is:

“Gentiles need Torah to be fully obedient.”

Historical Continuity

Same demand, different century.

**6. Both movements arose out of genuine spiritual concern

This is important: neither is villainous.

Judaizers:

Wanted Gentiles to share Israel’s blessings and live holy lives.

HRM:

Wants Christians to recover the Jewish context of Scripture and pursue holiness.

But both movements:

• confuse zeal for obedience with covenantal regression

• assume Torah is God’s ideal for all believers

• misunderstand the Spirit’s role in new covenant ethics

The good intentions produce the same historical error.

III. HOW THE APOSTLES RESPONDED TO FIRST-CENTURY JUDAIZING

This is where the historical parallel becomes unmistakable.

1. Acts 15 — The Apostolic Council explicitly rejects Judaizer logic

This is the only time in church history when the apostles held a formal doctrinal council. The issue?

Whether Gentile Christians must keep the Law of Moses.

The council ruled:

• No they must not

• Not circumcision

• Not food laws

• Not Sabbaths/festivals

• Not Torah jurisdiction

This is the exact opposite conclusion of HRM.

2. Galatians — Paul’s most fiery letter is directed at Judaizers

Key points:

• Torah-keeping for Gentiles = “enslavement” (Gal 4:3,9)

• Torah observance nullifies the grace of Christ (2:21)

• Submitting to circumcision obligates one to keep all Torah (5:3)

• Torah observance for covenant identity is “another gospel” (1:6–9)

HRM’s teachings map precisely onto the issues Paul confronts.

3. Colossians — Paul labels Torah observances “shadows”

• Sabbaths, festivals, food laws = “shadow” (2:16–17)

• The “body/substance” is Christ

• Don’t let anyone bind you to these things

This is the exact opposite of HRM doctrine.

4. Philippians 3 — Paul calls Torah identity σκύβαλα (dung)

He rejects:

• Torah identity

• Torah righteousness

• Torah confidence

• Torah claims to covenant belonging

HRM reinstates all four.

IV. WHY THE PARALLEL MATTERS

The Judaizers weren't heretics. They were confused believers who:

• loved Scripture

• valued obedience

• revered the Law

• cherished Israel’s traditions

But they misunderstood where Torah stood in the story of redemption.

HRM is a modern retelling of this same narrative arc:

1. The church is missing something.

2. The Torah continues eternally.

3. The people of God should recover Torah practice.

4. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel—so the people of God should live as Israel lived.

This is precisely the argument of the Judaizers, and the apostles responded definitively.

V. SUMMARY: WHY HRM = MODERN JUDAIZING

Historically, the movements match on:

• Theology

• Goals

• Practices

• Errors

• Impact on Gentile believers

• The apostolic response

The underlying issue both times is covenant misunderstanding:

Does the coming of Christ mean the Mosaic covenant continues, or does it culminate and end?

The apostles answered:
- It ends.
- Its glory fades.
- Its purpose is fulfilled.
- A new covenant has come.
- The Spirit is the new governing reality.
- Gentiles are not under Torah.
- Believers should not return to what is obsolete and fading.

HRM is, historically and theologically, a revival of the exact first-century error Paul confronted and corrected.

The book of Hebrews is the single most devastating New Testament text for the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM).
Hebrews is built on one controlling idea:

The entire Mosaic covenant—including its priesthood, sacrifices, and ordinances—has been surpassed, fulfilled, and rendered obsolete by Christ.

Because HRM teaches that Christians should return to Torah practices (Sabbath regulations, kosher laws, feasts, etc.), Hebrews directly contradicts the very foundation of the movement.

Below is a careful, exegetical argument showing how Hebrews dismantles HRM at every level.

I. HEBREWS’ CENTRAL ARGUMENT: A NEW COVENANT ENDS THE OLD

The thesis of Hebrews is in 8:6–13:

1. Jesus mediates a “better covenant” (8:6)

2. The new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant (8:7–12)

3. The old covenant is “obsolete” (πεπαλαίωκεν) (8:13)

4. What is obsolete is “vanishing away” (ἀφανισμός) (8:13)

Exegetical Impact

The Mosaic covenant is not:

• renewed

• restored

• reapplied

• brought forward

It is replaced.

HRM Conflict

HRM claims the Mosaic covenant continues.
Hebrews: the Mosaic covenant is obsolete.

This is a direct contradiction.

II. HEBREWS TEACHES A COMPLETE CHANGE IN PRIESTHOOD

Hebrews 7:12

“When the priesthood is changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.”

Exegetical Insight

• A change of priesthood (from Levi to Melchizedek) necessitates a change of law.

• “Change” (μετάθεσις) = removal, transfer, displacement.

HRM Conflict

HRM claims the Torah remains the unchanging standard.
Hebrews says:

The Law changes when the priesthood changes.

Since Jesus is not a Levitical priest, the old covenant legal system cannot remain operative.

III. THE LEVITICAL LAW CANNOT PERFECT ANYONE

Hebrews 7:18–19

“There is a setting aside (ἀθέτησις, annulment) of the former commandment…
for the law made nothing perfect.”

Exegetical Insight

• “annulment” = legal cancellation

• “former commandment” = the Mosaic system

• Torah is declared incapable of achieving God’s ultimate aim

HRM Conflict

HRM claims Torah is God’s eternal standard for holiness.
Hebrews says Torah is:

• annulled

• weak

• ineffective

• incomplete

• replaced by a better hope

IV. THE ENTIRE TABERNACLE SYSTEM WAS A SHADOW

Hebrews 8:5

“They serve a copy and shadow of heavenly things.”

Hebrews 10:1

“The law is only a shadow of the good things to come—not the realities themselves.”

Exegetical Insight

Shadow = temporary, anticipatory, pointing forward.
Reality = Christ.

HRM treats the shadows as permanent spiritual essentials.
Hebrews says the shadows were never the substance.

V. ALL TORAH SACRIFICES ARE PERMANENTLY OBSOLETE

Hebrews 9–10 makes this argument relentlessly:

Heb 9:9–10

These regulations (food, drink, ritual washings) were imposed until the time of reformation.

Heb 10:2

They can never perfect the worshiper.

Heb 10:9

“He takes away the first to establish the second.”

Exegetical Insight

• “takes away” (ἀναιρεῖ) = removes, abolishes

• The entire sacrificial system is ended

• The Mosaic cultus is replaced by Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice

HRM Conflict

HRM often argues:

• Torah’s rituals still reveal God’s eternal pattern

• They must be followed in some form (e.g., feast days)

• They are still God’s operating system

Hebrews replies:

The whole system was temporary and is now removed.

VI. SABbath + Holy Days + Ritual Foods Are IN the Category of Obsolete Regulations

Hebrews specifically groups dietary laws, washing regulations, and ritual observances as part of the “old order” that has been superseded:

Heb 9:10

“Food and drink and various ceremonial washings…
imposed until the time of reformation.”

This matches the Colossians 2:16–17 triad (food, drink, Sabbaths, festivals) which Paul calls “shadows.”

Hebrews sees the same category as temporary and superseded.

HRM Conflict

HRM insists:

• Festivals are still binding

• Sabbath observance is still binding

• Food laws are still binding

Hebrews says all such regulations belong to the system “imposed until” Christ.

VII. JESUS TAKES THE ROLE OF TORAH AS THE NEW MEDIATOR

Moses was the mediator of the first covenant (Heb 3).
Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).

Exegetical Implication

Torah’s mediatorial role is replaced by Christ’s.

HRM Conflict

HRM effectively restores Moses as the ongoing covenant authority for believers.

Hebrews says:

Jesus, not Moses, mediates the covenant we are under.

VIII. THE OLD COVENANT WAS NOT JUST WEAK — IT IS ABOLISHED

Hebrews uses some of the most emphatic language in the NT:

Heb 7:18 — “annulment”

Heb 8:13 — “obsolete”

Heb 8:13 — “about to vanish”

Heb 10:9 — “He takes away the first covenant”

Heb 10:18 — “where these are forgiven, there is no longer any offering for sin”

And once the sacrificial core is removed, the Torah system collapses—Mosaic law cannot exist apart from the temple-centered sacrificial structure.

HRM Conflict

HRM tries to extract what it calls “moral” or “eternal” parts of Torah while discarding sacrificial ones.

Hebrews shows you cannot separate the pieces.
The whole covenant stands or falls as a unit.

IX. THE NEW COVENANT INTERNALIZES THE LAW (NOT TORAH OBSERVANCE)

Hebrews ratifies Jeremiah 31:

“I will write my laws upon their hearts.”

This does not mean:

• believers return to Torah

• Mosaic commandments continue unchanged

• Christians must keep Jewish boundary markers

It means:

• the Spirit internalizes God’s will

• the covenant is new, not renewed

• sin is removed in a way Torah never could accomplish

In Hebrews, the law written on the heart = the entire new covenant order, not Moses’ code.

X. HEBREWS AND HEBREW ROOTS: THE CONTRAST IN ONE TABLE

Hebrews’ TeachingHRM TeachingMosaic covenant = obsolete (8:13)Mosaic covenant = still bindingPriesthood changed → law changed (7:12)Law cannot changeTorah annulled (7:18)Torah eternalOld law = shadow (10:1)Old law still substanceFood laws temporary (9:10)Food laws bindingSacrifices ended (10:18)Feasts/sacrifices show God’s eternal systemMoses surpassed by Jesus (3:1–6)Mosaic authority continuesTemple system ended (9–10)Torah system ongoingCovenant replaced (10:9)Covenant reasserted

Hebrews and HRM are entirely incompatible.

XI. SUMMARY: WHY HEBREWS DESTROYS THE FOUNDATION OF HRM

Hebrews teaches:

• Old covenant replaced

• Levitical system annulled

• Torah regulations temporary

• Sabbath/food/festival laws shadow-reality

• Law changed because priesthood changed

• Christ supersedes Moses

• New covenant is new, not a reboot of Sinai

• The entire Mosaic system has ended in Christ

HRM teaches the opposite:

• Old covenant remains

• Torah is eternal

• Mosaic practices remain normative

• Christians should return to Sinai patterns

Hebrews systematically dismantles every single pillar of HRM theology.

Here is a comprehensive, pastor-level, verse-by-verse walkthrough of Hebrews 7–10, with special attention to the author’s argument flow, key Greek terms, and the theological implications—particularly where it dismantles Torah-observant obligations for New-Covenant believers.

This is long, but Hebrews 7–10 is the core of the letter’s argument, and it is worth taking slowly.

**HEBREWS 7–10

VERSE-BY-VERSE WALK-THROUGH**
(A continuous argument showing the end of the Mosaic covenant and the supremacy of Christ’s priesthood)

HEBREWS 7 — THE SUPERIOR PRIESTHOOD OF MELCHIZEDEK

7:1–3 — Melchizedek introduced as a type of Christ

Melchizedek = “king of righteousness” and “king of peace.”
He is portrayed as:

• without genealogy

• without beginning or end

• resembling the Son of God

Interpretive point:
The author of Hebrews is not claiming Melchizedek is literally eternal, but that the text frames him typologically.

7:4–7 — Abraham tithes to Melchizedek

The argument:
If Abraham gave Melchizedek tithes, then Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, and therefore greater than Levi.

7:8–10 — Levi “pays tithes” through Abraham

A rabbinic argument from seminal identity.
Conclusion: Melchizedek's priesthood surpasses the Levitical priesthood.

7:11 — The fault in the Levitical priesthood

“If perfection were through the Levitical priesthood… why would another priest be needed?”

Key point:
If Torah had succeeded, God wouldn’t have replaced the system.

7:12 — A change of priesthood requires a change of law

This is the theological earthquake:

“When the priesthood is changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.”

Greek: metathesis nomou = a transfer, removal, displacement of law.

This verse directly destroys Hebrew Roots claims of Torah’s perpetual validity.

7:13–17 — Jesus is from Judah, not Levi

Since Jesus is not a Levite, His priesthood must be based on a different order—Melchizedek’s.
His qualification is “the power of an indestructible life,” not ancestry.

7:18–19 — The annulment of the old commandment

“There is an annulment (ἀθέτησις) of the former commandment because of its weakness.”

That word “annulment” means legal invalidation.
The law itself is declared incapable of perfection.

7:20–25 — Jesus’ priesthood established by divine oath

Oath > commandment.
Jesus’ priesthood = permanent, unchangeable.
His intercession is eternal.

7:26–28 — The perfect High Priest

Unlike Levitical priests, Jesus:

• has no sin

• needs no repeated sacrifices

• offered himself once

• is perfect forever

This closes the argument: the Mosaic priesthood is finished.

HEBREWS 8 — THE NEW COVENANT SUPERSEDES THE OLD

8:1–2 — Summary: Jesus ministers in the true heavenly sanctuary

Everything else is a copy or shadow.

8:3–5 — Earthly priests serve “a copy and shadow”

This directly counters HRM’s claim that Torah rituals are “eternal patterns.”

8:6 — Jesus mediates a better covenant

“Better” in Hebrews is a technical term for covenantal superiority.

8:7–12 — The New Covenant replaces the Old (Jeremiah 31)

If the first covenant had been faultless, no second covenant would be sought.

Key: The fault is not in God but in the covenant participants.

The solution is not a renewed Sinai, but an entirely new covenant.

8:13 — The old covenant is obsolete, aging, and vanishing

Three descriptors:

• obsolete (πεπαλαίωκεν)

• aging

• near disappearance (ἀφανισμός)

You cannot affirm Hebrews and affirm ongoing Torah obligation.

HEBREWS 9 — THE EARTHLY TABERNACLE AND ITS INSUFFICIENCY

9:1–5 — Description of the tabernacle

The author walks through its furniture to set up the argument.

9:6–10 — Limited access under the Mosaic system

Only the high priest enters the Holy of Holies, and only once a year.

Verse 9

“Gifts and sacrifices cannot perfect the conscience.”

Verse 10

“Regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.”

These include:

• food

• drink

• various washings (βαπτισμοί = ritual cleansings)

Under Torah, these were temporary.

9:11–14 — Christ enters the true sanctuary

He enters through His own blood, not animal blood.
His sacrifice cleanses the conscience, not merely the flesh.

9:15 — Jesus is mediator of the New Covenant

His death redeems those under the first covenant.

9:16–22 — Death required to inaugurate a covenant

The argument: covenants are ratified with blood.
The Mosaic covenant was inaugurated with blood, but only as a copy of the heavenly reality.

9:23–28 — Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice

Earthly copies needed repeated cleansing; heavenly reality required one definitive sacrifice.

9:26

“He appeared once for all to put away sin.”

9:28

“Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.”

Torah sacrifices are permanently redundant.

HEBREWS 10 — THE FINALITY OF CHRIST’S WORK AND THE END OF THE MOSAIC SYSTEM

10:1 — The law is a shadow, not the reality

A major blow to HRM theology:

“The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the form of the realities.”

A shadow cannot be the final standard for believers.

10:2–4 — Repeated sacrifices prove their insufficiency

If they worked, they would stop being offered.
But they cannot remove sins.

10:5–10 — Christ replaces the first covenant

Quoting Psalm 40:

“Sacrifices and offerings You did not desire.”

10:9

“He takes away the first to establish the second.”

This is covenant language.
The first = Mosaic covenant.
The second = New covenant.

10:11–14 — Priesthood contrast

Levitical priests: stand daily, offering repeated sacrifices.
Christ: sits at God’s right hand after offering one sacrifice.

10:15–18 — The Holy Spirit testifies (Jeremiah 31 again)

God writes the law on hearts.
Sin is finally forgiven.

10:18

“Where these are forgiven, there is no longer any offering for sin.”

The Mosaic system collapses because the covering sacrifices are no longer needed.

10:19–25 — Exhortation: Enter boldly into God’s presence

This is only possible because the old system is gone.

10:26–31 — Warning against rejecting Christ’s sacrifice

To return to Torah sacrifices is to trample the Son of God.

10:32–39 — Encouragement to persevere

Their suffering shows they are already living in the new age inaugurated by Christ.

SUMMARY OF HEBREWS 7–10 (ONE SENTENCE)

The Holy Spirit, through the writer of Hebrew,s proves that the Mosaic covenant, priesthood, sacrificial system, regulations, and rituals were temporary shadows now rendered obsolete by the eternal high-priestly work of Christ in the new and better covenant.

SUMMARY OF HEBREWS 7–10 (BULLET FORM)

Hebrews 7

• Melchizedek > Levi

• New priesthood requires new law

• Old commandment annulled

Hebrews 8

• Jesus mediates better covenant

• Old covenant obsolete and vanishing

Hebrews 9

• Mosaic system temporary, external, limited

• Christ provides true access

• His sacrifice is once for all

Hebrews 10

• Torah = shadow

• Christ takes away the first covenant

• Sacrifices are abolished forever

• To return to Torah is to reject Christ’s work

Summary Conclusion:

Hebrew Roots Movement vs. Mainstream Christianity**

The contrast between the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) and historic mainstream Christianity ultimately centers on the question of covenant continuity—namely, whether the Mosaic covenant (with its laws, festivals, food restrictions, and sabbaths) remains binding for Christians today, or whether it has been fulfilled, transformed, and superseded by the new covenant in Christ.

Historically, the HRM mirrors the logic of the first-century Judaizers: both affirm a genuine faith in Jesus as Messiah, both desire to honor God’s commands, and both insist that Gentile believers should adopt aspects of the Sinai covenant in order to walk in obedience. The motives are often commendable—recovering the Jewish context of Scripture, resisting antinomianism, and honoring the holiness of God—but the resulting theology functions as a soft return to Torah obligations and treats Mosaic identity markers as ongoing covenant requirements.

Mainstream Christianity, by contrast, understands the Torah as a temporary, redemptive-historical administration that has reached its intended goal in Christ. Through the lens of Galatians, Romans, 2 Corinthians 3, Colossians, Philippians, Acts 15, and especially Hebrews 7–10, the New Testament repeatedly teaches that:

• Jesus’ priesthood has replaced the Levitical priesthood.

• A change of priesthood necessitates a change of law.

• The old covenant is obsolete, fulfilled, and fading.

• Torah’s rituals were shadows; Christ is the substance.

• Gentile believers are not required to keep the law of Moses.

• The Spirit—not Torah—is now the governing principle of life and holiness.

The book of Hebrews, especially chapters 7–10, makes the strongest possible theological case that the Mosaic covenant has reached its divine endpoint. Its priesthood, sacrifices, and regulatory structures were designed to be temporary, incomplete, and anticipatory. Christ does not renew the old system; He replaces it with a better covenant grounded in His once-for-all sacrifice, His eternal priesthood, and the internal transformation of the Spirit.

Thus, the key difference is not about whether Christians should appreciate the Old Testament or learn from Israel’s heritage—both traditions affirm this. The core divide is whether Christians stand under the covenantal authority of the Mosaic Law. Historic Christian theology answers firmly and consistently: No. The HRM answers: In many ways, yes.

The entire sweep of the apostolic witness—from Acts to Paul to Hebrews—aligns on a single point: returning to Torah as covenantal authority is not spiritual maturity; it is a regression into a superseded administration that Christ fulfilled and set aside.