When I began studying the Hebrew language and ancient culture in earnest in the late 1960s, the Hebraic Roots Movement was virtually unknown. It was just beginning. Before this time, some work was done on a Hebraic roots version of the Bible in the 1950s by A. B. Traina, but it was quite idiosyncratic and given to error. More recently we have The Complete Jewish Bible (David Sterns, ed.) and the Hebraic Roots Version Bible (James Trimm, ed.), both significantly better than Traina's inferior Holy Name Bible translation.

During the years since the Hebrew Roots Movement sprang alive. It is better known today with more momentum. Hopefully it will lead to a renaissance for the church in self-undertanding according to God's biblical revelation. As for any movement, however, inconsistency develops. Today the movement is more an array of diverse groups and proponents with a wide-range of variations, peculiarities and, yes, eccentricities.

Many like myself are gentle but wary proponents who desire a renaissance of Scriptural, historic and Hebraic understanding of who we really are in the Messiah in light of the Torah, Prophets and Writings (the Tanakh).

Negative reactions. With any emerging movement, negative behavior occurs. For one, I often struggle with dismay in my heart over the passionate infighting coloring some Messianic-type groups and alliances who seem adept at contesting wits with each other, often in divisive ways and, worse, some in bitter opposition and open hostility.

By reading some of the e-mails in some e-groups you get the idea that no one gets along. This is not true for most, of course.

Optimism for the movement. Haranguing each other over differences is not the case in general for the Hebraic Roots Movement. Many more people are genuinely grateful to God for the revelation knowledge of the Word of God that has come to them by the Holy Spirit while studying our Hebraic roots in Messiah.

Contributions of the movement. For folks like myself who are cautiously observing the good, the bad and the ugly within the movement, we declare our appreciation for the Hebraic Roots Movement for reminding us of our historic, pre-Constantinian roots of faith in the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus). The movement has significantly impacted some Gentile believers to reconsider our belief system, still ensconced in Greek philosophy, particularly neo-Platonism. In the late 1960s I was one of what seemed to be a handful calling for the deHellenization of the church's teachings, something that is hard to achieve when born and bred with a Greco-Roman outlook on everything.

We, too, are grateful to the movement for the uncomfortable reminder that both Catholicism and Protestantism historically embrace the dangerous doctrine of Replacement Theology. Not all believers do, and certainly not within my circle, but often in mainstream teachings we find these views typically expressed.

Three helps I've received from the movement. Of course, my interest in Hebraic roots is not to become a Jew or adapt to a Jewish lifestyle. I find this impractical and unnecesary to please God. I was born a Gentile, though I've searched way back into our family genealogy to find Jewish names. Like others, I do wish to adapt better to the Hebraic mindset in the mutual quest to deHellenize our approach to Scripture.

Three key personal benefits in the Hebraic roots movement. First, the movement is an encouragement, at least from some quarters within it, to support those like myself who live in the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus). This is very evident in the joyful, experiential citizenship we have in God's Kingdom by knowing what it means to be grafted into Israel by faith in the Messiah. A prime interest in the movement, therefore, is to gain and possess a clear and practical kingdom-focus in our daily walk (halakah).

Second, the movement offers extensive helps to better understand the proper context of the Torah for life today. I have a saying for skeptical Gentiles: "For best results, follow Torah." Clearly there are serious aberrations in some of the Torah-observant teachings just as there were in Jerusalem, Galatia and Rome in the first century. We must be aware of these when we see or hear them, having eyes to perceive and ears to understand. But experientially knowing Yeshua (Jesus) as the Living Torah helps enhances our quality of life.

Third, the Hebraic Roots Movement helps us to be better interpreters of the Bible using ancient hermeneutical methods common to the times of the earliest followers of the Messiah, particularly his first apostles (shlichim). While it is true that many in the movement do not have an adequate hermeneutic to interpret the Scripture correctly and consistenly, enough information is available within the movement to help discover and use the ancient Hebraic biblical hermeneutic common to the first century reliably and consistently. (See article, Hermeneutics of the First Century, on this website.)

A strong conviction we should cherish is that Scripture must be interpreted for today according to its Hebraic meaning at the time it was written, respecting the culture and using the hermeneutical method employed at the time it was given.

Using such a hermeneutical method, careful attention may be given to the fullness of the Scriptures in the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) as taught by the earliest apostles. In this light, life applications may be drawn for our modern times consistent with the biblical context and the fullness of the Torah, Prophets and Writings in Messiah Jesus.

Adrift from our spiritual heritage. Often I am asked, "How did we get so far removed from our Hebraic roots of faith in the Messiah?" The question bedeviled me as my own question in the 1960s. Of course, over the years I've found many reliable answers to this heart-felt question.

In capsule form, with the risk of over-generalizing specifics, I will attempt to answer what led to the Great Divide between Jewish "Christianity" and Gentile Christianity. Before we look specifically at the Great Divide, however, we should consider the value of studying our roots of faith deposited in the rich soil of the ancient Hebrew culture and the history of the Great Union.

The Bible draws us to study the richness of our Hebraic roots of faith in the Messiah. Those who desire to rightly interpret Scripture soon learn that the Bible is a book written in the context of Semitic culture. Drawing on Western culture to interpret it, as we often do, is a bad mistake.

The Bible is Hebraic in instructing about the Kingdom of God. The Bible is not only of Semitic culture, it is a Hebraic book. Ancient Hebrew and Jewish concepts are pervasive. It’s about the kingdom of God and the covenants God makes with his people in a Hebraic environment over land God gave to the Hebrews. It’s also about worship of the one true God of Israel, the Lord of the universe, and conformity to his ways within a Hebraic worldview.

Hebraic covenants are renewed in Messiah. For those of us who are of Gentile upbringing, it is important for us to know that all the covenants God gave to Israel are renewed in the Messiah Jesus for all who follow Him, Jew and Gentile—all within a Hebraic context. To interpret Scriptures in such a way as to disregard these heavyweight Hebraic concepts is fraught with problems. When we allow our Gentile concepts to invade the text, inevitably it twists our understanding and results in error.

The language of ancient Jews is Hebrew. Few writers of the Bible wrote in the Greek language of Gentiles. Most of the New Testament books, and some suggest all of them, were first written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. For certain, all New Testament books were written with a Semitic worldview based on language and the revelation of God to the Hebrew people. When Bible writers wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, everything they wrote was from their Hebrew world of thought.

Behind the Greek language of the New Testament (as it came to us after the the second to fifth centuries) are Hebrew ideas and meanings. If God chose Israel to be his people, He also chose the Hebrew culture, concepts and language to convey his message. When we understand this, a search for original meanings and settings takes us closer to the Jewish synagogue than the Gentile revival center. It takes us closer to the Hebrew worldview of God’s revelation in history than Greek philosophy based on human wisdom.

Learning from our Hebrew roots. Some people would have us dismiss our Hebraic roots and interpret the Bible from a philosophical worldview common to the Greeks. They say the Old Testament is irrelevant in light of the New Testament, failing to remember that this division of Old and New Testaments is arbitrary and was not in the minds of the writers of the New Testament.

Did you know the idea of separating the Bible into Old and New Testaments was done 130 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus? And Gentile theologians are the ones who made this distinction, not Jewish believers.

But before there was a Great Divide, even in the separating of our Bible, there was the Great Union.

As we survey church history to better understand our roots of faith, before we talk about the Great Divide, first comes the Great Union.

The roots of the Christian faith grow deep and within the richness of Hebrew soil. Judaism and Christianity were inseparable throughout the first century into the second century. Followers of our Lord Jesus were understood to be a sect within the greater whole of Judaism. Gentiles who became believers in Jesus Christ were “grafted in” to the domestic stock of Judaism and shared its common roots and soil.

Because we are so far removed from our Jewish roots as the modern Church, the very concept that first century Gentiles were brought under the umbrella of ancient Judaism when they professed faith in our Lord sounds foreign. But it was so.

Can Gentiles be accepted in the church? This was the burning question of the Church Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Today we ask the opposite: can Jews be accepted in the church? What an amazing tale of reversals!

The Jewish believers in Messiah saw a dramatic change in Gentiles who gladly received the message of the Messiah and repented of their sins. The logical question arose as to what extent do Gentile believers come under Jewish halachah (daily “walk” in Torah law) as people of faith in Jesus Christ? Do they become Torah-observant as are the believing Jews?

Terms of admittance of Gentiles. The answer given was that Gentile believers were to: (1) abstain from food polluted by idols; (2) from sexual immorality; (3) from meat of strangled animals; and (4) from drinking blood (Acts 15:20). Now some argue that this was not all, that it was introductory and included the full embracing of Torah observance. For now let's take the Scripture at its obviously plain meaning.

What may strike you at first glance as a novel solution, is not so at all. The apostles and elders, after seeking wisdom from God, harkened back to a long-standing solution used by the Jewish Sanhedrin to introduce Gentiles to Judaism. In the Talmud the same identical four requirements are listed for introducing Gentiles to Judaism. These four principles were already in place during the first century (cf. Sanhedrin74a).

This helps us understand, first, that the question was already previously addressed within Judaism before the church leaders faced the issue squarely. Second, it showed the respect church leaders had for their historic Jewish traditions on admitting Gentiles into Judaism. Third, it shows that while their was obvious contempt for the "unclean" Gentiles, nevertheless, a recognition arose that believing, repentant Gentiles were made clean through faith in Messiah and were to be part of the Kingdom of God in fellowship with Jewish believers.

A brief synopsis of how the great divide occurred between Judaism and Christianity will help us to see why so many biblical subjects are misunderstood and misapplied today within the church.

Until a few years after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Judaism remained quite diverse as a cultural and religious watershed nurturing a variety of religious and political sects. Pharisees, Sadducees, Ebionites, Essenes, Herodians, Zealots, Jewish "Christians" (called notzarim) and other Jews, were considered to be one people under the all-sheltering umbrella of Judaism.

After the collapse of the Temple, many Jewish groups and factions disappeared with the passing of time. Jewish "Christians" (notzarim) and Pharisees were among those with great depth of conviction, elasticity and survivability in changing times.

The rise and standardization of Rabbinic Judaism. Eventually Judaism consolidated under rabbis in the tradition of the Pharisees. In the in-fighting for mastery, priests and other leaders gradually lost their places of authority. The new face of Judaism by A.D. 90 became known as Rabbinic Judaism and remains the classic form of Judaism today.

Early on, the Jewish sages sought to standardize Judaism. Their mission was to uphold Torah in its written and oral forms and preserve the ethnicity of the Jews. The net effect was the shrinking of the size of the ancient umbrella covering all Jews. Other Jewish sects were enticed to conform or be at risk of being put out of the synagogue as heretics (minim). Some simply disappeared.

Followers of Jesus of Nazareth, very compatible with the Pharisees on most cardinal doctrines, sharply disagreed on one vital issue: the Messiah’s identity and his relationship to Israel.

Exclusion of believers in Yeshua (Jesus). Over a long process, Rabbinic leaders gathered support and denounced the followers of Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) as heretics (minim). They sought to convince Jewish believers in Yeshua (Jesus) to conform to ethnic purity and to uphold the written and oral Torahs. If they refused, the court of justice (Bet Din) had power to cleanse the synagogue of their presence up to thirty days or, in rare instances, excommunicate.

Whether excommunication occurred is unclear. Evidence is scant and open to interpretation. Self-exclusion was the likely route most believers in Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) took.

What should be kept in mind is that this slowly developing separation was within Judaism, not away from it. Jewish "Christians" (notzrim) were still Jews in their minds and that of the rabbis, too. Jewish "Christians" kept clinging to the inclusive Judaism of their ancestors. The rabbis understood this. For a very long time, Rabbinic Judaism did not consider Jewish Christians to be non-Jews as is taught today by modern rabbis.

With Rabbinic leaders wearing the mantle of Judaism the last two decades of the first century, a narrow, exclusive religion emerged. Ancient Judaism with its unique ability to embrace divergent views beyond the rabbis’ teaching eroded. Rabbinic Judaism was more narrowly defined, refined, distinctive and exclusive. It tightened the noose on other Jewish sects. Many Jews besides believers in Jesus became outsiders to the newly normative synagogue by self-exclusion, still upholding their Jewish identity.

The widening breach. In a series of events that led to the separation of the Church from its Jewish roots, one stands out as decisive in the second century. It was the final blow in dividing Christianity from Rabbinic Judaism.

The First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-73) left Jerusalem sacked and the Temple destroyed. But the conquering Roman army let Jews remain in Jerusalem and exempt from certain laws contrary to Judaism.

The failed Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132-135) resulted in banishing Jews from Jerusalem for a hundred years, including "Christian" Jews. What caused the second revolt is unclear, but was likely a series of rumors and actions that left the Jews with little choice. Rumor had it that Emperor Hadrian planned to rebuild the Temple. The Roman governor of Judea, Tinneius Rufus, was intolerant and provoked the Jews. The governor’s eventual outlawing of circumcision, most likely, was the final reason the Jews took up arms against Rome.

Simon, also known as Bar Kochba, led the revolt. In his drive to unite Jews around the cause of freedom, he made a terrible mistake that ruptured the unity. He claimed he was Messiah. Rabbi Akiba, one of the most respected scholars of the time, supported the ill-made claim.

While the prohibition of circumcision was intolerable to all Jews, Bar Kochba’s claim to be Messiah was intolerable to the smaller group of Jewish "Christians." They were squeezed between two difficult positions. Either support their national heritage under a false Messiah or abandon the cause and submit to the true Messiah Jesus. They refused to follow Bar Kochba, abandoning the national cause.

Charges of treason lingered within Rabbinic Judaism after the devastating defeat. The rupture was final. To date, all attempts to repair the rupture have proven futile.

Baptism in Plato’s name. Until the Second Jewish Revolt, the Church was led from Jerusalem by a succession of fifteen Jewish leaders. Remarkably, all were Jewish kinsmen of our Lord Jesus.

After the revolt ended in A.D. 135, so did Jewish leadership of the Church. Only Gentiles were permitted to remain in Jerusalem. The Church underwent radical change. Gentile Christians replaced all Jewish leaders of the Church.

For the first time, the Church was under the overall guidance of non-Jews. The Jewish base in Jerusalem was gone. It was a time of destabilization that produced embarrassing antagonisms against Jews by many Gentile Christians.

Anti-Jewish rhetoric begins. Such a proponent of anti-Jewish rhetoric was the heretic Marcion of the mid-second century who tried to remove all books of the Bible that did not support his view, including the Old Testament, though it would not be called so until a few years later. He sought to remove from the Gentile-majority church the so-called “Jew” God.

Others like Justin Martyr, a converted Gentile philosopher, embraced the Old Testament Scriptures and the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus) and the apostles. He welcomed the excommunication of Marcion in A.D. 144. In his opinion, Marcion's heresy was the greatest threat to true Christianity of his day. But he fell into another trap. He interpreted the Bible out of Greek philosophy instead of the richness of Hebraic concepts.

Using philosophy to interpret Scripture, he wrangled the Word of God to present his opinions. One of his main arguments, still echoed in church chambers today, was that God had judged the Jews with banishment from the land for killing the Messiah. He reasoned that Gentiles by default were the new, legitimate heirs of the kingdom of God and message of salvation. It was a black and white solution that fit his Greek philosophy well.

Other Gentile-believers arose to stabilize the Church as an institution, but not without an adversarial attitude towards Jews. Theological giants of the times – Cyprian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Tertullian – failed to correct the shift. They advocated it instead.

The paradigm shift that began in A.D. 135 from a Jewish-led church to a Gentile-led church was finished by the last quarter of the second century. The church that began the second century was peculiarly different by the end of the same century. Now only was it Gentile-led, it was Gentile-bred and nourished itself on the milk of Greek philosophy.

In the early fourth century, after a crushing persecution of key church leaders, the Roman Emperor Constantine embraced and legalized the Church. He was severely anti-Jewish before he confessed he was a Christian. His mindset against Jews never converted. Instead, he pressed the scholars and leaders to purge the church of all remaining vestiges of Jewish concepts and practices. An edict was issued with this intent.

Under Constantine’s edict, the Church completely severed itself from its Hebrew roots, including the biblical view of giving offerings. We must understand church history to grapple with the biblical teaching on giving to God. To fail to understand this cataclysmic change of the church in attitude to its historic faith will damage and distort our biblical worldview and heart to understand biblical truth.

Usage of the Jewish calendar to mark the Sabbaths and Jewish festivals ended. Scriptures were translated to conform to the Roman calendar.

Everything in the Church from architecture, time-keeping to Scripture must be sifted through the filter of Plato’s philosophy. Church life was reinterpreted so as to conform to the new neo-Platonic view.

John the Baptist nor the Apostle Paul would not recognize the Church in its new formation. Plato had become the proto-Christ. Historic teachings were remodeled after the philosopher. Christian opponents of the baptism of the Church into Plato were subject to exile or death.

The Dark Ages aren’t yet over. The age of neo-Platonism was official with Constantine’s reformation of the church in the image of the Greek mind. Plato’s philosophy became the grid for all biblical interpretation, replacing and condemning the interpretation methods passed on to the church since Moses.

The dreadful Dark Ages began and the consequences were felt throughout society.

The European Renaissance of the sixteenth century, heralded as the end of the Dark Ages, was overstated. The flowering of reasoning, literature and the science dealt a severe blow to the status quo, but not a fatal blow.

The sixteenth century Protestant Reformation led by Europeans like Martin Luther and John Calvin renewed some cardinal teachings of the ancient church, but failed to restore our Hebrew roots. Anti-Jewishness was rife in the church and the Reformers were no different. The influence of neo-Platonism got a black eye but no discharge.

Neo-Platonism is the lingering hangover of the Dark Ages. Its philosophy yet permeates much of our church doctrine, practices, architecture, arts and outlook on life as believers. In this sense the influence of the Dark Ages continue into the twenty-first century and will until we uproot philosophy as our theological grid for interpreting Scripture, preaching, teaching and believing. The recovery of our ancient Hebrew roots in the Holy Scriptures is essential.

Today a mild renaissance is afoot in the church to recover the Hebraic roots of Christianity and dethrone the philosophy of Plato as the guiding light for interpreting Scripture. Weak as it is, it is without precedence in the past eighteen centuries.

Hopefully, we are nearing the end of a long-tunnel period of neglect of our Hebrew roots. Healthy signs of change are popping up on several fronts. But the sad truth is that the Church in the twenty-first century has far to go to recover its biblical framework for knowing our Lord Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who saves the world from its sins.

Research and study of the Hebrew soil and roots of our faith are important for a renaissance to happen. Results are still lean and subject to critical examination. Much of what we teach and practice as Christians today remains to be explored in light of our Hebrew roots of faith.

Until recently, credible research into our Hebrew roots was unavailable to the average Christian. Now we have a plethora of new books and articles to bring to the examination table. It is not a perfect picture, however, and we have a long way to go.

Even the brightest Hebrew scholars among Christians, because of centuries of Western assumptions, often fail to uproot some of their own cultural biases while pointing out the same tendency in others.

We have to approach the de-Hellenizing of our view of the Word of God and the Church of Jesus Christ with humility.

My desire is to discover the authentic Hebrew roots of our Messianic faith, not with an axe but with a spade in order to know the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) better. If I can find a gentler instrument to probe the root bed without causing sharp division among the believing Gentiles, I will do so.