One of the reasons why heresy never dies, apart from the ongoing darkness of the human heart and mind, is that subsequent generations are ignorant that our ancestors in the faith faced substantially the same false teachings, rejected them, and triumphed over those advocating false teachings. For example: If the modern Church were more familiar with Athanasius I of Alexandria's complete success in refuting Arianism, the Church would have readily recognized this same heresy when it resurfaced in the 19th century among the Jehovah's Witnesses, its people would have shunned this new teaching (even more than they did), and perhaps it would not have established itself to ensnare the unsuspecting as it does to this day. But I digress, the Church, as a whole, does do a poor job of remembering its history and learning from it (as does humanity as a whole).
Which brings us to the modern heretical ideas gathered under the umbrella of the name: Hebrew Roots Movement. While this movement has within it much variety, and little to no structure or hierarchy, it shares in general the repetition of the errors of several groups that the Early Church Fathers confronted and whose teachings were rejected as unorthodox by the Church. One such group was the Ebionites. The Hebrew Roots Movement and the Ebionites share some theological reasonings and conclusions, but not all. So why bring them up together? They both professed the desire/need/requirement for gentile followers of Jesus Christ to embrace the Mosaic Law as part of righteous discipleship. In as much as the Early Church Fathers addressed this error then, we can apply their wisdom to its modern revival.
The following are among the many relevant excerpts from these writings, with the links to the full PDF so you can examine it further:
Ignatius of Antioch, d - 108 AD, Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 8
Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Here Ignatius, a second generation Christian that traditions says learned directly from the aged Apostle John, states point-blank that living according to the Jewish law, and all that it entails, is proof that a disciple of Jesus Christ has not received grace. To Ignatius it was clear that trying to live under the Law of Moses, and the grace of faith in Jesus Christ, were incompatible.
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 10
It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God...It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that confesses, is gathered unto God. And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of Abraham, the friend of God; and in his seed all those have been blessed who were ordained to eternal life in Christ. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Two strong statements here, (1) that the Hebrew Roots Movement has it backwards when it claims Christianity must return to its roots in Judaism, rather Ignatius reminds his readers that those living under the Law of Moses were called by John the Baptist, and then Jesus himself, to repent and believe. It was not business as usual, not simply a reform of Judaism put forth by Jesus, but a new covenant that he came to establish. Ignatius believed this so strongly that he, (2) declares that Judaism itself, the religious practice built around the Law of Moses, has "come to an end." {Given the antisemitism that arose long after Ignatius, we need to be reminded that this is a theological statement only regarding the efficacy of New Covenant's ability to abrogate the Old , NOT a call to deny the religious rights of those who choose to follow Judaism in our world today, something we should all be willing to strive to protect.}
Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 10
“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?...{Trypho's criticism of Christianity:} "But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God." {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: In Justin Martyr's dialogue with the Jewish apologist Trypho (most likely a fictionalized version of those with whom the author had spoken), we see clearly that Justin Martyr is portraying Christianity, then in only its second generation, with many leaders who had learned directly from the eyewitness Apostles themselves, as having nothing to do with the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses (Sabbath keeping, circumcision, festivals). Trypho goes so far as to claim that the Christians "despised" the Mosaic covenant and rejected all the duties it entails. IF (it isn't true, but for the sake of the hypothetical) as the Hebrew Roots Movement claims, the Early Church practiced Judaism by the design and purpose of Jesus and the Apostles, it didn't last long {there is no evidence they ever did}, by the second generation the line between Christianity and Judaism was clearly drawn, the rejection of the Law of Moses for gentile believers firmly established in the surviving documentation. {FYI, the Hebrew Roots Movement often claims that this 'change' occurred only much later under Emperor Constantine, 200 years after Justin Martyr, a position that is absurd on its face.}
Epistle to Diognetus (author unknown), 130 AD, chapters 3-4
But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,–I do not think that you require to learn anything from me. For, to accept some of those things which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed, and to reject others as useless and redundant,–how can this be lawful? And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days,–how is not this impious? And to glory in the circumcision of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God,–how is it not a subject of ridicule? And as to their observing months and days, as if waiting upon the stars and the moon, and their distributing, according to their own tendencies, the appointments of God, and the vicissitudes of the seasons, some for festivities, and others for mourning,–who would deem this a part of divine worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: This letter's unknown author considered the very idea that Christians should concern themselves with the kinds of things that Paul wrote against in Galatians to be, "utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice".
Irenaeus, 130-202 AD, Bishop of Lyon: Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) chapter 26
Chapter XXVI.—Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes. (pg. 73 on the PDF)
2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions
with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel
according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate
from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular
manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined
by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the
house of God. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Irenaeus here writes against the Ebionites, a sect he most strongly rejected as heretical, describing among their various flaws the, "observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law". To Irenaeus, that the Ebionites claimed to be following Jesus Christ while still living a lifestyle of Judaism, was at the heart of why they should be opposed.
Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), book 4, chapter 13
as He does Himself declare: “Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command—namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them—is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.
2. For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is converted should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery.
4. Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them indeed the beginning and origin; but in us they have received growth and completion. For to yield assent to God, and to follow His Word, and to love Him above all, and one’s neighbour as one’s self (now man is neighbour to man), and to abstain from every evil deed, and all other things of a like nature which are common to both [covenants], do reveal one and the same God. But this is our Lord, the Word of God, who in the first instance certainly drew slaves to God, but afterwards He set those free who were subject to Him, as He does Himself declare to His disciples: “I will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard from My Father I have made known.” For in that which He says, “I will not now call you servants,” He indicates in the most marked manner that it was Himself who did originally appoint for men that bondage with respect to God through the law, and then afterwards conferred upon them freedom. And in that He says, “For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth,” He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Here Irenaeus offers the rationale as to why the Mosaic Law must be rejected as incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ: Jesus fulfilled the Law, setting us free from it to live according to the Spirit. After Pentecost, we don't NEED the Law's tutelage anymore.
Tertullian, 155-220 AD, An Answer to the Jews, chapter 2
For why should God, the founder of the universe, the Governor of the whole world, the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower of universal nations be believed to have given a law through Moses to one people, and not be said to have assigned it to all nations? For unless He had given it to all by no means would He have habitually permitted even proselytes out of the nations to have access to it. But—as is congruous with the goodness of God, and with His equity, as the Fashioner of mankind—He gave to all nations the selfsame law, which at definite and stated times He enjoined should be observed, when He willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed...For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of the same Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His province withal subsequently to train, who had before resolved to form, righteous creatures. For what wonder if He extends a discipline who institutes it? if He advances who begins?...And let us not annul this power which God has, which reforms the law’s precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man’s salvation. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Tertullian answers an objection offered by the Hebrew Roots Movement in their claim that the Mosaic Law is permanent. Is God not God? Cannot he who instituted the Law also reform it and then declare it fulfilled? Cannot God give a new and better way according to his purpose and wisdom? The giving of the Law of Moses at Sinai is not a straightjacket limiting God's will moving forward.
Origen, 185-253 AD, Contra Celsum, Book 2, chapter 4
Now, certainly the introduction to Christianity is through the Mosaic worship and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction, it is in the interpretation and explanation of these that progress takes place, while those who are introduced prosecute their investigations into the mystery according to revelation, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of the prophets, and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as you allege, treat the things written in the law with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow upon them greater honour, showing what a depth of wise and mysterious reasons is contained in these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the Jews, who treat them superficially, and as if they were in some degree even fabulous. And what absurdity should there be in our system — that is, the Gospel— having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: If you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My words? Nay, even one of the evangelists— Mark — says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You, which shows that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings. What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew of Celsus, that if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God? Or how is it a charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was a Jew, it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of Moses. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Here Origen counters yet another false narrative leveled against Christianity by the Hebrew Roots Movement: Christianity, in its orthodox form, disrespects the Law. Origen dismisses this charge, rightly proclaiming the value of God's work prior to the Incarnation, and at the same time, rejecting the notion that acknowledging the debt that Christianity owes to Judaism (as Paul does in Romans) in any way obligates Christians to obey the Law of Moses.
Eusebius, d 339 AD, Church Historian: Church History, volume III, chapter 27
Chapter 27. The Heresy of the Ebionites.
1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.
2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.
3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.
4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.
6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.
{Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Here the great historian of the Early Church, Eusebius, writes about the Ebionites, once more detailing their desire to live in adherence to the Mosaic Law, a stance that was rejected in the generations before Eusebius wrote of it.
In the end, there is a vast host of Early Church commentary related to the subject of the Law of Moses. Looking across the breadth and depth of it, one would search in vain to find orthodox voices in support of anything resembling the notion put forth (to varying degrees) by those within the Hebrew Roots Movement, that the Mosaic Law has any kind of claim to obedience upon the gentile followers of Jesus Christ. If we did not have available to us the wisdom of the Early Church Fathers to illuminate how they practiced their faith, that the Hebrew Roots Movement is dangerously wrong on this issue could still more than sufficiently be demonstrated from the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the letters of the New Testament itself. We have enough internal evidence, from God's Word, to close the case, the external evidence from Early Church history is to us an added layer of certainty, demonstrating that our interpretation of scripture is in alignment with that of our ancestors in the faith. The Early Church sounded rejected the notion, put forth by various sects they rightly deemed heretical, that followers of Jesus Christ are in any way obligated to live under the Law of Moses.
Additional Resources:
earlychristiancommentary.com
christianhistory.org
