A few decades ago, Messianic Judaism emerged as a movement among Jews who had accepted Jesus as Messiah but wished to worship Jesus while continuing to practice Judaism and upholding Jewish traditions. The assumption was they would also make the Gospel message more understandable to Jews by presenting Jesus as a Jew and remove the onus of past persecution of the Jews by the Church from evangelistic endeavors. In so doing, there developed a general rejection of symbols associated with Christianity and an importation of practices associated with Judaism.

Since the forms of Christianity that Messianic Judaism used as a starting point was drawn from free church Protestant traditions, the lack of a fixed liturgical form and a developed use of symbolism allowed an easy accommodation of a Jewish facade in its praxis. However, as the movement grew, some saw their relationship with the Church less as an outreach to Jews and more as a restorationist movement that saw the Church as an object of scorn. A survey of Messianic Jewish sites will uncover many attacks upon historic Christianity and assumptions of corruption and even apostasy of the Church at a date ranging from the end of the Apostolic age to the time of Constantine.

Some former Evangelical Protestants, perhaps motivated both by Evangelicalism’s lack of historical roots and its focus upon the state of Israel within dispensationalist eschatology, were drawn to this movement and numerous attempts have been made to create a revisionist history of the Church (a la “Baptist Successionism”) employing a conspiratorial view of history. In their imagined patrimony, there was a major move to suppress the true believers (i.e., the early Messianic Jews) who existed only their imagination. They assume since Jesus was a Jew, the early believers must have been very much like Judaism as we know it. Thus by restoring some supposed Jewish roots, they will finally have the trump card on Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and other Christians who trace their roots further back than the American frontier.

Unfortunately, this progam, as with all restorationist movements, is completely illusory. First of all, Judaism at the time of Jesus was not a monolithic religion. Besides the Pharisees (whose beliefs were the foundation of post-Second Temple Judaism), there were also the Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, and a host of other groups to which were added the new movement that followed Jesus. However, it was not the beliefs of the Pharisees that held sway in the Apostolic Church but those of the Apostles and these teachings were passed down through the very Church they condemn.

The disconnect with Christian tradition and the adoption of a tradition developed among those who have rejected Jesus as Messiah ends in a cognitive dissonance that has been noticed not only by Christians but by many Jews as well. In general, Jews reject Messianic claims to be true Jews since they are applying Jewish traditions to support claims it overtly rejects. This misuse of a tradition is not unique as many Protestant fundamentalists deride historic Christianity while living off one or more of its bequeathed treasures (e.g., Canon of Scripture, Creeds, decrees of the Ecumenical Councils).

As time went on, it was inevitable that the tension from mixing some core beliefs carried down from the Christian tradition while imposing the patterns of the Jewish tradition would begin to surface. The free church tradition of Christianity that greatly influenced the Messianic movement at its inception has always been hostile to more historic forms of the Christian faith and now elements within those promoting reinterpretations of the Christian faith according to Jewish rather than Christian tradition have begun reevaluating even the most basic of Christian doctrines.

A cursory websearch for sites containing “Messianic” or “Hebrew Roots” (the latter are usually gentile fundamentalists using faux Jewishness to lend themselves some air of legitimacy) will quickly reveal troubling doctrinal developments. These range from the revival of ancient heresies to well-intentioned but misguided attempts to present a more Jewish form of Christian doctrines. In the latter case, the lack of historical perspective has led to a confused position that does not reflect the fullness of the doctrine and unintentionally lapses into error.

One prominent issue is an assault on the doctrine of the Trinity using the same sorts of arguments associated with various pseudo-Christian sects. A lesser but still serious aberration is an attempt to redefine the Trinity by keeping its essence but presenting it in a new form that the backers believe presents expresses the “Hebrew Roots” of the doctrine. Unfortunately, such restructuring is often done without consulting the original writings at the time of the Ecumenical Councils and thus it goes forward without a complete understanding of the issues and the implications of altering the original definitions.
The movement overall also suffers from a complete misunderstanding of both God’s motivation in choosing Abraham and his sovereignty in choosing the time when the Eternal Word would become incarnate. The choosing of the Jews had far less to do with God’s preference for Hebrew as it did with His rewarding the faith of Abraham. It also never occurs to these folks that God in His sovereign will chose a time when the Mediterranean world was under the rule of one state (the Roman Empire) whose engineering feats had made quick travel over long distances possible through its vast network of roads, a common tongue in the highly expressive Greek language that allowed a sophisiticated theological presentation, and a rich culture that framed the discussion of the great questions. Thus it was not a coincidence that God chose a time when the politics, infrastructure, language, and culture of an empire allowing an easy expansion, forceful defense, and cultural openness to the message of the Gospel.

None of this is to negate the Church’s indebtedness to its Jewish roots. Where there is confusion in the Church’s understanding, a look back at the Second Temple context of the New Testament does indeed shed light upon many passages. But in reducing the Christian faith to some supposed “Hebrew Roots,” two of the greatest strengths of Christianity are neutralized: its universality and its historicity. However sincere its proponents may be, they are assuming Christ has never been able to fully realize His purpose for the Church until they came along. And, to borrow a term from the Jews, that’s chutzpah!