The varied, wide, and scattered universal community of believers in Jesus Christ who affirm the ongoing validity and continuity of the Mosaic Law currently face an assortment of issues. As a “new” type of “movement” or “denomination” we face not only the compiling together of our thoughts and presentations of our ideas, but also ecclesial issues associated therein as well as a general structuring, organizing, and catechism of these beliefs as well as ourselves. One of these issues is the very fundamental difficulty in this: What, then, shall we call ourselves? Throughout the years “Hebrew Roots (Movement)” has taken hold, and dissenting or contrary voices have used this term to gloss everyone who believes the Law applies to the Christ-believer. A majority of Torah-affirming believers, however, reject such a term as not only a misnomer but that such a term negatively associates them with people who do not share the same beliefs and convictions. To be brief, the “Hebrew Roots” world is mostly a social media phenomenon and has a lot of “interesting” and “creative” views—in other words, there are a lot of “crazies” out there with a lot of ideas not rooted in sound Scriptural exegesis. Naturally, of course, many Torah-affirming believers would like to be explicitly separated from such groups.
Some people have acknowledged both the lack of a descriptor for Torah-affirming believers as well as the anachronism of applying “Hebrew Roots” to many. One such person is R. L. Solberg, a popular YouTuber who has chosen the term “Torahism” to define this “belief system.” Here the same problem I will address below remains: someone who affirms the Torah’s validity for the modern-day believer is not primarily defined, or exclusively defined, by the Torah. One is not a “Torahist” (which almost sounds like terrorist), but is a “whole Bible believer” and “keeper,” a term many actually adopt. Solberg’s attempt to provide a name or label for the general belief is an example of the need to define ourselves, and to allow a specific term to encapsulate the ideas.
A term that has taken root is “Messianic,” which sprouts from the term “Messianic Jew(-ish)” and “Messianic Judaism.” This, which is probably the most popular descriptor, has taken hold across the entire world, and one will find many Torah-affirming believers choosing to identify themselves as either “Messianic,” if they are a Gentile, and “Messianic Jew(-ish),” if they are of Jewish descent. Others have disliked such a term, however, and have sought another term to self-describe themselves, mainly on the basis of separating a Torah-affirming belief system from the typical Messianic Jewish ideas, who (a) mostly resemble something like modern Judaism plus Jesus and (b) reject the validity of the Torah as incumbent upon non-Jewish believers. These ideas are nestled into virtually every Messianic Jewish organization, including but not limited to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), Jews for Jesus, the International Association of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS), and the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC). Contra these views, which are deeply problematic, others have actively sought a new term which both (a) distinguishes themselves from these groups and (b) distinguishes themselves from most people using the term “Messianic” who resemble something closer to “Hebrew Roots.”
One such term is “pronomian,” which is a newer term, being championed mostly by a select few people such as David Wilber, Caleb Hegg, and Joshua Ensley. The term is by no means new, however, and has grown in its use both in association and not in association with Wilber, Hegg, Ensley, and others. I myself have used the term since 2014, simply as an antithesis to “antinomian.” David Wilber has probably popularized the term the most, not only given his wide reach via his platform but through Pronomian Publishing and his frequent use of the term. Wilber, to my knowledge, provides no “definition” of the term apart from saying that it signifies a pro-Torah perspective, as an antithesis to “antinomian.” Wilber seems to continue to describe himself as a Messianic at times, and one will find him frequently using “Messianic Jewish” as a term. Hegg and Ensley differ, but provide definitions. On his website Pronomian.com, Hegg writes the following:
“Pronomian” (meaning pro law in Greek) is a theological position that affirms the validity of God’s law to some degree within the life of a Christian. Some have attempted to make pronomianism a movement within Christianity while others have seen it has a theological position. Both views have the strength and even those who disagree on if Pronomian should be a theology or movement are united (for the most part) in their views of Christ and their position on the law.
Hegg continues to appeal to Dr. Benjamin Szumskyj’s fair description of the term, as well as Dr. G. Scott McKenzie’s, and notes that the very term itself initially appeared in Greg Bahnsen’s book By This Standard, in similar fashion as an antithesis. Hegg is charitable with the different views on how the use of the term is used, yet appeals to Szumskyj’s 13 principles of describing the distinctions between Hebrew Roots and that which pronomian thought holds. The first remains debatable, however—Five Solae and Tota Scriptura—as what these ideas, rooted predominantly in reformed thought, connote and imply are likely not held by most Torah-affirming people, especially Jews (like me) who would prefer to sever all ties with the antisemitic-laden reformed heritage, just as we would ideally (and necessarily!) sever all ties with those who exhibited any type of racism, no matter the “benefits” they may have provided. This is simply intolerable bad fruit, and the tree must be (at least preliminarily) disregarded entirely. Additionally, principles eleven and twelve—biblical patriarchy and cessationism—are debatable, especially depending on how one is to define “cessation.” My own views of cessationism likely differ from every other person’s on the planet, but not only do I affirm the ongoing validity of inspired words, healing of people, prophesying, expelling demons, etc., but I’ve been used by the Spirit to do these things, and on numerous occasions (of which people can witness to). So, cessationism is a difficult topic. Patriarchy is, too, as that really depends on how we are defining these terms. Knowing Dr. Szumskyj personally, his views are primarily biblical and very fair, so these comments are not reflecting issues with what these 13 principles are saying, but how they can be received and interpreted.
Over at Pronomian.org, which seems to be a collaborative website but seems primarily spearheaded by Ensley, they define “pronomian” at length as the following:
Pronomian Christianity is a movement within the Church consisting of Christians who profess and affirm the ongoing validity and applicability of the Torah (ie. The Law of Moses), in addition to the authority of the entire Old and New Testaments. What this means is that Pronomian Christians are Christians who affirm orthodox Christian doctrines such as trinitarianism, the 66-book Christian canon, salvation by Christ alone apart from works, and many more, as well affirming the validity of the commandments contained within the Torah that many Catholics and Protestants deny. The First Pronomian Statement is upheld by Pronomian Christians as a means of affirming these beliefs.
The term pronomia is the antithesis of the term anomia (ἀνομία): lawlessness, iniquity, disobedience, sin. The term ἀνομία is a combination of the Greek prefix α (against; negating) & νόμος (that which is assigned, usage, law). Linguistically, pronomia reflects “pro-law” in contrast to “anti-law” of ἀνομία.
Pronomian Christianity upholds that the entirety of God’s Law, as expressed in the Torah, is moral and remains applicable to the Christian life. This perspective challenges the traditional tripartite division of the law into ceremonial, civil, and moral categories, a division that Pronomian Christians see as a later theological construct rather than a biblical one. Instead, Pronomianism asserts that every commandment given by God carries moral weight because it originates from the moral character of God Himself (Deuteronomy 32:4), even though particular commandments are civil and/or ceremonial in nature.
So here what comes to the forefront is the assertion of the term “Pronomian Christian” as a preferred designator for a Torah-affirming believer in Christ. So, retain “Christian”, and simply add the adjective “Pronomian.” Ensley, and others, solve what I see as the main issue with Hegg’s claim that “pronomian” means “pro-law” in Greek. This is something I’ve seen echoed by many, which is simply false. Ensley (and others) have either corrected this idea or nuanced it with saying that “Linguistically, pronomia reflects ‘pro-law’ in contrast to ‘anti-law’ of ἀνομία” (emphasis mine). Prefixing the Greek πρό to a word provides the meaning of “before,” “in front of,” or “towards,” but does not mean “pro” as in “for” against “anti.” This actually stems from the Latin, where pro means something akin to “in favor of” or “in support of.” So it’s mixing the Latin pro and the Greek νόμος (“law”). “Pronomian,” if regarded as “Greek for for-Law” is a misnomer, and rather embarrassing for the rest of us. And this is where I take issue with “pronomian” as a descriptor for belief, and thus for calling ourselves “pronomian,” whether prefixed itself to “Christian” or what have you. Rather, I believe “pronomian” can only be applicable if designating a term that is used stylistically and creatively in a neologism-like fashion. In other words, a title we ascribe to our belief ought to be grounded in linguistic precision whereas a title we ascribe to a framework, hermeneutic, or approach to Scripture is free to be creative and, therefore, not necessarily precise.
And this is where it seems Dr. Szumskyj, for instance, regards “pronomian” as a hermeneutic or methodology of interpretation, which is where I personally land. Not only for the reasons listed above, but primarily because the term is limited in its descriptive volume. In another way, the term “pronomian” has only to do with the Law—a view towards the Law and its continuity—and does not have the breadth to explain the system of belief for a believer. If one is to call themselves a “Pronomian Christian,” shall we call ourselves “Seventh-Day Ceation Christian,” “Complementarian Christian,” “Pre-Wrath Christian,” and the list goes on depending on what particular doctrine or dogma we hold in a certain area? As an adjective or perfection of what “type” of “Christian” we are? My point here is simply that “pronomian,” if signaling the doctrine which holds the Law’s continuity within the Church, is simply one aspect of the faith that one holds, and does not function to describe one’s belief. I am not a “pro-Torah” believer, I am a believer in Christ—I simply find intrinsic to the faith the fact that the Torah is the eternal instruction of God. Prefixing “Pronomian” to “Christian” both (a) almost creates or connotes a type of faction within Christianity, and (b) demands further description, while (c) as addressed above, only covering one aspect of one’s faith. For (b), the issue we are really faced with is that now that people such as Hegg and Ensley are making the term “official,” and laying a claim onto it, “pronomian” is now beginning to take on definitions—meant to apply to the use of the term as a whole—which many of us, including myself, cannot agree to and/or affirm.
Moreover, I have encountered many people using the term “pronomian” in this way or associating themselves with these ideas who see numerous parts of the Law as no longer applying, which undermines the entire premise of the term itself. Some of these individuals, too, seem to have had some role in this particular group’s establishment of the term. If I may be so frank, a lot of people associated with this use of “pronomian” seem to be reformed + some of the Torah, which does not properly represent what many of us see as a “pronomian” view of the Law. We may certainly debate certain parts of the Law which no longer apply, but then one must really ask themselves how this is, in essence or principle, any different from the very viewpoint the term seeks to distance and distinguish themselves from. What is the difference, when viewing the dis/continuity of the Law, between someone disregarding Sabbath or tzitzits? In my view, nothing.
So here “pronomian” has significant difficulties in (a) it is being claimed by a certain group(s) of people who see it as distancing from Messianic Judaism, which relies on rabbinic traditions, yet they simultaneously impose their own traditions, mostly from reformed thought, onto the term. And (b) there are simply too many people using the term in diverse ways, many of whom have no knowledge of Hegg, Ensley, and even Wilber, Szumskyj or McKenzie. And the way it is being primarily used is for a hermeneutic, a framework or viewpoint, of affirming the Torah rather than used as a description. Interestingly enough, many of these people choose the term “Messianic” to define themselves. And finally, related to these, (c) whenever someone now uses the term “pronomian,” they run the risk of being associated with these people, who may eventually be simply hijacking it. These items essentially, to me, disqualify it from being used as a label both (a) in general and (b) specifically for belief.
I believe that “pronomian” as a theological position or exegetical/interpretive hermeneutic rather than a denominational or religious term works best. And I think we should all be actively working towards establishing the term as a hermeneutical framework and methodology that aptly and generally describes a pro-Torah perspective towards the Law, much like how other terms within Christendom operate to denote a specific type of approach (e.g., apocalypticism or post-supersessionism). This turns “pronomian” from a misnomer into a neologism-title that affords linguistic flexibility. It also accommodates developments of and associations with the term that has since come to surface, given those who are using it in different ways can agree with this idea and conform to it.
As for a term that describes the Torah-affirming belief system, I find that Adjective + Title or just adjectives in general (e.g. ‘Torah-observant’ or ‘Whole-Bible-Believer’) fail to properly, precisely, and genuinely define someone. Again, I am not a _____ believer, I am a believer. It is my contention that “Messianic” ought to be the established title and label for a Torah-affirming believer in Christ, and for a few reasons I will list below, in no particular order of importance.
1. The term is already in circulation, being used widely by those of diverse backgrounds, locales, doctrinal commitments, etc., but is most frequently (in my experience) used by those who are mostly of evangelical backgrounds and commitments but keep the Torah. Moreover, these people are often identified as believing the entire Law is to be kept, and therefore they resemble the most accurate representation of what “pronomian” or “Messianic” is. But the popularity of the term establishes its validity, even if just its inevitability.
2. The title, rather than “Christian,” neatly and gently causes a distinction linguistically without either (a) too closely associating with Christianity or (b) distancing oneself from Christianity, or rather Christendom, too much. The term is also linguistically sound, being suffixed by -ic rather than -ian, as in “Christian,” which essentially express the same thing (see point #3 below). Instead of drawing from the Greek Χριστιανός (found in Acts and 1 Peter), and thus from the title Χριστός (christos, “Christ”) we are drawing from the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach, “messiah”), so “Messia-nic” rather than “Christ-ian.” The difference here emphasizes the Hebraic origins of the faith, which allows us to highlight the validity of the Torah, as Torah-affirming belief mostly hinges upon the ongoing relevance of both testaments, not simply the so-called “new.” The choice of “Messianic” over “Christian” maintains the connections, which center on Christ, but neatly and gently maintain a clear distinction.
3. The two suffixes -ic and -ian are almost identical in English, with -ic coming from the Greek -ικός, which means “of” or “pertaining to.” It also has other English functions demonstrated in examples such as “music” and “physics.” The term “Messianic” has shortcomings in that its “original” idea was describing something as pertaining to (a/the) Messiah, for example Messianic prophecies in the first testament. But as a descriptor of persons or beliefs, to say that we are “of” or “pertaining to” the Messiah is fitting and significant, and for that reason I believe it is a non-issue, but actually to be embraced for what it describes: we are those who are “of” the Messiah, and our faith is “pertaining to” the Messiah-based teleology of the whole biblical story.
4. “Messianic” as a descriptor allows close association with Messianic Judaism, which one can argue the entire “denomination” or “movement” is an off-shoot of, drawing from the very fitting allegory of the olive tree employed by Paul in Romans. A “Messianic” is like a “Messianic Jew,” believing the same things, but simply not being Jewish. I don’t think the ideas which surround Messianic Judaism ought to be regarded as reason to abandon the term, but these ideas ought to be confronted and publicly rejected. Messianic Judaism, if we are to regard it as monolithic, is guilty of upholding Jewish tradition, which is a cultural issue rather than a doctrinal one, and ought to be regarded as such. We ought to correct the entirety of Messianic Judaism from within, which is more plausible than correcting Christianity from within. This also leads to my fifth point.
5. By Gentile believers in Christ who affirm the ongoing validity of the Torah choosing the term “Messianic” we simultaneously uphold the real distinction between “Messianics” and “Messianic Jews,” eschewing erroneous ideas of supersessionism that disregard the Jewish people as still being God’s chosen people. It fits perfectly within the ideas expressed in point #4 above, which upholds the idea of Jew and Gentile coming into one body. Since the faith of Christ began as a truly Messianic Jewish movement or reality, later bringing Gentiles into the faith, these terms allow us to maintain such a thematic reality and programmatic expansion of the faith. They allow “Messianics” to be the Gentiles accompanying the Jews in their restoration by God in Christ. I think this reason is significant and carries weight.
There are other reasons we may list, but the five above summarize the main points why I believe “Messianic” ought to be the term adopted, used, and proliferated by Torah-affirming believers in Christ; why “Messianic Jew” ought to be the term applied to those of Jewish descent who have accepted Christ as their Messiah and affirm the validity of the Torah; and why “pronomian” is best regarded as a hermeneutic and methodology for framing the Scripture within a Torah-affirming approach. These terms accord with the widespread use already established while also severing ties to Hebrew Roots ideas and enabling us to contend over doctrinal matters within one established ideology label, just as multiple Christian sects and denominations contend over and debate doctrinal positions under the larger and universal banner of “Christian.” A “Messianic” is simply a Christian who has chosen to use the Hebrew source for the name rather than the Greek source, thus severing any ties to unbiblical presuppositions and positions held within Christendom. But this does not distance us too far from “Christianity,” simply nuances what we believe versus what they believe, especially as the “pronomian” framework does not simply concern itself with the ongoing validity of the Torah, as in the Mosaic Law and its commandments, but also allows such a view to enlighten other topical concerns like covenant, familial structure(s), etc. etc., which all do, it must be said, need to be fleshed out amongst ourselves.
The only issue is how to term the belief as a whole. Should we call it “Messianicity” or “Messianism” or “Messianicism?” “Christian” has its neat “Christianity,” but our options don’t really flow well. Moreover, it is not “Messianic Judaism” as it is not “Judaism” per se, but “biblicism,” if that makes sense. I don’t have an answer for this, and this is where “pronomianism” has an advantage, but it really suffers from the points listed above, of really only having descriptive power over one element of the faith: the Law. I think “Messianicism” may sound rough, but may be the most promising, as -ism describes the ideas surrounding the -ic of Messiah. But I don’t posit or proffer this entire essay to be assertive in any way, but simply suggesting that “Messianic” is the ideal term for self-describing one’s Torah-affirmation within faith in Christ, and “pronomian” is the ideal term for a Torah-affirming and Torah-shaped interpretive methodology.
What I think this essay can shed light on is that we cannot, as Torah-affirming believers, allow a select group to be able to begin adding definitions and attributes to a term that is already widely used to describe what I am proposing. It is essentially imposing upon a Torah-affirming worldview the same ornaments of dogma that Christendom did to eradicate the Law from its doctrine in the first place. “Pronomian” ought to be a neutral term for the general view of how we interpret the Scripture, and the term for self-description as a Torah-affirming believer in Christ ought to be all-encompassing with a focus on Christ (i.e., “Messianic”) while, again, neatly and gently distinguishing ourselves from Christians and Christianity. I also believe that the culturally-motivated and likely being-agreeable-inspired unbiblical positions held by many Messianic Jewish groups towards Gentiles ought not to motivate us to remove ourselves from associating with them but, rather, be entreated as a necessary in-group conflict that must be addressed from within, not from without. Those of us who envisage the Gentile believer as an equal and full member of God’s people with the same expectations of righteousness placed upon them as those of Jewish descent ought to become, by God’s actions, the predominant voice in the matter. We need to be concerned with why they are wrong with elevating antiquated and anachronistic rabbinic traditions and erroneously relegating the Gentile as a second-rate child of God. And that is more pressing than labels.
A final note that I find to be the most important is that discussions like this one need to inspire “Messianics” and “pronomians” to finally come together, unite, and under one banner start to develop some type of universal catechism or doctrinal statement, if that is at all possible. For example, why is there a Pronomian.com and a Pronomian.org? I doubt there’s any issue there, so I am just being funny, but the irony of Messianics apparently having “the full truth” and being even more divided than Christendom is a contradiction of that which we claim to affirm. I believe it is high tide and we need to join, encourage and empower one another, and work towards establishing an “official” type of “denomination” where our “greatest minds” can join together and establish all of what we hold to be true, while simultaneously dispelling and soundly debunking heresies and other things which have been fostered within Hebrew Roots areas. The larger Messianic world (see I’m just using the term) is begging for this, and I’ve even played around with something I’ve called The Orthodox Messianic Proclamation. I, myself, am happy to fall under an umbrella that properly, soundly, exegetically, and objectively represents a single “quasi-organization,” and am more than willing to participate in open dialogue towards that end. It will be challenging, but I don’t think we’ll ever look like anything other than a bunch of lone rangers all positioning ourselves as the correct voice over against all the others. It will never work, and that’s not how God works anyway.
Selah!