It is of the utmost importance to understand the foundation of all Christian faith systems is based almost entirely upon the orthodox Catholic … so called Roman … religion! It is absolutely true regardless of any unity or disunity with Rome or the Papacy … it is all a moot point! Why? Because all Christian faith systems are fundamentally un-rooted from the original orthodox Hebraic faith of the chosen people! It simply is the truth and this truth will be revealed herein!
So when considering the doctrinal foundation from an infantile Church perspective one initially thinks that this should have been easy enough; just pull out the Bible and go to work, right? Wrong! 1,900 years ago there weren't convenient public libraries, there weren't printing presses, there weren't Barnes & Noble book stores, there weren't “Bibles” as we understand, and a vast majority of the population would have been marginally literate - including a significant portion of believers! In fact the vast majority of Gentiles being witnessed to would not even have had an understanding of the Hebrew Religion at all. Still further at the end of the first century Ce. (common era), with the exception of the Hebrew Religion (Judaism), there was no singular accepted “doctrine” from which believers could determine correct from incorrect beliefs.
Although the apostolic fathers would have served as the pillars of faith one must not lose sight that these brave souls were under extreme duress to:
1) Get the gospel message of salvation out to all peoples;
2) Wrestle with issues relating to witnessing to both Jews as well as Gentiles;
3) Stay alive while suffering persecution from both Jews and the empire's authorities;
4) Establish and maintain control over a quickly developing and expanding ecclesia; and of course …
5) Deal with ongoing issues related to false teachings and beliefs.
Rarely do modern believers ponder the enormous burden shouldered by early Church fathers and the continually developing ecclesia. They had to deal with the reality that the “Gospel of Mashiach” movement literally exploded across the civilized world of the day. This author is not implying that the spread of the gospel message was done haphazardly or without conscientious efforts, but it must be understood from an ecclesiastical and doctrinal perspective that the time period must have been incredibly challenging and even down-right frightening.
There were however no technological supports available to early Church fathers from a travel and communications perspective. Early Church fathers could not broadcast an email, make a phone call or go on television to get their messages across to the population. The point is that while the Church of Messiah was essentially in its infantile stages, and spreading quickly far and wide, there were really minimal opportunities to assimilate new members to the faith in a manner whereby they could be provided a solid religious foundation. Of course there would have been some of the Epistles and even the Gospel narratives available but what about all the material on which these writings were resting? In essence there weren't any Christian manuals or robust doctrinal exegetical works in the early stages of the developing Church of Messiah and there would not be for quite some time.
If the reader thinks this author might be taking liberties and making broad sweeping assumptions, without support, to make a case of “delayed doctrinal development,” please consider the following information pertinent to the early Church of Messiah. Information relevant to: persecutions suffered, heresies battled, the Church's relationship with the Jews and early church synods.
* * * * * * *
c. 81–96 Ce, Persecution of Christians in Rome under Domitian took place.
c.107–117 Ce, Martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch, Church leader and bishop. He was a disciple of John the Apostle, along with Polycarp; Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule.
c. 111 Ce, Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, wrote in a letter that to his surprise, the Christians were not guilty of any of the vices they were rumored to engage in while continuing to execute Christians who would not apostatize.
c. 117 Ce, Persecution of Christians under Hadrian.
c. 156 Ce, Martyrdom of Polycarp, disciple of John the Apostle.
c. 161–180 Ce, Persecution under Marcus Aurelius.
c. 202–210 Ce, Emperor Septimius Severus severely persecuted Christians with the aim of eliminating the Church of Messiah while establishing one common religion in the Empire (Paganism).
c. 222 Ce, Alexander Severus became emperor. He lifted some harsh laws against the Christians, and essentially gave them the right to exist as a religion.
c. 235 Ce, the Emperor Maximian launched persecution against the heads of the Church. Numerous Church leaders perished in this time period.
c. 250–251 Ce, The Decian Persecution. The Emperor Decius required all citizens of the Empire to perform acts of worship to the gods of the State. People suspected of Christianity are brought before a commission and required to sacrifice. Refusal meant a long prison stay and subjection to torture so that the accused would apostatize. Failing that, they are put to death.
c. 257–259 Ce, The Emperor Valerian launched a persecution against Christians. The clergy was summoned to sacrifice to the pagan gods. If they refused, the Church property they legally held in the Church's name was to be confiscated and they were to be exiled (a year later, the penalty would be immediate execution). All faithful Christians who met in religious assemblies were punishable by death.
c. 259 Ce, Peace of Gallenius. Emperor Gallenius succeeded to the throne, ended much persecution of Christians and legally recognized their existence. Church property was restored. Churches were again built. Christianity still remained a target for hostility however and was viewed as a threat to the established pagan religion.
c. 270–275 Ce, Emperor Aurelian ruled that the bishop of a city was whomever the bishops of Italy and Rome acknowledged as such. This way the secular arm made it possible for Rome to effectively depose bishops.
c. 302 Ce, Growing intolerance of Christians led to the army and the imperial service being closed to professed Christians.
c. 303 Ce, “The Great Persecution” of Christians began under Diocletian through a series of devastating edicts. All people were to worship pagan state gods. Churches were to be destroyed; Christian books were to be burned. The first act of the persecution was to burn down the cathedral at Nicomedia.
c. 304 Ce, Christians faithful to their religion were now subject to the death penalty. The government committed massacres to terrify the faithful.
c. 310 Ce, Sapor II became king of the Persian Empire. Until the third century, the Church grew in Persia without persecution. However, with the accession of the Sassanid Dynasty (227 Ce) the Church became suspect and was eventually persecuted. Under Sapor II, Christians were subject to a persecution worse than any undertaken by the Roman Emperors. Christianity was considered the religion of the Roman Empire, with whom the Persians were constantly at war.
c. 313 Ce, Edict of Milan. Toleration of Christians in the Western Roman Empire. All people, not only Christians, had freedom of religion so long as they rendered honor to “the divinity.” Emperor Constantine returned Church property. In the Eastern Empire, Maximinus continued to persecute Christians until he granted them toleration in a last-ditch effort to gain their favor and keep alive his struggle against his enemy Licinius
c. 313 Ce, The Lateran palace made its first appearance in Catholic history as it was the scene of an appeal of the Donatists in the matter of Cecillian's election as Bishop of Carthage. Emperor Constantine chose the bishops to sit on the tribunal, but the Vicar of Rome presided over it. It ruled in favor of Cecillian.
c. 323 Ce, Licinius, Emperor of the East, launched a persecution against Christians.
c. 323 Ce, Constantine and Licinius battled at Chrysopolis. Licinius died six months later. Constantine had no rival and was the sole ruler of the Empire. Constantine preserved freedom of religion, but his attitude towards paganism became contemptuous. Paganism and Christianity enjoyed equal status before the law.
Commentary:
As the reader can see from this listing of primary persecutions, and in some cases intervention to stop or relax persecutions of the early Church, the environment was often not conducive to even survival, let alone development of a governing doctrinal base. But the reader may ask: why is this doctrinal base so important? This issue will become very clear as we proceed with the review.
Please keep in mind that a net result of these continual persecutions was the decimation of knowledgeable, courageous and faithful early church leaders. Those leaders that survived did so for the most part by acquiescing to Rome's demands … essentially they apostatized to have their lives spared.
* * * * * * *
Within the early Church of Messiah there were numerous and often very dangerous beliefs which emerged. Often these diverse beliefs split the Church not only along doctrinal but cultural and geo-political lines as well. Following is a brief summary of “major” doctrinal beliefs deemed “heretical” by the Church.
[Antinomianism: or “lawlessness”, is the idea that members of the faith were under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by early church religious authorities and elders.
Apollinarism or Apollinarianism: was a view that Yeshua had a human body but a divine mind.
Arianism: a Christological view that G_D the Father and the Son were not co-eternal. The doctrine held that the pre-incarnate Yeshua was a divine being but nonetheless created by, and consequently then inferior to, the Father at some point before which the Son did not exist.
Docetism: is the belief that Yeshua did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his execution on the stake.
Gnosticism: is a historical term for various mystical initiatory religions, cults and knowledge schools which were most active in the first few centuries Ce. around the Mediterranean and extending into central Asia. These systems typically recommend the pursuit of special knowledge (gnosis) as the central goal of life. They also commonly depict creation as a battle between competing forces of light and dark and believe in a marked division between the material realm, which is typically depicted as under the governance of evil forces, and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided. It should be further noted that Gnosticism maintains its roots in Oriental/Chaldean/Egyptian mysticism.
Marcionism: is the dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144 Ce. Marcionism reflects a different understanding of the roots of Christian belief than that commonly held today. To the early Church, the source of the most persistent persecution of Christians was from Judaism.
An ordained bishop of Sinope in Asia Minor, Marcion declared that Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism. This was nothing new to the Church of his contemporaries. Indeed, a great number of early Church fathers attacked Judaism; for example, John Chrysostom believed that Jews “worship the devil.” Marcion went much further. First, he rejected the whole Bible other than the Gospel of Luke. Second, he adopted a belief in two gods. One was good; the other was the Jewish G_D who was evil, but somehow created the universe.
Modalism: considers G_D to be one person appearing and working in the different “modes” of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Monophysitism: (from the Greek monos meaning “one, alone” and physis meaning “nature”) is the Christological position that Messiah has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian Council position which holds that Yeshua has two natures, one divine and one human.
Montanism: was an early Christian sectarian movement of the mid second century Ce, named after its founder Montanus. The most widely known Montanist was undoubtedly Tertullian, who was called the “Father of the Latin Church” before his defection to Montanism.
Shortly after Montanus’ conversion to Christianity, he began traveling among the rural settlements of Asia Minor, preaching and testifying. Montanus was accompanied by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who also purported to be the embodiments of The Holy Spirit that moved and inspired them. He claimed to have received a series of direct revelations from The Holy Spirit and to be the paraclete of the Gospel of John 14:16. As they went, “the Three” as they were called, spoke in ecstatic visions and urged their followers to fast and pray, so that they might share these personal revelations. His preaching spread from his native Phrygia, where he proclaimed the village of Pepuza as the site of the New Jerusalem, across the contemporary Christian world, to Africa and Gaul.
Nestorianism: is the Christian doctrine that Yeshua existed as two persons, the man Yeshua and the divine Son of G_D, rather than as a unified person. This doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c.386–c.451), Patriarch of Constantinople. This view of Yeshua was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 Ce, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church.
The Ophites: is more or less a broad term for numerous gnostic sects in Syria and Egypt about 100 Ce. The common trait was that these sects would give great importance to the serpent of the Biblical tale of Adam and Eve, connecting the Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil) to gnosis. In contrast to Christian interpretations of the Serpent as Satan, Ophites viewed the serpent as the hero and regarded the figure that the Bible identifies as G_D as being the evil lesser G_D.
Psilanthropism: or Socinianism, is a Christological view that denies the divine nature of Yeshua. The presumed etymology of “psilanthropism” stems from the Greek psilo (merely, only) and anthropos (man, human being). Psilanthropism was rejected by the ecumenical councils.] viii
Commentary:
As can be seen there was no shortage of variant doctrines developed after the Kingdom of G_D began being preached to the masses. This abbreviated summary of divergent doctrines, coupled with the review of the persecutions suffered, provides the reader with a better idea as to what was going on within the early Church. It was the development and spread of a number of these heretical doctrines which ultimately led the Church hierarchy to finally energize and establish an official doctrinal base in response to these numerous emerging heresies … there was in fact a recognition that orthodoxy was needed!
In spite of many diverse doctrinal contentions being put forth within the early Church however, “doctrinal order” would not come officially until a long time after the gift of the Revelation of Yeshua HaMashiach. Although it should be presumed the early Church had some means of establishing control and communications between various Churches, it should be noted that records of such “centralized” control are scant. Furthermore, although some early post apostolic Church writings do exist which support some doctrinal development and indicate certain emerging practices and traditions, these writings are also short in number and certainly do not convey any true organizational unity or standardized practices throughout the entire Church body. In all fairness to the early Church fathers there were significant: logistical, organizational and survival issues that certainly would have profoundly hampered the methodological development of standard Church doctrine.
In light of this environment pervasive in the early years of the Church of The Messiah, we can understand why the first record of an “Episcopal council” in the post-Apostolic Age was the Synod of Ephesus, not held until 190 Ce. Worse yet is that the first ever Church wide ecumenical council would not be held until the year 325 Ce. in Nicaea; just about three hundred years after the Earthly ministry of Yeshua HaMashiach.
* * * * * * *
At this point in time the reader may be accepting of the fact that the development of the official doctrinal base by the early Church was significantly delayed. It would seem apparent this was the case! The reader may also add: so what? Truths do not change, and we know the Bible had been intact for thousands of years. What is the problem if the doctrinal development in earnest was delayed for such a long time?
If the reader is satisfied that Christianity is in fact “Hebraically rooted” or at least supposed to be then it would make sense that the early Church's doctrinal development efforts would have been undertaken with this in mind. Agreed?
At this point the reader may be thinking that modern Christian doctrine is reflective of both the Old Testament and of Yeshua’s role as The Mashiach of Israel. This then of course must mean the early Church did account for this “Hebraic rooting!” So what is the author driving at?
Although we have explored the dynamic of the early Church environment in terms of persecutions and variant emergent heresies, we really have not yet explored the last major aspect of the early Church cultural dynamic. This aspect being the relationship between the Jews and the early Church Gentiles! Since we are in effect discussing the development of doctrinal exegesis in terms of Hebraic rooting we should look to see if this relationship might in some way have affected the early Church in some manner.
What do we know about this Jewish and early Church relationship? We know the early Church had a heavy Jewish contingent and was of course “Jewish” centric through the Apostolic Age. We also know the relationship between the greater community of Jews, which did not accept Yeshua as Mashiach, and the early Church was not a good relationship. In fact there is solid supporting evidence to indicate the early Christians were persecuted, with indirect and often direct support, by the so called real Jewish communities.
Ultimately however we know that sometime between the end of the Apostolic Age (death of John the Apostle) and the time frame of Marcion (see previous heresy—Marcionism) circa 145 Ce., that there was already a belief that the new Church was absolutely distinct from and separate from Judaism or from a broader extent the Hebrew Religion.
Even prior to Marcion other early writings within the Church exhorted congregations to break away from purported Jewish fables and religious practices. Marcion was in no way alone in the anti-Jewish mind set. But it should be made known there were different early Church camps that were opposed to elements of mainstream and not so mainstream Judaism for very distinct reasons.
It should be understood within the early Church there would understandably not have been tolerance for anyone preaching any brand of Judaism which did not include the conviction that Yeshua was The Mashiach and even more so the Son of G_D! So we know on the grounds of refuting Yeshua as Mashiach alone, there could be no peaceful mingling of the two groups of believers.
Another significant point of contention within the Judeo-Christian relationship that is often overlooked is the aspect of Jewish Mysticism. This is a topic worthy of its own distinct work but at the same time regarding the present discussion it cannot be totally ignored. This Jewish Mysticism, which has nothing to do with proper Hebraic Religious practices, is a movement of “enlightenment” and “inner spiritual” development which is rooted in Oriental/Chaldean Mysticism. Today most readers may recognize this Jewish Mysticism as Kabbalah!
Around the time of Mashiach this Jewish Mysticism was undergoing another transformation via the influx of Greek Hellenistic philosophy. Within the Jewish culture the practitioners would have been elitist and conducted their practices in a secretive manner for they would have been “initiated.” Why this is mentioned here is because a major by-product of this false religion was and still is Gnostic doctrine. The author would contend that more than a little of the Gnostic heresies and onslaught encountered by the early Church of Messiah came as a direct result of Jewish Mystical/Philosophical influences.
Historical records indicate more than a few early Church fathers were aware of these dangerous influences and vigorously attempted to stave off these negative forces. This “anti-Jewish” or more appropriately “anti-Jewish Mysticism” perspective would have served to promote a separation between the early Church and their Hebrew roots still further.
[Returning focus back to Marcion; what we know of him comes mostly through his detractors. The first mention of Marcion was in Justin Martyr's Apologia, written mid-second century, which finds Marcion yet alive and his followers dispersed among many nations. Marcion was the wealthy son of the bishop of Sinope. He is described as a ship owner, by Rhodon and Tertullian, who wrote about a generation after Marcion’s death. The hostile confrontation of Marcion described in Adversus haereses of Polycarp’s pupil Irenaeus, was expanded in a more detailed and more furious polemic written by Tertullian, “Adversus Marcionem.” Marcion had found his way to Rome about 142 Ce. In the next few years after his arrival in Rome, Marcion refined his theological system and attracted a large following. When conflicts with the bishops of Rome arose, Marcion organized his followers into a separate community. He was excommunicated by the See of Rome around Ce 144, which returned his previous donation of 200,000 sesterces, a very large sum of money.
Marcion apparently then used Rome as a base of operations, devoting his considerable wealth to the propagation of his teachings and the establishment of communities throughout the Roman Empire, making converts of every age, rank and background. He created a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Church of Rome, with himself as bishop. Tertullian and Irenaeus report Marcion attempted to use his money to influence the Church to adopt his teaching, which they rejected. He also came face to face at Rome with Polycarp, who claimed to have known John the Apostle personally—Polycarp called Marcion “the first born of Satan.” His numerous critics included the aforementioned, along with Ephrem of Syria, Dionysius of Corinth, Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus and Rhodo in Rome, Bardesanes at Edessa, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Such a battery of opponents suggests a very real and widespread teaching running counter to what would later be called Catholic … or orthodox!
So what did Marcion spew forth that upset so many? Marcion declared Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism. You read this correctly … and this anti-Jewish message was considered heresy! This heresy however was nothing new to the Church of his contemporaries. Indeed, a great number of early Church fathers attacked Judaism; for example, John Chrysostom (347–407 Ce) believed that Jews actually “worship the devil.” Marcion before Chrysostom went much further. First, he rejected all of Scripture other than the Gospel of Luke. Second, he adopted a belief in two gods. One was good; the other was the Jewish G_D who was evil, but somehow created the universe.] ix
What we see from this Marcion controversy is that he was not alone in anti-Judaic thought. The group of Marcion's detractors apparently put to rest this heretical doctrine but still it must be recognized, given the scope of these detractors, that this doctrine was indeed widespread and in many cases acceptable throughout the Empire. We must also consider, in light of the widespread acceptance of the Marcion doctrine, the theological propensity of many early Church communities’ leadership. It is contended that in spite of best efforts there must have been the appointment of numerous Church leaders who were in effect not Biblically/Scripturally grounded. How could it be otherwise in light of the widespread acceptance of Marcion’s doctrine as well as the emergence of numerous other divergent beliefs? These people simply could not have been grounded in Torah!
So what can we say about this? Were the early Church fathers of the understanding their faith was rooted in the Hebrew Religion? Apparently some were, and apparently some were not! On the other hand we would have to dig a bit deeper to see what this actually translated to in terms of practice and core beliefs.
* * * * * * *
Apparently in the mid-second century there arose a problem in the early Church regarding the celebration of the Christian Passover/Easter. Within the Church it was admitted by both sides of the debate that the Lord’s Supper was the practice of the disciples and the tradition passed down. The Last Supper was naturally believed by many to be a Passover Seder. The Western Churches however had developed a tradition of celebrating the feast of Easter after the first full moon after the spring equinox and not by setting the Easter Feast according to alignment with the Hebrew “Passover” date as mandated in Scripture. Conversely there were numerous Churches that continued the tradition of celebrating the feast in line with the Jewish Passover … in accordance with Holy Scripture. These communities became known as the Quartodecimans (14s) and tended to be in the Empire’s Eastern sector. The Nisan 14 practice (The Biblical Passover date), which was strong among the earliest Church communities located in Asia Minor, was becoming less common throughout the Church as the tradition of the Western Church began to gain prominence.
On the side of the Quartodecimans the leading Church elder was Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna, who being a direct disciple of John the Apostle held fast to the keeping of this festival in line with the Hebrew Passover as did the apostles. Polycarp went to Rome in circa 155 Ce to present his case with bishop Anicetus of Rome, but the two could not agree and they parted in peace per historical records.
The issue officially remained on the back burner until the Synod of Ephesus. Our best historical evidence comes from this first recorded Episcopal synod held in 190 Ce. The purpose of this synod was to have the bishops of Proconsul Asia submit to the Roman practice of celebrating the feast of Easter after the first full moon after the spring equinox and not by setting the Easter Feast according to alignment with the Biblical Hebrew “Passover” date which is Nisan 14!. Those who continued to keep Easter with the Jews after the synod, the so called Quartodecimans (14 Nisan), were excluded -excommunicated from the Church.
There is no historical doubt a significant component of the Church of Messiah as late as 190 Ce was celebrating the Hebrew Passover on Nisan 14 and as such deductively Mashiach’s Resurrection three days hence. The record is definitive that many kept the Biblical commanded Festivals of Unleavened Bread and First Fruits and in all probability the complete cycle of Hebrew Biblical Festivals … known as “Mo’adim” or “Appointed Times”. Apparently these practices which were Hebraically Rooted did not sit well with the Western segment of the Church, primarily the “Sees/Regions” of Rome and Alexandria, which did not like the idea that the Feast date of Easter could fall outside of a Sunday! It would seem a supported educated presumption that this issue was probably indicative of an even larger issue which, as the reader can surmise, had to deal with Hebraic rooted practices in general.
[In defending the position in the fourth century of keeping Passover on Nisan 14, Eusebius the historian records of Polycrates: We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the LORD’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the LORD, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. … All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the LORD, and ha