Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today?

Was there an early, original, Nazarene form of Christianity that was so persecuted and so maligned that even today it is overlooked by most who profess Christ?

While the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches publicly place great emphasis on early Christian history, most other major groups which profess Christ such as the various Protestants, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), and the Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to minimize the importance of the immediate post-New Testament teachings and practices of the Christian Church.

Despite varying claims of “apostolic succession” by the Catholics and the Orthodox, some writers have recognized that there were differing “Christianities” in the two hundred years or so after Jesus died and that the one form that became predominant was not the obvious leader from the beginning.[1]

Since Jesus taught that the gates of Hades (death) would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18), from a biblical perspective, if Jesus was correct (and He was) there must still be a true Christian church in existence.

Two Possibilities

Despite the fact that there were a variety of early heretics, there are really only two possibilities for the true church in the 21^st century.

Either a highly Greco-Roman influenced group of one or more churches is Christ’s church or some group that has not come out of that tradition is.

There are no other options.

Which of these would be a church that truly has ties to the original apostles and holds to their teachings?

While most people would tend to go for the Greco-Roman influenced groups, most people simply have not looked into the teachings of the original church, learned when certain doctrines were changed by the Greco-Romans, or considered that there could be a group with ties to the apostles which is not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant.

Could a small group actually be the continuation of the true church? Or must the true church be a relatively large organization?

Would Jesus’ true church be scorned by the world or a major player on the world scene?

The Church of God

Jesus, Himself, taught that the true church would be a "little flock" (Luke 12:32), hated by the world (Matthew 10:22), and persecuted (Matthew 10:23). He also taught only a few would find the way to life in this age (Matthew 7:14; cf. Matthew 12:31-32). Jesus was called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23).

Many within the relatively small collection of Sabbatarian churches that tend to call themselves

“Church of God” (COG) (as well as certain Baptist and other groups) claim to have ties to the

original apostles, as well as ties to spiritual ancestors throughout history. They claim that these ties help demonstrate why they best represent original, apostolic, Christianity.

Historically, the old Church of God, Seventh Day (CG7) and the old Radio Church of God (RCG, which became the old Worldwide Church of God--WCG), taught that the seven churches in Revelation 2 & 3 represented eras of God's true church throughout history[2], that they had ties to the original apostles, and that groups with COG beliefs can be found throughout history.

While many groups with origins in those churches officially still hold to that teaching of church eras (such as the Living Church of God[3], which does NOT consider itself to be Protestant), some others no longer teach church eras (like the new WCG, which does now consider itself to be Protestant) or greatly de-emphasize that belief (like CG7, which is tending to become doctrinally closer to some Protestants).

But if a very small group could be “the true church”, does it make sense that God is only working through a relatively few during the church age?

While many apparently doubt that, the reality is that if the Catholics and traditional Protestants are correct, it appears (according to their own writings) that they believe that God is only going to save a relative minority of all people who ever lived.

The Bible itself is clear that it is only by the name of Jesus Christ that humans can be saved:

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:8-12).

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14).

Since most humans that ever lived have never had truth of Christ preached to them, for the Catholics and Protestants to be able to teach that most humans will be saved would force them to minimize Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:14 or make major changes to their theology (which may be what the Roman Catholics have taken some steps to possibly do—such as Pope Benedict’s 21^st century approval of a paper essentially against “limbo”[4]).

Yet, if the Living Church of God (LCG) is correct, while God is only working though a relatively small few in this age, God will ultimately offer salvation through Christ to all who ever lived—and we in LCG believe that the overwhelming majority of people who ever lived will accept God’s offer and be saved. We believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing (Isaiah 46:9-10) God of love (1 John 4:8), was wise enough to come up with a plan of salvation that saves, and does not doom, the vast majority of humans that ever lived. And that is why He sent His Son (John 3:16-17; 10:10).

We in LCG not only believe that such a view is biblical, to a degree we believe this view has had historical support (as this article will show) even among certain religious leaders still venerated by the Greco-Roman churches.

The Nazarenes Were in Jerusalem

Most people accept that the New Testament Church began in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost around 31 A.D. (dates from 27-33 A.D. have been proposed). The Bible records that after being filled by the Holy Spirit on that day, the disciples began to preach and thousands were added to the true Church that day (Acts 2).

And although the apostles dispersed, the Bible shows that in the early church, Jerusalem, and never Rome, was where its leadership conferred on topics of importance (see Acts 15; Galatians 1:18; 2:1-9).

Three of the four times that the Bible shows that Paul conferred with Peter, it was in Jerusalem (Acts 15; Galatians 1:18; 2:1-9). And the fourth time, it was in Antioch (Galatians 2:11), which is just south of Asia Minor.

Furthermore, the the Bible shows that the Apostle Paul commended the Thessalonians in Greece for following the practices of those in Judea:

13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus (1 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

Christians May Have Been Warned to Flee to Pella

However, shortly after the deaths of Peter (circa 64-69 A.D.) and Paul (circa 64-68 A.D.), major changes happened in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Sometime thereafter, the Apostle Philip settled in Asia Minor. Around 67, or no later than 69 A.D., John apparently was in Ephesus and led the churches in Asia Minor.[5]

Beginning in 66 A.D., there were revolts in Jerusalem by the Jews that resulted in probably all the Christians fleeing and ended in Jerusalem’s destruction by the imperial Roman authorities.

Michael Germano, president of Living University, reported:

…scholars speculate that the flight of the last remaining members of the church at Jerusalem on the Feast of Pentecost in CE 69, may have been recorded by Flavius Josephus who writes:

Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost as the priests were going by night into the inner court of the temple...they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking and heard a sound as of a multitude saying, ‘Let us remove hence.’ (Josephus, Wars, bk. VI, ch. v, sec. 3; Whiston 1957:825.)[6]

The Catholic Encyclopedia reports,

When Titus took Jerusalem (April-September, A.D. 70) he ordered his soldiers to destroy the city)...Meanwhile the Christian community had fled to Pella in Paraea, east of the Jordan (southeast of Jenin), before the beginning of the siege.[7]

Notice that the Christians were NOT involved in the fighting according to Catholic sources:

During the war of 70 none of the believers in Christ appear on scene, nor are any of the places inhabited by them mentioned as war zones, Therefore we may assume that the Christians remained aloof from the war on account of their new faith…We may, therefore assume that the faithful were indeed disturbed as a result of the war, but that they were not so involved as to compromise their community.[8]

The Orthodox Church recognizes an important early role for the church in Jerusalem,

The Church of Jerusalem, as the Mother of all Churches, during the first days of Christianity consisted of the centre of life. From it, the Holy Apostles went to visit all nations and renounced the whole world (Marc. 16, 15)…The “Lord’s City” was completely destroyed in 70 A.C. by Titos, resulting in great and tragic consequences to the Judaist and Christian lives.[9]

According to the fourth century Catholic historian Eusebius, during the first century,

James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour...But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.[10]

The Faithful Were Called Nazarenes

The faithful who claimed to have fled Jerusalem for Pella were called Nazarenes. This may be because Jesus Himself was prophesied to be called by that name:

Jesus…He shall be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:1,23).

Seventeen times the Bible (NKJV) uses the expression “Jesus of Nazareth”, probably because Jesus used to live there (Matthew 2:23). The New Testament uses the expression Nazareth, Nazarene, or Nazarene thirty-one times.

Theological scholar James Tabor wrote about some definitions of Nazarene (other than “one from Nazareth” or “separatist/consecrated”):

The Jesus movement was from early on referred to as the “Nazarenes,” which roughly translates as the “the Messianists” or the people of the “Branch”.[11]

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff noted:

A portion of the Jewish Christians, however, adhered even after the destruction of Jerusalem, to the national customs of their fathers, and propagated themselves in some churches of Syria down to the end of the fourth century, under the name of Nazarenes; a name perhaps originally given in contempt by the Jews to all Christians as followers of Jesus of Nazareth. They united the observance of the Mosaic ritual law with their belief in the Messiahship and divinity of Jesus, used the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, deeply mourned the unbelief of their brethren, and hoped for their future conversion in a body and for a millennial reign of Christ on the earth. But they indulged no antipathy to the apostle Paul...They were, therefore, not heretics, but stunted separatist Christians; they stopped at the obsolete position of a narrow and anxious Jewish Christianity, and shrank to an insignificant sect. Jerome says of them, that, wishing to be Jews and Christians alike, they were neither one nor the other.[12]

So there were Christians with Jewish practices that were sometimes called Nazarenes that historians teach claimed to have originated from the original Jerusalem church. And they were different from the more narrow “Jewish Christianity” according to a Protestant scholar—but shrank into being considered to be an insignificant sect.

They were also not popular with the Jews in the first few centuries A.D. The Book of Acts records the following about the Apostle Paul from Jewish authorities:

For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5).

Thus, originally the term Nazarenes appears to be applied to all Christians, and not some small part of it, as it is being applied to those that agree with the Apostle Paul.

But apparently some Jews felt that the Christians were a bit secretive according to Harve Lewis:

The title Nazarene was given by the Jews to those strange people outside their own religion that seemed to belong to some type of secret sect…[13]

Notice how badly some Jews felt about Nazarenes according to a fourth century writing by the Catholic historian Epiphanius:

For not only do the Jewish children cherish hatred against them but the people stand up in the morning, at noon, and in the evening…Three times per day they say: ‘May God curse the Nazarenes.’[14]

The Nazarenes ended up in “synagogues of the East” according to the Catholic priest Jerome.[15] The “Nazarenes” referred to essentially ended up dwelling in Syria, Asia Minor, and Armenia (while others were in other lands).

The fourth century Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote of this group from the time of 69/70 A.D. until his day, and he starts out with an interesting admission:

All Christians were called Nazarenes once…They were so-called followers of the apostles…they dedicate themselves to the law…However, everyone called the Christians Nazarenes as I said before. This appears from the accusation against Paul…[Acts 24:5]…

For they use not only the New Testament but also the Old…For they also accept the resurrection of the dead and that everything has origin in God…Only in this respect they differ from the Jews and Christians: with the Jews they do not agree because of their belief in Christ, with the Christians because they are trained in the Law, in circumcision, the Sabbath and the other things…

This heresy of the Nazarenes exists in Beroea in the neighborhood of Coele Syria and the Decapolis in the region of Pella and in Basanitis in the so-called Kokabe, Chochabe in Hebrew. For from there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place as I said. There the Nazarene heresy had its beginning. [16]

So Epiphanius states that the remnant who fled to Pella from Jerusalem, while professing Christ, believed the entire Bible, kept the Sabbath, and had other practices that he considered to be Jewish. Hence, here is a historical admission that the original church did keep the Sabbath and that for several centuries were often referred to as Nazarenes. But instead of embracing original Christianity, Epiphanius teaches that it was an early “heresy”.

Modern scholars, like Larry Hurtado, have realized the Christians who claimed to be Nazarene including most considered to be proto-orthodox” held a binitarian view of the Godhead:

..."Nazarene" Christianity, had a view of Jesus fully compatible with the beliefs favored by the proto-orthodox (indeed, they could be considered part of the circles that made up proto-orthodox Christianity of the time). Pritz contended that this Nazarene Christianity was the dominant form of Christianity in the first and second centuries...the devotional stance toward Jesus that characterized most of the Jewish Christians of the first and second centuries seems to have been congruent with proto-orthodox devotion to Jesus...the proto-orthodox "binitarian" pattern of devotion…[17]

In a binitarian view of the Godhead, the one God Family began with two (for details, please see Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning). Binitarians believe that the Father is God and Jesus (the Son, also called the Word) is God, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This Godhead, according to the Bible (cf. Romans 8:29; Ephesians 3:15), is a family that others can some day be born into.

Scholar Ray Pritz noted:

The Nazarenes were distinct from the Ebionites and prior to them. In fact, we have found that it is possible that there was a split in Nazarene ranks around the turn of the first century. This split was either over a matter of christological doctrine or over leadership of the community. Out of this split came the Ebionites, who can scarcely be separated from the Nazarenes on the basis of geography, but who can be easily distinguished from the standpoint of Christology.[18]

It should be also noted that in early Jerusalem, there were apparently two groups professing Christ. One that the Apostle Paul referred to as “the circumcision” (Titus 1:10) (often known as early Ebionites) was not truly faithful, while the other group was composed of true and faithful Jewish Christians (also called Nazarenes, but later also sometimes called Ebionites).

(Perhaps it should be mentioned for any that should come across it, that the so-called “Gospel of the Nazarenes” is misnamed and did not come from these Nazarenes according to Ray Pritz.[19] Also, the modern day so-called “Church of the Nazarene” was a 19^th century development[20] and does not have the type of Judaeo-Christian practices that the original Nazarenes did.)

There Were Changes in Jerusalem

Interestingly, according to Eusebius, at Jerusalem near 135 A.D.,

…until the siege of the Jews, which took place under {Roman Emperor} Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there. All of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time. [21]

In other words, it is acknowledged by Catholic, Orthodox, and other historians that although there was a party Paul referred to as “the circumcision”, another part of the church in Jerusalem kept the true knowledge of Christ. Therefore, it should have originally been considered to be among the most reliable of any Christian churches.

Jerusalem was also where the apostles would often meet, though most were not based there. And apparently it remained the “headquarters” of the church until shortly after Paul, and possibly Peter, died.

Its 70 A.D. destruction suggests that God did not intend that Jerusalem would remain as the church’s headquarters, and early history shows that some of its spiritual descendants (including the Apostles John and Philip) went to Asia Minor.

Some Christians returned after 70 A.D. and seemed to have built a Christian synagogue, sometimes called the Church of the Apostles. Bargil Pixner wrote the following in Biblical Archaeology Review:

The earliest Christians were all Jews. Moreover, they did not regard themselves as having abandoned Judaism…

Not only were the original Christians all Jewish, but for several centuries Judeo-Christians and even some gentile Christians referred to their houses of worship as synagogues…

In 70 A.D. the Roman general Titus suppressed the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 A.D.) by utterly destroying Jerusalem and burning the Temple…

The Judeo-Christian community in Jerusalem escaped this terrible catastrophe by fleeing to Pella in Transjordan and the countryside of Gilean and Bashan

…they decided to go back to Jerusalem to rebuild their sanctuary on the site of the ancient Upper Room — where the Last Supper had been held, where the apostles returned after witnessing Jesus' ascension on the Mount of Olives and where Peter delivered his Pentecost sermon as recorded in Acts 2. It was this site on which they made their synagogue. They were free to do this because they enjoyed a certain religious freedom from the Romans (religio licita) inasmuch as they were Jews who confessed Jesus as their Messiah, and not gentile converts.

The archaeological evidence is consistent with this suggestion…

Early Church writers identified this Judeo-Christian synagogue as the Church of the Apostles...[22]

And while their numbers varied, often these Christians were the majority of the professors of Christ in Jerusalem. They were the clear majority until 135 A.D. and were possibly the majority (or a significant minority) in Jerusalem in parts of the third and fourth centuries.

The Nazarenes Had to Leave and Heretics Entered Jerusalem

Because of war and politics, there was a change in beliefs and practices in Jerusalem that forced all true believers out by 135 A.D.

Notice what the historian E. Gibbon states:

The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages.

They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian...

When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honourable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites.[23]

In other words, after the first Latin Bishop in Jerusalem (who may or may not have had any direct affiliation with Rome—the churches that became Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox at that time were still not unified but just starting to cooperate) was put in charge, those who had been faithful Christians were accused of heresy there in the second century.

The Roman Catholics claim that “apostolic succession” in Jerusalem ended when Ælia Capitolina was erected as The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 notes:

The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site.[24]

And while is now believed that Ælia Capitolina was erected in 135 (as opposed to 130 since the Bar Kokhba revolt was from 132-135 A.D.), this suggests that even Catholic scholars understand that there should no real “apostolic succession” occurred after this in Jerusalem—hence Jerusalem does not now have true apostolic succession.

Because of this Jewish revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish. The 20^th century historian Salo W. Barron wrote:

Hadrian…According to rabbinic sources, he prohibited public gatherings for instruction in Jewish law, forbade the proper observance of the Sabbath and holidays and outlawed many important rituals.[25]

The Christians in Judea had a decision to make. They either could continue to keep the Sabbath and the rest of God's law and flee or they could compromise and support a religious leader (Marcus) who would not keep the Sabbath, etc.

The Orthodox Church in Jerusalem seems to acknowledge that a change came, but they are a bit guarded about it:

In 135 AD the Roman emperor Hadrian builds on the ruins of Jerusalem a new roman city and names it Aelia Capitolina and permits the Christians to come back. However the Jewish are not permitted to come in town.[26]

Notice the statement that “the Jewish are not permitted to come in to town”. That is correct, but only in a limited sense. It was not just the Jews; it was also those who kept “Jewish” (biblical) practices like the seventh-day Sabbath that were not permitted to come into Jerusalem after its 135 A.D. takeover. Thus without clearly admitting it, the Orthodox seem to be acknowledging that changes did take place after 135 A.D. And, even though some Judaeo-Christians ultimately returned and remained separate from the Orthodox[27], those changes are proof that there was no faithful apostolic succession in Jerusalem.

Sadly as E. Gibbon reported, most, but not all, decided not to be faithful to original Christianity in 135 A.D. He also made the following observation:

It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ.[28]

Until one hundred years after Jesus Christ was crucified it appears that (with Alexandria, some Ebionites, and some small groups excepted) the majority of Christian communities not affiliated with Simon Magus or his followers apparently practiced true New Testament Christianity—or at least did not practice a version influenced by compromise to minimize Imperial persecution.

Nazarene Doctrines: Splits in Jerusalem and Sunday Passover

History indicates that there were at least three splits in Jerusalem. The first split being from the original Ebionites who did not believe in the virgin birth. The second split was from those that eventually claimed to be the Orthodox who did not believe in truly following God’s law (though they claim otherwise). Thus, only a small number from Jerusalem remained faithful.

Something similar may have occurred in Rome because of Emperor Hadrian’s anti-Jewish edicts. Near this time a Sunday Passover may have began to replace a Nisan 14^th Passover that the early Christians kept. This could have been an attempt to persuade Emperor Hadrian that many who professed Christ in Rome were distancing themselves from practices considered to be closely tied to the Jews, who were now out of favor.

The third “split” was more of a takeover. After Hadrian, some Christians and Jews did return to Jerusalem. Later history records that Constantine’s supporters started to take over the Christian “synagogues” (Greco-Romans tended to call some of the meeting places of the Judaeo-Christians as “synagogues”) in the early part of the 4^th century and completed that takeover once the “Byzantium empire had completely pervaded the country”.[29]

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi noted that many scholars realize that the change to Easter-Sunday and to a weekly Sunday was apparently due to the persecution from Hadrian:

The actual introduction of Easter-Sunday appears to have occurred earlier in Palestine after Emperor Hadrian ruthlessly crushed the Barkokeba revolt (A.D. 132-135)...

A whole body of Against the Jews literature was produced by leading Fathers who defamed the Jews as a people and emptied their religious beliefs and practices of any historical value. Two major causalities of the anti-Jewish campaign were Sabbath and Passover. The Sabbath was changed to Sunday and Passover was transferred to Easter-Sunday.

Scholars usually recognize the anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Jewish reckoning of Passover and adoption of Easter-Sunday instead. Joachim Jeremias attributes such a development to "the inclination to break away from Judaism." In a similar vein, J.B. Lightfoot explains that Rome and Alexandria adopted Easter-Sunday to avoid “even the semblance of Judaism...”[30]

J.B. Lightfoot himself specifically wrote:

But the Church of Ælia Capitolina was very differently constituted from the Church of Pella and the Church of Jerusalem…not a few doubtless accepted the conqueror’s terms, content to live henceforth as Gentiles…in the new city of Hadrian. But there were others who hung to the law of their forefathers…

…the Churches of Asia Minor…regulated their Easter festival by the Jewish Passover without regard to the day of the week, but…those of Rome and Alexandria and Gaul observed another rule; thus avoiding even the semblance of Judaism.[31]

Thus change set in among those in Hadrian’s new city. And as Hadrian was based in Rome, that may be why change occurred there as well.

It is possible that the Roman “bishop” Telesphorus made a change to Sunday Passover around 135 A.D. to attempt to distance himself from the Jews in Rome. If he was the first Roman leader who did it, and if he thought that this would spare his life, he was wrong as he was apparently later killed by the Roman authorities (circa 136 A.D.). On the other hand, it is perhaps more likely that Hyginus, who was apparently Greek decided to introduce the Passover Sunday tradition in Rome, perhaps to direct the wrath of the anti-Jewish Roman authorities away from those who professed Christ but avoided some of the outward signs of Judaism.

Christian leaders that refused to switch from Passover on the 14^th to a Sunday observance have been labeled Quartodecimans (Latin for fourteenth) by most historians—with the bulk of them apparently being in Asia Minor near the end of the second century.

Was the True Church Expected to Change Doctrine?

Of course the question is, “Was the church supposed to change its beliefs and practices throughout history or be faithful to what the apostles originally received?”

The Bible suggests that the church was not to change its doctrines as Jude wrote:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

There were, however, apparently faithful Christians in parts of Palestine during the second and third centuries according to Catholic reporters:

The followers of the Lord remained also in Capharanum…At Tiberius we have evidence of the Judaeo-Christians, called Minim, from Jewish sources which tell of disputes in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries…

Sakin…Nearby is Bainah, called an “engulfed” village just because it was inhabited by Judaeo-Christians.[32]

However, by the third and later centuries, the Greco-Romans tended to minimize the importance of those that held to original Christian teachings, like the original Ebionites did.

In the third century, there were very few real Christians in northern Africa. Origen noted that there were two groups that he considered to be “Ebionites”, one who believed in the virgin birth (and that would be those who this paper suggests were also known as the Nazarenes) and those who did not:

Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law,—and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings…[33]

So Origen apparently combined both groups together under the name Ebionites. This has caused some confusion among scholars of all persuasions, but it is clear that there were faithful true Christians who held to Jewish practices in the first and early second centuries in Jerusalem, while there were others that the Bible seems to warn about (Titus 1:10). The historian E. Gibbons mentioned that those who were called Nazarenes were renamed as Ebionites.[34]

And although Origen apparently did not believe that Christians should have practices similar to Jews, the New Testament not only calls Gentile Christians “Jews”, it refers to them more with the term “Jew(s)” than it does “Christian(s)” (four and three times respectively). Hence from the beginning God intended that His true church would appear to be somewhat Jewish.

But as history shows, most real Christians left Jerusalem in 135 A.D. and the majority of those who professed Christianity in Jerusalem immediately thereafter were not faithful to the original teachings of the Christian church.

Was the Headquarters for Christians Expected to Remain In One City?

Even though there are several churches that claim direct descent from places such as Alexandria, Antioch, Asia Minor, Jerusalem, and Rome—what the Orthodox call the “Apostolic sees”[35]-- one very real question is: Was the “headquarters” of the true church to remain in the same city?

Let us look at what Jesus taught on this matter:

22 And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matthew 10:22-23).

Jesus, of course, has not yet returned. Whatever Christians there have been in the area of Palestine have been chased through all the cities in that geographic region since Jesus stated this (the Crusades also helped insure this).

Thus, Jesus must be referring to more cities than just those in the area of Palestine (such as those Jacob was alluding to in Genesis 49:1-27). Jesus, therefore, seems to be prophesying that it would not be possible that any headquarters of the true church could permanently remain in one city for hundreds, or nearly two thousand, years. These statements from Jesus would suggest that only a church whose headquarters moved relatively often could possibly be the true church.

The concept is also confirmed in the Book of Hebrews:

For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come (Hebrews 13:14).

Rome since the mid-second century, however, has been a continuing city (though several Roman Catholic Bishops were based out of Lyon, France), and thus neither Rome nor any other single city (as the Eastern Orthodox claim) could possibly have been the leadership city for Christians for multiple centuries.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible clearly supports the idea that there could not have been one city that would be the place where all the top leaders of the Christian world would always be affiliated with. Thus any who claim that one city has always remained a, or the, leader of Christendom from the beginning are in scriptural error.

Furthermore, perhaps it should be mentioned if there was to be one city from the beginning to the end, it would have had to be Jerusalem (cf. Revelation 21:2).

Peter, around 50 A.D., was still in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-7). Yet, by 70 A.D., the Christians abandoned it for a while and there is no evidence that I am aware of that showed any apostle returning to it after 70 A.D. (plus “bishop” Marcus apostatized after Hadrian’s edicts c. 135).

Irenaeus, considered to be a saint by the Catholics and the Orthodox, in the second century wrote:

Further, also, concerning Jerusalem and the Lord, they venture to assert that, if it had been "the city of the great King," it would not have been deserted. This is just as if any one should say, that if straw were a creation of God, it would never part company with the wheat; and that the vine twigs, if made by God, never would be lopped away and deprived of the clusters…The fruit, therefore, having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem) was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a beginning in time must of course have an end in time also.[36]

So while the Orthodox also consider Irenaeus to be a saint and Jerusalem to be one of the five “Apostolic Sees”, Irenaeus basically taught that God was finished using Jerusalem as a type of headquarters in this age.

Jerusalem simply did not continue as THE leader of the church. There simply was no city intended to be a headquarters for the church for over a thousand years in this age. But the followers of the original practices of the church in Jerusalem, the Nazarenes, they were to continue.

John Moved to Asia Minor

Sometime before Jerusalem was destroyed, John moved to Asia Minor. Note the following according to author and Lutheran minister, C. Bernard Ruffin:

The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province.[37]

John…made his way to Ephesus to take over the “orphaned” churches of Asia, once superintended by the martyred Paul. This would have been around A.D. 66 or 67.[38]

Notice the timing. The Christians had fled Jerusalem around this time, Paul and possibly Peter were martyred near then, and that is about when John took over the churches (and it may have been as late as 69 A.D.).

John Was the Last of the Original Apostles And Taught What He Learned from the Beginning

Paul once noted that it was "James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9) of the Church in Jerusalem (Cephas is the Aramaic word for Peter).

Certainly Peter was an important and pre-eminent apostle, however, once James and Peter were killed, this only left one pillar, the Apostle John—and he moved to Ephesus.

Is it logical that if any one was to be the leader to succeed Peter it would be John?

Is it logical that the one who wrote the last books of the Bible would be the primary leader of the church until he died?

Notice that John specifically taught what he learned from the beginning (which was in Judea):

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ... 3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 1:1-3;2:3-4).

Thus, the Bible is clear that John taught the truth of Christianity from the beginning. And he taught it so that others could have the same fellowship with the Father and the Son. Thus, the Bible shows that faithful would follow John in order to be true Christians. (Perhaps it should be mentioned that there is another document that comes from Islamic Arabic sources that indicates that the Nazarene Christians wrote that they heard that Jesus clearly said to do what He did--consistent with --and that those that there was a group that claimed to be Christian that compromised with Romans, for more details see Arabic Nazarenes May Have Kept Original Christian Practices.)

Passover & Footwashing: The Bible Teaches that Antichrists Would Not Follow John

Furthermore, it may be of interest to note that John wrote that the antichrists are those that did not follow him. John taught,

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us (1 John 2:18-19).

So what may have been the first specific departure from the practices of John that we have a historical record of involving John's name?

The changing of the date of Passover (and later the practices associated with it).

The fact that a Roman church and a Latin-led church specifically decided on Sunday Passover shows that they intentionally, and at a relatively early stage (probably between 130-150 A.D. for Rome and 135 for the Latin-led church in Jerusalem), ignored his warning about antichrist.

Catholic priest and scholar Bagatti admits this regarding John:

Since St. John spent the first years of his apostolate in Palestine, together with James, it is obvious that he had taken the custom of celebrating Easter on the 14^th of Nisan from the mother Church.[39]

Thus, it was the original practice of “the mother Church” to keep Passover (often wrongly translated as “Easter” in English) on the 14^th.

Some Catholics have apparently, however, used human reason and false tradition to ignore John’s practice. Notice what the medieval historian and Catholic Priest Bede (also known as “the Venerable Bede”) recorded from a Catholic Abbot named Wilfrid who was trying to justify near the beginning of the eighth century why it was acceptable to not follow the Apostle John’s practices regarding Passover:

Far be it from me to charge John with foolishness: he literally observed the decrees of the Mosaic law when the Church was still Jewish in many respects, at a time when the apostles were unable to bring a sudden end to that law which God ordained…They feared, of course, that they might make a stumbling block for the Jewish proselytes…

So John, in accordance with the custom of the law, began the celebration of Easter Day in the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month, regardless of whether it fell on the sabbath or any other day. But when Peter preached at Rome, remembering that the Lord rose from the dead and brought to the world the hope of the resurrection on the first day of the week…he always waited for the rising of the moon on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month in accordance with the customs and precepts of the law as John did, he proceeded to celebrate Easter as we are accustomed to do at this present time. But if the Lord’s day was due, he waited for it, and began the holy Easter ceremonies the night before, that is on Saturday evening; so it came about that Easter Sunday was kept only between the fifteenth day of the moon and the twenty-first. So this evangelical and apostolic tradition does not abolish the law, but fulfills it, by ordering the observance of Easter from the evening of the fourteenth day of the moon in the first month up to the twenty-first day of the moon in the same month. All the followers of St. John in Asia since his death and also the whole church throughout the world have followed this observance. That this is the true Easter and that this alone must be celebrated…[40]

Does that make any sense?

Let’s look at the facts:

1. It is admitted that John and the early Church was fairly Jewish in their practices.
2. It is admitted that keeping Passover on the 14^th was a practice of the Apostle John.
3. While Jesus was resurrected by Saturday evening, there is no early document (such as prior to the third century) that states that Peter changed the Passover observance (a time to proclaim “the Lord’s death” per the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:26) from the 14^th of Nisan to a Saturday evening observance.
4. Abbot Wilfrid is arguing that Peter began a Passover service on Saturday night which is why Easter on Sunday morning is now kept.
5. Most who now observe Easter Sunday do so during Sunday morning, yet as a resurrection holiday—not as a commemoration of Passover.
6. All those who followed John’s practices, for at least one hundred years after his death in Asia Minor, stated that they did keep Passover on the 14^th and not on a Sunday[41]. So how could Abbot Wilfrid argue that they kept the same practice as the Romans who chose Sunday?
7. Abbot Wilfrid admits that John followed the Bible in his own practice, but that somehow Peter allegedly made up a tradition that he did not learn from Jesus or the Bible (there is no verse in the Bible that states Passover should be observed on a Sunday), but that he came to on his own—and for which there is NO early historical proof.
8. So while the Roman church does not observe the biblical practice of observing the days of unleavened bread, it apparently believes that the dates in Exodus 12:18 and Leviticus 23:5-6 regarding them need to be used to determine the date of Passover (that is where he would have needed to get the dates of the 15^th and 21^st from as they are the “days of unleavened bread associated with the Passover), but that the actual date (the 14^th) of Passover should not be used unless it is on a Sunday.

Hence, John and the faithful in Ephesus did what the Bible taught.

But Catholics claim there is a later tradition from an unknown time that Peter supposedly reasoned that if Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week, that the anniversary of His death should be observed on a Saturday night instead.