By COGwriter
In the early 3rd century, there was an African bishop/overseer named Nepos from the area of Arsinoe in Egypt. Based on the available historical evidence, Nepos appears to have been a leader among Christians who retained doctrines characteristic of the earlier Church of God tradition.
In Egypt there was an allegorical school which during Nepos' day was first led by Clement of Alexandria and then by Origen.
Nepos was one who opposed Origen and his allegorical approach to understanding the Bible. Here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia reported:
About the middle of the third century, Nepos, bishop in Egypt, who entered the lists against the allegorism of Origen, also propounded millenarian ideas and gained some adherents in the vicinity of Arsino. (Kirsch, Johann Peter. "Millennium and Millenarianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm>)
An Egyptian bishop, Nepos, taught the Chiliastic error that there would be a reign of Christ upon earth for a thousand years, a period of corporal delights; he founded this doctrine upon the Apocalypse in a book entitled "Refutation of the Allegorizers". (hapman, John. "Dionysius of Alexandria." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 14 Aug. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05011a.htm>)
Since it was Origen who really popularized the allegorical approach against the millennial teachings of the Bible, this work by Nepos dealt, to a degree, with Origen and others of his view.
A nineteenth century anti-millennial scholar named Giovanni Battista Pagani went as far as to write the following about Nepos and those who supported the millennium:
... all those who teach a millennium framed according to Jewish ideas, saying that during the millennium, Mosaic law will be restored ... These are called Judaical Millenarians, not as being Jews, but as having invented and upheld a millennium according to Jewish taste. The principal authors of this error were Nepos, an African Bishop, against whom St. Dionysius wrote his two books on Promises; and Apollinaris, whom St. Epiphanius confound in his work against heresies (Pagani, Giovanni Battista. Published by Charles Dolman, 1855. Original from Oxford University. Digitized Aug 15, 2006, pp. 252-253).
It should be of interest to note that neither Nepos nor Apollinaris were Jews (Nepos may have been black), but were condemned for having a religion that had “Jewish” beliefs. And since Apollinaris is a Greco-Roman Catholic saint (see article Apollinaris of Hierapolis), it should be clear that the respected and non-Jewish Christian leaders in the early third century clearly did hold to ideas that were condemned by the allegorists.
Here is the entry in the New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge about Nepos:
NEPOS, nî'pes: Egyptian bishop before the middle of the third century. He is known from the attack by Dionysius of Alexandria on his lost " Refutation of the Allegorists " in the second book of the Peri Epangelion. From this it is clear that the chiliasts in Arsinoe regarded the works of Nepos as irrefragable proof of the future reign of Christ on earth and of the realistic interpretation of the Apocalypse. According to Gennadius (De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, lv.), Nepos held that after the resurrection of the righteous there would be through- out the millennium a world of the unconverted, which would war upon the just at the expiration of the thousand years, only to be destroyed by God. Nepos was also a writer of hymns, and seems to have been an excellent exegete. His position represented the conflict between the eschatology of the early Church and the spiritualizing tendency of Origen; but the Nepotians mentioned by Fulgen- tius (MPG, lxv. 709) were at most mere chiliasts, having no organic affiliations with the doctrines of Nepos. (N. BONWETSCH.) (In Jackson, Samuel Macauley (ed.). New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Vol. 8 (third ed.). London and New York: Funk and Wagnalls. pp. 114–115.)
The following from Dionysius clearly shows that Nepos was still respected after he died (Nepos died prior to Dionysius’ mid-third century writing of the following) and really did not refute him from a biblical perspective:
But as they produce a certain composition by Nepos, on which they insist very strongly, as if it demonstrated incontestably that there will be a (temporal) reign of Christ upon the earth, I have to say, that in many other respects I accept the opinion of Nepos, and love him at once for his faith, and his laboriousness, and his patient study in the Scriptures, as also for his great efforts in psalmody, by which even now many of the brethren are delighted. I hold the man, too, in deep respect still more, inasmuch as he has gone to his rest before us. Nevertheless the truth is to be prized and reverenced above all things else. And while it is indeed proper to praise and approve ungrudgingly anything that is said aright, it is no less proper to examine and correct anything which may appear to have been written unsoundly. If he had been present then himself, and had been stating his opinions orally, it would have been sufficient to discuss the question together without the use of writing, and to endeavour to convince the opponents, and carry them along by interrogation and reply. But the work is published, and is, as it seems to some, of a very persuasive character; and there are unquestionably some teachers, who hold that the law and the prophets are of no importance, and who decline to follow the Gospels, and who depreciate the epistles of the apostles, and who have also made large promises regarding the doctrine of this composition, as though it were some great and hidden mystery, and who, at the same time, do not allow that our simpler brethren have any sublime and elevated conceptions either of our Lord’s appearing in His glory and His true divinity, or of our own resurrection from the dead, and of our being gathered together to Him, and assimilated to Him, but, on the contrary, endeavour to lead them to hope for things which are trivial and corruptible, and only such as what we find at present in the kingdom of God. And since this is the case, it becomes necessary for us to discuss this subject with our brother Nepos just as if he were present (Dionysius of Alexandria. From the Two Books on the Promises).
Here is another translation, starting with comments from Eusebius:
1. Besides all these the two books on the Promises 2 were prepared by him. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises to the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth.
2. As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists. 3
3. Dionysius opposes this in his books on the Promises. In the first he gives his own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of John, and mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this manner:
4. "But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of Christ upon earth, I confess that 4 in many other respects I approve and love Nepos, for his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive psalmody, 5 with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold him in the more reverence because he has gone to rest before us. But the truth should be loved and honored most of all. And while we should praise and approve ungrudgingly what is said aright, we ought to examine and correct what does not seem to have been written soundly.
5. Were he present to state his opinion orally, mere unwritten discussion, persuading and reconciling those who are opposed by question and answer, would be sufficient. But as some think his work very plausible, and as certain teachers regard the law and prophets as of no consequence, and do not follow the Gospels, and treat lightly the apostolic epistles, while they make promises 6 as to the teaching of this work as if it were some great hidden mystery, and do not permit our simpler brethren to have any sublime and lofty thoughts concerning the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord, and our resurrection from the dead, and our being gathered together unto him, and made like him, but on the contrary lead them to hope for small and mortal things in the kingdom of God, and for things such as exist now,--since this is the case, it is necessary that we should dispute with our brother Nepos as if he were present." Farther on he says:
6. "When I was in the district of Arsinoë, 7 where, as you know, this doctrine has prevailed for a long time, so that schisms and apostasies of entire churches have resulted, I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages,--such brethren as wished being also present,--and I exhorted them to make a public examination of this question.
7. Accordingly when they brought me this book, as if it were a weapon and fortress impregnable, sitting with them from morning till evening for three successive days, I endeavored to correct what was written in it.
8. And I rejoiced over the constancy, sincerity, docility, and intelligence of the brethren, as we considered in order and with moderation the questions and the difficulties and the points of agreement. And we abstained from defending in every manner and contentiously the opinions which we had once held, unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
9. And finally the author and mover of this teaching, who was called Coracion, 8 in the hearing of all the brethren that were present, acknowledged and testified to us that he would no longer hold this opinion, nor discuss it, nor mention nor teach it, as he was fully convinced by the arguments against it. And some of the other brethren expressed their gratification at the conference, and at the spirit of conciliation and harmony which all had manifested." (Eusebius. Church History, book 7, Chapter Chapter XXIV)
In other words, Nepos knew his Bible, but did not hold to the same position that allegorists like Dionysius of Alexandria held. Eusebius refers to him as a bishop. It appears that in the 3rd centurym those who held to Judaeo-Christian beliefs, while slightly chastised, simply were almost never condemned by the early allegorists. Mainly, because the early allegorists knew that the original Christians held to beliefs and practices that the allegorists considered to be Jewish–and at this stage, the allegorists simply did not have the ability to condemn the literalists because most who professed Christ at the time knew that the literalists had ties to the original apostolic church. (More information on faithful Christians in northern African locations can be found in the article Arabic Nazarenes May Have Kept Original Christian Practices.)
Yet, Nepos was still held in respect. Notice that his critic Dionysius confirmed:
Furthermore, Dionysius never accuses Nepos of:
Instead, he treats him as a respected Christian bishop whose interpretation of Revelation he believes is mistaken.
Presuming Nepos belonged to the faithful continuation of the apostolic churches, as the doctrinal evidence suggests, he would have possessed the Laying on of Hands Succession that all true COG pastors/bishops would have had (watch also Laying on of Hands and Succession), Nepos seems to have been succeeded by Macarius of Edessa. If the succession hypothesis is correct, Macarius would represent a link between earlier Egpytian and Edessan Christianity and back to Antioch (which will be shown later in this article).
Jesus said:
17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. (John 17:17)
True Christians are sanctified, set apart, by the truth.
Nepos was set apart from the allegorists because he literally expounded and believed the word of God.
Notice the report about some of the allegorists who opposed Nepos' methods of biblical interpretation from the nineteenth-century premillennial writer Henry Dana Ward:
Dionysius was born of a noble and wealthy pagan family in Alexandria, and was educated in their philosophy. He left the pagan schools to become a pupil of Origen, whom he succeeded in the charge of the catechetical school of Alexandria… Clement, Origen, and the Gnostic school were corrupting the doctrines of the holy oracles by their fanciful and allegorical interpretations…they obtained for themselves the name of “Allegorists.” Nepos publicly combated the Allegorists, and maintained that there will be a reign of Christ on the earth… Dionysius disputed with the followers of Nepos, and by his account… “such a state of things as now exists in the kingdom of God.” This is the first mention of the kingdom of God existing in the present state of the churches…
Nepos rebuked their error, showing that the kingdom of heaven is not allegorical, but is the literal coming kingdom of our Lord in the resurrection unto eternal life... So the idea of the kingdom come in the present state of things was conceived and brought forth in the Gnostic school of Allegorists in Egypt, A.D. 200 to 250, a full century before the bishops of the empire came to be regarded as occupants of the throne… Clement conceived the idea of the kingdom of God as a state of true mental knowledge of God. Origen set it forth as a spiritual meaning hid in the plain letter of Scriptures. (Ward, Henry Dana. The Gospel of the Kingdom: A Kingdom Not of this World; Not in this World; But to Come in the Heavenly Country, of the Resurrection from the Dead and of the Restitution of All Things. Published by Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1870, pp. 124-125)
Thus, while Bishop Nepos taught the gospel of the Kingdom of God, the allegorists tried to come up with a false, less literal, understanding of it. Those truly in the Church of God stood for the truth of the literal Kingdom of God throughout history.
As mentioned, Nepos seems to have been succeeded by Macarius of Edessa. Here is a comment about him:
The ... scripturally learned Macarius of Edessa, with whom Lucian ... is supposed to have pursued his first studies according to Suidas and Symeon Metaphrastes (texts in J. Bidez [ed.], Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius [GCS, 1913], p. 184), (Bauer W. Gerhard Krodel, Robert A. Kraft, editors. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Fortress Press, 1979, p. 12)
There is something called the Suda or Souda (/ˈsuːdə/; Medieval Greek: Σοῦδα, romanized: Soûda; Latin: Suidae Lexicon) or Suidas, which is is a large 10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia written in Greek. Here is a translation into English from the Souda/Suda:
[Lucian] the martyr; this man was from Samosata in Syria, born in the upper class. In his youth he met a certain man called Makarios, who lived in Edessa and gave explanatory lectures on the sacred books, and in a short time [Lucian] made his own whatever excellence this man had. ... (Makarios. Suda On Line. http://www.stoa.org/sol-entries/lambda/685 Translated by: Akihiko Watanabe on 21 May 1999. Accessed 16 April 2025)
Remember, Jesus said:
17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. (John 17:17)
True Christians are sanctified, set apart, by the truth.
Macarius was set apart from the allegorists because he literally "gave explanatory lectures on the sacred books." That is why he looks to have been a Church of God Christian leader.
Notice also:
Lucian was born at Samosata, Kommagene, Syria, to Christian parents, and was educated in the neighboring city of Edessa, Mesopotamia, at the school of Macarius. (TEXTUAL STUDIES: Lucian of Antioch (c. 240-312 C.E.): The Teacher of Arius? Christian Publishing House Blog. https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2021/05/26/textual-studies-lucian-of-antioch-c-240-312-c-e-the-teacher-of-arius/ accessed 04/10/25)
Lucain, a presbyter of Antioch ... was born at Samosata about A.D. 240, and educated under Macarius at Edessa. He settled at Antioch. (Cruttwell CT. The heretical sects, Volume 2. Scribner, 1893, p. 532)
Lucian ... went to the city of Edessa to the confessor Macarius, under the guidance of whom he diligently read Holy Scripture ... In Antioch St Lucian opened a school where many students gathered. He taught them how to understand the Holy Scriptures, and how to live a virtuous life. (Saint Lucian the Martyr of Antioch. Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East. https://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/en/page/806/ acccessed 04/09/25)
So, Macarius looks like he founded a theological school. Because of that, him being identified as giving "explanatory lectures on the sacred books," as well as him being a referred to as a confessor, it is logical to conclude that he very likely held a recognized ecclesiastical position.
Macarius of Edessa was remembered as Lucian's teacher. Because Edessa appears to have had a strong Christian educational tradition and because Lucian later became a major theological leader, Macarius seemingly occupied a leadership role in that community.
And it may be, and this is speculative, that because of the growing influence of allegorists and criticism of biblical literalists like Nepos, that these influenced Macarius to found his school in the first place. We also see that Macarius taught Lucian. Lucian then moved to Antioch and found a school there--presumably strongly based on what Macarius of Edessa taught.
How did it differ from the allegorist one in Alexandria?
The School of Antioch appears to have risen in the middle of the third century; ... One other characteristic of the Syrian school ... : ... it tended to the separation of the Divine Person of Christ from His manhood, so did it tend to explain away His Divine Presence in the Sacramental elements. (Cardinal Newman, John Henry. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, Appendix--pp. 406, 410)
Lucian ... He may have leader of the theological school centered there; his was a dominating influence, and it was under him that the A school of theology first came into the clear light as actuated by distinctive principles. ... In biblical work it was characterized by principles of literal interpretation, as contrasted with the allegorical method of the school of Origen, while it made free use of textual criticism as far as possible. ...
While at Antioch Lucian was famed for his biblical learning. .... His work gained great prevalence in the region of which Antioch was the center. (Yerkes RK. The Lucianic Version of the Old Testament as Illustrated from Jeremiah 1-3. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 37, No. 3/4 (1918), pp. 163-192)
While Clement, ... mixed Christianity with paganism at Alexandria, Lucian founded at Antioch a school of Syrian theology. The profound difference between his teaching and that of the north African allegorizing theologians, Dr. Williston Walker thus describes: “With Antioch of this period is to be associated the foundation of a school of theology by Lucian, ... Like Origen, he busied himself with textual and exegetical labors on the Scriptures, but had little liking for the allegorizing methods of the great Alexandrian. A simpler, more grammatical and historical method of treatment both of text and doctrine characterized his teaching. (Wilkinson BG. Truth Triumphant. Hartland Publications, Rapidan, VA, 1944, reprint 1997)
Lucian emphasized the need for textual accuracy and sought to limit the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrian Christian tradition, which incorporated pagan philosophy. Lucian’s edition … became the basis of the textus receptus from which most of the Reformation era New Testament translations were made. (Lucian. New World Encyclopedia, 2018)
So, we can presume that Macarius, like Nepos and Lucian, was a biblical literalist.
The Catholic Encyclopedia reported:
... a large number of Christians of the post-Apostolic era, particularly in Asia Minor, yielded so far to Jewish apocalyptic as to put a literal meaning into these descriptions of St. John's Apocalypse; the result was that millenarianism spread and gained staunch advocates not only among the heretics but among the Catholic Christians as well ... Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of St. John, appeared as an advocate of millenarianism. He claimed to have received his doctrine from contemporaries of the Apostles. ... A witness for the continued belief in millenarianism in the province of Asia is St. Melito, Bishop of Sardes in the second century ... About the middle of the third century, Nepos, bishop in Egypt, who entered the lists against the allegorism of Origen, also propounded millenarian ideas and gained some adherents in the vicinity of Arsino. (Kirsch, Johann Peter. "Millennium and Millenarianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911)
Lucian of Antioch ... The opposition to the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrines centred in him. He rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal interpretation which dominated the Eastern Church for a long period. (Healy P.J. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Lucian of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
And let me add, that because of reports that Lucian of Antioch reportedly "savoured of Judaism," was "Semi-Arian" (binitarian) (Newman JH, Cardinal. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, pp. 5, 9, 277, 406), and reportedly was a Sabbatarian (Wilkinson BG. The Truth Triumphant. TEACH Services, Reprint 1994, pp. 55-57; Kohen E. History of the Byzantine Jews. University Press of America, 2007, p. 53), it is reasonable to conclude that Macarius was as well.
Because of the emphasis they had on the literal reading of scripture, they would have all taught the millennial kingdom of God, despite running into criticisms from the growing Greco-Roman confederacy.
Now, here is information found in Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:
In the late 3rd through early 4th century, there was a church leader known as Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was not in communion with the succession of at least three Greco-Roman bishops of Antioch, had a school based on literal biblical interpretation, “savoured of Judaism,” and was “Semi-Arian” (binitarian) (Newman JH, Cardinal. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, pp. 5, 9, 277, 406). Lucian reportedly was a Sabbatarian (Wilkinson BG. The Truth Triumphant. TEACH Services, Reprint 1994, pp. 55-57; Kohen E. History of the Byzantine Jews. University Press of America, 2007, p. 53).
In a seemingly 4th century creed ascribed to him, Lucian (or perhaps penned by a disciple) used the term “Catholic Church of God” (Schaff P. The Creeds of Christendom: The Greek and Latin creeds, with translations, Volume II. Harper and Brothers, 1877, pp. 28-29). This would not seem to have been a reference to the Greco-Roman churches as Lucian opposed the Alexandrian school which they encouraged. Lucian looks to have been a Church of God leader.
Lucian’s Creed seems to be the oldest known document with the exact expression “Catholic Church of God.” Although as shown already, Ignatius implied that as he used both “church of God” and “catholic Church” expressions in his 2nd century Letter to the Smyrnaeans. ...
Perhaps it should be emphasized that the school in Antioch that Lucian ran was opposed to the allegorical and semi-Gnostic school of Alexandria. The schools were NOT in true communion with each other. ...
It should be clear that no later than the early 3rd century (but most likely by the mid-late 2nd century) those in Asia Minor and Antioch were not in communion with those of Rome, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Rome was also supportive of the ‘allegorical’ school of Alexandria that Origen was part of, but not of the ‘literal’ school that Lucian of Antioch was associated with in the 3rd century. Origen also supported infant baptism that was not supported by those of Asia Minor or Antioch. ...
Although there are contradictory reports about him and his theology (like him supposedly reconciling with the area’s Greco-Roman Bishop while still reportedly maintaining his binitarianism, Sabbath-keeping, biblical literalism, etc.), he looks to probably have been a COG leader. If so, Lucian may be one who held the succession mantle from about 275 through his martyrdom in 312. ...
Lucian himself, improves Greek Septuagint by using Hebrew Masoretic documents and also edits the ‘Traditional Text’ of the Greek New Testament. ... we believe that there were ‘Judaic‘ Syrian Antiochians in our 3rd and 4th century succession lists (some whose names are known, with others unknown), which is consistent with some available historical claims. ...
Apostolic Succession List as put together by the Continuing Church of God
c. 31 - c. 64-68 Apostle Peter
c. 67 - c. 98-102 Apostle John
c. 100 - c. 157 Polycarp of Smyrna
c. 157 - c. 160 Thraseas of Smyrna
c. 160 - c. 167 Sagaris of Laodicea
c. 167 - c. 170 Papirius of Smyrna
c. 170 - c. 180 Melito of Sardis
c. 180 - c. 200 Polycrates of Ephesus
c. 200 - c. 220 Camerius of Smyrna
c. 220 - c. 254 Nepos of Arsinoe
c. 254 - c. 275 Macarius of Edessa
c. 275 - 312 Lucian of Antioch ...
The surviving Edessan episcopal lists do not preserve the name of Macarius. However, because later tradition places Lucian under the instruction of the Edessan confessor Macarius, and because Lucian appears to have emerged from the Edessan biblical tradition and was a biblical literalist, Macarius is placed here as a possible successor or leading representative of the literalist (Church of God) Christians.
Interestingly, those who held to what are called “Judeo-Christian” beliefs, while slightly chastised, were almost never condemned by the early allegorists--that condemnation really began in a big way with Emperor Constantine and the fallout from him (see also What is the Appropriate Form of Biblical Interpretation? and What is the Appropriate Form of Biblical Interpretation?).
But what is bizarre now, is that the Greco-Roman churches and their Protestant offspring seem to claim that Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenia, Apollonius of Ephesus, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Serapion of Antioch, and Nepos were indeed faithful early Christian leaders, yet, they do not have many of the same doctrines that they had. Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenia, Apollonius of Ephesus, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Serapion of Antioch, and Nepos seemingly (as some are by inference) all taught the true gospel, the kingdom of God, millenarianism, and other doctrines that are opposed by the current Greco-Roman (including Protestant) churches.
Thiel B. Nepos and Macarius: Church of God leaders who opposed the allegorists. https://www.cogwriter.com/nepos.htm COGwriter (c) 2025 2026 0711