During the lifetime of the apostles, beyond the first half of the 1st century, several groups appeared that did not harmonize with the doctrinal body of the Way. But this cannot be analyzed in a simplistic way under the presupposition of how the church lives today.

Firstly, there were no denominational buildings, nor defined groups with specific names or doctrines; everyone was mixed and began to identify themselves by a teacher whom they followed. For example, among the Way group among the Israelites, in very broad terms, we see that some found it difficult to shake off their sectarian nuances produced by the paradigm of the nomos. Others, within the Jews themselves, reinterpreted Messianic teaching in light of gnosis. These groups facilitated the reinterpretation by Gentiles, who were unfamiliar with the Scriptures, sometimes in an extremely free version of the entire gospel.

However, as a consequence of the various conflicts between Jews and the empire, and also the logical reality of an overwhelming majority of Gentiles from all nations compared to them, the group that grew fastest by the 2nd century was that of the Gentiles. Among them, reinterpretations associated with their pagan and philosophical backgrounds emerged. Although these latter are known as the Gnostics, we cannot understand them as a doctrinally defined group, but rather as a very mixed and pluralistic mass (including Menandrians, Valentinians, Marcionists, etc.). Some went to the extreme of considering the Creator God and legislator as a demon, while others saw the law as something outdated and replaceable by the tradition of some apostle, or simply assimilated Christianity and defended it as the mystical essence of knowledge and nothing more.

Many of these groups, with their own opinions, reinterpreted the teaching of the apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) as a complete departure from the Mosaic law. They failed to distinguish the opposition of the apostle, as was that of Jesus and the rest of the disciples, towards sectarian precepts and never towards God’s holy law. Nor did they distinguish in their opposition the “attitude” of some towards the law and not against its “nature”.

These groups viewed Grace and Holiness as the correct way of life, but not according to the divine standards that appeared in Scripture and under which Jesus had lived. For them, living well began to mean whatever their logic or some mystical revelation dictated to them.

Guided by this perspective, they discarded all traditions that came from the Jews, whether good (for being in harmony with Scripture) or not. But since one cannot live without the daily routine, they filled the void created with previously evaluated and redesigned pagan practices. Like the story in which the mother bathed her baby, they threw out the baby along with the dirty water.

Although we have mentioned several groups, we must understand that Christianity in general was receiving varied influences through perspectives, prejudices, and ways of projecting oneself personally and in community life. Amid the pressures of such harsh persecution against them, these varied influences became part of the daily life of many Christian groups that came to be organized into different patriarchates.

When the persecution ceased and the possibility arose to legalize the Way according to Roman imperial law, the final blow appeared that would transform the church into what we know today institutionally speaking. To legalize it, several things had to be defined that until then were varied: details of its creed, form of meetings, celebrations, etc. To define all this, a council was held in the year 325 AD in the city of Nicaea, with the Church of the capital city primarily as a reference. This is why we find that out of more than 1500 invited bishops, only about 250 attended.

However, and without intending to defend them, although there is a tendency among some historians and critics to view this as an arbitrary authority assumed by them, it must also be understood as a survival maneuver to shape the so dissimilar perspectives, seeking more options to fulfill the great commission given to them, which implied how to conquer the empire if they were so divided within.

Although 70% were absent from the council, where we can understand that not everyone agreed with that Roman supremacy, that beginning yielded long-term results and over time, unification was achieved and there was no other major schism until after the 11th century.

If we take an image of the church in the first two centuries and compare it with the church that emerged from Nicaea, we will see a very large contrast. Not only in terms of postulates and central points of their beliefs, but also in terms of the daily Way to follow.

When all traditions and interpretations that were quarries for the apostles and that Jesus himself approved in his life are eliminated, we must understand that the voids left behind must be filled by other traditions, that simple. These replacements will seek their anchor in Scripture, of course, so that all those who think differently can join biblically justified. That is why at that time many groups were convinced and added, although a few were forcibly added. This is how evangelism in the Middle Ages became one of the greatest aberrations in history.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar.

[1] Greek word referring to the law. There was a strong conception of this coming from Plato, where the law of God (natural laws) were invariable, while social laws were variable because they depended on the changing nature of humans. This concept was defining and combating against the Hebrew concept of law (Torah), which included social and natural laws described by Moses and interpreted by some sect.

[2] Greek word used by Christians to describe the “scientific” secular vision regarding God, the relationship with Him, and everything surrounding man.