The text of this missive, preserved by the historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his work Vita Constantini, reveals that the issue was not purely liturgical. It was a political and theological maneuver designed to consolidate the identity of Christianity as an imperial religion—independent of, and often opposed to, its Hebrew roots.

The Ideological Rupture: “Nothing in Common with the Jews”

In his letter, Constantine outlines a motivation that transcends the organization of worship. The Emperor’s language is blunt, laying the foundations for state-institutionalized anti-Judaism:

“It appeared unworthy that in the celebration of this holiest of feasts we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul… Let us, then, have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Savior a different way.”

This rhetoric transformed a technical discrepancy into a theological sentence. For Constantine, the unity of the Empire required a “pure” faith that did not depend on the customs of a people whom the new Roman order already considered alien.

From Biblical Tradition to Astronomical Calculation

Before Nicaea, the Quartodeciman controversy existed: many communities (especially in Asia Minor) celebrated Easter on the 14th of Nisan, following the biblical lunisolar calendar of Passover (Pesach).

Nicaea ended this diversity by establishing its own rule: Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox. To ensure this independence, the Council delegated the scientific calculation to the astronomers of Alexandria. From that moment on, the Church ceased consulting rabbis to determine its primary feast, replacing the chronology of the Torah with Greco-Roman astronomical observation.

Uniformity as Political Stability

Constantine’s intervention must be understood under the logic of the Roman Consensus. Following the Edict of Milan, Christianity became the cohesive axis of the Empire. For the Emperor, the existence of different paschal calendars was not only religious disorder but a factor of political division. An Empire with a single sovereign and a single faith required, by necessity, a single calendar. Unification thus responded to an administrative need for social control and stability.

Consequences: The Criminalization of Dissent

The separation from the Jewish calendar had profound implications for religious freedom within the Church itself:

• Identity in Contrast: The Church began to define itself deliberately in opposition to Judaism, distancing itself from the original context of the Gospels, where the death and resurrection of Jesus are intrinsically linked to Passover.

• Persecution of “Rebels”: Those who refused to abandon the biblical calendar—such as the Quartodecimans or the followers of Audius of Edessa—were labeled heretics.

• State Repression: What began as a liturgical debate ended as a civil crime. Under successors like Theodosius I, groups that persisted in following the 14th of Nisan suffered the confiscation of their temples and the exile of their leaders.

Conclusion

Constantine’s post-Nicaea letter represents the birth certificate of modern institutional Christian identity. By forcing the separation from the Jewish calendar and establishing a uniform practice through state power, the Emperor did more than organize liturgy; he drew the final border between the Church and the Synagogue.

This historical process transformed a faith born within Second Temple Judaism into a Roman imperial structure, whose heritage—including the way it calculates time—endures to this day.

Author: William Salazar

1. The Historical Controversy: Who Fixed the Calendar?

Traditional narrative attributes the creation of the calculated calendar to Hillel II (4th century). Nevertheless, contemporary experts, such as Dr. Rachel Elior of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argue that this system was not fully consolidated until the 10th century with Hayyim Gaon.

It is striking that the Talmud contains no clear record of this reform by Hillel II. On the contrary, the Talmud meticulously describes how the Sanhedrin received eyewitnesses of the new moon (Rosh Chodesh) to declare the beginning of the month. The current rabbinic calendar—based on a 19-year cycle with fixed intercalary months (3, 6, 8, 11, etc.)—ignores fundamental biblical variables such as the ripening of the barley (Aviv).

2. The Problem of Authority and Semikhah

For the believer in the Messiah, the underlying question is not merely technical, but one of authority: Who constituted these rabbis as “judges” over Israel to alter the appointed times (Moadim)? The principle of authority in the Torah requires judges to have a direct chain of transmission from Moses, known as Semikhah. However, rabbinic Judaism itself admits that this chain was broken following the Roman persecutions and the destruction of the Second Temple.

Rabbinic Acknowledgment (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:11):

“It appears to me that if all the wise men in the Land of Israel were to agree to appoint judges and grant them Semikhah, they would have Semikhah… However, the original chain of Semikhah that began with Moses our teacher was interrupted… and today we do not possess judges with original Semikhah.”

Analysis of Interrupted Authority:

• Generations without Semikhah: The Talmud (Sanhedrin 13b-14a) details the desperate efforts of Rabbi Yehuda ben Baba to preserve Semikhah under Hadrian’s persecution but acknowledges that the structure of the Sanhedrin as a court with biblical authority expired. Subsequent rabbis called themselves “sages,” but they lost the capacity to legislate changes affecting Torah commandments permanently.

• The Paradox of Halakhah d’Rabanan: While the implementation of rabbinic laws serves an organizational function, Halakhah establishes that a law of the sages cannot invalidate a law of the Torah (Devarim). The calendar, being an explicit commandment to determine the Feasts of the Eternal, enters into direct conflict when based on human calculations that ignore biblical observation.

• The Authority of the Messiah as Aleph-Tav: For us, this historical interruption confirms the need for a higher authority. While modern Hebrew roots often “demote” the Messiah to a mere rabbi, we recognize that His authority as the Aleph-Tav changes the entire legal landscape. He not only confirmed the first-century calendar but possesses the inherent authority to restore what men, by necessity or error, altered.

3. The Jewish Perspective: A “Temporary” Change

We must understand, without an inquisitive spirit, why rabbinic Judaism made these changes. In the absence of the Temple and the impossibility of convening the Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel to receive witnesses, the calculated calendar was the only option to maintain unity in the Diaspora.

The fascinating part is that Jewish thought itself admits these changes are transitory. They are not considered a “new revelation,” but an emergency measure meant to be revoked.

Acknowledgment of Transience (Maimonides, Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 153):

“This [fixing the calendar by calculation] is a law that we only practice in the Diaspora due to the destruction of the Temple and the absence of a Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel… But when the Messiah comes and the Temple is rebuilt, we will necessarily return to the system of direct observation and the testimony of witnesses, for that is the eternal law of the Torah.”

Analysis of the Expected Restoration:

• The Messiah as Restorer: From a rabbinic perspective, this “necessary change” has no eternal repercussion; they expect that when the Messiah comes, He will “fix” these details and put the original calendar into practice. In other words, even traditional Judaism believes the Messiah will restore the calendar!

• The Paradox of the Follower of Yeshua: Here lies our greatest certainty: if the Messiah has already come (Yeshua) and He already confirmed the observation calendar of the first century, why should we follow a calendar that is supposed to be “temporary” until He arrives?

• Return to the Land: The rabbinic calendar was designed to survive in dispersion. However, for those of us reached by the Messiah’s redemption and returning to the roots of the faith, the logical path is to live under the restored calendar He already validated, anticipating the fullness of the Kingdom.

4. Epiphanius’ Testimony and the 4th-Century Context

Epiphanius of Salamis is often cited to validate the current rabbinic calendar, but an analysis of the original text reveals that Epiphanius was describing a crisis of unity, not an established norm. He refers to the calendar of the first-century Pharisees, which—according to his testimony—the Jews of his time were beginning to lose.

The Quote from Epiphanius (Panarion 70.10.2):

“The apostles decreed nothing regarding this [the day of Passover], but said: ‘We do not care when you celebrate it, as long as you do not commit errors.’ But when the Jews were in a state of disorder and had lost the correct reckoning, the apostles said: ‘Even if they err, do not worry… celebrate it when they do.'”

Technical Analysis of the Text:

• Apostolic Rule vs. Innovation: Epiphanius mentions a prior “apostolic rule.” If the text he cites existed, it predates the Hillel II reform. Therefore, the apostles referred to the observation calendar of the Second Temple, not the mathematical system that emerged centuries later.

• The Roman Church and Nicaea: Epiphanius openly admits that the Roman Church, which he represented, changed this rule after the Council of Nicaea to separate from Jewish practice. As researchers, we understand this Roman change lacks biblical basis, as does the subsequent rabbinic shift.

• The “Jewish Disorder”: The phrase “when the Jews… had lost the correct reckoning” is key. It confirms that in the 4th century, the system was in crisis. This indicates the calendar change began as an emergency measure in the academies of Sura and Pumbedita and was exported through the Diaspora until being fixed in the era of the Geonim.

Conclusion

When reading Epiphanius in context, it is clear that the modern calculated calendar is not what he is defending; he is documenting how the 4th-century Jewish world was losing the precision of the Messiah’s original calendar. If we are followers of Messiah (Mashiach), our compass should not be the “disorder” of the 4th century, but the originality of the first century that the Messiah Himself validated with His presence and fulfillment of the Feasts.

It is important to persevere in excellence, yet we must not “drown in a glass of water” over these legal debates. As believers, our justification rests upon the redemptive work of the Messiah. However, if we seek the originality of our faith, it is most logical to follow the model our Master accepted and confirmed.

The modern rabbinic calendar was a human solution for a people in exile without a Temple or Messiah. But for those who have found the Messiah, the restoration has already begun. By seeking biblical observation, we are not inventing something new; we are returning to what the Eternal entrusted to His people from the beginning and what Yeshua, the Final Authority, validated with His life.

“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons (Moadim), and for days and years.'” — Genesis 1:14

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar

1. The Hebraic Substratum: The Nasraye and the “Netzer”.

Long before the Apostolic writings spread in Greek, the original community identified itself within its Semitic matrix. The Greek term Christianoi (Acts 11:26) was, in its origin, an external label—possibly derogatory—imposed by the inhabitants of Antioch. But in the heart of the Aramaic and Syriac-speaking community, they were the Nasraye (ܢܨܪ̈ܝܐ).

This term, preserved in the Peshitta (the Syriac version of the Bible), is not merely a geographic demonym for Nazareth, but a Messianic title. It derives from the Hebrew Netzer (ܢܨܪ), the “Branch” or “Shoot” promised in Isaiah 11:1. By calling themselves Nasraye, the church of the Peshitta affirmed that they were not practicing a new religion, but were the branches grafted into the shoot of Jesse. For them, Jesus was not a “Greek character,” but the Hebrew Mashiaj.

2. Syriac and the Peshitta: The Persistence of the Mshikhaye.

In the theological centers of Edessa and Nisibis, the Syriac language produced some of the richest literature of early Christianity. In the Demonstrations of Aphrahat (the “Persian Sage,” 4th century), the author does not appeal to Roman terminology; instead, he uses Mshikhaye (ܡܫܝܚܝܐ)—Messianics.

For Aphrahat and the scribes of the Peshitta, faith was defined by union with the Mshikha. In their texts, such as Tatian’s Diatessaron, the believer’s identity is that of a “stranger” (aksnaya) in the world, whose citizenship belongs not to the Empire, but to the Kingdom of the Messiah. Here, the word “Christian” is either non-existent or secondary to the weight of the Messianic covenant.

3. Coptic and the Nag Hammadi Texts: The “Chosen” of Egypt.

Descending into Upper Egypt, the Christianity of the 2nd and 3rd centuries expressed itself in Coptic. In this context, identity moved away from imperial politics to focus on spiritual nature. In the Gospel of Philip (one of the codices from Nag Hammadi), we find a fascinating distinction: the followers of Jesus are spoken of as those who have received the “anointing” (p-soh).

For a speaker of Sahidic Coptic, identity was not a social label but an internal condition. In the Letters of Saint Anthony the Great, the father of monasticism, the focus is on the transformation of man into a “new creature.” For these communities, the Greek term Christianoi was an administrative formality from Alexandria, while their lived reality was that of the “Gnostics” (in the sense of those who know God) or the “Set Apart.”

4. Ge’ez and the Legacy of Aksum: The Mshikhawi of Ethiopia.

Ethiopia presents the most robust case of an identity that never detached itself from its Jewish roots. In its sacred language, Ge’ez, the term is Mshikhawi. This identity is cemented in the Kebra Nagast (“The Glory of the Kings”), the national and religious epic of Ethiopia.

In this form of Christianity, identity is defined not by a break from the Old Testament, but by its continuity. The follower of the Mashiaj in Ethiopia sees themselves as an heir to the Ark of the Covenant. Their name, Mshikhawi, is not a Roman religious category, but a royal and lineage-based one: they are the men of the King Messiah, spiritual descendants of Solomon.

The Veil of Greek.

History has reached us in Greek, and with it, the word “Christian.” However, the linguistic archaeology of the Peshitta, the Coptic codices, and the manuscripts of Aksum returns to us a more vibrant and diverse image.

By recovering names like Nasraye or Mshikhawi, we pull back the veil of Roman institutionalization. We discover that the original faith was not a uniform structure under a state decree, but an explosion of communities that understood themselves as the Branch, the Anointing, and the Lineage of the Mashiaj. Perhaps, by letting go of the label “Christians,” we may truly embrace the identity of the Shoot.

By: Dr. Liber Aguiar

1. Roman Law and the Need for a “State Calendar”

In the Roman world, whatever was not recorded in the calendar did not legally exist. The Roman legal system was extremely meticulous regarding the fasti (the days permitted for business and religious observance). For the Church to cease being a marginal “superstition” and become a religio licita (a permitted religion), it needed to speak the language of the State: the language of temporal unification.

The Chronograph of 354 is, in essence, a response to the demands of Roman Law. By systematizing the feasts of the martyrs and fixing the birth of Christ, the Church was fulfilling the requirements of an official institution. The document allowed citizens like Valentinian—the aristocrat for whom the manuscript was created—to navigate their civil duties and their new religious obligations under a single, coherent administrative order.

2. The Legacy of Nicaea: Uniformity as a Power Strategy

The definitive institutionalization of Christianity required an end to the chaos of regional traditions. While the East favored Epiphany (January 6th), Rome understood that an institution divided in its dates was an institution weak in the face of imperial bureaucracy.

Following the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which had already unified the date of Easter, the calendar of 336 functioned as the “architectural blueprint” for this new era. The fixing of Christmas was the logical step toward establishing a centralized authority. It was not just about remembering a birth, but about demonstrating that the Church possessed the capacity to dictate a universal time for the entire Empire, from Britannia to Syria.

3. The Substitution of Imperial Cult: From the Sun to Christ

The deepest political cause behind the date of December 25th was the supplantation of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus). This was the tutelary deity of the emperors since Aurelian. By claiming the winter solstice, the Church was not only performing a task of “symbolic evangelization,” but was executing a deliberate act of power appropriation.

If the emperor was the source of light and order in paganism, State Christianity proposed Christ as the “Sun of Righteousness.” By placing Christmas at the heart of the Roman solar calendar, the Church positioned itself as the true manager of the Empire’s peace and order, symbolically displacing the emperor as the center of public worship to place itself in that position of privilege.

4. Conclusion: An Institution to Govern Time

Ultimately, the Chronograph of 354 was not a product of mystical theology, but of political realism. It was the tool that allowed Christianity to comply with the norms of Roman institutionality, unifying the faith under the standards of an imperial organization.

Through this calendar, Christianity ceased to be a movement of “secret meetings” and became an institution capable of governing public time. Christmas, therefore, was the gateway for the Church to transition from being just another institution of the Empire to finally becoming its primary and definitive institution. The controversy over its origin is not merely about a date, but about the moment the Gospel donned the toga of Roman Law.

By: Dr. Liber Aguiar

1. Martin Luther: Christmas as a “Lesson on the Incarnation”

Martin Luther, the seminal figure of the Reformation, adopted a remarkably conservative stance regarding Christmas. His guiding principle was not to eliminate everything that “smelled Catholic,” but to preserve whatever did not directly contradict the Bible and could serve to edify the faith. Therefore, his position must be evaluated in light of the arguments available to him at the time.

For Luther, Christmas was a golden opportunity for teaching. The celebration of Jesus’ birth offered a powerful vehicle to preach the central dogma of the Incarnation: God made man for the salvation of humanity. Far from suppressing it, Luther embraced and revitalized it, encouraging family participation in the celebration. He is credited with popularizing customs such as the Christmas tree and the figure of the Christkind (the Christ Child) as a gift-bringer, seeking to displace devotion to saints like Saint Nicholas. “If Christ had not been born,” he argued, “eat we would be lost. Therefore, we celebrate his birth with joy.” For Luther and his followers, Christmas was not a “foolstide,” but a “tide of grace.”

2. John Calvin: “Indifference”

John Calvin, the influential Reformer of Geneva, represented a more austere and strict approach. His Regulative Principle of Worship established that the worship of God should only include what the Bible explicitly commanded. Since Scripture does not command the celebration of Jesus’ birthday, Calvin was, in principle, reluctant to observe feasts instituted by human tradition.

In Geneva, Christmas was initially abolished as a weekday holiday, though preaching on the birth of Christ could occur if December 25th fell on a Sunday or if civil authorities authorized it. Calvin’s stance was not so much a condemnation of Christmas as a “heresy,” but rather a practical indifference toward it. He believed that all days were equally fit to glorify God and that elevating one day above another, outside of Sunday, was a superstition. His approach sought to strip worship of everything not essentially biblical, focusing instead on the Word and prayer.

3. The Puritans and the Reformed: “Foolstide”

The opposition to Christmas reached its peak among the English Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians, and other branches of the Radical Reformation. To them, Christmas was an abomination. They bluntly labeled it “Foolstide,” a derogatory term that encapsulated their rejection.

Their arguments were forceful:

• Lack of Biblical Mandate: There is not a single mention in the Bible commanding the celebration of Jesus’ birth.

• Pagan-Catholic Origins: They viewed Christmas as an amalgam of pagan Roman festivals Christianized by the Catholic Church, making it doubly objectionable.

• Licentiousness and Excess: They denounced the “frivolous behavior, drunkenness, and gambling” associated with the celebration.

The intensity of their rejection led to the formal prohibition of Christmas:

• In Scotland, under the influence of John Knox and the Presbyterian Church, Christmas was banned by an act of Parliament in 1560. This prohibition remained in force for centuries; December 25th was not recognized as an official public holiday in Scotland until 1958.

• In England, during the period of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate (1649–1660) led by Oliver Cromwell, the Puritan Parliament abolished the celebration of Christmas in 1644. Shops were ordered to stay open and churches to close on this day; fines were even imposed for celebrating.

• In the New England colonies (United States), founded by Puritans, the celebration of Christmas was not only discouraged but illegal in places like the Massachusetts Bay Colony, where anyone caught celebrating was fined. This ban remained formally in place until 1856.

Figures like the Puritan theologian William Prynne wrote treatises denouncing Christmas as a vestige of idolatry. The irony was that, in their zeal to “purify” the faith, the Puritans were often seen as intolerant “killjoys” by much of the population.

The complex and varied response of the Reformers to Christmas illustrates the inherent tension between tradition and the search for biblical purity. While some saw it as an opportunity to evangelize, others condemned it as a dangerous “Foolstide”—a reminder and a gateway to the “superstitions” from which the Church, in their view, had to be liberated.

The modern history of the Christmas controversy is, in many ways, the history of the Reformation itself.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar

The Reformation is recognized as one of the most important historical events of the modern era, praised in many fields, not only religious but also political and academic. And indeed, they are not wrong.

For many, in a positive sense, they view this period as an event permitted by God Himself to liberate “the church” from the clutches of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman “empire.” In this essay, we will demonstrate that there was actually more human influence than divine, although some important steps were made regarding religious freedom, causing drastic changes within society and Catholicism itself.

It is important to note that this work does not aim for a deep or exhaustive analysis of the topic; we will only attempt to connect some lesser-known and less-evaluated points, mainly by the general Christian religious community. To carry out this analysis and outline paths to other conclusions, we will touch upon another period that influenced those centuries, the Renaissance, and finally, focus on our main topic.

As has been shown numerous times in Way UP, one of the greatest damages done to the church has been the separation of politics and religion. Similarly, when evaluating the Reformation, its supporters only consider the religious consequences without understanding that it is necessary and obligatory to extend the analysis to all possible social spheres. Because, as in all of human history, nothing happened overnight, but rather through various processes. In this sense, the Reformation also occurred as a consequence of a process that had already been brewing in Medieval Europe.

In the Middle Ages, a period historically placed after the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church, Europe experienced significant changes due to the Crusades to reconquer the Holy Land, bringing development in fundamental areas such as the economy and politics. During these military campaigns, European leaders identified a great source of income through the existing trade routes between Europe and the Mediterranean, greatly developing relations between the two regions. Although the matter is not as simple as this, and we know that there were many conflicts, such as military invasions not only by the Crusaders in the Mediterranean but also Ottoman invasions of Europe, all this contributed to a drastic change within the sociopolitical organization of Europe, feudalism. In it, the clergy and nobility held absolute control and power, but the aforementioned economic boom led to rapid growth in many social areas. With the growth of economic power, military power also increased, and with it, political power expanded, making social, political, and religious reform only a matter of time. And this is where the Renaissance comes in.

The Renaissance is usually defined as a cultural movement in Medieval Europe around the 15th century. It has been called this because it is assumed there was a rebirth of classical ideas, particularly concerning logic and reason, based mainly on the teachings of Aristotle. However, we have indications that these ideas were never completely eliminated or banned, except in the lower social strata. It is known that the University of Paris in the 13th century used Aristotle’s teachings. We have the example of Thomas Aquinas, a great Catholic teacher and philosopher who became a fundamental figure in France and Italy. These two regions would later be essential because they would give rise to two of the most influential thinkers who marked this era, namely Niccolò Machiavelli in Italy and René Descartes in France. It is therefore logical to think that Aristotelian teachings never ceased to exist in the ecclesiastical peaks of the Catholic Church. They were simply limited in their use. There is therefore a question to be asked at this point: if the Renaissance is the supposed rebirth of Aristotelian ideas, but at the same time we see that they never really stopped being present within the Catholic leadership and very possibly within the political and social peaks, what really reborn?

Before answering this question, it is important to consider other elements. Many historians position this Renaissance period from the discovery of America. This means that by this point, the development resulting from all the aforementioned factors, economic expansion, infrastructure development, and cultural growth stemming from the spread of Thomas Aquinas’ teachings on Aristotelian reason and logic, were creating a mindset that began to fragment and crack the system established for so many centuries. Inevitably, the process began that included various schisms within European society. All this would also be reflected in the technological development that in turn allowed the rapid expansion of communication and information regardless of the distances. The creation of the printing press and the growing democratization of information also helped in many ways to the independence of individuals who could now share their ideas to regions unknown to them.

Undoubtedly, these processes were exerting an influence on the common European individual never seen before. Each person now had more opportunity to be informed, to know beyond their functions, and even more, to exert some influence even if they did not hold positions defined by nobles, kings, or ecclesiastical leaders. The possibility of mass mobilization took on another level, being useful to reform any old system like feudalism, which limited the potentials that new technologies and their consequences were showing, resulting in gains for those who saw these processes as an opportunity to rise within the closed European society thanks to the purchasing power that expanded to men outside the social peak. Therefore, and trying to answer the previously posed question, we can say that what was reborn was not precisely Aristotelian ideas, but the social impulse that due to an evidently necessary and perhaps even caused “awakening” gave rise to Aristotelian teachings, creating human independence without the need to depend on clerics or nobles.

The gradual development of all these Hellenic ideas gave rise to what we know today as humanism, which in turn created all kinds of social movements. This development can be seen clearly by simply comparing the two aforementioned philosophers. Machiavelli, with his rise in the early 16th century, and Descartes in the early 17th century. Both are clear examples of this development of ideas. Let us compare only the schools of thought of both philosophers, and we can perceive the rapid evolution in ideas and the complexities that were also created in just one century. On Machiavelli’s part, we can see that he developed within classical realism and republicanism. While in the case of Descartes we have a list: rationalism, Cartesianism, mechanism, innatism, foundationalism, conceptualism, Augustinianism, indirect realism, theory of truth, theological voluntarism, among others. As we can see, the competition of ideas grew incredibly.

It is precisely in this tumultuous century marked by humanism that the religious sphere would not escape its consequences. A radical change would take place at the peak of the leading religious movement in Europe: the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church. Now, one might think that the so-called Reformation began with Martin Luther in Germany with his 95 theses; however, it is known that several religious teachers had already exposed similar ideas much earlier. Such as John Huss and John Wycliffe. If Luther’s ideas, his courage, and bravery in posting those 95 theses in Gutenberg were what caused the diametric change, as many Protestants and evangelicals today quickly assume, why did Huss and Wycliffe not have the same “success” as Luther, being highly recognized teachers throughout Europe? The answer lies precisely in all the complexity explained so far.

This reform did not arise in any way just because Luther was a passionate and zealous person for the word of God, fervently wanting to expose the truth. He lived in an era where he knew how to use mass communication, that is, to the lower classes, while the growing humanism we talked about spontaneously did its work in those dissatisfied, mistreated, and at the same time hungry individuals who put into practice that humanist individualism of the time. Due to technology, all the political changes taking place across Europe, the growth of free thinkers, and the division of powers in all political and social spheres, Luther also saw the possibility of attacking the evident and abusive errors within the Catholic Church. This does not mean, nor am I saying, that Luther’s work was not of great merit, because even with all the moral support he might have received from the lower classes and some nobles who knew the various limitations imposed by the Catholic Church, he risked his life in it. Luther was condemned to death and rescued from his execution by an abduction by one of those nobles who supported him and knew that the change in the power of the Catholic Church was not only imminent but necessary.

Now, why did I start my essay comparing the influence of man with that of God in this whole process? Simply put, because today, four centuries later, the consequences have been that we have reached a point almost similar in the religious field to what the inhabitants of Europe lived in Luther’s time. How many deaths did the Protestant Reformation cause? How many wars between reformers and counter-reformers beyond the framework of healthy debate? How many conflicts among the same reformers that we still drag today? How many divisions were created? Did the Reformation solve the problem caused by the Catholic Church, or did it simply give many groups the opportunity to express their humanism in the way that seemed best to them in the religious sphere?

For my part, I believe, after four centuries of reaping the fruits of the Reformation, that we are very far from reaching the total reform that God really expects and wishes to influence. The Reformation, for what it was and how far it went, has been a political movement that had to happen in all social spheres due to the Renaissance and humanist boom of its time that also influenced it. Proof of this was Luther himself, who never intended to leave the ranks of Catholicism, even when he was aware of many of its inventions and the boot it placed on the heads of its parishioners, crushing them into the mud day after day, and keeping such an important region as Europe in complete obscurantism. Obscurantism that not only stayed there but extended to all continents they reached.

Today, we still live with the consequences of the Reformation. On one side, those who never accepted it but were forced to change many things within their ranks to confront that popular, strong, and democratic movement. And on the other side, those who, assuming the change, created a new Christianity that never returned to its historical and religious bases and that would ultimately be the most evident proof that they were not one hundred percent in God’s will. The latter, happy and content with the obtained freedoms, simply created another system with a little more openness, which would ultimately be one of the causes of ushering in the modern era we live in.

However, and to conclude, that famous response of Martin Luther to the question his mentor would ask him: “Do you imagine what would happen if every individual had a Bible in their hands?” Luther replied, “There would be more Christians.” Today, my opinion as a modern Christian after seeing the real situation we are in is that Luther was wrong in this, although it was a better answer than nothing for his historical context. Having more Bibles available does not produce more Christians because today they have them and do not read them or read them as they see fit. And all thanks to the humanization of ideas and, therefore, of the translations themselves. From my heart, I exhort you to take this complex issue more seriously and realistically, not to assume what is popularly said without considering all the tangled things seen here in a rather superficial way. If we were to delve into each of these points, we could really find the true path needed to walk toward the “Total Reformation Under God’s Guidance.”

Author: William Salazar

Throughout history, many of the customs of the early church were lost or replaced, beginning with the destruction of the temple and continuing to entrench themselves in the church over its first 300 years to today. Many factors influenced the transformation it underwent. At Nicea, nearly 300 years after the coming of the Messiah, in the quest for unity among the different existing Christian groups, Christianity was stripped of its practices related to Judaism, even though these had been endorsed by Jesus (Yeshua) himself and taught by his disciples. Thus, the congregation of believers in the incarnate Savior was left stripped of many customs born from the desire to keep the commandments He had given at Sinai.

This stripping away of its customs caused the church over time to begin incorporating or adapting customs from other peoples, and even those that remained were distorted. Because it is impossible for a community to progress over time without practices and customs that characterize it. So when those customs are eliminated, new ones must necessarily be invented. This resulted in a church with many customs that the early Christians never actually celebrated, and in most cases, they would never have accepted celebrating them either. This includes Jesus and the apostles. One only needs to analyze what is celebrated today in most churches and under what circumstances these traditions arose. Traditions such as Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and others, even the liturgy of worship services today.

It is sad to see how the vast majority of Christians today view these new customs as something good or important, without realizing how far removed they are from those customs and traditions given by God to His people, which ultimately are for our well-being in life. Claiming that these are old, that they no longer have validity simply because they do not know, or rather knowing, but in a twisted way due to the influence of what we know as “gnosis.” One cannot turn away from facts such as those at the Council of Nicea, where it was shown how in those first three centuries Christianity was already different among different groups and thus needed a conclave to resolve differences. For example, at Nicea, many of those Christian groups not only did not join in what was agreed there, but they did not even attend. Centuries later, the testimony of that “Romanized” Christianity, as it was settled to resolve all differences, fell into disrepute for having lost much more than what it “had gained.” With known events like the Crusades, among others, which diametrically oppose the teachings and practices of the early Christians, it can be concluded that the Christianity we have today “Romanized” is far from the Christianity of the early days. Therefore, prejudices must be set aside to understand more about the history of the church, because there are many things we do not know that, due to this ignorance, lead us to conclusions that are not well-founded, becoming a challenge for those of us who wish to reclaim those traditions and incorporate them into our daily lives. Those of us who desire to resemble the church of the apostolic times must acknowledge that we still have much to travel and learn to begin to embody that divine design.

Author: Mr. Mesac Martinez Mora

Unfortunately, whether due to the influence of Hellenism or the spiritual blindness that existed in Israel, several sects appeared by the 1st century: the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Zealots, each with their own peculiarities and differing opinions regarding the Messiah and his coming. Many expected Him to deliver them from their enemies, others expected Him to demonstrate the character and power of the God of Israel, and still others awaited a Messiah capable of leading a rebellion against the Romans.

However, there were also aspects they were not expecting, such as a liberator who would shame and infuriate a large number of their religious leaders, or who would show them how badly they misunderstood their God and how misdirected their attitudes towards moral law were.

In many ways, the people who saw Jesus witnessed what their nation should have been expecting in the Messiah. Throughout antiquity, many prophets spoke clearly to the people about God’s salvation, his character, and his power; and the Jesus that the people saw demonstrated that truth and power in such an irrefutable way that they marveled at what he did and said. What they saw and heard should have made them think about what they should expect from their Messiah.

So, if Jesus showed them what they were looking for, why did they not recognize him? Was it because he told them he could not deliver them from Rome’s imperial oppression? Was it because he said he had to suffer and die for their sins? Or was it truly due to their blindness as a nation on such an important issue? The people of Israel had received enough information to be prepared for the Messiah’s arrival. Why did they not see Jesus’ messiahship clearly?

The problem was not simply one of perspective but of presuppositions. The reality was that there were prejudices in Jewish thought that limited their vision. Clearly, this problem had a significant impact on the ability of 1st-century religious leaders to recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Despite the teachings of Moses and the prophets, they had added an oral tradition to what the Scriptures actually said. Many of these additions to the law seemed, at first glance, to honor the Scriptures, but often the changes focused more on external aspects than on the spiritual formation of the heart in light of the spirit of the law.

The result was that Israel’s religious leaders found ways to excuse their own mistaken motives by focusing more on ritual than on the spiritual. Many gradually assumed they could be right with God on their own terms and by their own efforts.

When Christ came as the spiritual rescuer, they did not see the need for any kind of personal rescue. In fact, they were not seeking personal forgiveness from God or mercy for their widespread wrongdoing. They wanted a Messiah who would confirm and enforce the rules they mistakenly thought were divinely inspired. As a result, when Jesus presented the vision of God, it did not fit their expectations, and the leaders of the time concluded that he was not the authentic Messiah they were waiting for. Jesus presented a vision of the Father that was not what the Scriptures taught the Israelites to expect, and yet what they saw surprised them. It was a perspective that continually baffled the people because Jesus not only revealed the character and power of God but also revealed to the Jews the heart of God. He came to provide the perfect balance between grace and truth to a generation that mistakenly thought it could reinvent truth and manipulate God’s grace.

Author: Julio Hernández

It is nearly impossible to find theological analysis from the fathers and apologists of the early centuries, in the writings that have reached us today, that take into account the context of the apostolic writings. We see literal or allegorical interpretations of the Tanakh [1], the testimonial use of their lives, a defense of the faith against the most absurd criticisms, and above all, an analysis in light of the philosophies of the time, but very little of the historical context in which Jesus and the apostles lived.

Some today prefer to think of a universal conspiracy in the style of Star Wars, but it would necessarily be a historical oversimplification [2]. Others try to examine the context in all its nuances in order to understand that the history of Jesus’ disciples in a particular period cannot be portrayed in black and white, as the facets and shades are quite varied. Thus, in the compilation of ancient sources, we can see a neglect influenced by prejudices that led Christian writers not to look at or simply reject their roots, considering them part of the Tannaitic practices [3] of the time.

The rabbis of Yavne [4], on the other hand, assumed the name Judaism implying that they did maintain such traditions, although in reality it was a desire to universalize and replace their neo-Pharisaism. The Messianics or Christians, in this situation, simply lost this perspective completely over time. And anyone who assumed a practice trying to imitate Jesus in his actions with reference to the law would be stigmatized as Judaizing legalism.

Now, being extremely critical, and starting with our own backyard, we can see how Christianity lost in its evangelistic and apologetic arguments. Their main argument for this was the testimony that grace and salvific action achieved the holiness that the law could not achieve, but such Christian testimony fell into enormous discredit. Massacres after massacres, such as those in Alexandria in 415 AD where Hypatia of Alexandria was murdered, dismembered, and incinerated by the followers of Bishop Cyril, were some of the events that contrasted with what Christianity preached.

Therefore, when Islam emerged in the second decade of the 7th century, it found in this crisis of Christian identity the bases it needed. The Quran teaches that Judaism was replaced by Christianity, as Christians taught, but at the same time that Christians did not have the potential to reach the Arab world so they also had to be replaced. And the clearest example of Christian decadence, for them, was the deification of Jesus when in reality he was a prophet, great, but only a prophet. Thus, just as Christians began to present the Tanakh as the Old Covenant, Muslims did the same by presenting the Messianic Covenant as outdated and ineffective also due to poor Christian testimony.

In the Quran we find:

«Oh believers! Do not say: Râ‘ina (which in Arabic means: take care of us) but: Observe us, and obey. And certainly the unbelievers will receive a painful punishment. The disbelievers of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and the idolaters wish that no good should come to you from your Lord, but Allah distinguishes with mercy from him whom He wills; and Allah is the possessor of immense favor. We do not repeal any law or make it forgotten without bringing another better or similar one. Don’t you know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that to Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that you have no protector or savior except Allah? Do you perhaps want to question your Messenger as they also did with Moses? Whoever exchanges faith for disbelief will have strayed from the right path. Many of the People of the Book would like you to renounce your faith and become unbelievers again out of envy towards you, after the Truth has been made clear to you. But forgive them and excuse them until Allah decides about them. Verily, Allah has power over all things. Perform the prescribed prayer and pay Zakât, and the good you do will be for your benefit, and you will find the reward of it with Allah. Verily, Allah knows how much you do. And they say (the People of the Book): Only those who are Jews or Christians will enter Paradise. Those are his wishes. Tell them: Bring your foundation, if you speak the truth. It is not so, those who surrender to Allah and are benefactors will have their reward with their Lord, and they will not fear or grieve. The Jews say: Christians lack foundations, and Christians say: Jews lack foundations, since they read the Book. That’s what those who didn’t know said. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection about what they disagreed about. Is there anyone more wicked than those who prohibit the mention of Allah’s name in the mosques and seek to destroy them? These are the ones who should enter them with fear (of Allah’s punishment).They will be humiliated in this world and in the Hereafter they will receive a terrible punishment.»[5].

Many Christian critics would resolve this by speaking only of the church’s lack of spirituality, approaching the concept of spirituality in a Gnostic perception that stripped it of all practice and made it esoteric. However, could it be that the various replacements deprived Christians of a correct view of spirituality, which has been lacking from then until today? Irenaeus of Lyon in the 2nd century said about this:

“Paul has made known what are the works which he calls carnal, foreseeing the incredulous sophisms, and laying bare their thoughts, in order not to leave the investigation of the matter in the hands of those who scrutinize his thoughts with incredulity. He expresses himself thus in the letter to the Galatians: ‘Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’ (Galatians 5:19-21). He thus proclaims in the most explicit manner to those who wish to hear, the meaning of ‘flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God’; for those who do these actions, truly conducting themselves according to the flesh, cannot live unto God (…) therefore, he who is getting better and produces the fruit of the spirit, will be saved anyway due to the communion of the Spirit, so that, whoever remains in the works of the flesh, of which we have spoken, will really be considered carnal for not assuming the Spirit of God, and consequently will not be able to inherit the kingdom of heaven (…) When have we carried the image of the earthly? When less works of the flesh were done. And when, according to him, have we been washed, believing in the name of the Lord and receiving his spirit? When we have been washed, not of the substance of the body or the image of the plasma, if not of the old life of vanity. Therefore in the same members in which we were lost by doing the work of corruption, in those we are vivified by doing the works of the Spirit.”

Could it be that the freedom under which the replacements were made is not the freedom to which God called? Truly, freedom was to walk in the true essence of the law, fulfilling it as fulfilled, with the forgiveness and ability that God gives through his Spirit, without judging others and without dividing his body, without feeling the burden of sinfulness upon those who were approved and forgiven by God to live according to his standard or holiness. Irenaeus also illustrates it in the following way:

“The law, being imposed on slaves, educated the soul through external and bodily signs, dragging it, as with a chain, to submit to the precepts, so that man would thus learn to obey God. But the Word, freeing the soul, also taught it to purify the body voluntarily. With this, it became necessary to remove the chains of slavery to which men had already become accustomed, and to follow God without chains; and at the same time the precepts of freedom had to be extended and submission to the King had to grow, so that no one would turn back and show himself unworthy of the one who liberated him. For respect and obedience to the Father of the family are equal in slaves and free men; but the free have greater confidence, since free service is greater and more glorious than submission to sin. For this reason, the Lord instead of ‘You shall not commit adultery’ did not command even to desire it; and instead of ‘You shall not kill’, not even to be angry; and instead of paying tithes, to give all our goods to the poor; and to love not only relatives, but also enemies; and not only to be generous and willing to share our own, but even willing to give willingly to those who rob us (…) So do not follow him like a slave, but go before him like a free man, showing yourself ready and useful to your neighbor in everything (…) All these things, as we were saying, did not destroy the law, but fulfilled it and enlarged it among us. It is as if one were to say that the service of the free man is greater, and that a greater submission and effect has been rooted in us for our liberator, since he has not freed us so that we might depart from him, for no one can of his own accord obtain the good things of salvation establishing himself outside the goods of the Lord, but so that, having received from him a greater favor, we may love him more… Thus, all natural precepts affect us equally, both we and the Jews, in these they began and originated, while we have come to their maturity and fulfillment.”

After what Irenaeus cited, it will be easier for you to understand how important it is for us today to return to the context in which Jesus and the apostles lived.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar.

[1] The well-known Old Testament.
[2] Although there is indeed a conspiracy in the heavenly realms led by Satan that influences and manipulates humanity.
[3] Rabbis (Pharisees) of the first three centuries.
[4] Seat of the Tannaitic Rabbinate.
[5] Quran, Surah 2:104-103.
[6] The Best of Irenaeus of Lyon, Alfonso Ropero, pages 578-579, CLIE.
[7] The Best of Irenaeus of Lyon, Alfonso Ropero, pages 437-438, CLIE.

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.