Were the Pharisees the Only Purveyors of Spiritual Leaven?

One of the most well-known biblical metaphors is leaven—the chemical agent that makes bread dough to rise. It is a descriptive biblical symbol of sin in one’s life that, like yeast that permeates dough, can permeate one’s life spiritually. During the biblical Feast of Unleavened Bread, YHVH instructs his people to remove all leavening from their homes for seven days—a vivid illustration of the divine mandate to remove sin from the house of our life. Paul warns the saints against the negative impact of spiritual leaven.

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Messiah our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor 5:6–8)

But there is another type of spiritual leaven that is equally dangerous and that Yeshua warned his disciples about: the leaven of false religious doctrine.

How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matt 16:11–12)

Then Yeshua said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matt 16:6) 

And [Yeshua] charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. (Mark 8:15) 

In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. (Luke 12:10)

The leaven to which Yeshua here was the false doctrines that had crept into the Jewish religious system that was contrary to the written Word of Elohim. These were the traditions of men that had made the Word of Elohim of non-effect.

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of Elohim, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of Elohim, that ye may keep your own tradition.…Making the word of Elohim of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:5–9, 13)

But do we really think that the Pharisees of Yeshua’s day were the only religious leaders to be guilty of the sin of promoting spiritual leaven? Of nullifying the Word of Elohim by their manmade, non-biblical and sometimes even pagan traditions? Hardly. Humans are humans then and now regardless of the epoch, the culture or country. There is nothing new under the sun, as Solomon declared.

This brings us to the so-called early church fathers of second century of the common era, who laid much of the theological foundation for the modern Christian church by interpreting biblical Truth in a particular and often slanted way, which we will document and discuss below.

The Rails of Biblical Truth

The Bible has given us certain spiritual guidelines, like rails on train track, to keep us pointed in the right direction and on the track toward redemption or salvation, sanctification and eventually the eternal reward of glorification and adoption into the family of Elohim. They help to keep our faith strong during our spiritual journey and our focus straight ahead and pointed toward the end  goal. Any deviation therefrom threatens to head us in a completely different direction with a different end point.

Indeed, Christianity tends to promote keeping one’s eyes on Jesus, who, in a sense, is the end goal. But in practical terms, what does that actually mean? Do we keep our eyes only on a personality? Or is Christianity more than a personality cult? Too often Christianity has tended to be the religion about Jesus, not the religion of Yeshua. Shouldn’t we be trying emulate how he lived by obeying what he taught? It is one thing to keep our focus on Yeshua—a good thing, but at another and higher level, it’s another thing actually to obey what he taught—his commandments, which tell us how to love him and our fellow man, and how to live a life of holiness and being set-apart from this world, or, in other words, to be in the world but not of the world. 

At the center of the religion of Yeshua is holiness, which is about separation. Separation from what? From that which is polluted, impure, profane and defiled. It is about becoming holy as YHVH is holy. What pollution? The pollution of the world, the flesh and the devil. There are several key element or rails of the track of holiness that will lead us to becoming separate from the world and closer to our Father in heaven. What are they? They have to do with holy food and holy times. The foods YHVH’s people eat and the special times that YHVH has called “holy” or “set-aprt” are when he commands his saints to come out of the world and to focus on him. This has a lot to do with true biblical holiness. It is about transcendency, that is, transcending above the profane or worldly or coming out of the world to commune with Elohim and his people who love him. A holy diet and observing holy times are essential to keep one’s spiritual train on the track that leads to holiness. For example, if you can neither eat the world’s food nor observe their holidays and celebrations, that largely puts you on the outs with the world, doesn’t it? Eating special food and observing special times puts you on a different track from the world. Thus, the biblical dietary laws along with YHVH’s Sabbaths (the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts) are separating elements, and that is what holiness is all about—separating from the world, being holy are set-apart, and being called out of the world. After all, is not the word ecclesia meaning “the called out ones,” which is the Greek word behind the word church in the New Testament, is all about?

In many ways, the early church fathers of the second century and onward, in a markedly and determinant manner, veered off the rails of the Hebraic faith of Yeshua and his apostles and commenced to move in an unbiblical direction, which they then passed on down to the Christian church to this day. If we care about biblical Truth, we must face the fact that the early church fathers, like their ancient Jewish predecessors, have passed on down many lies, which we have inherited many lies (Jer 16:19). In real and substantial ways, and in their own words, they have, to one degree or another, rejected the Truth of YHVH’s Torah and considered it a strange thing as did the ancient Israelites (Hos 4:6; 8:12). They too have even rebelled against it (Hos 8:1)! The call is now going out to come back to the good and ancient paths of Torah (Jer 6:19), to return to the law of Moses and to the Hebraic fathers of our faith before the great and terrible day of YHVH’s wrath comes on the earth quickly and unexpectedly (Mal 4:4–6; Hos 6:1).

So the rails of our biblical faith that lead to the kingdom of Elohim included teaching and then living out YHVH’s Torah-laws along with his standards of holiness including the seventh day Sabbath, the biblical feasts and the biblical dietary laws. The Bible defines these not only as obedience issues, but holiness issues that help to keep YHVH’s people separate from the world around them, and are also essential helping them to maintain a right and personal relationship with YHVH himself. It’s about love. Yeshua said that, if you love me, then keep my commandments (John 14:15, 21).

The Bible predicted that YHVH’s people would turn from his Truth again and again. It is called apostasy. It is an endless cycle that has repeated itself many times over the long history of YHVH’s people. And, sadly, it repeated itself in some major ways with the early church fathers. Don’t believe me? Shortly below, we will document this in their own words as show utter disdain for the Hebraic roots of their faith, the Jewish people and many of YHVH’s instructions in righteousness—his Torah-law, of which the biblical feasts, the seventh day Sabbath and YHVH’s dietary laws are key exhibit one.

Curiously, and the facts of history bear this out, the seventh day Sabbath, the biblical feasts and dietary laws along with an opposition to YHVH’s Torah also known as the Mosaic law were among the first aspects of biblical Truth that YHVH’s people including the early church fathers abandoned. Apostasy began here. And, down the line, as YHVH’s people wake up to the fact that, in many respects, they have left the rails of their Hebraic faith, it is Sabbath, feasts and biblical dietary laws to which they usually first return. To move forward spiritual toward one’s ultimate destiny, one must first backtrack to where the errant side rails branched off the main rail line in a different direction, and this time take the right track. The way out is the way back in, and the way back is the way forward. 

Now let us examine the written historical record of the sad apostasy or abandonment of much biblical Truth by the early church father from their own writings.

Discovering How the Early Church Fathers Jumped Off the Track of Holiness

In what follows, I document from the actual writings of the early church fathers of the second century onward many outright lies, false teachings, deceptions, twisting of the Scriptures, calumnies, virulent racist anti-semitism and blasphemies that are contrary to the Truth of the Bible. When you read their actual quotes, one has to wonder if some of them had ever read the Bible, or if so, how well they knew the Scriptures. Yet sadly many fundamental doctrines of present day normative Christianity are based on the writings of these men. As the Bible says, our fathers have inherited many lies. It is time to learn the truth, and when you do, you will be set free from the doctrines and traditions of men that make of non-effect the Word of Elohim!

At the same time and in all fairness to the objective truth, the early church fathers have written much that is good. They are valiant and often brilliant in their combatting the various pagan Greek philosophies and Christian heresies of their day. Admittedly, one can learn much from them, but why not go directly to the source of wisdom and Truth—the Bible instead—and feed on the manna from heaven rather than on food that has gone through the filters of men’s spiritual digestive systems and then regurgitated out as second hand pap? This assessment of what they have to say may sound harsh and even crass, but when actually takes the time to read much of what they have to say that is contrary to the precious Truth of YHVH Elohim as revealed in the Scriptures, this assessment is mildly stated. 

Sadly, and in many respects, there is manifested among many if not most of the early church fathers a lack of understanding of the more distinct and foundational Hebraic concepts of the Scriptures such as the relevance of YHVH’s Torah-law to the life of the saint. In many of their writings, they seem to rely more on human reasoning and philosophical explanations than on the Written Word of Elohim to make their points. It is true that some of the fathers seemed to have had a more complete knowledge of the Scriptures than others. This may be due to the fact that they had better access to the actual (scarce) scrolls and books containing the Scriptures than others of their contemporaries. Whatever the case, nearly all of them were non-Jewish, and thus were not raised in a Hebraic culture as were the writers of the Scriptures; therefore, their understanding is deficient in this area. Rather, they came from a Hellenistic cultural background and were influenced, to one degree or another, by the Greek philosophers, whose ideas permeated and informed the culture and ethos of the Roman empire. This is evident in the writings of the early church fathers where there seems to be a lack of understanding of the Hebraic (Oriental) mindset or perspective, and an acquiescence, instead, to that of the Greek perspective with its philosophical backdrop and approach (i.e., humanistic reasoning) as I will document below.

With these things in mind, let us now bring to the light of day some of the more anti-Torah and virulent anti-Jewish theologies of the early church fathers, which have been scattered prolifically throughout the thousands of pages of their writings. The theological foundation they laid in these writing eventually gave rise to philosophical and theological Christianity, which insinuated itself into and was codified into mainstream Christian church dogma and became part of a religious system (or churchianity) that became known as Roman Catholicism and was then passed on down the various iterations of mainstream Christianity as we know it today.

All of the following quotes, unless otherwise noted, are from The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers—The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass.: 1995.

The Writings of the Earliest Church Fathers That Are Opposed to Bible Truth

The Seventh Day Sabbath and the Biblical Feasts Annulled

• Ignatius (ca. A.D. 30–107; pupil of John)—Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, chap. 14. He writes that “[i]f anyone  celebrates the Passover along with the Jews, or receives the emblems of their feast, he is a partaker with those that killed the Lord and His apostles.” It is unclear if Ignatius is merely against the Jewish Passover or against Passover itself or both. Interestingly, the Book of Acts records that the early believers still frequented the temple and synagogues, thus fellowshipped with “those that killed the Lord and his apostles.”
• Barnabas (an Alexandrian Jew; written ca. A.D. 70 to 132)—Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 2. The author writes  of the Sabbaths (i.e., the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts) that [YHVH] “has therefore abolished these things…” implying that they were a burdensome yoke upon the Israelites and that through Jesus Christ we are no longer under. 
• Barnabas (an Alexandrian Jew; written ca. A.D. 70 to 132)—Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 15. He quotes (twisting) Isaiah where YHVH declares “Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them,” (Isa 1:14 cp. Amos 5:21) as a prooftext that YHVH hates his own feasts that he gave to Israel, when in reality, he was hating their pagan perversions of his feasts. About YHVH’s feasts, Barnabas then advocates “eighth day” (i.e., Sunday observance over the Sabbath and biblical feasts) and writes, “Wherefore, we also keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose again from the dead.”
• Anonymous author (ca. A.D. 130)—The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chap. 4. The author refers to the dietary laws, the Sabbath, biblical feasts and new moons as “superstition” that are “utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice.”
• Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110–165) Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew (chap. 18). He states that YHVH commanded the Jews to be circumcised and to keep the Sabbaths and biblical feasts “on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.” Comment: He is ignorant of the fact that YHVH gave Abraham circumcision as a sign of the covenant, not because the hardness of his heart, and that the feasts are steps in YHVH’s plan of salvation and are thus teaching tools that help us to understand the mysteries of the kingdom, and have nothing to do with the believer’s hardness of heart. Moreover, the feasts are commemorative memorials of what YHVH has done for his people lest they forget, and also speak of present realities in the life of the saint, as well as being predictive of future glorious events (e.g., the first coming of the Messiah, the giving of the Holy Spirit, the second coming of the Messiah, and the eventual establishment of YHVH’s eternal kingdom on earth). He also fails to understand the feasts are love feasts where YHVH meets and communes with his people (his bride). In chapter 23, Justin goes on to state (erroneously) that Moses (not YHVH) gave the institutions of the Sabbaths “on account of sinful men,” which is why, he claims, that we find no mention of the Sabbaths and feasts “before Moses.” This is another false statement that Genesis refutes (Gen 1:14; 2:1–3) refutes.
• Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110–165) Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew (chap. 19). Justin promotes the idea of “the eighth day” over the seventh day.
• Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110–165) Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew (chap. 47). He calls “weak-mindedness” those who follow the virtueless institutions of Moses, and again declares that the Sabbath and related ceremonies “were appointed by reason of the hardness of people’s hearts.” He then makes the false and propagandistic claim that “the law was given by Moses” not YHVH.
• Origen of Alexandria (also known as Origen Adamantius; ca. A.D. 185 to ca. 253),—Origen Against Celsus Book Eight (chap. 22). Here Origen mentions the biblical feast of Passover and Pentecost as well as “the Lord’s day” (i.e., Sunday observance), but he fails to mention either the seventh day Sabbath or the other biblical feasts. When discussing Passover and Pentecost, he also neglects mentioning literally observing these feasts on a the specific day as biblically mandated, rather he allegorizes them (or spiritualizes them away) and discusses keeping their spiritual meaning in one’s remembrance every day of one’s life. While this may be defined as keeping the spirit of the law, Yeshua makes it clear in his Sermon on the Mount that the saints are to follow both the spirit and the letter of his law, and that both are two sides of the same coin and thus indivisible. Origen misses this vital aspect of Yeshua’s instructions regarding the message of spirit and truth obedience to his word, which is required to properly worship Elohim and in a manner pleasing to him (John 4:23–24).

The Observance of the “Lord’s Day” (Sunday) Advocated Over the Sabbath

• Ignatius (ca. A.D. 30–107; pupil of John)—Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesian (chap. 9). The author says to keep both the Sabbath on Sunday, but prefers Sunday over the Sabbath demoting the former while elevating the latter. He writes, “But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God,and not eating things prepared the day before [i.e., Sabbath is a arduous and drudgery fast, not a joyous feast day], nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week].
• Ignatius (ca. A.D. 30–107; pupil of John)—Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, chap. 9. He writes, “[T]he Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s day [Sunday] contains the resurrection.”
• Barnabas (an Alexandrian Jew; written ca. A.D. 70 to 132)—Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 15. About YHVH’s feasts, Barnabas advocates “eighth day” (i.e., Sunday observance over the Sabbath and biblical feasts) and writes, “Wherefore, we also keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose again from the dead.”
• Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110–165)—The First Apology of Justin Martyr, chap. 67. He writes, “But Sunday is the day in which we hold our common assembly” in commemoration of Jesus Christ’s resurrection of the dead. He then goes on to promote the Friday crucifixion–Sunday resurrection theory. Comment: Justin obviously had little or no understanding of the biblical feasts in that he conflated the first high holy Sabbath day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the weekly Sabbath.
• Clement of Alexandria ( ca. A.D. 150 – ca. 215)— The Stomata, Book Six, chap. 15. Of the seventh day Sabbath vis-à-vis the so-called “eighth day”, Clement defers to the first or eighth day over the seventh day when he writes, “For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh minifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work.” Thus he “proves” that the seventh day is actually the sixth day, and then goes on, in the Greek philosophical style, to cite examples from nature and numerology along with supposed hidden inference from Scriptures to make his point why Sunday observance has replaced the seventh day Sabbath and how the former is both the seventh and eighth day combined.

Anti-Torah Rhetoric

• Ignatius (ca. A.D. 30–107; pupil of John).—Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, chap. 6. The author declare, “If anyone preach the Jewish law [marginal note: lit. Judaism], listen not to him.”
• Ignatius (ca. A.D. 30–107; pupil of John)—Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesian, chap. 8. “Old things are passed away: behold all things have become new. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received grace.”
• Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120/140 to ca. 200/203)—Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book Two, chap. 15.1. Here Irenaeus shows a misunderstanding of why YHVH gave Israel his Torah-law by wrongly interpreting Ezekiel 20:4 to mean that the law was bad and imposed on the people because of their sin at the golden calf. This faulty interpretation is contrary to countless scriptures that speak of YHVH’s Torah-law in blessed and favorable terms (e.g., Ps 119!). Thus, his cherry-picking Ezekiel 20:4 out of the rest of its scriptural context is proof that his interpretation of it is all together in error! 
• Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120/140 to ca. 200/203)—Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book Two, chap. 16.1. In this passage, Irenaeaus spiritualizes away the literalness of the seventh day Sabbath by saying “that we should continue day by day in God’s service [marginal note (alternate interpretation): or continue the whole day in service to God].” He then goes on to make the assumption that the law of Moses did not precede Moses. He misses the fact that the Torah pre-existed Moses (see Gen 18:19; 26:5) and that Moses was merely the first human to record it in written form, hence the term “the law of Moses”. But Moses was not the originator of the Torah! This fallacious interpretation of Scripture, to one degree or another, has persisted in mainstream Christianity to this day. In Section five of the same chapter, Irenaeus goes on to state that YHVH’s Torah-law as a “bondage” that were “one by one promulgated to the people by Moses, suited for their instruction or for their punishment…These things, therefore, which were given for bondage, and for a sign to them, He cancelled by the new covenant of liberty.” Thus to follow Irenaeus’ faulty line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, it must, therefore, be permissible to lie, steal, murder, commit sexual sin, etc., since these laws of bondage have been “cancelled by the the new covenant of liberty.” Of course, this is total hogwash and a twisting of the Word of Elohim, to say the least, if not blasphemous against YHVH’s Torah-commandments, yet this is what mainstream Christianity, to this day, basically teaches.
• Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120/140 to ca. 200/203)—Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book Four, chap. 16.4. The author declares that the Decalogue was not cancelled by the New Covenant, but the statues and judgments of the Torah were a bondage to the Israelites and are no longer binding on Christians.
• Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 155)—The First Apology of Justin Martyr, chap. 47: The author states that out of “weak-mindedness,” some Christians observe the Mosaic law. Sabbath and feast days observance are optional, but not encouraged.
• Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185 to ca. 253),—Origen Against Celsus Book Two, chap. 2. Origen, in debating Celsus the Jew, claims that Jesus’ Jewish disciples, having “been trained up according to the letter of the Mosaic law” were to understand Jesus when he told them “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now, howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.” Origen goes on to claim that “the many things” that the Holy Spirit would supposedly reveal to them was referring to “the true law” which nullified YHVH’s Torah “injunctions regarding meats and drinks, and festivals, and new moons and sabbaths.” This is a skewed and anti-Torah biased interpretation of both John 16:12–13 and Colossians 2:16. He then declares the “superiority of [this new] Christian doctrine” that now replaces the letter of the Torah-law, which he misquotes Paul as claiming to be “loss and dung” (Phil 3:8). In reality, Paul is here referring to his past Pharisaical (non-biblical) traditions and belief systems (including the false Jewish doctrine that one needed to be circumcised to be saved (Phil 3:3 cp. Acts 15:1, 5). This passage in Philippians contextually has nothing to with the validity YHVH Torah-law, which Paul adamantly upheld to his death. 
• Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185 to ca. 253),—Origen Against Celsus Book Two, chap. 4. Origen states here that Christians no longer “must yield [to] a literal obedience to the law of Moses.” So the questions logically and necessarily arises in the mind of a questioning person who knows their Bible. Which laws of Moses are now negated? The laws against idolatry, murder, sexual sin, dishonoring parents, lying et al or just the laws pertaining to Sabbath, biblical feasts and clean and unclean meats? The illogical, hypocritical, disingenuous and duplicitous nature of Origen’s argument is apparent to anyone who knows their Bible!
• Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185 to ca. 253),—Origen Against Celsus Book Two, chap. 6. In this chapter, Origen continues is refutation of Celus the Jew who, evidently, held to adhering to the letter of YHVH’s Torah-law. At the same time, promotes a spiritualizing away of the letter by writing that “Jesus, them, is the Son of God, who gave the law and the prophets; and, we who belong to the Church, do not transgress the law, but have escaped the mythologizings of the Jews, and have our minds chastened and educated by the mystical contemplations of the law and the prophets.” Origen then quotes the biblical psalmist, as if he were prophesying his novel interpretation of how Christians are now to view the law. “I will open my mouth in a parables, I will utter hard sayings of old,” (Ps 78:2), and “Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law,” (Ps 119:18). Of course, these “proofs” fall flat against the full contextual backdrop of Scripture, including the words of Yeshua and Paul to name a few, that clearly teach against the abrogation in any way of on jot or tittle of the Torah both its letter and spirit. This is to what length this false teacher, who is one of the most revered of the early church fathers, goes to “prove” that YHVH’s Torah-law has been annulled and is irrelevant. One can only wonder if he is counting on the fact that most of his readers in the third century of the common era were unable to verify his assertions in the Scriptures either because they were illiterate or because they had no access to an actual Bible, so this gave him free reign to say write fiction without the threat of accountability from biblical investigators.

Anti-Semetism Manifested

• Barnabas (an Alexandrian Jew; written ca. A.D. 70 to 132)—Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 3. He states that the Israelites (Jews) lost the covenant when they turned to worshipping the golden calf. Comment: This is an antisemetic false statement. 
• Barnabas (an Alexandrian Jew; written ca. A.D. 70 to 132)—Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 16. He refers of the Jews as “wretched.”
• Ignatius (ca. A.D. 30–107; pupil of John)—Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesian, chap. 10. He writes, “It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.”

Biblical Dietary Laws Repudiated

• Ignatius (ca. A.D. 30–107; pupil of John)—Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, chap. 6. Here the author states, “But if anyone preach the Jewish law unto you , listen not to him.…If anyone confesses the truths mentioned…or deems certain kinds of food abominable, such an one has the apostate dragon dwelling within him.”
• Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D.185 to ca. 253),—Origen Against Celsus Book Two, chap. 3. Origen repudiates the Torah’s dietary laws buy misinterpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10 as license for Christians to now eat all manner of meats—a false interpretation of this passage that persists in mainstream Christianity to this day and violates the plain meaning of this text as it interprets itself.

The Pagan Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul Promoted

• Anonymous author (ca. A.D. 130)— The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chap. 6. The author refers to “the invisible soul is guarded by the visible body.…the soul is imprisoned in the body [this is Greek dualism]…The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle.”
• Polycarp (ca. A.D. 65-100-155), a disciple of John and contemporary of Ignatius. In his Epistle of Polycarp, he does not promote the idea of the immortality of the soul, but rather speaks of the resurrection of the dead when the saints will live again (chaps. 5 and 7), whereas the spirits of the saints are in the presence of the Lord (chap. 9). In The Martyrdom of Polycarp, he writes that at the resurrection, he will receive eternal life both soul and body (chap. 14).
• Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110–165) The First Apology of Justin Martyr, chap 18. Here we read “that even after death souls are in a state of sensation.”
• Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110–165) Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew, chap. 5. He writes that the souls of men, are not immortal and that “souls both die and are punished.” Comment: Between what he writes in this First Apology and in Dialogue with Trypho, there seems to be contradiction regarding the immorality of the soul. Either he was confused, or else he changed his mind on the matter along the way.
• Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110–165) Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew, chap. 80. Here Justin says that those who deny the resurrection of the dead and say, rather, that when a person dies, their soul goes to heaven “do not imagine that they are Christian.” In light of the other statements in the same document that he makes regarding the state of man’s soul upon death, I am unclear as to his exact meaning. I suspect that he believes in both the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul, and that the body and soul will be reunited at the resurrection as mainstream Christianity currently teaches. If so, he seems to be, in a sense, reconciling the views of the Greek philosophers with that of the Bible by melding the two in some curious way.
• Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120/140 to ca. 200/203)—Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book Two, chap. 29. Here he confirms the immortality of the soul after one’s death but delineates some differences in this belief against that of the Greek philosophers. 
• Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120/140 to ca. 200/203)—Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book Two, chap. 34. Irenaeus writes “souls continue to exist, not by passing from body to body [i.e., the transmigration of souls], but they preserve the same form.…and they remembered the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased.” As supposed proof of the immortality of the soul, he then quotes the typical Christian misinterpretation of Yeshua’s Parable of the Lazarus and the Rich Man thus evidencing a total ignorance of the difference between Jewish aggadic (parabolic, allegorical or moralist) literature versus halachic (legal or theological) literature. This is a perfect example of how the early church fathers, in many cases, twisted Scripture to syncretize with beliefs that were current in the pagan societies around them—in this case, the philosophy of Greek dualism which promoted the idea of the immortality of the human soul.
• Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120/140 to ca. 200/203)—Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book Five, chap. 7.1. He writes, “Nay, the souls are incorporeal when put in comparison with the mortal bodies…For [the mortal body] it is which dies and is decomposed, but not the soul or the spirit…For [death] happens neither to the soul, for it is the breath of life….” 
• Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120/140 to ca. 200/203)—Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book Five, chap. 31.1. Here Irenaeus explains that the souls of the righteous “shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting the event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God.”
• Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185 to ca. 253), Origen De Principiis, chap.7.1. Origen writes, “All souls and all rational natures, whether holy or wicked, were formed or created, and all these, according to their proper nature, are incorporeal; but although incorporeal, they were nevertheless created, because all things were made by God through Christ….” The main difference between the early church father’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul, as attested to here by Origen, and that of the Greek philosophers is that the church fathers taught that the human immortal soul was created (had a beginning), while the pagan philosophers believed that the human soul had always existed, for it was part of the universal or cosmic soul, even as the Hindus and Buddhists believe to this day. Thus, they believed in the transmigration of souls—something the early church fathers did not believe. 

Marcion the Heretic’s Influence on Christianity

Marcion of Sinope the heretic (ca.  85–ca. 160) came from the area of modern Turkey and was an early, second century Christian theologian, who taught that the God of the Old Testament (OT) was an evil, vengeful being, who had burdened the Israelites with evil laws that were impossible to keep. At the same time, Marcion promoted the idea that the Jesus Christ, the God of the New Testament (NT), was a God of love and grace and was different from the God of the OT. He viewed himself as a follower of Paul, the apostle, and Jesus Christ and accepted only their teachings. He was quickly branded as a heretic by many early church fathers, but many of his ideas live on to this day in the Christian church as we will prove below.

Marcion is considered to be qausi-gnostic in that he did not believe that Jesus/Yeshua had a literal human body, but was a spirit or phantom who merely took on a human form. His teachings spread throughout the Roman empire and were denounced by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian as being heretical. Polycarp, the disciple of John, after meeting him in Rome, referred to him as “the first born of Satan” who had “mutilated the truth.” Thus he refused to have communion with Marcion (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, book  4, chap. 14). Elsewhere, Rhodo of Asia refers to Marcion as a promoter of  “licentiousness” and as “that wolf of Pontus” (ibid., book 5, chap 13). The bishop of Rome finally excommunicated Marcion from the church of Rome in A.D. 144 for his heretical views on the deity of Yeshua, but not for his anti-Torah views—a view to which many early church father of that day, to one degree or another, were already sympathetic and promoting. 

Overview of Marcion’s Teachings 

Justin Martyr regarded Marcion as the most formidable heretic of his day (History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, by Philip Schaff, p. 484). Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 155) roundly denounced Marcion as a heretic, but not because of his anti-Torah stand, but because of his unorthodox Greek dualistic view of the godhead, and his denial of Yeshua’s incarnation believing instead that Yeshua was a phantom (Justin Martyr in The First Apology, chaps 26, 58).

Marcion sharply contrasted Judaism and Christianity and he maintained that the God of grace was unknown until revealed in Yeshua. By contrast, the God of the Old Testament (OT) was a God of strict law and justice, or even of harsh and violent malice. Yeshua came to rescue humanity from the power of the Old Testament’s inferior God who he called the demiurge—a term borrowed from the Greek dualistic philosophers. Marcion believed that only Paul really understood Yeshua’s new revelation of love and grace and that the other Jewish apostles were still under the corrupting influences of the Jewish law (Exploring the Christian Faith, by J. I. Packer et al, p. 295).

Furthermore, Marcion insisted that the church had obscured the gospel by seeking to combine it with Judaism. He maintained that the God of the OT and of the Jews was an evil God. This is due in part to his assertion that the God of the OT commanded bloody sacrifices to him, and was a God of battles, rejoiced in bloodshed and was vindictive. He taught that this God had given a stern and inflexible law for the governance of men, demanded obedience to the law and was rigourous in its enforcement. Marcion held that in contrast to the God of the Jews, there is a second God who revealed himself in Yeshua who was a God of love, and who sought, out of mercy, to rescue men from the evil OT God. Yeshua, he taught, came from heaven to deliver men form rule of the malevolent evil God of the OT whom he called the Demiruge. All that the good God asks of men if they are to escape from the rule of the Demiurge is faith in response to his love. Men have been emancipated from the legalistic requirements of the Demiurge and of his creature, Judaism. Marcion believed that Paul understood the gospel and in Paul he saw a sharp distinction between law and grace being the unmerited favor of God, which Marcion passionately believed was the essence of the gospel (A History of Christianity, vol. 1 by Kenneth Scott Latourette, pp. 126–127).

Tertullian in Against Marcion

Since the writings of Marcion of Sinope have been lost,  the writings of Tertullian (A.D. ca. 155–ca. 220), the early church father, is our best source of information on Marcion’s teachings.

In Tertullian’s 200 page apologetic entitled Antitheses or Tertuillian Against Marcion, Tertullian counters Marcion’s virulent anti-Jewish theology on many points, but out of all of this, there is one key takeaway that needs to be exposed. Whereas Marcion took a strong stand against the OT and the “Jewish God of the Old Testament” and the OT “Jewish laws” to the point of rejecting it all outright, Tertullian does not reject the OT et al outright. However, he clearly advocates for a stepped down version of Maricion’s theology vis-à-vis the concept of “law versus grace” and, furthermore, he promotes a diminished view of the Torah-law of Moses as well as the false notion that the OT law to the exclusion of grace and the vice versa is true of the NT—view that dominates mainstream Christian theology to this day.

Now the question must necessarily be asked is this: Did Marcion originate his anti-Jewish, anti-Torah (i.e., anitnomian) theological views, or did he simply jump on board the train of thought that already existed among the earliest church fathers, and he simply took them to a more radical extreme? The historical seems to suggest that the two co-evolved out of the anti-Jewish ethos that already existed within the Roman Empire and was contributed to by the persecution of the non-Messianic Jews against the Messianic Jews and early Christians. 

In his book Our Father Abraham—Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Marvin Wilson discusses the transition of the early church fathers from de-Judaizing Christianity to a place of outright anti-Jewish theology, eventually leading to replacement theology, where the church viewed itself as replacing the Jews and becoming the “new Israel” (ibid. p. 88ff). First an ambivalence then an outright antipathy for all things Jewish arose in Gentile Christianity including among the early church fathers as Wilson documents. This was a result of the Jewish persecution of the Christians, then their being forced out of the synagogue by the non-believing Jews. Concomitant to this was the hatred for and the persecution of the troublesome Jews by the Romans. Some of the Roman vitriol for the Jews fell upon the early Christians, whom the Romans viewed simply as another sect within Judaism. The Roman even imposed a surtax on the Jews, which negatively affected the Christians financially. All of these external and forceful influences began to drive a wedge between the early second century Christians and the Jewish roots of their faith (ibid., pp. 64–98). It was out of all this that the early church fathers, including Marcion, developed their anti-Jewish and, by extension, their anti-Torah theologies. The parting of the ways between church and synagogue had largely occurred by circa A.D. 160 in the time of Justin Martyr (ibid., p. 83).

In A.D. 144 the church in Rome excommunicated Marcion the heretic (for his antichrist views, but not for his anti-Torah or anti-Jewish teachings), but his heresy did not end. Justin Martyr informs us that Marcion’s heresies spread throughout the Roman empire. “Despite [Justin’s] own anti-Judaic stance, Justin considered Marcionism to be the most dangerous heresy of his day” (Wilson, p. 109). Regarding the heresies of Marcion, Wilson then admits “[T]hough cunningly concealed, in today’s Church rather strong vestiges of Marcionism have survived” (ibid.). Some people have referred to this as “the ghost of Marcion” that is still lurking behind much of Christianity’s theology to this day.

In combatting the heresies of Marcion, Tertullian reveals his own negative views toward the so-called  “Jewish” OT laws as we shall note below. 

All of the following quotes are from Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 3; Hendrickson, 1995)

• Tertullian Against Marcion, Book One, chap 19 (p. 285). Tertullian asserts that Marcion set the OT (i.e., the law of Moses) in opposition to the New Testament (the gospel of grace). He writes, “Marcion’s special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel…These are Marcion’s Antihesis, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law…” Tertullian maintains that the God of the law and the gospel are the same, even though Marcion taught that they were different. In reality, mainstream Christianity has blended the orthodox position of Tertullian and the heretical position of Marcion to form its own unique doctrine. That is, the chuch teaches that there is only one God, but God the Father is the God of the OT, while Jesus Christ is the God of the NT and that the OT promotes law and judgment, while to NT grace and love.
• Tertullian Against Marcion, Book One, chap 20 (pp. 285–286). Marcion championed Paul as the one to have moved the other apostles away from the Jewish law (i.e., physical circumcision, the Sabbath and feasts) and into the message of grace. Marcion cites the example of Paul’s withstanding Peter’s acquiescence to the Jews over the Gentiles in favor of the law; Paul’s becoming all things to all men—to the Jews who are under the law, as a Jews, and to those who are without the law, as being without the law (a supposed indication of Paul’s ambivalence to the law); that Paul’s mention of the other gospel brought into church by false brethren (Gal 1:6–7; 2:14) is a reference to them bringing into the church the corrupting influence of teaching adherence to the OT law; Paul’s alleged stand against physical circumcision is another supposed proof of Paul’s disdain for the law. Additionally, Paul’s teaching against observing times, days, months and years (a supposed reference to the biblical feasts and other Jewish ceremonies) is assumed to be proof of their abrogation. Marcion saw proof of the law’s abrogation in the OT writings where YHVH says, “Behold, I will do a new thing” (Isa 43:19); “I will make a new covenant…” (Jer 31:32); “ I will cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts” (Hos 2:11); “[Your] new moons, and sabbath, the calling assemblies, I cannot away with; your holy days and fasts, and feast days, my soul hates” (Isa 1:13–14, emphasis added). Interestingly, these same arguments cherry-picked out the scriptures by Marcion the heretic in attempt to prove the abrogation of the law are the same scriptures used by the mainstream church to this day to make the same point.
• Tertullian Against Marcion, Book Four, chap 7 (pp. 352–353). Tertullian asserts that Yeshua neither detested the law nor came to destroy the law, but rather to fulfill it (as per Matt 5:17), in contradistinction to Marcion, who claimed that Yeshua came to abrogate or destroy the law. At this point in Tertullian’s dissertation on YHVH’s Torah-law, his view of it is a bit murky. (Later on in his writings, his stance is clear: many aspects of the Torah have been “abolished”—his words, as we shall document below.) He did not believe that Yeshua was a destroyer, but rather an upholder of the law, when he took the Pharisees to task for their partial obedience to it in that they omitted the weightier matters of the law (ibid., chap. 4.27, p. 394). But in Tertullian’s mind, he was not advocating a doctrinal view that nullified the law, while Marcion was. In reality, the mainstream church has a blended the view of Tertullian with that of Marcion, when they maintain that Yeshua didn’t came to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, such that Christians are no longer obligated of obey the law (except for those parts they choose to keep). Therefore, in the minds of most Christians, Yeshua’s fulfilling of the law now gives them license to violate certain aspect of the law such as the sabbaths, feasts, physical circumcision and the dietary laws. Marcion being a strong proponent of the abrogation of the law would have agreed with this view. Hence, we see that the mainstream church, de facto, holds, to one degree or another, to an antinomian (anti-Torah) viewpoint similar to that of Marcion and has even adopted some of the same arguments to justify its theological position against YHVH’s Torah-law.
• Tertullian Against Marcion, Book Four, chap 33 (p. 404). Tertullian maintains that Marcion taught that the law and prophets where until John (Luke 16:16), after which they ceased due to the new dispensation of the gospel of grace. Tertullian then shows this teaching to be fallacious because of Yeshua’s statement that as long as heaven and earth still exist, not one point of the law will cease (Matt 5:18), and because of Isaiah’s assertion that the word of YHVH is forever (Isa 40:8). Yet, it is the lie of Marcion that the law and prophets were until John, after which the law was abrogated, that the Christian church teaches to this day. Here is another example of one of the heresies of Marcion that has infiltrated the early church and has been passed on down to this day into mainstream Christianity. Elsewhere, Tertullian admits the truth of the abolition of the law and declares that the law and prophets were until John even as Marcion maintained (Book 5, chap 2, pp. 431–432). In this same passage, Tertullian admits the “suppression, ” “abolition” (his terms) or “abrogation of the law and the establishment of the gospel” believing it to be a fulfillment of OT prophecy that “the ancient things should pass away” (q.v., Isa 43:18–19; 65:17; ibid.).
• Tertullian Against Marcion, Book Five, chap. 2, p. 432. Tertullian places the law at odds with the message of grace when he advocates the idea that the gospel calls men from law to grace. In an earlier book, Tertullian attempts to show that the concept of grace was throughout the OT as evidence that Marcion’s idea that the God of the OT was one of law, wrath and judgment, while the God of the New Testament was one of grace and love, therefore, supposing to prove that they were two separate gods. Now, in Book 5, Tertullian is taking the same position on this issue as Marcion. This seems to reflect a change of opinion within Tertullian’s mind on this matter between his earlier and latter writings. 
• Tertullian Against Marcion, Book Five, chap. 2, p. 432. Here Tertullian affirms that he agrees with Marcion that the law was abrogated, and that the Book of Galatians, in his view, proves this, and that the other apostles, under the leading the Holy Spirit in Acts 15, (supposedly) realized that the law was an unbearable yoke that should be set aside, and that the law should no longer be taught, which was (supposedly) in agreement with Paul’s already held position. What Tertullian doesn’t agree with is Marcion’s position that Yeshua and the God of the New Testament were two opposite and separate beings.
• Tertullian Against Marcion, Book Five, chap. 19, p. 471. Finally, Tertullian affirms his belief that fundamental aspects of the Torah-law have been abrogated, based on his interpretation of Colossians 2:16–17, which says “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” On this verse, Tertullian writes, “the apostle [Paul] here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance—that is, from figurative type to the reality, which is Christ.” Again, like so many of the Bible passages that both Marcion and “Tertullian allege “prove” that abrogation of YHVH’s Torah-law, their interpretation is proven to be fallacious when viewed through the holistic and contextual lens of the entire Word of Elohim.

Miscellaneous Apostasy From Biblical Truth By Early Church Fathers 

Easter Established As a Christian Holiday Replacing the Biblical Passover (the Lord’s Supper)

Ca. A.D. 150—The celebration of the resurrection within the early church began in the middle of the second century (History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, pp. 207–8, by Philip Schaff). The date of Easter and its formal establishment and disconnection from Passover occurred in A.D. 325 at the council of Nicea.

The Seventh Day Sabbath Officially Changed to Sunday

A.D. 321—Sunday officially becomes the weekly day of worship (in place of the Sabbath) by a legal enactment of Emperor Constantine (History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, p. 378ff, by Philip Schaff; History of the Christianity, vol 1, p. 93, by Kenneth Scott Latourette).

Christmas Established as a Christian Holiday

Ca. A.D. 354—Christmas originated in the middle to the end of the fourth century as a Christian holiday as an outgrowth of a pagan festival celebrating the birth of the pagan sun god.