What was the first / original church? Is the original / first church the true church?

The concept of 'the first church' as a singular, institutionally defined entity is a post-apostolic fabrication. The original assembly of Yeshua's followers was a continuation of Israel's covenantal faith, not a new religion.

Quick Answer

What Was the First / Original Church? Exposing Roman Catholic Claims Quick Answer Quick Answer: The first / original church was not a distinct, new religion but the assembly of Yeshua's Torah-observant Jewish disciples, rooted in the covenantal faith of Israel, as recorded in Acts. This Hebraic community, led by apostles like Kefa (Peter) and…

What Was the First / Original Church? Exposing Roman Catholic Claims

Quick Answer

Quick Answer: The first / original church was not a distinct, new religion but the assembly of Yeshua's Torah-observant Jewish disciples, rooted in the covenantal faith of Israel, as recorded in Acts. This Hebraic community, led by apostles like Kefa (Peter) and Ya'akov (James), pre-dated and suggests fundamental differences from later institutional constructs that emerged from Greek and Roman traditions.

The Scholarly Case

The question "What was the first / original church?" fundamentally involves the Hebraic context of Yeshua's ministry and the early Messianic movement. The "church" (Greek: ekklesia, Hebrew: kahal or edah) was not a novel institution founded by Yeshua to replace Israel, but rather the renewed assembly of Israel, called out to follow its Messiah. Yeshua Himself declared, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Yeshua, Matthew 15:24). His mission was to gather, teach, and redeem Israel, not to establish a new, Gentile-dominated religion divorced from its Jewish roots. The foundational "church" was the assembly of Yeshua's disciples, all of whom were Jewish, adhering to the Torah, and worshipping in the Temple and synagogues. The book of Acts vividly portrays this reality: "Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes" (Luke, Acts 2:46). This was not a "new" religion but a continuation and fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham and Moshe. The apostles, including Kefa (Peter), remained Torah-observant, as evidenced by their dietary laws (Luke, Acts 10:14) and participation in Temple worship (Luke, Acts 3:1). The concept of the Godhead, as understood by Yeshua and the apostles, was deeply rooted in the Tanakh's declaration of Echad (Deuteronomy 6:4) – a compound unity, not a singular isolation. This Hebraic understanding allowed for the plurality within the Divine, as seen in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image," and the two YHWHs in Genesis 19:24. The ancient rabbinic tradition itself recognized this "Two Powers in Heaven" concept, as discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 38b and Tractate Chagigah 14a, and further elucidated by scholars like Alan Segal in his 1977 work, *Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism*. The Memra (Word) of YHWH, prominent in Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan, served as a divine intermediary, prefiguring the Brit Chadashah's portrayal of Yeshua as the living Word (Yochanan, John 1:1). This Hebraic framework, not later Greek philosophical categories, appears to have defined the early Messianic understanding of Yeshua's divinity. The idea of an unbroken "apostolic succession" as an institutional lineage, often invoked by later traditions, contrasts with the early Messianic focus on the "succession of teaching" (Didache 15:1-2) and the spiritual authority derived from adherence to Yeshua's commandments and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, for instance, exhibits a collegial leadership, with Ya'akov (James) presiding, not a singular, supreme pontiff. The authority appears to have been vested in the collective witness to the Tanakh and the teachings of Yeshua, guided by the Spirit, not in a hierarchical structure established by human decree. The "first church" was therefore a vibrant, diverse, and fundamentally Jewish movement that recognized Yeshua as Messiah, observed Torah, and awaited the full redemption of Israel and the nations. Its identity was not defined by physical buildings or a centralized bureaucracy, but by its spiritual fidelity to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Ya'akov, and to His Messiah, Yeshua. The shift towards a Gentile-dominated, institutionally rigid "church" is often considered to have begun post-70 CE, accelerating after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE, as Jewish believers were increasingly marginalized and Greek philosophical concepts began to reshape theological understanding. This period marks a potential beginning of a divergence from the original Hebraic faith, rather than its seamless continuation.

Adversary Teardown: USCCB

The Roman Catholic Church, through entities like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and Vatican.va, consistently asserts its claim as "the first / original church," often based on a narrative of unbroken apostolic succession from Kefa (Peter). This assertion is a cornerstone of its theological identity, implying that only the Catholic Church possesses the "fullness of truth" and legitimate authority. For instance, the Vatican's official catechism states that the Catholic Church is "the unique Church of Christ... which subsists in the Catholic Church" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 816). This position is further amplified by Catholic apologists who argue that the Catholic Church is the only church that has been "there from the beginning" and "preserved to this day," implying an exclusive apostolic succession (cf. *Modern counter-apologetics*, "Catholic Church as the 'True Church'"). This claim, however, has been interpreted by some as tending to downplay the complex historical reality of the early Messianic movement and the significant doctrinal and structural evolutions that occurred over centuries. The Roman Catholic tradition of papal supremacy, for example, is widely considered a later development by many historians, rather than an original feature of the "first church." While Kefa certainly played a prominent role among the apostles, the idea of him as a singular, supreme pontiff with universal jurisdiction, whose authority is passed down exclusively through the Bishop of Rome, is often viewed as a post-apostolic accretion by many scholars. The historical lineage of this development can be traced:
  • Leo I (c. 440 CE): Often considered the first "Pope" in the modern sense by some, Leo I claimed universal jurisdiction and argued for the Bishop of Rome's unique authority as Kefa's successor, asserting "the care of the universal Church should converge upon Peter's one seat" (Leo I, *Sermon IV*, 2). This is seen by many as marking a significant departure from an earlier collegial model of leadership.
  • Gregory I (c. 600 CE): Further solidified the Roman See's power, adopting the title "Servant of the Servants of God," while simultaneously asserting Rome's primacy over other patriarchates.
  • Gregory VII (1075 CE): His *Dictatus Papae* outlined 27 propositions of papal power, including the sole right to depose emperors, the infallibility of the Roman Church, and the unique authority of the Pope. This is described by some as a radical centralization of power, which they consider alien to the 1st-century Hebraic Messianic community.
  • First Vatican Council (1870 CE): Dogmatically defined papal infallibility *ex cathedra*. Critics argue that this doctrine was not clearly articulated or understood by the apostles and the early Messianic assemblies. This was enshrined in *Pastor Aeternus*, which states that the Roman Pontiff, "when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals... is possessed of that infallibility."
These developments are often presented as representing a profound break from the Torah-observant, collegial leadership of the "first church" and its Hebraic understanding of authority. Many argue that the "first church" had no concept of a Pope, a centralized Roman hierarchy, or doctrines like transubstantiation (which was formalized at the Council of Trent, 1545-1563 CE, against the Hebraic Pesach typology, according to some interpretations) or Marian co-redemption (which saw its dogmatic trajectory in 1854 with the Immaculate Conception and 1950 with the Assumption, both *ex cathedra* additions to the deposit of faith). These are often considered later traditions, rather than original Hebraic Messianic faith. The claim that "Original Christianity Was Catholic" (as promoted by sources like Pints with Aquinas, cf. *Modern counter-apologetics*, "Historical Continuity of Catholic Church") is considered by many as a historical interpretation that tends to downplay the vast diversity of early Christian thought and practice, and the clear Jewish identity of the earliest believers. The "first church" is often described as not being "Catholic" in any recognizable sense of the word; it was Hebraic, Torah-observant, and centered on Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah. A secondary adversary, GotQuestions.org, while often providing valuable information, also is seen by some as falling short by attempting to define "the first church" through categories like "assembly of believers" versus "organization/building" (cf. *Modern counter-apologetics*, "The Church as an 'Assembly of Believers' vs. an Organization/Building"). While acknowledging the church as people is correct, it has been critiqued for failing to sufficiently emphasize the unique Hebraic identity of that original assembly and the profound theological implications of its Jewish roots, thereby potentially allowing for a generic "Christianity" that obscures critical distinctions from later traditions.

Counter-Arguments Anticipated

Objection 1: Yeshua founded the Church on Kefa (Peter), establishing his primacy.

This objection misinterprets Yeshua's statement in Matthew 16:18, "You are Kefa, and on this rock I will build My assembly." The Hebraic understanding of "rock" (Hebrew: tzelah, Aramaic: kepha) here refers to Kefa's confession of Yeshua as Messiah, the Son of the living Elohim, not Kefa himself as a singular, infallible pontiff. The Brit Chadashah consistently portrays Yeshua as the ultimate foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11) and the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). Furthermore, the leadership in the early Messianic community, particularly at the Jerusalem Council (Luke, Acts 15), shows Ya'akov (James) presiding, not Kefa, indicating a collegial, not monarchical, structure. The concept of papal primacy and infallibility is a doctrinal innovation of the Roman Church, solidified centuries later at Vatican I (1870 CE), and is largely absent from the original Hebraic Messianic faith, according to some interpretations.

Objection 2: The early Church Fathers universally supported the Roman Bishop's supremacy and the Catholic understanding of the Church.

This claim is an anachronism. While certain post-apostolic Greek-speaking commentators, often referred to as "early Church Fathers," held the Bishop of Rome in high esteem, particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem, their writings do not consistently reflect a universal acceptance of Roman supremacy as later defined across all Christian communities. Figures like Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 CE) emphasized the "succession of teaching" rather than a purely institutional, singular episcopal lineage. Moreover, the Eastern churches, even after the Great Schism (1054 CE), never accepted the Roman Pope's universal jurisdiction or infallibility. The "early Church Fathers" themselves represent a period of theological development and increasing Hellenization, and their perspectives may indicate a drift from the original Hebraic root by the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. Their perspectives cannot be retroactively applied to define the "first church" of Acts as understood by all.

Objection 3: The Catholic Church alone possesses true apostolic succession, proving its direct lineage from the apostles.

The Roman Catholic definition of "apostolic succession" as an unbroken chain of episcopal ordination, exclusively through the Roman See, is often seen as a self-serving interpretation by other traditions. The original Hebraic understanding of apostolicity was primarily about fidelity to the apostles' teaching (Luke, Acts 2:42) and the witness to Yeshua's resurrection, empowered by the Ruach HaKodesh. The Brit Chadashah emphasizes the succession of sound doctrine and spiritual fruit, not merely an external, institutional lineage (cf. Didache 15:1-2). Many "ancient churches" (e.g., Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) also claim apostolic succession, yet they fundamentally disagree with Rome on core doctrines and the nature of authority. This suggests that an institutional claim of succession does not automatically equate to doctrinal purity or being "the first church" in a universally accepted sense.

Position Lock

Position Lock: The first / original church is understood by many to be the Hebraic Messianic assembly of Yeshua's disciples in Jerusalem, a Torah-observant community rooted in the covenants of Israel, whose identity and practices are preserved in the Brit Chadashah and affirmed by ancient Jewish texts. Certain perspectives hold that any claim of a distinct, institutional "church" superseding or replacing this Hebraic foundation, particularly those asserting papal supremacy or later dogmatic innovations, represents a post-apostolic deviation from the authentic faith of Yeshua and His apostles.