In 110 AD Ignatius of proto-orthodox Gentile Christianity wrote a letter to the Magnesians. He was invoking them to continue forward with his Gentile Christian doctrine, and to reject the doctrine of the apostles.
So, first we need to find out just who these Magnesians are, and what they represent.
Their city was situated approximately fifteen miles inland from Ephesus, in the Maeander valley. They originated as colonists from Magnesia which is a region of Thessaly, Greece. Because of its location on major trade routes near Ephesus and Miletus, it was thoroughly a Hellenized Greco-Roman commercial hub.
In other words the Magnesians were primarily Greek gentiles that had been converted to this early Gentile Christian movement, and they were only fifteen miles from Ephesus, which was the head of Christ’s true churches in Asia (Asia Minor).
So, now who are the people of Christ’s churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea? To start putting this together we need to now turn to Peter’s letter.
1 Peter 1:1–2 (NKJV):
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.”
Key Textual Details: He addresses “the pilgrims of the Dispersion” (Diaspora in the original Greek).
In 1st-century usage, this specifically designated the scattered, exiled Israelite remnant living outside the land.
He explicitly names the five northern and western provinces of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey): Peter is writing his letter to the Ten Northern tribes of Israel that had been exiled and scattered by Yahavah for their rebellion against His government, and he is identifying exactly where they have migrated to after their captivity.
So, what does Christ tell us:
Matthew 15:24: (NKJV)
“I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Christ also makes a profound statement to His disciples:
Matthew 10:5–6:
“Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Then In Revelation Christ identifies His churches in seven cities of Asia (Asia Minor). The Apostle John is a Priest that wore the Petalon. The Petalon was not a general piece of clerical clothing or a Christian bishop’s hat! It was specifically the golden plate or medallion worn exclusively by the Jewish High Priest.
In 190 AD Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus wrote a letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome rejecting Rome’s Easter Celebration and maintaining the Torah Holy Covenant Laws. In this letter he proclaimed that The Apostle John wore the Petalon.
Why Polycrates’ Claim Is So Remarkable: When Polycrates of Ephesus wrote his letter to Victor of Rome claiming that the Apostle John wore the petalon, it presented a major puzzle that scholars have analyzed for centuries:
That implies that John, who was known to the Jewish High Priest (John 18:15), was recognized as having high-priestly (Aaronid/Levitical) status in Jerusalem before or during the Jewish war; perhaps even officiating or bearing that title in some capacity.
Polycrates was writing during the Quartodeciman controversy (a dispute over when to observe the Passover/Resurrection). By describing John as wearing the High Priest’s gold medallion, Polycrates was asserting that John possessed the ultimate spiritual and priestly authority – ‘direct from God’ – surpassing any religious authority in Rome or Jerusalem.
That the Apostle John was in the Levitical Priesthood is also identified in: The event as recorded in John 20:3–8:
John outruns Peter: Both disciples run toward the tomb together, but “the other disciple” (traditionally John) outruns Peter and arrives first (John 20:4).
John stops at the entrance, stoops down and sees the linen wrappings lying there, but he does not enter (John 20:5).
Simon Peter arrives right behind him, goes straight inside the tomb, and observes the folded burial cloth (John 20:6–7).
After Peter has already gone inside, John then enters the tomb, sees the empty linens, and believes (John 20:8).
This clearly demonstrates that even though the Apostle John beat Peter to the tomb he would not enter it first. Why? Because anyone in the Levitical Priesthood was strictly forbidden from coming near or defiling themselves by a dead body (Leviticus 21:1, Numbers 19:11).
The Apostle John paused at the threshold to inspect the tomb, ensuring he observed ritual purity. Because this was a new tomb where no body had ever lain prior, and Christ was already risen, no dead body was present which meant John could enter without violating Torah law once the tomb’s empty state was confirmed. His initial hesitation shows the distinct boundary check of a priest keeping the Law.
Now we have established that the Apostle John held High Priestly authority after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and that he was over the Ephesian church and most likely its founder.
It is traditionally believed that the Apostle John went to Ephesus at or right before the fall of Jerusalem. However, I believe he was there much earlier.
Regardless of which timeline is correct, because of Polycrates’ letter in 190 AD we know beyond all doubt that the Asia churches were strictly obeying the Torah and considered doing so as following Christ!
Now let us return to Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians in 110 AD. Considering Ignatius was invoking the Magnesians to continue with their Sunday worship, and condemning anyone who claimed Christ yet still followed the Torah, then he was not creating a new doctrine in 110 AD.
He was literally invoking this Gentile Christian movement to stay with their established doctrine, and resist anyone being led away from that doctrine by listening to the teachings of the Apostles’ Church just fifteen miles away.
This means that Sunday Sabbath worship and the rejection of the Torah was already an established doctrine in this proto-orthodox Gentile movement by 110 AD.
That means that this Gentile Christian doctrine was already being taught completely separate from the Churches of the Eyewitnesses from between the mid and latter part of the first century.
This brings us right to or right after Paul’s creation of this Gentile Christian movement, which means that from the very start, it was teaching in opposition and competing against the churches of the apostles of Christ. Considering they were teaching against the apostles of Christ, then that means they were clinging to His authority while teaching directly against Him.
The Christians proclaim that the Christian gentiles did not need to follow the Torah, but that the Jewish people were supposed to. However, If the Jewish people were supposed to, then why did the Christians systematically outlaw Torah keeping?
This contradiction exposes one of the central paradoxes in mainstream Christian church history: the fundamental disconnect between the early apostolic teaching and the later historical enforcement of doctrine.
If the early Christian theology insisted that ethnic Israel/Jewish believers were intended to keep the Torah as their standard of righteousness while Gentiles were exempt, then the historical suppression and outlawing of Torah practices by the Roman Church creates an unavoidable theological and historical contradiction.
The Historical Evidence of Systematic Suppression:
Historically, the early Church did not preserve a dual system where Jews kept the Law and Gentiles did not. Instead, as the Gentile movement gained political and institutional power in the 2nd through 4th centuries, it actively outlawed Torah observance for everyone, including Jewish believers in Christ!
The Council of Elvira (c. 306 AD): Prohibited Christians from eating meals with Jews, celebrating Jewish feasts, or having their fields blessed by Jews under pain of excommunication.
The Council of Nicaea (325 AD): Formally severed the date of the Resurrection (Easter) from the Hebrew Calendar and the biblical Passover (14th of Nisan), specifically citing a desire to have “nothing in common with the hostile rabbinical tradition.”
The Council of Laodicea (c. 364 AD, Canon 29): Explicitly outlawed keeping the biblical 7th-day Sabbath for any believer, stating:
“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s Day… But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”
Civil Roman Laws (4th–6th Century): Roman Emperors like Constantine, Constantius II, and Justinian codified laws outlawing circumcision, the keeping of biblical feasts, and Sabbath observance, punishing Torah compliance with confiscation of property, exile, or death.
Why the Early Gentile Church Suppressed the Torah:
The historical shift occurred because the emerging proto-orthodox Gentile movement abandoned the apostolic foundation. Their motivation to outlaw Torah keeping stemmed from three primary factors:
Hellenistic Anti-Judaism: As the church shifted away from Jerusalem and Asia Minor toward Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, Greco-Roman cultural bias against Jewish identity heavily influenced Christian theologians (such as Marcion, Barnabas, and Justin Martyr). They viewed physical Torah practices not as Yahavah’s holy covenant, but as temporary, “carnal” burdens.
Political Survival and Roman Identity: Following the Jewish-Roman Wars (66–135 AD), the Roman Empire viewed Jewish customs and Torah identity as insurrectionist and rebellious. To protect themselves from Imperial persecution, the Roman Gentile church sought to draw a strict, clear line of distinction between Christianity and Torah observant Israel.
The Struggle for Authority: The original assemblies; such as the Seven Churches of Asia Minor led by the Apostle John and later Polycrates of Ephesus, were strictly Torah observant and kept the 14th of Nisan Passover. To establish supreme authority, the Gentile faction in Rome had to delegitimize the Torah keeping apostolic assemblies by labeling their practices as a “heresy” (“Judaizing”).
The Unavoidable Logical Conclusion:
If Jewish believers were meant to observe the Torah, then the systemic prohibition of the Sabbath, biblical feasts, and dietary laws by late Roman councils was not an act of divine fulfillment; it was a direct suppression of Yahavah’s covenant standard.
This demonstrates that the Gentile church structure was not continuing the doctrine of the eyewitness Apostles. Instead, it replaced the original Israelite, Torah-observant faith of Christ and His Twelve apostles with a Hellenized, state sanctioned institution that outlawed the very laws Christ said would not pass away! (Matthew 5:17–19).
Even today the Christian church claims that the gentiles do not have to follow the Torah, and they also claim that the Jews are not saved because they have rejected Christ for Torah observance. However according to Christ’s true churches (as demonstrated by the church of Ephesus) following the Torah is obeying Christ!
This is the theological trap created by modern denominational dogma.
When modern Christian theology is evaluated against primary historical texts and the writings of the Apostle John, an irreconcilable contradiction emerges within their own framework.
Modern traditional theology routinely preaches two main premises:
To the Gentile: “You don’t need to keep the Torah; the Law was abolished, changed, or fulfilled so that Sabbath, dietary laws, and Feast days are unnecessary.”
To the Jew: “You cannot be saved by keeping the Torah; relying on the Law means rejecting Christ.”
By holding both positions, modern institutions create a system where nobody is supposed to keep the Torah. If a Gentile keeps it, they call it “legalism” or “Judaizing.” If an ethnic Israelite keeps it, they claim it is a rejection of Christ’s grace.
This modern argument completely disintegrates when brought face to face with the historical reality of the original apostolic assemblies in Asia Minor, spearheaded by the Church of Ephesus.
As preserved by Polycrates in 190 AD, the Asian churches established by John did not view Torah observance and faith in Christ as mutually exclusive options. To them, keeping the Torah was the direct expression of obeying Christ.
Polycrates’ Direct Testimony: When defending their practice of keeping the 14th of Nisan Passover against Rome, Polycrates explicitly stated that John and the Asian believers acted “in accordance with the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.” For Ephesus, observing the Torah’s commanded timing was not “rejecting Christ”—it was remaining faithful to Him.
In Revelation 2:2–5, Christ commends the assembly at Ephesus for testing false apostles and holding fast to truth. In Revelation 14:12, the saints of Christ’s true assemblies are explicitly defined by two identical markers:
“Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.”
The early apostolic model (Ephesus/Asia Minor) held that faith in Christ and obedience to Yahavah’s Torah are inseparable.
When the Hellenized Gentile movement severed faith from the Law, it created a new definition of “Christianity” that required rejecting the very Covenant laws Christ kept and taught. By condemning Torah observance as antithetical to Christ, modern theology finds itself arguing against the very standard kept by the Apostle John and the assemblies of Asia.
In other words; from its very conception through today, Christianity has taught in absolute contrast to the teachings of Christ and His apostles. That my friend is the epitome of the definition of Satanism!
The End!