The history of Christianity is often framed as a battle between orthodoxy and heresy, where the former is presented as the divinely sanctioned continuity of the faith, and the latter as a deviation, a corruption, or a rebellion against truth. Yet, by what standard is orthodoxy determined? Who has the authority to declare a belief heretical, and under what circumstances do theological disputes shift from mere disagreements to accusations of heresy?
The narrative of orthodoxy versus heresy is not as straightforward as church authorities—especially in the West—have made it seem. Many so-called heretical groups emerged not as radical departures from the faith but as sincere attempts to reclaim a purer, often more biblically rooted Christianity. Moreover, the role of Jewish thought, particularly in Italy and the South of France, is often overlooked in shaping these movements, especially as they intersected with the rise of the Free Church tradition.
Orthodoxy by What Standard?
The early church did not begin as a single, unified institution but rather as a collection of diverse Jewish and Gentile communities, each interpreting the teachings of Jesus within their own linguistic, cultural, and theological contexts. It was only through a series of historical and political processes—especially the Ecumenical Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries—that orthodoxy was crystallized into dogma.
Several key questions arise when evaluating orthodoxy:
Who defines it? The first-century Ekklesia had no central governing body comparable to the later papacy or conciliar movements. The authority of the Jerusalem Church, with figures like James the Just, waned as Gentile Christianity, especially under Pauline influence, expanded and adapted to Greco-Roman philosophical frameworks. By the time of Constantine and the Nicene Council (325 CE), theological debates were resolved not by grassroots communities but by imperial decree. Orthodoxy, therefore, was often shaped by political expediency rather than pure theological reasoning.
Whose interpretation prevails? Many of the debates that led to the labeling of heresy—Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism—centered on how to articulate Christ’s nature. Yet, these were disputes over language and conceptual frameworks rather than outright denials of Christ’s divinity or salvific work. The Councils that condemned these views did not rely purely on scriptural exegesis but were deeply influenced by Hellenistic thought, especially Neoplatonism and Aristotelian metaphysics.
What about the minority reports? The survival of alternative Christian traditions outside the imperial mainstream—such as the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Miaphysite traditions like the Copts, Syriacs, and Armenians), the Nestorian Church of the East, and later medieval heretical groups—suggests that orthodoxy was never as monolithic as later histories would have us believe. Instead, what we call heresy often represents marginalized voices rather than theological errors.
This raises a crucial point: orthodoxy is not necessarily synonymous with truth but rather with what survived politically and institutionally.
The “Heretical” Movements and Their Jewish Context
If orthodoxy was shaped by imperial and philosophical forces, then so-called heresies were often movements that resisted these external impositions, seeking to maintain a more biblically faithful or decentralized expression of faith. Many of these movements flourished in regions where Jewish-Christian interaction remained strong, particularly in Southern France and Italy.
The Waldensians and Jewish Influence
The Waldensians, one of the earliest Free Church movements, arose in the 12th century, rejecting the ecclesiastical hierarchy and advocating for a return to the simplicity of apostolic Christianity. Their emphasis on itinerant preaching, vernacular Scripture reading, and radical discipleship bears striking similarities to Jewish traditions of scriptural study and communal autonomy.
In Italy and Southern France, Jewish communities had long maintained networks of scholarship that emphasized:
Oral teaching alongside written Scripture – The Waldensians, much like rabbinic Judaism, prioritized memorization and commentaryover rigid institutional structures.
A decentralized religious authority – In contrast to Rome’s hierarchical system, Jewish communities were governed by local rabbis and councils rather than a central authority. The Waldensians mirrored this by rejecting papal control and advocating for self-governed congregations.
A critique of religious materialism – Just as Jewish teachers criticized the corruption of the Temple priesthood before 70 CE, the Waldensians condemned the wealth and power of the medieval Church, advocating a return to simplicity and direct reliance on God.
There is also speculation that certain Jewish converts to Christianity played an active role in shaping early Waldensian theology. Given the strong Jewish presence in Provence, Lombardy, and Piedmont, such cross-pollination is plausible.
The Cathars: Jewish and ‘Gnostic’ Threads
The Cathars, another movement labeled heretical by the Catholic Church, flourished in Southern France during the 12th and 13th centuries. While often associated with dualism (drawing on earlier Gnostic traditions), their belief system also carried echoes of Jewish thought:
The rejection of excessive church authority – Much like the Pharisaic and Essene critiques of the Temple system, the Cathars saw the established Church as corrupt and illegitimate.
A focus on purity laws – Cathar dietary restrictions and ascetic lifestyle bear some resemblance to Jewish traditions regarding ritual purity.
Messianic expectation – Some historians argue that Cathar eschatology, with its anticipation of a spiritual renewal, was influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought.
Italian Spiritualists and Jewish Kabbalah
During the Renaissance, Italy became a hub for spiritual dissenters who drew inspiration from Jewish Kabbalah, particularly in the city-states where Jewish scholars interacted with Christian humanists. Figures like Pico della Mirandola engaged deeply with Kabbalistic texts, seeing them as keys to unlocking divine mysteries.
Meanwhile, groups such as the Fraticelli (radical Franciscan spiritualists) and other apocalyptic movements absorbed Jewish esoteric ideas, particularly concerning the Messiah and the renewal of creation. This subversive undercurrent influenced later movements such as the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, Spiritualists, and Pietists).
The Free Church Tradition as a Continuation of Jewish-Christianity
The Free Church movement—embodied in the Waldensians, Anabaptists, early Baptists, and later evangelical movements—owes much to the spirit of Jewish communal autonomy and scriptural devotion. While often portrayed as purely Christian phenomena, these movements reflect a return to the Hebraic model of faith:
1. Decentralized religious authority – Mirroring Jewish synagogue governance rather than hierarchical ecclesiastical structures.
2. Scripture-centered faith – Elevating the Bible as the primary guide for faith and practice, akin to Jewish Torah study.
3. Persecution and resilience – Much like Jews throughout history, these groups were relentlessly persecuted for refusing to conform to dominant religious-political structures.
4. Moral and ethical rigor – Emphasizing communal holiness and obedience to divine commandments rather than sacramental rituals.
Rather than being heretics, these groups may be better understood as heirs of an older, more authentic Christian tradition—one that had been suppressed by the political ambitions of the institutional church.
Conclusion: A Reassessment of “Heresy”
If orthodoxy is defined by power and politics, then heresy is often the voice of those resisting false authority. The so-called heretical groups of medieval Europe were not theological aberrations but rather expressions of a deeper, older faith—one that had much in common with the Judaism of Italy and Southern France. Their emphasis on Scripture, communal autonomy, and ethical living reflects an approach to faith that predates imperial Christianity, tracing its roots back to Jewish-Christianity itself.
By reexamining these movements through this lens, we not only challenge the standard historical narratives but also rediscover a forgotten heritage—one that unites rather than divides the people of God across history.
