Did Jesus and the Disciples Form a New Religion Called Christianity?
I. The Common Claim
Many assume that Jesus and his disciples departed from Judaism and established a new religion called Christianity. According to this view, the apostles abandoned Torah observance, ceased participation in Jewish communal life, and reinterpreted Israel’s covenantal hopes into a new and distinct faith.
II. Why This Claim Matters
If Jesus founded a new religion distinct from Judaism, then the Jewish covenantal story would effectively conclude in the first century. In that case, Israel’s Torah, temple, and national hope would be understood as transitional stages ultimately replaced by something fundamentally new.
However, if this assumption is historically and textually flawed, then our reading of the New Testament requires careful reexamination. The implications extend beyond historical curiosity. They shape how we interpret Scripture, how we understand God’s covenantal purposes, how we view Israel’s role in redemptive history, and how discipleship itself is defined and lived out today.
III. Historical Context: Religion in Antiquity
Modern readers often approach the New Testament with assumptions shaped by contemporary definitions of religion—namely, a voluntary system of belief detached from ethnicity, nationhood, or communal identity. In the ancient Mediterranean world, however, such categories did not exist in the same way.
As historian Paula Fredriksen observes, “In antiquity, all religions were ethnic, and all ethnicities were religious.” Worship, identity, ancestry, and communal life were inseparable. One’s gods were the gods of one’s people. Covenant loyalty, temple practice, and national identity were intertwined.
This is particularly true of first-century Judaism. Jewish identity was not merely theological; it was ancestral, covenantal, and communal. The Torah shaped daily life, temple worship defined sacred space, and Israel’s future hope was national as well as spiritual.
Understanding this framework is essential. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews living within this ethnic and covenantal world. Recognizing Jesus as Messiah did not automatically imply abandoning that identity; rather, it would have intensified their conviction that Israel’s story was reaching its fulfillment.
If the earliest disciples believed they were participating in the fulfillment of Israel’s covenantal story rather than founding a new religion, we should expect to see continuity—not rupture—in the New Testament record.
The following section illustrates this pattern.
IV. Evidence of Continuity from the New Testament
The New Testament consistently portrays the earliest followers of Jesus as Jews who continued to participate in Jewish life, practice, and communal structures.
Matthew 5:17: Jesus Himself Affirms the Torah
One of the clearest statements from Jesus regarding the Torah appears in the Sermon on the Mount:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17)
Jesus then continues:
“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)
This statement is significant because it directly contradicts the idea that Jesus intended to abolish the Torah or establish a new religion disconnected from Israel’s covenant.
Instead of dismantling the Law and the Prophets, Jesus presents his mission as bringing them to their intended fulfillment. His teaching assumes the continued authority of the Scriptures of Israel and reinforces their enduring significance.
If Jesus had intended to found a new religion replacing Judaism, we would expect a clear rejection of the Torah. Instead, his teaching affirms its ongoing place within God’s purposes.
Matthew 23: Jesus Commands His Followers to Remain Within Jewish Structures
Another revealing statement appears when Jesus addresses the crowds regarding the Pharisees:
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.” (Matthew 23:2–3)
“Moses’ seat” refers to the position of authority held by teachers responsible for interpreting the Torah in Jewish communities. Even while criticizing hypocrisy among certain leaders, Jesus still recognizes the legitimacy of the teaching authority associated with the Torah. He instructs his followers to respect that authority.
This statement would be unusual if Jesus intended his followers to leave Judaism entirely. Instead, it reflects a movement operating within the structures of Jewish life and authority.
Acts 2:46 – The believers meet daily in the temple courts
Another important piece of evidence appears immediately after the events of Pentecost. Luke describes the daily life of the early believers:
“And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes…” (Acts 2:46, ESV)
This passage is significant because it shows that the earliest followers of Jesus continued to participate regularly in Temple life in Jerusalem.
The Temple was not simply a place for prayer gatherings or religious meetings. It was the central institution of Jewish covenantal life. It was the location of the daily sacrificial system, national festivals such as Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, the priestly ministry, and covenant worship established in the Torah.
For first-century Jews, participation in the Temple was an expression of loyalty to the God of Israel and to the covenant given through Moses.
The book of Acts tells us that the disciples were not merely visiting occasionally. Luke states that they were attending the Temple daily. The Greek phrase proskarterountes homothumadon en tō hierō carries the idea of continual, devoted participation.
This behavior strongly suggests that the early believers did not view themselves as members of a new religion separate from Judaism. If they had believed that Jesus had replaced the Temple system or abolished Israel’s covenantal structure, continued daily participation in Temple life would have been both unnecessary and contradictory. Instead, their actions indicate that they still saw themselves as faithful Jews who believed that the Messiah had come.
If the disciples believed they were founding a new religion, we would expect to see the opposite pattern of separation from the Temple, rejection of Jewish communal worship, and the creation of new religious structures independent of Judaism.
For them, recognizing Jesus as the Messiah was not a departure from Judaism but the conviction that God’s promises to Israel were beginning to be fulfilled.
Acts 3:1 – Peter and John go to the temple at the hour of prayer
Another revealing passage appears shortly after Pentecost. Luke records:
“Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.”
(Acts 3:1, ESV)
This verse may seem simple at first glance, but it contains important historical details that illuminate how the earliest disciples understood their identity.
The “ninth hour” refers to approximately 3:00 PM, one of the established daily times of prayer in Jewish practice. These hours of prayer corresponded with the daily sacrificial schedule of the Temple. According to Jewish tradition and Temple practice, devout Jews would gather at the Temple during these times to pray as the priests offered sacrifices on behalf of the people.
By noting the specific hour of prayer, Luke is showing that Peter and John were participating in the regular rhythm of Jewish worship. They were not creating a new form of worship, nor were they separating themselves from the religious life of Israel. Instead, they continued to participate in the established practices of the Jewish community.
This detail is significant because it demonstrates that the apostles still viewed themselves as members of the Jewish covenantal community. If Peter and John believed that Jesus had established a new religion separate from Judaism, it would be unlikely that they would continue attending the Temple at the appointed times tied to the sacrificial system. Yet Acts presents the opposite picture. The apostles remain integrated within the worship life of Israel.
The context of Acts 3 also reinforces this point. Immediately after entering the Temple courts, Peter heals a man who had been lame from birth. The miracle draws a crowd of Jewish worshipers who were already present at the Temple.
Peter then addresses the crowd and proclaims that Jesus is the Messiah promised by Israel’s prophets:
“The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13)
Notice how Peter frames his message. He does not introduce a new religion or a new deity. Instead, he appeals directly to the God of the patriarchs and the promises given to Israel.
For Peter, the resurrection of Jesus was not the beginning of a new religious movement detached from Judaism. Rather, it was the confirmation that the God of Israel was fulfilling the promises spoken through the prophets.
Acts 5:42 – The apostles teach daily in the temple
Another passage that sheds light on the identity and self-understanding of the early disciples appears in Acts 5. After being arrested by the Jewish authorities and warned not to teach in the name of Jesus, Luke records:
“And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.” (Acts 5:42, ESV)
This verse highlights a striking reality: the apostles continued teaching daily in the Temple courts. This detail is important because the Temple was the central public institution of Jewish religious life. It was the place where rabbis taught, where debates about the Law occurred, and where large numbers of Jewish worshipers gathered during the day. The Temple courts functioned as both a place of worship and a place of instruction within the Jewish community.
By teaching there openly, the apostles were not presenting themselves as leaders of a separate religion. Instead, they were participating in the ongoing theological discussion taking place within Judaism itself.
It is also important to recognize that teaching in the Temple courts was consistent with established Jewish practice. Jewish teachers regularly gathered disciples and taught publicly in these spaces.
Even Jesus himself had taught in the Temple during his ministry:
“I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together.” (John 18:20, ESV)
The apostles were therefore continuing the same pattern established by their teacher. They were not building a new religious structure; they were proclaiming their message within the existing framework of Jewish communal life.
The content of their message further reinforces this point. Acts 5:42 says they were teaching that “the Christ is Jesus.”
The term Christ (Christos in Greek) simply means “Messiah.” In other words, the apostles were not announcing a new religion or a new set of gods. They were proclaiming that the long-awaited Messiah promised in Israel’s Scriptures had appeared in Jesus of Nazareth.
Their message therefore remained rooted in the Jewish narrative:
the promises to Abraham
the covenant with Israel
the prophetic hope of a coming Messiah
The apostles saw themselves as witnesses to the fulfillment of these promises, not as founders of a new religious system.
Acts 15: The Jerusalem Council and Jewish Leadership
Another significant piece of evidence that the earliest followers of Jesus did not believe they had founded a new religion appears in Acts 15, often referred to as the Jerusalem Council.
This chapter records a major dispute that arose when large numbers of Gentiles began joining the Messianic movement. Some Jewish believers argued that these Gentiles should be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.
Luke writes:
“And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2, ESV)
Several important observations emerge from this event. The dispute was not resolved by establishing a new governing body outside Judaism. Instead, the matter was taken to Jerusalem, the religious center of Jewish life and the city where the earliest disciples remained.
This alone is significant. If the movement had already become a new religion distinct from Judaism, we might expect leadership structures to develop elsewhere. Yet Acts shows that the central authority remained within the Jewish leadership of the Jerusalem community.
The gathering consisted of:
the apostles
the elders in Jerusalem
prominent Jewish leaders such as James, the brother of Jesus
James, who appears to serve as the leading figure in the Jerusalem community, ultimately delivers the final judgment (Acts 15:13–21).
Equally important is the nature of the debate itself. The discussion revolves around how Gentiles should relate to the law of Moses.
This is not the type of debate that would occur if the movement had abandoned Judaism. Rather, it is a discussion about how Gentiles may join the community of Israel’s Messiah without becoming fully Jewish proselytes.
In other words, the question was not: Should we abandon the Torah?
The question was: How do Gentiles participate in the promises of Israel without undergoing full conversion to Judaism?
The council ultimately concludes that Gentiles should not be required to undergo circumcision but should observe several foundational practices associated with Jewish ethical and covenantal life (Acts 15:19–21).
Acts 21:20 Jewish Believers Zealous for the Torah & Paul publicly participates in a purification ritual in the Temple
One of the most revealing moments in the book of Acts occurs near the end of Paul’s ministry when he returns to Jerusalem. Rumors had spread among Jewish believers that Paul was teaching Jews living among the Gentiles to abandon the customs of Moses.
When Paul arrives, James and the elders explain the situation:
“You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law.” (Acts 21:20, ESV)
This statement itself is significant. It shows that thousands of Jewish believers in Jerusalem remained committed to Torah observance even after accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Their faith in Jesus had not led them to abandon their Jewish way of life.
However, these believers had heard reports that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake Moses, stop circumcising their children, and abandon Jewish customs. In order to address these rumors, the leaders propose a public demonstration.
James instructs Paul:
“Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses… Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.” (Acts 21:23–24, ESV)
Paul agrees and participates in the ritual:
“Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple…” (Acts 21:26, ESV)
The ritual described in this passage most likely relates to a Nazirite vow, which is described in Numbers 6. When such a vow was completed, participants would undergo purification and present offerings at the Temple. This involved several steps:
ritual purification
participation in Temple ceremonies
the offering of sacrifices through the priesthood
The fact that Paul willingly participates in this process is extremely important. The ceremony required active involvement in the Temple system established in the Torah, including sacrificial offerings.
If Paul believed that Jesus had abolished the Temple system or replaced the Mosaic covenant with an entirely new religion, participation in such a ritual would have been inconsistent with his message. Yet Luke records that Paul publicly joins the ritual in the Temple itself.
The purpose of this action is also crucial. James explicitly states that the ritual will demonstrate that the accusations against Paul are false:
“…that you yourself also live in observance of the law.” (Acts 21:24)
In other words, Paul’s participation serves as visible evidence that he has not abandoned the Torah or Jewish customs. This moment provides a powerful corrective to the common assumption that Paul rejected the Jewish law or saw himself as founding a new religious movement detached from Judaism. Instead, Paul’s actions suggest that he still viewed himself as a faithful Jew who believed that the Messiah had come.
This episode also highlights the continued importance of the Temple in the life of the early Messianic community. Even decades after the resurrection of Jesus, Jewish believers in Jerusalem remained:
zealous for the law
connected to Temple worship
committed to the customs of their ancestors
Paul’s participation in the purification ritual shows that the early movement had not separated itself from Jewish institutions. Instead, it continued to exist within the religious world of Second Temple Judaism. Acts 21 provides one of the clearest examples in the New Testament of a leading apostle actively participating in Temple practices established by the Torah.
If the apostles believed they had established a new religion that replaced Judaism, we would expect them to reject such practices. Instead, Paul willingly participates in them as a demonstration of his continued loyalty to the traditions of his people.
This episode reinforces the broader pattern seen throughout Acts: the earliest followers of Jesus did not see themselves as founders of a new religion. Rather, they understood their faith as the recognition that Israel’s promised Messiah had come within Israel’s covenantal story.
Acts 23: Paul’s Continued Identification as a Pharisee
During Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, Luke records an interesting moment in which Paul addresses the council:
“Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, ‘Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.’” (Acts 23:6, ESV)
Several important details stand out in this statement. First, Paul does not say “I was a Pharisee.” Instead, he declares “I am a Pharisee.” This is a present-tense identification spoken years after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. At this point in Acts, Paul has already spent decades preaching about Jesus throughout the Roman world. Yet when standing before the Jewish council, Paul still describes himself as a Pharisee.
This is significant because the Pharisees were not simply a religious background or childhood identity. They were one of the major Jewish interpretive movements within Second Temple Judaism, known for their dedication to the Torah and their detailed interpretation of the Law. If Paul believed that following Jesus meant leaving Judaism behind, we would expect him to distance himself from such an identity. Instead, he openly embraces it.
Paul’s statement also reveals that the central issue in his trial is not whether he has abandoned Judaism, but rather how certain Jewish beliefs should be interpreted.
The Sanhedrin consisted largely of two groups:
Sadducees, who rejected the resurrection of the dead and denied the existence of angels and spirits
Pharisees, who affirmed both the resurrection and the supernatural realm
By declaring himself a Pharisee and connecting his message to the resurrection, Paul places himself squarely within one side of an existing Jewish theological debate. The disagreement therefore occurs within Judaism, not between Judaism and a new religion.
In fact, the statement immediately divides the council, and Luke notes that some of the Pharisees even defend Paul:
“We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” (Acts 23:9)
This reaction would make little sense if Paul were seen as promoting an entirely separate religion. Instead, the debate revolves around whether Paul's interpretation of Jewish hope—particularly the resurrection—has been fulfilled in Jesus.
Pharisaic Judaism already believed in the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. Paul’s message was not the invention of this belief but the claim that the resurrection had begun with the Messiah.
In other words, Paul did not see himself as abandoning Pharisaic theology but as announcing that the hope it anticipated had begun to unfold through Jesus.
Acts 24: “The Way”: A Sect Within Judaism
Another important clue about how the early movement was understood appears in Paul’s defense before the Roman governor Felix.
Paul explains:
“But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.” (Acts 24:14, ESV)
This statement provides a remarkable window into how the earliest followers of Jesus understood themselves. Before the term Christian became common, the followers of Jesus were often referred to as “The Way.” This name appears multiple times in Acts:
Acts 9:2
Acts 19:9
Acts 19:23
Acts 22:4
Acts 24:14
The phrase likely reflects the biblical concept of walking in the way of the Lord, a theme deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. For example:
Deuteronomy frequently speaks of walking in God’s ways.
Psalm 1 contrasts the way of the righteous with the way of the wicked.
Isaiah speaks of preparing the way of the Lord.
Thus the name The Way reflects a Jewish understanding of faithful covenant life, not the creation of a new religious identity.
In Acts 24:14 Paul acknowledges that his opponents refer to the movement as a “sect.” The Greek word used here (hairesis) refers to a party or school of thought within a larger tradition. The same term is used in Acts to describe other Jewish groups, including:
the Pharisees (Acts 15:5)
the Sadducees (Acts 5:17)
These groups were not separate religions. They were distinct movements within Judaism that differed in interpretation and emphasis while remaining part of the same broader religious community. By using this terminology, Paul places the followers of Jesus in the same category: a recognizable group within the larger Jewish world.
Paul’s own words reinforce this interpretation. He immediately clarifies that his faith does not represent a departure from Judaism:
“I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.” (Acts 24:14)
Paul insists that his beliefs are entirely consistent with the Scriptures of Israel. He is not rejecting the Law or the Prophets; he affirms them. In other words, Paul does not claim to have left Judaism. Instead, he argues that the message he proclaims flows directly from the Scriptures of Israel.
For Paul and the other apostles, faith in Jesus did not represent a new religion but a conviction about the identity of the Messiah within Israel’s existing covenantal framework.
Acts 26: The “Hope of the Promise Made to the Fathers”
Paul makes a similar argument later when defending himself before King Agrippa. In this setting, Paul again explains the real reason for the accusations against him:
“And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king!” (Acts 26:6–7, ESV)
This statement is one of the clearest descriptions Paul gives of his mission and message. Paul describes his faith as rooted in “the promise made by God to our fathers.” This phrase refers to the foundational covenant promises given to Israel’s patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These promises include themes such as:
God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants
the restoration and redemption of Israel
the coming of the Messiah
the resurrection and renewal of creation
By framing his message this way, Paul emphasizes that what he proclaims is not something new or disconnected from Israel’s past. Instead, he sees his message as directly connected to the ancient promises recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Paul also makes a striking statement when he says that this promise is the hope “our twelve tribes hope to attain.” This language reflects a continued view of Israel as a unified covenant people. Even though the tribes had long been scattered, Jewish tradition still spoke of the twelve tribes of Israel as the people awaiting God’s ultimate redemption.
Paul identifies his message with this shared national hope. He does not present himself as someone who has left Israel or created a new religious identity. Instead, he sees himself as proclaiming the fulfillment of the very hope that Israel itself has been awaiting. Paul then explains that this shared hope is the reason he is being accused. In other words, the dispute is not about whether these promises exist. Both Paul and his opponents accept the same Scriptures and the same promises. The disagreement concerns whether those promises have begun to be fulfilled in Jesus.
Paul’s claim is that the resurrection of Jesus marks the beginning of the resurrection hope anticipated by Israel’s Scriptures. Thus the conflict is best understood as an internal debate within the Jewish world over how the promises of God should be interpreted.
Acts 28: Paul’s Defense Before the Jewish Leaders in Rome
Another important statement appears near the end of the book of Acts when Paul arrives in Rome under house arrest. Shortly after his arrival, Paul calls together the leading members of the local Jewish community and explains the circumstances that led to his imprisonment. He tells them:
“Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” (Acts 28:17, ESV)
This statement is highly significant because it comes from Paul himself as he summarizes his ministry and explains the accusations that had been brought against him.
First, Paul speaks of “our people.” This language reflects a continued identification with the Jewish nation. Even after decades of missionary work among the Gentiles, Paul still describes the Jewish people as his own people. If Paul believed he had left Judaism or founded a new religion distinct from it, this type of language would be unusual. Instead, Paul consistently speaks of himself as part of the Jewish people and deeply connected to their story. This is consistent with other statements he makes elsewhere:
“I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.” (Romans 11:1)
Paul never describes himself as someone who has left Israel. Rather, he continues to identify himself fully as a Jew within the people of Israel. Paul also insists that he has done nothing against “the customs of our fathers.” This phrase refers to the inherited traditions of Jewish life—practices rooted in the Torah and developed within the communal life of Israel. In the first century, these customs included:
circumcision
Sabbath observance
dietary laws
participation in Temple worship
the rhythms of Jewish festivals and communal practices
Paul’s statement indicates that he does not see his message about Jesus as contradicting these ancestral traditions. Instead, he claims that his teaching is consistent with them.
This declaration would make little sense if Paul believed that Judaism had been replaced by a new religion. If Paul had truly abandoned the customs of his ancestors, the accusation against him would have been accurate. Yet Paul firmly denies it.
The context of Acts 28 further clarifies Paul’s perspective. Just a few verses later he explains the real reason for his imprisonment:
“It is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.” (Acts 28:20, ESV)
This statement is crucial. Paul does not say he is imprisoned for preaching a new religion or introducing a new system of belief. Instead, he says that his message is connected to “the hope of Israel.” For Paul, faith in Jesus was not a rejection of Israel’s story but the conviction that God had begun to fulfill that story through the Messiah.
Taken together, Paul’s statements in Acts 28 reveal how he understood his own mission.
He remained:
part of the Jewish people
loyal to the customs of his ancestors
committed to the Scriptures of Israel
At the same time, he proclaimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah. From Paul’s perspective, this message did not create a new religion. Rather, it announced that the hopes and promises contained within Israel’s Scriptures were being realized in the Messiah.
The conflict that followed was therefore not a dispute between two separate religions. It was a disagreement within the Jewish world about the identity of the Messiah and the meaning of Israel’s Scriptures.
Paul’s Letters Confirm His Continued Jewish Identity
Romans 3:31
Paul also writes:
“Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Romans 3:31)
This statement directly challenges the idea that Paul saw faith in Jesus as abolishing the Torah. Instead, Paul insists that faith confirms and upholds the Law. This reflects the same pattern seen throughout the New Testament: belief in Jesus is understood as consistent with the Scriptures of Israel, not as their replacement.
James 2: Jewish Identity of the Earliest Church Leaders
The epistle of James provides another small but revealing detail. When describing gatherings of believers, James writes:
“For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly…” (James 2:2)
The Greek word translated “assembly” is synagōgē, the same word used for a Jewish synagogue.
This suggests that early gatherings of believers were still closely connected to Jewish communal structures. Rather than forming entirely new institutions, they continued meeting in settings associated with Jewish worship and community life.
V. The Development of “Christianity”
The idea of Christianity as a separate religion emerged gradually over several centuries rather than appearing immediately in the first century.
The Term “Christian”
The term Christian is far less prominent in the New Testament than many modern readers assume. In fact, it appears only three times in the entire New Testament: Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16. This alone is significant. If Jesus and his earliest followers had consciously founded a new religion called Christianity, we would expect the term to appear frequently and function as a primary self-designation. Instead, it is rare, marginal, and contextually tied to the way outsiders perceived the movement.
The first occurrence appears in Acts 11:26:
“And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.” (Acts 11:26, ESV)
The wording is important. Luke does not say that the disciples called themselves Christians. Rather, he says they were called Christians. The Greek wording suggests that the name was given to them by others. In other words, this was likely not an internal covenantal self-description, but an external label attached to the disciples by the surrounding population in Antioch.
Antioch was a major urban center with a mixed population of Jews, Greeks, and Romans. In such a setting, people observing this unusual community of Jews and Gentiles centered around one called Christos would naturally look for a convenient way to identify them. The label Christianoi likely meant something like “Christ-people” or “those associated with the Messiah.” It was probably coined by outsiders who did not fully understand the movement from within but recognized that these people were organized around allegiance to Jesus as the Christ.
This is important for the argument because it shows that the term Christian did not begin as the formal name of a newly founded religion. It appears instead to have functioned first as a social nickname used by outsiders to identify a recognizable group.
The second occurrence reinforces this impression. In Acts 26:28, King Agrippa says to Paul:
“In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28, ESV)
The tone here is not one of reverence or covenantal identification. Agrippa is not stepping toward Paul in solidarity. Rather, the statement carries distance and likely irony or dismissiveness. He is responding to Paul as someone outside the movement, and the word Christian appears on his lips as a label for a group he does not belong to and does not identify with.
This again suggests that Christian was not yet functioning as the primary self-understanding of the earliest believers. It was a word that outsiders used when referring to those associated with Jesus.
The third and final New Testament occurrence appears in 1 Peter 4:16:
“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” (1 Peter 4:16, ESV)
Here the word seems to reflect a broader public and social label, one that had become associated with reproach, vulnerability, and suffering. Peter does not introduce it as the community’s preferred covenantal self-designation. Rather, he addresses the fact that believers may be insulted or persecuted under that name.
This is the one place in the New Testament where the label is openly embraced in a positive sense, but even here the force of the statement depends on the fact that the name had already been used against them. Peter is essentially saying: if the world labels you in this way and you suffer for loyalty to Messiah, do not be ashamed. Glorify God even under a name given in contempt.
That matters because it shows that even the most positive New Testament use of Christian still carries traces of its outsider and oppositional origin.
If the earliest followers of Jesus did not primarily call themselves Christians, what did they call themselves? The answer is revealing. Their self-descriptions remain deeply rooted in Jewish and covenantal categories rather than the language of a separate religion. They are called:
Disciples (Acts 6:1)
The Way (Acts 9:2)
Nazarenes (Acts 24:5)
Saints / holy ones (Romans 1:7)
Brothers or brothers and sisters (1 Corinthians 1:10)
Believers (Acts 5:14)
None of these titles suggests the formal establishment of a new religion called Christianity. Instead, they reflect a movement of people who saw themselves as participants in the covenantal life of God’s people.
“The Way” especially reflects biblical and Jewish language. It evokes the scriptural theme of walking in the way of the Lord. “Saints” or “holy ones” echoes the covenant people set apart for God. “Disciples” emphasizes loyal apprenticeship to a teacher. Even “Nazarenes” links the group to Jesus of Nazareth rather than to a new institutional religion.
All of these expressions point toward continuity, not rupture. This linguistic evidence supports the larger claim that Jesus and his disciples did not set out to found a new religion called Christianity.
If they had, we would expect:
a clear insider name adopted from the outset
repeated use of that name in the writings of the apostles
explicit statements identifying the movement as a new religious entity distinct from Israel
Instead, what we find is something quite different. We find a rare label, apparently first given by outsiders, used only three times in the entire New Testament. We also find that the believers’ own ordinary self-descriptions remained tied to Israel’s story, Israel’s Messiah, and Israel’s covenantal categories.
This suggests that the earliest followers of Jesus did not understand themselves as leaving Judaism behind. They saw themselves as the faithful community gathered around Israel’s Messiah.
Over time, especially as Gentile membership increased and the movement became more socially and geographically removed from Jewish communal life, the term Christian took on a more formal and positive role. What began as an outsider label eventually became a badge of identity. But that later development should not be read backward into the earliest period.
In the New Testament itself, the word Christian is still rare and secondary. The dominant reality is not the formation of a new religion but the emergence of a Messianic movement within the world of Second Temple Judaism—one that proclaimed that the God of Israel had acted decisively through His Messiah.
The rarity and tone of the term Christian in the New Testament strongly suggest that it did not begin as the chosen name of a newly founded religion. It appears instead as an outsider label applied to Jews and Gentiles who followed Jesus as the Messiah. The earliest believers more often described themselves in covenantal and communal terms such as disciples, saints, believers, Nazarenes, and people of the Way. These self-descriptions reflect continuity with Israel’s story rather than departure from it. The evidence therefore points not to the immediate creation of a new religion called Christianity, but to the growth of a Messianic movement still rooted in the covenantal world of Israel.
Increasing Separation
Although the earliest followers of Jesus understood themselves as Jews who had recognized the Messiah within Israel’s covenantal story, several historical developments gradually widened the gap between the Messianic movement and the broader Jewish community.
The Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE
One of the most significant turning points came with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 CE. This catastrophic event reshaped the religious life of the Jewish people. The Temple had been the central institution of Israel’s covenantal worship—where sacrifices were offered, pilgrimage festivals were celebrated, and priestly ministry was carried out. Its destruction forced Judaism to reorganize itself around synagogue life, Torah study, and rabbinic leadership.
Prior to this event, the earliest disciples had continued participating in Temple life. As the book of Acts repeatedly shows, they prayed there, taught there, and viewed the Temple as part of the religious world in which their faith operated. However, once the Temple was destroyed, both Jewish communities and Messianic believers had to reinterpret the meaning of Israel’s national tragedy.
Rabbinic Judaism generally interpreted the destruction as a form of divine discipline connected to Israel’s failure to keep the Torah faithfully. Meanwhile, some early Gentile believers began to interpret the event differently—as divine judgment for Israel’s rejection of Jesus as Messiah.
These competing interpretations of the same historical event contributed to growing theological distance between the two communities.
The Influx of Gentile Believers
Another major factor was the rapid growth of the movement among the nations. The first disciples were all Jews who lived within the framework of Torah observance and Jewish communal life. Their understanding of Jesus as Messiah was deeply rooted in the Scriptures of Israel and the covenantal promises given to the patriarchs.
As the message spread throughout the Roman world—especially through the mission of Paul—large numbers of Gentiles began to join the movement. This raised an important question: how could Gentiles participate in the blessings of Israel’s Messiah without becoming Jews?
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) addressed this issue by affirming that Gentiles were not required to undergo full proselyte conversion. This decision allowed for unity without erasing distinction: Jews remained Jews, and Gentiles were welcomed as Gentiles into the covenantal promises.
However, this solution contained within it a long-term challenge. As generations passed, Gentile believers increasingly lived outside of Jewish cultural and communal contexts. Many no longer participated in synagogue life or heard the Torah read regularly. Over time, they became less familiar with the covenantal framework that shaped the Scriptures. This resulted in a subtle but significant shift: the Scriptures of Israel began to be read apart from the people of Israel.
What had once been understood as Israel’s story gradually became interpreted as a universalized, abstract narrative detached from its original covenantal context. As Gentile believers eventually came to outnumber Jewish believers, the center of influence shifted. The movement began to lose its grounding in Jewish identity, not through a single decision, but through gradual cultural and interpretive drift.
Political Tensions Between Rome and the Jewish People
Political realities also played a major role in accelerating the separation. The Jewish revolts against Rome (66–70 CE and 132–135 CE) created a climate of suspicion and hostility toward Jewish identity throughout the empire.
For Gentile believers living under Roman authority, association with Jewish communities could be dangerous. Jews were increasingly viewed as rebellious and politically unstable. After the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), this perception intensified dramatically. The Roman response was severe, leading to widespread devastation, displacement, and restrictions on Jewish life in Judea.
In this environment, some Gentile believers began to distance themselves from Jewish identity—not necessarily out of theological conviction at first, but out of social and political necessity.
However, this distancing had theological consequences. As Gentile believers separated themselves from Jewish communities, they also became less connected to the interpretive traditions and covenantal worldview that had shaped the earliest understanding of the Scriptures. Over time, this contributed to a reinterpretation of Israel’s role in God’s plan.
Second-Century Theological Developments: The Rise of Replacement Theology
By the second century, these historical and cultural shifts began to crystallize into theological positions.
As Gentile leaders increasingly shaped the movement, a new interpretive framework emerged. Instead of viewing the coming of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s story, some began to present it as the replacement of that story.
Replacement theology did not begin as an explicit doctrine—it developed gradually as a result of detachment from Israel’s covenantal context.
Several key changes took place:
Israel began to be redefined spiritually rather than ethnically or covenantally
The promises to Israel were reinterpreted as belonging to the Church
The Torah was increasingly viewed as obsolete or inferior
Jewish identity itself was often portrayed negatively or as rejected by God
Writers such as Justin Martyr argued that believers in Jesus were now the “true Israel,” while the Jewish people had lost their covenantal standing. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin explicitly contrasts Christians with Jews and presents the Church as the rightful heir of the promises.
This represents a major shift. The earliest disciples had proclaimed: “God is fulfilling His promises to Israel through the Messiah.”
Second-century theology increasingly declared: “God has replaced Israel with a new people.”
This was not simply a new doctrine—it was a reinterpretation of the entire biblical narrative. By the second and third centuries, this transformation had become firmly established. Many church leaders no longer presented faith in Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s story, but as the replacement of that story.
Why This Matters
Understanding this process is essential. The separation between Judaism and Christianity was not the result of Jesus founding a new religion. It was the result of historical events, cultural shifts, and theological reinterpretations that unfolded over time.
The earliest believers saw continuity. Later generations increasingly saw discontinuity. Recognizing this distinction allows us to return to the original context of the New Testament and to reconsider whether the message of Jesus and the apostles was ever intended to replace Israel—or whether it was always meant to fulfill and continue the covenantal story that began with her.
VI. What the Earliest Believers Actually Believed
For the first generation of disciples, faith in Jesus did not represent a departure from Judaism but a conviction that Israel’s long-awaited promises were being fulfilled.
They believed:
The God of Israel had raised Jesus from the dead.
Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel.
The covenantal promises to Israel remained intact.
Gentiles could join the people of God through the Messiah.
Rather than founding a new religion, the apostles saw themselves as proclaiming the climax of Israel’s story.
VII. Conclusion
The New Testament provides no evidence that Jesus or his disciples believed they were establishing a new religion called Christianity. Instead, the earliest followers of Jesus understood themselves as Jews who had come to recognize the Messiah promised in Israel’s Scriptures.
They continued participating in Jewish communal life, remained connected to the temple and the Torah, and understood their message as the fulfillment of Israel’s covenantal hope.
The separation between Judaism and Christianity developed gradually over time, influenced by historical, political, and theological factors. Recognizing this history allows us to read the New Testament within its original Jewish context and better understand the continuity of God’s covenantal purposes.