In the first century, the community of believers was a simple and humble gathering of equals. It was not led by a single ruler, but by a group of elders. These elders were also called bishops or pastors. Deacons also had a role, helping with practical needs and service, yet even the deacons were not looked down upon. Everyone was equal in God’s family.
“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.” (Matthew 23:8 NLT)
“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.” (2 Corinthians 8:13 NIV).
Equality mattered deeply to those early believers. They saw each other as family, as brothers and sisters under one Father. No matter their background, everyone was treated the same. That was the beauty of their gatherings. There were no seats of honour, no special clothing to set anyone apart, no titles to elevate one over another.
“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28).
It didn’t matter who you were in society — whether you were a slave or a nobleman — in the body of Christ, you were simply a child of God. You were not greater or lesser than anyone else. Those who lived in the first and second centuries believed this with all their hearts and lived it out.
Where Things Began to Shift
However, things began to shift by the third century. A separation was introduced between the word “bishop” and “elder”. Slowly, in each community, one elder started to rise above the rest. This elder would eventually take the title of bishop for himself alone and strip the other elders of that title.
What began as a community of equals slowly turned into a place of power struggles. In many communities, one elder managed to push himself up, casting aside the model of servant leadership and setting himself up as the chief authority over others.
This was far from the way the apostles taught. The early example of humility and mutual service was slowly being replaced with ambition and competition. Elders began seeking status and control, and the body of Christ began to suffer under this new spirit.
“Innumerable commands like these are written in the Holy Scriptures, pertaining to chosen persons: some to presbyters, some to bishops, some to deacons.” (Clement of Alexandria 195 AD Stromata 6.13)
“The bishop is in the church, and the church in the bishop; and if anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the church.” (Cyprian of Carthage 250 AD Epistle 68:8)
Cyprian’s words reveal just how much had changed. The idea of one bishop ruling over others was now common, even though it was completely alien to the New Testament. Tertullian, writing in North Africa, openly spoke against this development. He saw the same problem and called it out:
“Are not even we laymen priests?….Why do you exalt one man above the rest, when all are called to the same priesthood?”
His words show that even in his time, many were disturbed by this change. Elders were no longer content to serve — they wanted to rule.
In Rome, around 225 AD, Hippolytus clashed with Callistus, another elder who had taken the role of bishop for himself. Hippolytus accused Callistus of false teaching and tried to take the role of bishop for himself (Refutation of All Heresies 9.7).
Fight for Power
This wasn’t just about doctrine; it was a fight for power. And it did not stop there. Once one elder took power over others in a local community, and named himself bishop over everyone, he began to seek power over bishops in other communities.
As such, the bishops of different cities began to compete among themselves. They were no longer content with ruling just their local community — they wanted to be greater than the bishops of other cities.
Indeed, the bishops of the larger cities began to claim they were superior to the bishops in smaller towns and villages. They exalted themselves and expected others to bow to their authority. Eventually, this ambition reached the highest level.
Clash of the Bishops
In the Roman Empire, there were five most important cities — Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople. The bishops of these cities began to compete for the title of the greatest. Each one sought to rule not just their own city, but the entire body of Christ on earth. They chased after prestige and authority, just like Roman officials or pagan high priests.
“The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole…. The church is one, though she be spread abroad, and multiplies with the increase of her progeny.” (250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church 5).
With such words, the bishops tried to justify their ambition. They claimed that the body of Christ could only be united if everyone submitted to one bishop. This gave birth to the idea that one bishop could speak for the whole body. And this dangerous idea became accepted.
Uniting Church and State
At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, this structure was formalised. Canon 6 recognised the authority of bishops in Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch over their surrounding regions. Later, Jerusalem and Constantinople were added. This gave legal backing to their political power. The bishop of each major city now ruled over many other communities, and this power made them hungrier for more.
Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the same period, described how the support of Roman emperors led to the construction of massive church buildings:
“The emperors gave us the freedom to build houses of prayer, and we have erected great churches in every city.” (Church History 10.5)
These grand buildings were not just for gathering — they were symbols of authority. Every bishop wanted the grandest cathedral built in their city. They would use it to show their superiority over other bishops.
When Emperor Constantine moved the imperial capital to Byzantium — renaming it Constantinople — in 330 AD, the bishop of that city began to rise in influence. Because the city had become the new centre of political power, its bishop was soon treated as a figure of great importance, rivaling the long-established bishops of Rome and Alexandria.
At the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, it was declared that the bishop of Constantinople should be honoured second only to the bishop of Rome (Canon 3). This decision angered the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, who saw themselves as holding a much older and more apostolic tradition.
Elevating Rome and Constantinople
What had started as rivalry among five bishops — Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople — was later narrowed down to just two: Rome and Constantinople. The leaders of these two cities continued to compete for the highest position, each one trying to be seen as the ultimate authority over all other communities of believers on earth.
Although Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople gave Rome the “primacy of honour”, it did not give Rome authority to rule over all others. The bishop of Rome was not satisfied with this. The bishop of Constantinople, now growing in political importance due to the city’s imperial status, refused to submit to Rome’s claims.
Later, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, Canon 28 gave the bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with the bishop of Rome, stating that “the city which is honoured with the presence of the emperor and the senate should be elevated.” This infuriated the Roman bishops, who saw it as a direct threat to their desire for supremacy.
Genesis of Papal Supremacy
To strengthen his claim, Leo, the bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 AD, began to spread a story that Peter had been the first bishop of Rome and that Jesus had built His entire community upon Peter.
Leo preached this idea boldly, saying: “Peter, the chief of the apostles, was entrusted with the keys of the kingdom, and his authority continues in his successors” (Sermon 3).
Yet no earlier historical record had ever said Peter was bishop of Rome. This was an invention — one that had no support in the writings of the early believers or the apostles. It was a lie crafted to create a foundation for papal supremacy, and sadly, it worked.
The tension between the two cities kept growing. Each bishop wanted to rule. Each one claimed to speak for the whole body of Christ. In time, they could no longer tolerate each other.
Finally, in 1054, the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople excommunicated each other, tearing the body of Christ in two. This was the Great Schism. From that moment on, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communities walked on separate paths.
Enter Denominationalism
What had once been a united family of believers became two divided religious institutions. This is where denominationalism truly began — not from the apostles, not from the Spirit of God, but from the pride and ambition of men who wanted to be greater than their brothers. The body of Christ was no longer united under the headship of Christ alone but was torn apart by human arrogance and political rivalry.
All of this — the politics, the power, the greed — was a far cry from the early apostolic model. The way of humble service, shared leadership, and spiritual equality was lost. Within each local community, elders no longer worked together. One elder would rise above the rest and claim the title of bishop, ruling over the others.
Christian leaders twisted scriptures and ignored the teachings of the apostles to justify their hunger for power.
The early believers lived in simplicity, equality and love. But those who came later, especially in the third and fourth centuries, exchanged that simplicity for power and glory.
And the tragedy is that much of the Christian world today still follows this broken system, unaware of just how far we have drifted from the ways of the first-century believers.
