Clergy and Laity: No Distinction Among Brothers

**Clergy and Laity: No Distinction Among Brothers**

*A Biblical and Historical Rejection of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*

---

In the earliest days of Christianity, there was no clergy class. There were no priests, bishops, or popes set apart as rulers over others within the body of believers. Jesus himself had forbidden such a structure, declaring plainly: **“All you are brothers. ... Your Leader is one, the Christ”** (Matthew 23:8, 10). The very foundation of Christian community was equality under one head—Christ—not hierarchy under men. The introduction of distinctions between clergy and laity, then, was not an organic development of Christian practice but a corruption of it.

The New Testament record confirms that the congregations of the first century were not led by a singular “bishop,” but by **a group of elders** or overseers who shared equal authority. Paul, in writing to the Philippians, addressed **“all the holy ones in union with Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, along with overseers and ministerial servants”** (Philippians 1:1). No distinction is made between a superior overseer and a subordinate body. Similarly, in Acts 20:17, Paul summoned **“the elders \[presbyteroi] of the congregation”** in Ephesus. Addressing them collectively, he referred to all of them as **“overseers”** (*episkopoi*) and instructed them to **“shepherd the congregation of God”** (Acts 20:28). This interchangeability between “elder” and “overseer” demonstrates that these terms referred to the same office, not two distinct ranks.

The apostle Peter gives the same instruction:

> “Shepherd the flock of God among you, not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:2–3)

Peter does not tell one elder to preside over the rest, nor does he appoint a bishop to rule. On the contrary, he urges a spirit of humility and mutual service. Authority in the Christian congregation was to be spiritual, not institutional; relational, not hierarchical.

However, the pattern of apostasy foretold by the apostles did not delay long in its appearance. After the death of the apostles, particularly John, prominent men in the early second century began reshaping the congregation into a more rigid, hierarchical institution. A central figure in this transformation was **Ignatius of Antioch**, whose letters reveal a dramatic shift in ecclesiology. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, he writes:

> “See that you all follow the bishop \[*episkopos*], as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery \[body of elders] as if it were the Apostles.” (*Smyrnaeans* 8.1)

Here, Ignatius divorces the term “bishop” from “elder,” assigning to the bishop singular authority as Christ’s representative. This is a radical departure from the New Testament model, which made no such distinction. By doing so, Ignatius effectively introduces a *clergy class*, with the bishop standing over the community rather than within it.

Ignatius continues this reasoning by asserting that:

> “It is not legitimate either to baptize or to hold an agape \[love feast or eucharist] without the bishop. ... To join with the bishop is to join the church; to separate oneself from the bishop is to separate oneself not only from the church, but from God himself.” (*Smyrnaeans* 8.2)

This is a remarkable claim: that salvation and fellowship with God are contingent upon obedience to a human officeholder. The bishop is now the gateway to God, a role nowhere given in the words of Christ or the writings of the apostles. Such a system replaces faith in Christ with allegiance to a hierarchy.

By the time of **Irenaeus of Lyons**, this structure had been firmly cemented. He wrote:

> “True gnosis is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution \[*systema*] of the church throughout the whole world, and the character of the body of Christ according to the successions of bishops, by which they have handed down that which exists everywhere.” (*Against Heresies* 4.33.8)

In other words, Irenaeus equates the true faith not with direct knowledge of God, but with conformity to the **“succession of bishops”** and the **“ecclesiastical constitution”**—a term implying formal, structured governance. This sharply contrasts with Jesus’ own words: **“You are all brothers.”** There was to be no division of the church into rulers and ruled, no systema of power passed from one man to the next.

In fact, the very word **“priest”**, now central to many Christian traditions, did not originally exist in Christian vocabulary as a special title. The English word *priest* is a linguistic corruption derived from the Greek **presbyteros**, which simply meant **“elder.”** Over time, *presbyteros* (elder) became *prester*, then *preost* in Old English, and eventually *priest*. But this change was more than linguistic—it was theological. Elders, once humble shepherds among the flock, were reimagined as mediators between God and man, mimicking the Jewish priesthood that Christ had fulfilled and abolished (Hebrews 7:11–12; 10:11–14).

As ecclesiastical structures hardened, the clergy began to assert that apart from their authority, **“there is nothing that can be called a church,”** as Ignatius declared (*Trallians* 3.1). The bishop became the defining feature of the church’s presence, the one who consecrates sacraments, speaks for Christ, and maintains the boundary between orthodoxy and heresy. The laity, in turn, were relegated to passive roles, deprived of spiritual authority and dependent on the clerical class for access to divine grace.

But such a structure contradicts the teaching of Christ, the practice of the apostles, and the egalitarian spirit of early Christian communities. The New Testament model calls believers **a royal priesthood** (1 Peter 2:9), in which every member shares the Spirit and the responsibility of ministry (1 Corinthians 12:4–11). It recognizes diversity of gifts, not ranks of power.

---

In conclusion, the division between clergy and laity is not a divine ordinance but a post-apostolic innovation. It finds no justification in the teachings of Jesus or the writings of the apostles. Instead, it arose through the ambitions of men like Ignatius and Irenaeus, who substituted human hierarchy for the headship of Christ. If the church is to be faithful to its origins, it must recover the truth that **all are brothers**, and Christ alone is Lord.