Who Were the Nicolaitians Referenced in Revelations?

[mathetes123]

Who were the Nicolaitians referenced in Revelations?

 

[Shane R]

The most common answer is that they were so thoroughly exterminated that the exact nature of their doctrine is unknown. Some commentators have hypotheses and conjectures of what was likely taught. Do a little research.

 

[mathetes123]

The most common answer is that they were so thoroughly exterminated that the exact nature of their doctrine is unknown. Some commentators have hypotheses and conjectures of what was likely taught. Do a little research.

I had read an article which stated that Irenaeus identified the Nicolaitians with Gnosticism.

 

[Soulgazer]

I had read an article which stated that Irenaeus identified them with Gnosticism.

Ireneus would have called you a "Gnostic". He was a piece of work.

 

[Soulgazer]

You have to understand that the second and third century school of catholicism is the basis for nearly every branch of modern Christianity. That's catholicism with a small "c", that started out with the ideal of uniting all branches under one Christian banner. A "one world religion", that would tie the Messiah to the pharisee tradition while ridding Christianity of the things that made it unpopular, such as women preachers, and Jewish traditions. They got rid of then politically incorrect doctrine, and included the Greek and Roman mythologies as prophesy---see "the Oracle of Constantine". They were very libertine, but very intolerant of the schools that they were lifting material from, probably, IMO because these schools knew what was being altered.

If you want to research on your own, a very basic place to start is Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Hillsage]

Who were the Nicolaitians referenced in Revelations?

I will just post a partial excerpt from a bible study on the book of Revelation that I get.

“But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate” (Rev. 2:6). “So thou hast also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate” (Rev. 2:15).

When the Lord was showing John on Patmos what the seven churches would be like, He commended the church at Ephesus because they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which the Lord also detested. In Pergamos, the third church, these deeds had become accepted doctrine, which the Lord also hated. When a name appears in the scriptures its meaning sheds light upon the spiritual reality behind the name. What are these Nicolaitanes? We understand when we know what the name means! Nicolaitane comes from two Greek words: nikao, which means “to rule over” or “to conquer,” and laos, which means “the laity” or “the people.” Put these definitions together and you get a domineering ruling class within the body of Christ whose main agenda is to get the upper hand, conquer, subordinate, and subdue those who they consider “less gifted,” “less knowledgeable,” or “less qualified” than themselves!

In the religious world there are those called “clergy” and there are those who are called “laity.” These are titles that have come to us from religious Babylon! What were the “deeds” of the Nicolaitanes? They were exalting the “clergy” over the “laity”! The clergy class were dominating the laity, the people. The clergy exalted themselves whereas the laity were abased. The clergy became the authority, the power, the lordship in the church. They became the fountain of all truth, they had the last word, they called all the shots. The rest of us poor folks are just “laity,” the dumb sheep that just follow and do what we are told.

Sounds pretty similar to a lot of churches of today I think.

 

[Shane R]

That is interesting Hillsage. Thank you for posting.

I have recently been re-examining church government. I came from the Restoration Movement churches, with their ideas of the elders, deacons, and preachers/teachers. One key in my mind is the composition of the early churches. For example, when Paul wrote: to the elders of the church at ____ , I think the RM forgets that in those ancient days the churches assembled in various places and there were multiple 'campuses' as we might call them in a city. So, when he wrote to 'the elders' it does not necessarily follow that there were a plurality in each congregation, but only within the city. This obviously leads rather naturally into some form of higher organization.

However, you have rightly pointed out the problem with organization: abusive or incompetent leadership. This is the same thing Peter and John wrote briefly in some of their epistles. So, I see nothing wrong with church organization in theory, but in practice leaders are human and thus prone to sin; the pages of history are full of questionable or even wrong church leadership. Yet we cannot become ascetic isolationists, or we lose the meaning of the great commission and the blessings of fellowship with each other. We must pray for the best and be prepared to take a stand when things are wrong.

 

[Soulgazer]

Our organization at first can seem like anarchy; any member at any time can be asked to lead, or ask in advance to lead the next service. Works for us.

 

[Hillsage]

That is interesting Hillsage. Thank you for posting.

I have recently been re-examining church government. I came from the Restoration Movement churches, with their ideas of the elders, deacons, and preachers/teachers. One key in my mind is the composition of the early churches. For example, when Paul wrote: to the elders of the church at ____ , I think the RM forgets that in those ancient days the churches assembled in various places and there were multiple 'campuses' as we might call them in a city. So, when he wrote to 'the elders' it does not necessarily follow that there were a plurality in each congregation, but only within the city. This obviously leads rather naturally into some form of higher organization.

I guess I have believed for years that there should never be 'a pastor' who ruled over any congregation. I've always felt that the plurality of the elders was simply a spiritual safety net that was built in by God. The 'Shepherding movement' of the 70's certainly seemed like a good idea, but it didn't end so well. I think that 'a pastor' is really just 'a sheep... but one with a bell around his neck'. And it is his job to make sure the younger sheep are following 'The Shepherd/Jesus'...and not 'a shepherd'.

However, you have rightly pointed out the problem with organization: abusive or incompetent leadership. This is the same thing Peter and John wrote briefly in some of their epistles. So, I see nothing wrong with church organization in theory, but in practice leaders are human and thus prone to sin; the pages of history are full of questionable or even wrong church leadership. Yet we cannot become ascetic isolationists, or we lose the meaning of the great commission and the blessings of fellowship with each other. We must pray for the best and be prepared to take a stand when things are wrong.

I believe there is a place for 'the organization' but would probably be considered somewhat of an "isolationist" to you. We left the institutional church we had been a part of for 23 years and under 2 pastors. We did that almost 2 1/2 years ago. We now home church with a small group, but I actually fellowship with many more brethren in the 'true church' of our city now. I no longer 'go to church', but proclaim 'I am/they are' THE CHURCH. You list yourself as a Lutheran now, did you know that Martin himself believed that only the clergy had the right to teach and endorsed the death penalty for anyone else who did so? It ended up getting real sticky when a non ordained friend of his became one of those offenders. But it was in the 400's that the catholic church and Constantine actually outlawed home churches under the penalty of death...Sure glad I missed that one.

 

[Hillsage]

Our organization at first can seem like anarchy; any member at any time can be asked to lead, or ask in advance to lead the next service. Works for us.

Doesn't sound like anarchy to me. But, especially so, if someone is only leading 'a service'. Anarchy to me is when 'the leader' is in reality just 'a pusher'. I was once told; "He is a poor leader...who looks around, and nobody is following."

 

[ImaginaryDay]

The Nicolaitans are referred to twice in Revelation. To have even a basic understanding of who they were we need to start with what Christ said about them. First, in addressing the Church in Ephesus He says:
"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:6, ESV).
Then, in addressing the Church in Pergamum, Christ becomes more specific and we get a glimpse of what their problem was, which (imo) is far from the interpretation held by some that it was the clergy ruling over the laity. This is not supported by scripture, but in fact Revelation points to another problem:
"But I have a few things against you: you have a few there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.so also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:14-15, ESV).
IMO, their problem was they (Nicolaitans) were leading some into sin and were unrepentant. Christ was, therefore, calling on the churches as a whole to address the matter and repent.

 

[Soulgazer]

Hmmmmmm.................

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[a] 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.



As food "sacrificed" to idols was often sold in the market........ The Author of Revelation was talking about Paul!


Actually it would not surprise me if he was. The Messianics hated Paul, for teaching that the Torah was no longer relevant to a Christian, thus opening up the belief to gentiles. Old prejudices die hard.

 

[Noxot]

The Nicolaitans are referred to twice in Revelation. To have even a basic understanding of who they were we need to start with what Christ said about them. First, in addressing the Church in Ephesus He says:
"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:6, ESV).
Then, in addressing the Church in Pergamum, Christ becomes more specific and we get a glimpse of what their problem was, which (imo) is far from the interpretation held by some that it was the clergy ruling over the laity. This is not supported by scripture, but in fact Revelation points to another problem:
"But I have a few things against you: you have a few there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.so also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:14-15, ESV).
IMO, their problem was they (Nicolaitans) were leading some into sin and were unrepentant. Christ was, therefore, calling on the churches as a whole to address the matter and repent.

sexual immorality is when you, the wife of God, follow after men/ideas/groups of people/ect more than with God. I mean i don't see the entire meaning of it just that we are the wife of 1 husband. you can not serve 2 masters. it is a sick and terrible sin against God, whoever rapes my church they must die so that they may live. they desire the first seat, but not in/with me! I mean you ought not to love any man like you love your husband, and who heck would love any kind of thing besides God, like you love your husband, which is everything to the wife.

Jude 1:10-11 (YLT)
(1:10) and these, as many things indeed as they have not known, they speak evil of; and as many things as naturally (as the irrational beasts) they understand, in these they are corrupted; (1:11) woe to them! because in the way of Cain they did go on, and to the deceit of Balaam for reward they did rush, and in the gainsaying of Korah they did perish.

I suppose we can learn a lot about the Nicolaitans when we read about Cain, Balaam, and Korah since they were all included in 1 woe. because 1 woe and 3 examples means that they are the same kind of woe, just different examples.

but now notice how jude says:

Jude 1:10 (YLT)
(1:10) and these, as many things indeed as they have not known, they speak evil of; and as many things as naturally (as the irrational beasts) they understand, in these they are corrupted;

you see now that there is the soul, because souls know things. and that they speak evil of those when they do not know them. and then you see it also says "naturally (as the irrational beasts) they understand" which is to distort the Truth/Love with their flesh nature rather than with the distortion of Truth/Love with their soul nature.

so then it points out that it is wicked to just be happy with earth and heaven, but rather you need to ascend past those things, and find God, because without that, you will never get past all the sin that is in both the heavens and the earth. and you are caught in this circle of flesh and the shadow of your soul in this age. but the Spirit makes your soul into a fire, and it makes your flesh into a fire.

all the seeming contractions in the NT and the OT and the seeming schisms and disunity in the NT is all pointing up to the higher spiritual reality "where everything is made plan for His Elect." and that is why paul was so confused at one point with someone he said he talked to, but did not understand where. and he was speaking about a 3rd heaven... he was so engulfed in the Divine Fire that he hardly even really noticed this age sometimes.

and 2Cor 3:17-18 (YLT)
(3:17) And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is , there is liberty; (3:18) and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

this glory to glory seems to me to be, age to age. finding ourselfs in the other parts of other ages descending and ascending here to us in this age, with God ofc. this liberty that is talked about, is the same thing that jesus said that no jot or tidle will pass form the law until all are fulfilled, it gets fulfilled when we ascend past the earth and heaven with Christ. and there is God there. and this mirror is i guess not the same for us all, but I know my mirror, is broken up, as dashed by an angel to pieces. and I see past this mirror also with my Lord, see my Lord... only because of God. but I can not tell if this is the 'and more" that is spoken about somewhere. but i'm scared but I just wanna be with God more. and more... we all just need him. we both all are with him, in "creation" and in this "I can not be defined nor comprehended" which is maybe what an, "and more" is. seening as how I found out that God can always do things above my comprehension. I know he can make me like he is as always existing. and more, he does the and more to me too, past all my comprehension and always more as i know the Lord is always big and me small. and he loves me, I swear you need to look at him more.

but i'm still not fully unveiled yet, i can never be, just as God can never be fully shown to his small one. just I know we are here for fun now, for the purpose was already fulfilled. I mean it was, past in the upper, it is know... this were we are is a kind of lesser, but i think the ages themselves somehow get lifted up to the "and more" which is what I want anyways, the transformation. all is comings better soon and always is and does and was.

really this age, being here like we are as humans, it is not good enough. i refuse, i want God. everything of this age is a shadow about to be turned into something more. and me I am already starting to change to whatever God was doing with me here in what i call, "the past" or "this bubble" but still I have no clue, because there is a lot of darkness where i'm at with him, its just i saw a very bright spark that scared me and it was gonna burn the entire everything in this "building with many areas or rooms" up.

but then i'm struck by, i don't know, God please come.

but this normal life, we can already ascend past all of the things and be close as we can with our Lord. its just not shown yet because of the darkness.

but one last thing, I think the descending and ascending of mewithmylord/ages can happen in that age, to this age. because it is a jubilee. and this place we are at, this age, i think when lifted up in light instead of being in darkness, something... something...... its more glory and rejoiced than we could ever.... like a big bubble of darkness to a big bubble of light to a FIRE which i can not tell what.

I don't get it, its like.... i have other mes in the abyss and in the heavens, but that they are all being put back together and yet also being all purified and left alone. and i see new ones being created too, because i want them.

 

[Knee V]

To say that the Nicolatians are a group that "rise above the laity" is like saying that Calvinists are a group that believe in remaining bald. The name Nicholas means "conqueror of the people". The Nicolatians were the followers of someone named Nicholas who had been leading many astray. It was common in the early church, as well as the not-so-early church, to refer to a heresy by the name of it's founder. The Nicolatian heresy is even described by John, and it has nothing to do with "rising above the laity".

 

[Hillsage]

Then, in addressing the Church in Pergamum, Christ becomes more specific and we get a glimpse of what their problem was, which (imo) is far from the interpretation held by some that it was the clergy ruling over the laity. This is not supported by scripture, but in fact Revelation points to another problem:

Not in scripture???

3JO 1:9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be FIRST among them, does not accept what we say (not "I say"). 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deedswhich he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

We have here a perfect description of a ruler who doesn't listen to anyone and kicks people out of the church when they don't do what he says...eg nicolataine...or ruling over the laity.

"But I have a few things against you: you have a few there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.so also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:14-15, ESV).

Scripturally the "teaching of Balaam" and the "teaching of Nicolaitane" is simply two different people/teachings IMO.

 

[Hillsage]

Hmmmmmm.................

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[a] 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

As food "sacrificed" to idols was often sold in the market........ The Author of Revelation was talking about Paul!

Actually it would not surprise me if he was. The Messianics hated Paul, for teaching that the Torah was no longer relevant to a Christian, thus opening up the belief to gentiles. Old prejudices die hard.

You got me Soulgazer. Who are you addressing, and how does this apply? I'm missing it.

 

[Soulgazer]

You got me Soulgazer. Who are you addressing, and how does this apply? I'm missing it.

Apostolic34 was saying that the Nicolatians ate food dedicated to idols.

Early Christianity was full of division and infighting. I think that it probably makes historical sense, as "Revelation" was written 30-40 years after Paul taught not to worry about what you ate, as long as it didn't offend anybody you were with. The author was a Messianic Jew, and they threw pokes at Paul at every turn. So if that's all the Nicolations were doing, it would rub a Messianic Jew the wrong way, and hard enough to condemn them.

Paul said that there was nothing unlawful, though not all things were useful, and called the law "death". This also rubbed the Messianics the wrong way, who were people of the Law, and continued in Jewish practice.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

To say that the Nicolatians are a group that "rise above the laity" is like saying that Calvinists are a group that believe in remaining bald. The name Nicholas means "conqueror of the people". The Nicolatians were the followers of someone named Nicholas who had been leading many astray. It was common in the early church, as well as the not-so-early church, to refer to a heresy by the name of it's founder. The Nicolatian heresy is even described by John, and it has nothing to do with "rising above the laity".

Nicely said. It is suggested by some that the group was following the teachings of Nicolaus of Antioch (see Acts 6) who had become apostate in his teachings.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Not in scripture???

3JO 1:9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be FIRST among them, does not accept what we say (not "I say"). 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deedswhich he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

We have here a perfect description of a ruler who doesn't listen to anyone and kicks people out of the church when they don't do what he says...eg nicolataine...or ruling over the laity.

Scripturally the "teaching of Balaam" and the "teaching of Nicolaitane" is simply two different people/teachings IMO.

You missed it. What I said was that the doctrine of the nicolaitans being the 'clergy ruling the laity' was not supported by the verse in Revelation. I DID NOT say that it wasn't addressed elsewhere. PLEASE READ what I post carefully. Also, the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans ARE NOT two different teachings. They are the same. Or else why would Christ make the connection. It's like saying "there are kids on the street corner who are selling lemonade. Likewise you also have kids throwing snowballs in YOUR neighborhood"! It doesn't add up the way you are looking at it. To make the connection, both statements have to be true. BOTH sets of kids have to be doing the same thing or else Christ's admonition makes no sense.

 

[Hillsage]

Apostolic34 was saying that the Nicolatians ate food dedicated to idols.

I finally found it, thanks. Too bad he isn't reading scripture as closely as he wants us to read his posts. You are correct about the eating 'idol foods'...nothing wrong with it. But that was not the case for the people of Israel and the time of Balaam. The sin of Balaam was to try and curse (rule over) the people of Israel unjustly. But as scripture states.

PRO 26:2 Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight.

So then Balaam taught Balak how to cause the people of Israel to fall with their eating and sexual exploits. IOW, how to rule over them with a curse that would stick. Would you agree with that summation?

Early Christianity was full of division and infighting. I think that it probably makes historical sense, as "Revelation" was written 30-40 years after Paul taught not to worry about what you ate, as long as it didn't offend anybody you were with. The author was a Messianic Jew, and they threw pokes at Paul at every turn. So if that's all the Nicolations were doing, it would rub a Messianic Jew the wrong way, and hard enough to condemn them.

But if that's all the Nicolataines were doing don't you think that Jesus would just say "Suck it up buttercups."? Would rubbing a Jew the wrong way really be worthy of "inspired" Scripture warnings to the whole church? Especially since the Book of Revelation wasn't even written to JEW Christians, but to the 7 churches of Gentile Asia.

Paul said that there was nothing unlawful, though not all things were useful, and called the law "death". This also rubbed the Messianics the wrong way, who were people of the Law, and continued in Jewish practice.

But what did the Elders of the Church say regarding the requirements of Gentiles?

ACT 21:25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity."

So now we're full circle. What are your thoughts?