Who are the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:6, 14-15?

THE NICOLAITANES.

Rev. 2:6. — “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.” The doctrinal faithfulness of the Ephesian assembly and its unswerving condemnation of evil have been already matters of warmest commendation (vv. 2, 3), followed by censure couched in terms of severe simplicity (v. 4), and judgment has been finally threatened, a judgment which repentance alone could avert (v. 5). Now one special character of evil is specified, hated alike by the Lord and by the angel. The absence of love has been deplored, but hatred, love’s antithesis, was rightly present. The Nicolaitanes were not hated, for they shared in the general love of God (John 3:16), but their works were, and for this the angel is commended. They must have been works of a decidedly evil character which called forth such a stern word of reprobation. Who, then, were the Nicolaitanes, and what their tenets and deeds? A satisfactory answer to these questions is well-nigh impossible. The Nicolaitanes as an immoral and exceedingly impure sect undoubtedly existed, but whether Nicolas of Antioch, the last of the “seven” (Acts 6:5), was the originator of the sect bearing his name cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. Irenaeus is the first Church father or writer who affirms it. Others, however, consider that Nicolas is wronged when charged with the impure teachings and deeds of that sect; all the more evil that it existed under the cover of Christianity. If, indeed, the deacon was the founder of the sect, then he must have seriously lapsed from the faith. But on this we cannot pronounce with certainty. It has been conjectured that the Nicolaitanes are identical with the followers of Balaam. But this is difficult to understand in the light of verses 14 and 15, where the evils are separately named. “So thou also hast those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes in like manner.” The latter, it would seem, was the grosser evil of the two. All early writers, however, are agreed on the main features of this sect as being of an impure and licentious character. Nicolaitanism therefore would appear to have combined the profession of Christianity with the impurities of Paganism. Fleshly indulgence is a practical denial of the holy nature of Christianity, and cannot be tolerated by the Lord, nor by any who are faithful to the Name of Him Who is “the holy, the true” (Rev. 3:7).

The designation of some sect whose deeds and doctrines are condemned without being specified. Rev. 2:6, 15. Many suggestions have been made as to the tenets of the Nicolaitanes, but nothing is known with certainty. As their 'doctrine' and their 'deeds' are referred to, both of which Christ 'hated,' it has been thought they were libertines.

"Thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." Here the Lord speaks of the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, and in the message to Pergamos he speaks of those among this Assembly that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. What the deeds or doctrine were we are not told. Many conjectures have been made as to this, but nothing is known with real certainty from church history as to any such sect, its deeds or doctrine. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who died around 200 AD, is the earliest Christian writer to mention the Nicolaitanes. He says: "It very clearly appears from the Apocalypse that the Nicolaitanes held fornication, and the eating of idol sacrifices, to be things indifferent, and therefore permitted to Christians."

All early writers agree on the main features of Nicolaitanism as being of an impure and licentious character, combining the profession of Christianity with the impurities of Paganism, "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness" as Jude warned (v.4). In the 18th and 19th century other ideas as to this sect were brought forth. Some scholars conjectured that the Nicolaitanes were of similar character with the followers of the way of Balaam (2 Peter 2:15 ), and that "Nicolaitanes" is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Balaam," both signifying "conquerors or masters of the people." In Rev.2:14-15, the doctrine of Balaam and that of the Nicolaitanes are spoken of together, yet distinguished.

Others confining themselves to the meaning of the name have pointed out that "Nicolaitanes" comes from "nikao," meaning "to conquer", and from " laos," "the people," or "laity." Thus the term would refer to the development of a class, which we know as "the clergy", rising up in the Church above the laity and ruling over them.

Spite of the condition of this assembly, the Lord cannot restrain the expression of His love, and thus, after the solemn warning of coming judgment, unless she repented, He returns to commendation. "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." (v. 6.) So far there was communion with His mind, and this it is which elicits His approbation. The Nicolaitanes, it would seem from history, were a sect who turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, combining a profession of faith with loose and ungodly lives. Ephesus hated their impurities, as also did Christ.*

*At the beginning of the eighteenth century other ideas concerning this sect were promulgated, ideas derived from the meaning of the name. Thus some have maintained that Nicolas, or Nicolaus, is the Greek translation or form of Balaam, and have in this way connected the two sects. (See Rev. 2:14-15.) Others, confining themselves to the significance of the name, have maintained that the Nicolaitanes ("conquerors of the people") represent the growth and encroachments of the clergy. This latter idea has been often reproduced. That, however, given above is most generally received, even also as it is the best supported by historical evidence.

Spite of the condition of this assembly, the Lord cannot restrain the expression of His love, and thus, after the solemn warning of coming judgment, unless she repented, He returns to commendation. "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." (v. 6.) So far there was communion with His mind, and this it is which elicits His approbation. The Nicolaitanes, it would seem from history, were a sect who turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, combining a profession of faith with loose and ungodly lives. Ephesus hated their impurities, as also did Christ.*

*At the beginning of the eighteenth century other ideas concerning this sect were promulgated, ideas derived from the meaning of the name. Thus some have maintained that Nicolas, or Nicolaus, is the Greek translation or form of Balaam, and have in this way connected the two sects. (See Rev. 2:14-15.) Others, confining themselves to the significance of the name, have maintained that the Nicolaitanes ("conquerors of the people") represent the growth and encroachments of the clergy. This latter idea has been often reproduced. That, however, given above is most generally received, even also as it is the best supported by historical evidence.

The origin and doctrines of the Nicolaitanes are wrapped in obscurity, but all are agreed that their doctrines must have been impure and unholy.

In fact, at Ephesus they had not yet departed far. Only they had had to turn from Him necessarily to depart at all. Yet the Lord closes here with words which once more have a certain commendation in them: "This thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." We shall find by and by a "doctrine of the Nicolaitans" which has come in. It is no doctrine that is yet spoken of. We may be sure, therefore, in spite of the commentators, that doctrine there is as yet none. Nicolaitanism is as yet something in the heart rather than the mind, — none the less evil indeed on that account, for it is through the heart that the mind is perverted, and we may remember how in the epistle to the Ephesians itself the apostle speaks of the eyes of their hearts being enlightened. The heart that is astray forms its doctrine to justify itself. The error of the heart becomes thus the error of the mind.

But what was this Nicolaitanism? We are referred by Church writers to a set of gnostics, who, if they existed, (which is doubtful,) could only have arisen after this. We are told, also, that what is here is simply Antinomianism; but there is no evidence at all to justify the statement. Any sect of Nicolaitans, known as such, it has been impossible to find; and it is evident, in fact, that whatever tradition may say in the matter is the fruit of the effort to find that which, from what is spoken here, was thought must have existed. How could the Lord speak of Nicolaitans if there were none? It is obvious He could not; but the question is, is the name simply historical, or is it symbolical — as all Revelation so manifestly is? The word means, as there can be no doubt whatever, "One who conquers (or gets the upper hand of) the people;" and the word for "people" here, "the laos," is that from which, significantly, has come "laity," — a word never found in Scripture, but in common use everywhere. It is as plain as can be that there is no Christian laity in the New Testament; and that which is the opposite of it, which is in contrasted connection, the clergy, is not in Scripture either. The clergy, "cleroi," are, according to the name, those who are the Lord's lot, His peculiar portion. It is a term derived from the Old Testament and Judaism, where the Lord, however, was to be the lot in an especial way of those brought near to Him as the people at large were not — the priests and Levites. Nothing remains for us really to judge of what is here except that significant name. If we judge by it, "Nicolaitans" are a class who (themselves, of course, not laity) subject the Lord's people as laity to themselves. There is nothing necessarily immoral about them, and what is stated of them here cannot be rightly held to such an inference. They are not the Balaam-followers who in Pergamos are distinctly separated from them. We have, in fact, nothing that can more define them than the fact that they were Nicolaitans, whose "works" are first spoken of, and then their doctrine. If we are to judge by Scripture, (and we have positively nothing else to judge by,) then these who are not laity must be naturally clergy, a result which one would think would suggest itself to any mind. They are not yet in a positive place as such. There is no doctrine with regard to it. The Lord's people have not been content as yet to take their place as in subjection, as laity, to any separate class of this kind. There are Nicolaitans in deeds, not yet in doctrine. There are people, we may say, who take, in fact, such a separate place, act as if they were in a nearness to the Lord which others have not, and that, we would say, officially. It may seem intensely strong, the condemnation of such in the Lord's words, "which I also hate." He does not, of course, say that He hates the persons, but their deeds; and when we realize what such things mean, when we realize how the whole character of the Church has been affected by them, we shall not, perhaps, wonder any more at the strength of such an expression.

Here again the Nicolaitanes are mentioned, but, while the Ephesians hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, here in Pergamos we find the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, and the Lord says: "which thing I hate." What is it, then? Some say that there was a certain Bishop Nicol who taught bad doctrines and his followers were called "the Nicolaitanes." But this Bishop Nicol is a fictitious person; he cannot be historically located.

Nicolaitanes is Greek; it is a compound. Nikao is a verb and means to have the upper hand, to domineer; laos means the people (our English "laity"). Nicolaitanes signifies "the domineerers of the people." A priestly class had sprung up in the Church, domineering over the rest of the people, the so-called laity. And this domineering class claimed a superior place in the body of Christ. This evil was rejected in Ephesus, but is fully sanctioned and tolerated in Pergamos. Priestly assumption became then, and ever since has been, the corruption of Christianity. This is what our Lord hates and what He hates we must hate with Him.

But while they had faithful witnesses among them, they also had, without definite repudiation, those who held the doctrine of Balaam, and of the Nicolaitans. We are given here a summary of Balaam's teaching, for the full details of which we have to turn to Numbers 25:1-9; coupled with 31:16. Balaam remained in the background but prompted Balac to cast the stumbling block, enticing to idolatry and fornication, two things that are always joined together in the heathen world. The former is the most fundamental of all sins against God; the latter is against mankind as well as God. Both sins are seen amongst the heathen in their grossest forms, but in a more spiritualized way flourish in Christendom.

In 2 Peter we read of "the way of Balaam … who loved the wages of unrighteousness." In Jude, of "the error of Balaam," and in this, as well as in his way, he set an example that has been followed by many to their destruction. But here we have his doctrine; that is, a system of teaching which maintains that alliance with the world is quite the proper thing for the people of God. There seems to be no certain knowledge as to the Nicolaitans, either as regards their deeds, denounced to Ephesus, or their doctrine, denounced here. Their name, however, is a compound of two Greek words, which translated mean, "Conquerors of the people"; so this may be intended to indicate that type of teaching which exalts a priestly caste, leading to that spiritual enslavement of the people which has risen to its heights in the Romish system. How bad priestly rule can become is borne witness to in Jeremiah 5:31, and this when there were earthly priests, instituted of God. How much worse and hateful to God is it today!

Here, if we are left simply to the name, it is one sufficiently startling and instructive. Of course, to those who spoke the language used, the meaning would be no hidden or recondite thing, but as apparent as those of Bunyan’s allegories. It means, then, "Conquering the people." The last part of the word ("Laos") is the word used in Greek for "the people," and it is the word from which the commonly used term "Laity" is derived. The Nicolaitanes were just those "subjecting - putting down the laity" the mass of Christian people, in order unduly to lord it over them.

What makes this clearer is, that, - side by side with the Nicolaitanes in the epistle to Pergamos, - we have those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, a name whose similarity in meaning has been observed by many. "Balaam" is a Hebrew word, as the other is a Greek; but its meaning is, "Destoryer of the people," a very significant one in view of his history; and as we read of the "doctrine of the Nicolaitanes," so we read of a "doctrine of Balaam."