The Nicolaitans..

[Beirdo]

OK, I have a question... What are the various views of who the "Nicolaitans" were, and what their practises were?

We see them mentioned in Revelation 2:6 in the letter to the church in Ephesus, and again in Revelation 2:15 in the letter to the church in Pergamum. But I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to what they were and/or represented. Every explanation I have heard so far was a bit on the self-serving side on the part of those teaching it.

Any thoughts?

[drewcosten]

OK, I have a question... What are the various views of who the "Nicolaitans" were, and what their practises were?

We see them mentioned in Revelation 2:6 in the letter to the church in Ephesus, and again in Revelation 2:15 in the letter to the church in Pergamum. But I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to what they were and/or represented. Every explanation I have heard so far was a bit on the self-serving side on the part of those teaching it.

Any thoughts?

Could it be that they were a group of Christians living in a place called Nicolatia or something?

[Itry]

Can anyone tell me about a tract. I am trying to pull it out of my memory. I think FWGrant wrote a tract on Nicolatianism. Does anyone know what I am talking about?

Itry

[Johno]

Bad.

[rgb123]

I was taught:
- nico = to conquer
- laity = the people.

[Paul M. Blackmore]

I was taught:
- nico = to conquer
- laity = the people.

And that is pretty much what has happened down over the centuries. Clergy lording it over the common folk, all objections of Scripture notwithstanding.

Blessings

Paul

[jpurssey]

The Nicolaitians were reputed from early times to have been the followers of Nicolaus of Antioch, one of the seven (Acts 6:5). We gather from 2:14, 15 that they held the same error as the Balaamites, viz. teaching to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication. ... It is noteworthy that Balaam and Nicolaus have more or less the same etymology (Balaam - 'he has consumed the people'; Nicolaus - 'he overcomes the people'). If this is the teaching so strenuously resisted by the Ephesians then it must have been widespread indeed.

(snip)

2.20

The prophetess who imparts the teaching of the Nicolaitians is symbolically named Jezebel, for the queen of that name tried to establish an idolatrous cult in the place of the worship of Yahweh and was herself accused of whoredom and witchcraft (2 Ki. 9-22). Note the curious insertion in some MSS of the possessive pronoun 'your' requiring the translation 'your wife Jezebel' instead of 'the woman Jezebel'.

[CF1]

Here is a link to Wikipedia Article on Nicolaitans

It states that
1. "Cyrus Scofield, in his Notes on the Bible, following dispensationalist thought, suggests that the Seven Letters in Revelation foretell the various eras of Christian history, and that "Nicolaitans" "refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or 'clergy,' which later divided an equal brotherhood into 'priests' and 'laity.'" "

2. "Some of the Plymouth Brethren taught" ... "the idea that 'Nicolaitan' refers to clergy dominating the laity"

I'm wondering which Plymouth Brethren authors, professors, or leaders taught or suggested this? Perhaps this thought is more often found in the Exclusive Brethren compared to the Open Brethren.

Having grown up in the Open Brethren I don't remember this being the primary or authoritative support for not having clergy, pastors, or heierarcial organizational structure. People might have speculated or suggested Nicolaitans had clergy, but it did not seem to be a supportable conclusion. Rather the primary reason for not having a structure or clergy was because it was simply not positively/actively affirmed and supported in the New Testament.

I realize there is plenty of support for not having clergy, pastors, etc from other sources in the NT.

The exact practice of the Nicolaitans seems quite unclear. We are left to try to interpret, but like many things in the book of Revelation, it is hard to know for sure what it means.

Does anyone know who in the Plymouth Brethren taught, suggested, or wrote about using this passage on the Nicolaitans as conclusive and authoritative support for not having clergy or pastoral support?

[RAP]

Having grown up in the Open Brethren I don't remember this being the primary or authoritative support for not having clergy, pastors, or heierarcial organizational structure. People might have speculated or suggested Nicolaitans had clergy, but it did not seem to be a supportable conclusion. Rather the primary reason for not having a structure or clergy was because it was simply not positively/actively affirmed and supported in the New Testament.

I realize there is plenty of support for not having clergy, pastors, etc from other sources in the NT.

The exact practice of the Nicolaitans seems quite unclear. We are left to try to interpret, but like many things in the book of Revelation, it is hard to know for sure what it means.

Does anyone know who in the Plymouth Brethren taught, suggested, or wrote about using this passage on the Nicolaitans as conclusive and authoritative support for not having clergy or pastoral support?

Keying off your comment. I would suggest that it was not primary. It was merely one of the elements that I was taught growing up in an open brethren meeting that admittedly had a lot of former Grant brethren in it. The view of the Nicolaitans was always connected to the direct translation of the word from Greek. Nike being the Greek goddess of victory and laity being people. It could be translated victory of the people or victory over the people. In either case the outcome is not viewed as a good thing in spiritual terms. If the Nicolaitans were gaining victory over the people, they were Lording over them and that is a clear violation of the word of God. If the Nicolaitans were promotion victory of the people (as in the name Nicolas) that would be a clear violation of the Headship of Christ and the presidency of the Holy Spirit over the assembly. I have come to be somewhat ambivalent as to interpretation as either is not a good thing.

All of the early brethren taught the first interpretation as IHA points out.

Maranatha!

[RAP]

Bro IHA,

No, I am not suggesting that. I merely noted that Nicolas is a Greek-based name that most translate as victory of the people. As the connection of nikos and laos is not universally understood as over or of, it is best to examine both. Both are inconsistent with a separate biblical imperative so both are bad.

Maranatha!

[Keith Sherwood]

The teaching of Balaam and the Niolaitans are the same Rev 2 v 14 and 15,

It simply means followers of Nicolas and they abused the flesh and indulged in sexual freedom etc Rev 2 v 14 & 15

Because all names have a meaning it is not of necessity right to work with the meaning of the name (ruler of the people) and turn the name into a tool to bash ordained ministers with

The church fathers in their writings also state, I think, without exception that the Nicolaitans believed in imoral behaviour and were the followers of Nicolas, whom the majority of the church Fathers say was one of the seven appointed to distribute to widows etc at Jerusalem along with Phillip, Stephen etc - Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippoltus

They were far closer to the action and the scripture agrees 100% with the idea of imorality and it identifies it as following a man's teacher in the same way as in the OT Balaam's doctrine was followed.

There is no reason to depart from the scriptural discription of their beliefs and invent another explanation

Keith

[Keith Sherwood]

I see no defendable argument to interpret the word to obtain a theory as to who they were or their doctrine.

What they teach and practice is discovered in Rev 2 v 14 & 15.

Also you are a Greek scholar and the prime way to look at it is that they are followers of Nicholas. You must be honest other wise we are not scholars - we can not apply one rule to some things and cast it away when we do not like the implication, if we do that then for all our knowledge we are not true scholars. We would not treat every mans name in this way and neither can we here

Those who were closest to the action whose writings have survived, have knowledge of the history within the church of those times, and who comment on this, also take the same view and call on the statements scripture to show the truth of what they say - and there are none of those men who took a different view.

If, in the plethera of critism of the hieracle nature of denominations and their officer's, the word Nicolatains is used to express a critic of ordained men, it does not mean it was a correct interpretation. The evils of exclusivism and dommination by many denominational men ordained in those times and found in virtualy all denominations, did colour a lot of what was said, and those evils did offend the believer who loved justice and equality of all as discribed in God's word.

Nor would any of us say that men are above scripture and thier word as scripture, however great they are in understanding, that would support all the claims of the church of Rome and replace apostolic teaching with the teaching of men

Keith

[Keith Sherwood]

I will give a full reply to that but under a new subject,as the relationship of the post apostolic church to the apostolic church and subsequent developments over the centuries is a subject of its own

I think my posts on this matter are clear and do not need adding to

Keith

[CF1]

It is interesting how Mr. Sherwood accepts the testimony of "those closest to the action" when it is convienent to his argument, and rejects it when it is not. I say he cannot make a convincing argument picking what he likes about Patristic testimony and disregarding the rest. That is as much eisogesis as is reading his thoughts into scripture.

Mr. Darby rightly concluded the so-called Fathers were inconsistent in their interpretation and application of scripture. Indeed the most consistent part of their writings was their ecclesiology. Quite uniform was their upholding of apostolic succession and the priestly hierarchy of deacons, elders, bishops and arch-bishops all leading to popery. Several also held to Maryism. That is the legacy of the so-called Fathers to the Church. Yet Mr. Sherwood who eschews any idea of men in authority over others in the local gathering assures us of the utter reliability of Patristic testimony as authoritative to solve minor issues of interpretation. How inconsistent.

I say, since Mr. Sherwood shows a bent toward inconsistent self-serving hermeneutic he may call upon the Patristic authorities any time it suits him. But he should understand, that this brother pays him little heed on matters of Greek exegesis or how this brother should approach the subject at hand.

ιηα τω εικονομαχων

Thank you to those who have responded to my question and explained the history well!

I haven't read any of the early church leaders writings. I even had to look up the word Patristic–of or pertaining to the fathers of the Christian church or their writings. Maybe with my simple mind I'm better off not being clouded by searching for ways to make the words fit and support ideas too complex to confirm with certainty.

If I just look at the passages below

Revelation 2:6 (New American Standard Bible)
6'Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Revelation 2:15
14'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.
15'So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

It looks like a far reach to conclude this provides conclusive support to say the Nicolaitan's represented clergy heirarchy.

Just because the person's name is Nicolas, how can you conclude that means they wanted power over the people?! If people did that with my name they would conclude a lot of things that are untrue.

There are plenty of other verses that give plenty of support for not having heirarchial clergy that grows corrupt and detracts from Christ. It seems to just dilute the other support when trying to get people to imagine using these less clear verses to support that clergy are not desirable.

Like so many debates about the book of the Revelation, some things are just not for us to know or understand in this life. We should act on what we know, rather than what is hard to know for sure.

[Elizabeth]

Just because the person's name is Nicolas, how can you conclude that means they wanted power over the people?! If people did that with my name they would conclude a lot of things that are untrue.

That seems like quite a reach! There are plenty of other verses that give plenty of support for not having heirarchial clergy that grows corrupt and detracts from Christ. It seems to just dilute the other support when trying to get people to imagine using these verses to support that clergy are not desired. It looks like they took it too far and should gain more respect by accepting these are not the best verses to use to support the case for not having clergy/laity.

Dear Brethren and Sisters,

I would appreciate an answer from all of your experiences in divinity or the Christian pathway - What denomination or non-denomination produces the best Christians? In my walk, I have met many followers of our Lord Jesus and some are more followers than others. The denomination or non-denomination, clergy, heirarchy, where they worship or how they worship etc. does not seem to matter.

Our Pastor was pointing out that it was the people who always said "Yes" to God who were the real followers of our Lord Jesus. If Mother Teresa had said "Oh, no God, I don't want to do that" when she was asked to go to India and live with the homeless people, what would have been the outcome. Mother Teresa was a Catholic, which is considered an abomination in brethren circles.

Then he challenged us in our lives to say "Yes" to God in the next two weeks and then report what had happened. Bro. IHA has borne this out in his efforts among those who call themselves Goths. We would think that was too strange and weird, except that if God has called you to get involved with them, the answer must be "Yes" if you are a Christian.

I have some friends whom we entertain in our home that our other friends think we should not waste our time with. I have trouble with that philosophy. If I call myself a Christian, I must get involved with those whom the Lord has placed in my path.

Just my thoughts,

Elizabeth