Verse 6. The deeds of the
Nicolaitanes] These were, as is commonly supposed, a sect of the Gnostics, who taught the most impure
doctrines, and followed the most impure practices. They are also supposed to
have derived their origin from Nicolas, one of the seven deacons mentioned Acts
6:5, where see the note. The Nicolaitanes
taught the community of wives, that adultery and fornication were things
indifferent, that eating meats offered to idols was quite lawful; and mixed
several pagan rites with the Christian ceremonies. Augustine, Irenæus, Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Tertullian, have spoken largely concerning them. See more in
my preface to 2d Peter, where are several particulars concerning these
heretics. (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and
Critical Notes, 6 vols. [Bellingham, Wash.: Faithlife Corporation, 2014],
6:976-77)
6. But this thou hast. This
thou hast that I approve of, or that I can commend.
That thou hatest the deeds
of the Nicolaitanes. Gr.,
works (τὰ ἔργα). The word Nicolaitanes occurs only in this place, and in the 15th verse of
this chapter. From the reference in the latter place it is clear that the
doctrines which they held prevailed at Pergamos as well as at Ephesus; but from
neither place can anything now be inferred in regard to the nature of their
doctrines or their practices, unless it be supposed that they held the same
doctrine that was taught by Balaam. See Notes on ver. 15. From the two
passages, compared with each other, it would seem that they were alike corrupt
in doctrine and in practice, for in the passage before us their deeds are mentioned, and in ver. 15
their doctrine. Various conjectures,
however, have been formed respecting this class of people, and the reasons why
the name was given to them. I. In regard to the origin of the name, there have been three opinions.
(1) That mentioned by Irenæus, and by some of the other fathers, that the name
was derived from Nicolas, one of the deacons ordained at Antioch, Ac. 6:5. Of
those who have held this opinion, some have supposed that it was given to them
because he became apostate and was the founder of the sect, and others because
they assumed his name, in order to
give the greater credit to their doctrine. But neither of these suppositions
rests on any certain evidence, and both are destitute of probability. There is
no proof whatever that Nicolas the deacon ever apostatized from the faith, and
became the founder of a sect; and if a name had been assumed, in order to give credit to a sect and extend its
influence, it is much more probable that the name of an apostle would have been
chosen, or of some other prominent man, than the name of an obscure deacon of
Antioch. (2) Vitringa, and most commentators since his time, have supposed that
the name Nicolaitanes was intended to be symbolical, and was not designed to
designate any sect of people, but to denote those who resembled Balaam, and
that this word is used in the same manner as the word Jezebel in ch. 2:20, which is supposed to be symbolical there.
Vitringa supposes that the word is derived from νίκος, victory,
and λαός, people, and that thus it corresponds
with the name Balaam, as meaning either בַּעל עָם, lord of the people,
or בִּלַע
עָם, he destroyed the people; and that, as the same effect was produced
by their doctrines as by those of Balaam, that the people were led to commit
fornication and to join in idolatrous worship, they might be called Balaamites or Nicolaitanes, that is, corrupters of the people. But to this it may
be replied, (a) that it is
far-fetched, and is adopted only to remove a difficulty; (b) that there is every reason to suppose that the word here used
refers to a class of people who bore that name, and who were well known in the
two churches specified; (c) that in
ch. 2:15 they are expressly distinguished from those who held the doctrine of
Balaam, ver. 14, “So hast thou also (καὶ) those that hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitanes.” (3) It has been supposed that some person now unknown, probably
of the name Nicolas, or Nicolaus, was their leader, and laid the
foundation of the sect. This is by far the most probable opinion, and to this
there can be no objection. It is in accordance with what usually occurs in
regard to sects, orthodox or heretical, that they derive their origin from some
person whose name they continue to bear; and as there is no evidence that this
sect prevailed extensively, or was indeed known beyond the limits of these
churches, and as it soon disappeared, it is easily accounted for that the
character and history of the founder were so soon forgotten. II. In regard to
the opinions which they held, there
is as little certainty. Irenæus (Adv.
Hæres. i. 26) says that their characteristic tenets were the lawfulness of
promiscuous intercourse with women, and of eating things offered to idols.
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 29) states
substantially the same thing, and refers to a tradition respecting Nicolaus,
that he had a beautiful wife, and was jealous of her, and being reproached with
this, renounced all intercourse with her, and made use of an expression which
was misunderstood, as implying that illicit pleasure was proper. Tertullian
speaks of the Nicolaitanes as a branch of the Gnostic family, and as, in his
time, extinct. Mosheim (De Rebus
Christian Ante. Con. § 69) says that “the questions about the Nicolaitanes
have difficulties which cannot be solved.” Neander (History of the Christian Religion, as translated by Torrey, i. pp.
452, 453) numbers them with Antinomians; though he expresses some doubt whether
the actual existence of such a sect can be proved, and rather inclines to an
opinion noticed above, that the name is symbolical, and that it is used in a
mystical sense, according to the usual style of the book of Revelation, to
denote corrupters or seducers of the people, like Balaam. He supposes that the
passage relates simply to a class of persons who were in the practice of
seducing Christians to participate in the sacrificial feasts of the heathens,
and in the excesses which attended them—just as the Jews were led astray of old
by the Moabites, Nu. 25. What was the origin of the name, however, Neander does
not profess to be able to determine, but suggests that it was the custom of
such sects to attach themselves to some celebrated name of antiquity, in the
choice of which they were often determined by circumstances quite accidental.
He supposes also that the sect may have possessed a life of Nicolas of Antioch,
drawn up by themselves or others from fabulous accounts and traditions, in
which what had been imputed to Nicolas was embodied. Everything, however, in
regard to the origin of this sect, and the reason of the name given to it, and
the opinions which they held, is involved in great obscurity, and there is no
hope of throwing light on the subject. It is generally agreed, among the
writers of antiquity who have mentioned them, that they were distinguished for
holding opinions which countenanced gross social indulgences. This is all that
is really necessary to be known in regard to the passage before us, for this
will explain the strong language of aversion and condemnation used by the
Saviour respecting the sect in the epistles to the churches of Ephesus and
Pergamos.
Which I also hate. If the view above taken of the opinions
and practices of this people is correct, the reasons why he hated them are
obvious. Nothing can be more opposed to the personal character of the Saviour,
or to his religion, than such doctrines and deeds. (Albert Barnes, Notes
on the New Testament: Revelation [London: Blackie & Son, 1884-1885],
66-68)
The Nicolaites were an infamous sect, who disturbed the rising Church
by the superstitions and all the impurities of paganism. See S. Aug. de
hæresib.—To him, to every one that overcometh, I will give to eat of the
tree of life, (that is, eternal happiness, differently expressed in these
letters) which is in the paradise of my
God. It is spoke in the person of Christ, as man. Wi. (George
Leo Haydock, Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary [New York: Edward
Dunigan and Brother, 1859], Logos Bible Software edition)
The prevailing opinion among the fathers was, that they were a sect
founded by Nicolaus the proselyte of Antioch, one of the seven deacons. So
Irenæus (Hær. i. 26. 3(27), p. 105, “Nicolaitæ autem magistrum quidem habent
Nicolaum, unum ex vii., qui primi ad diaconium ab apostolis ordinati sunt: qui
indiscrete vivunt”), Tertullian (Præscr. Hær. 46, vol. ii. p. 63, “alter
hæreticus Nicolaus emersit. Hic de septem diaconis qui in Actis App. allecti
sunt, fuit.” He then describes his execrable impurities), Clem.-Alex. (in two
passages, which are worth citing, as I shall presently have to comment on them:
1) Strom, ii.20 (118), p. 490 P.,—τοιοῦτοι δὲ καὶ οἱ φάσκοντες ἐαυτοὺς Νικολάῳ ἓπεσθαι ἀπομνημόνευμά τι τἀνδρὸς φέροντες ἐκ παρατροπῆς τὸ δεῖν παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκί. ἀλλʼ
ὁ μὲν γενναῖος κολούειν δεῖν ἐδήλου τάς τε ἡδονὰς τάς τε ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ τῇ ἀσκήσει ταύτῃ καταμαραίνειν τὰς τῆς σαρκὸς ὁρμάς τε καὶ ἐπιθέσεις. οἱ δὲ εἰς ἡδονὴν τράγων δίκην ἐκχυθέντες οἷον ἐφυβρίζοντες τῷ σώματι καθηδυπαθοῦσιν: 2) ib. iii. 4 (25), p. 522 P.: περὶ τῆς Νικολάου ῥήσεως διαλεχθέντες ἐκεῖνο παρελείπομεν· ὡραίαν, φησί, γυναῖκα ἔχων οὗτος μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος πρὸς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὀνειδισθεὶς ζηλοτυπίαν εἰς μέσον ἀγαγὼν τὴν γυναῖκα γῆμαι τῷ βουλομένῳ ἐπέτρεψεν· ἀκόλουθον γὰρ εἶναί φασι τὴν πρᾶξιν ταύτην ἐκείνῃ τῇ φωνῇ τῇ ὅτι παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ), Euseb. (H. E. iii. 29, citing
Clem.-Alex., as above), Epiphanius (Hær. xxv. pp. 76 ff., where he gives a long
account of Nicolaus and his depravation and his followers): so also Jerome
(dial. adv. Lucif. 23, vol. ii. p. 197) and Aug. (de hæres. 5, vol. viii. p.
26), and many other fathers, citations from whom may be seen in Stern’s notes,
h. 1.: also Areth. in Catena, referring to Epiph.
We have already seen, in Clem.-Alex., symptoms of a desire to
vindicate Nicolaus the deacon from the opprobrium of having been the founder of
such a sect; and we find accordingly in the apostolical constitutions, οἱ νῦν ψευδώνυμοι Νικολαΐται are spoken of: and Victorinus of Pettau,
in our earliest extant commentary on the Apocalypse, says, “Nicolaitæ autem
erant illo tempore ficti homines et pestiferi, qui sub nomine Nicolai ministri
fecerunt sibi hæresin,” &c. Thence we advance a step farther, and find
another Nicolaus substituted for the deacon of that name. So in Dorotheus
(cited in Stern) we find him described as a bishop of Samaria (ὃς ἐπίσκοπος Σαμαρείας γενόμενος ἑτεροδόξησεν ἅμα τῷ Σίμωνι). And an apocryphal Acts of the Apostles
in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. p. 498 (Stern), speaks of a Corinthian of
this name, infamous for licentious practices. We come now to the second
principal view with regard to this sect, which supposes their name to be
symbolic, and Nicolaus to be the Greek rendering of Balaam, בָּלַע עָם, or, Chald., בְּלַע עָם, ‘perdidit vel absorpsit populum.’ Consequently the name
Nicolaitans = Balaamites, as is also inferred from ver. 14. This view seems
first to have been broached by Chr. A. Heumann in the Acta Eruditorum for 1712,
and since then has been the prevailing one. (There is a trace in ancient times
of a mystical interpretation, e. g. in Haymo, gloss. ord., who says, “Nicolaus,
stultus populus, id est, Gentiles
Deum ignorantes:” and Ambrose Ansbert, “si a proprietate ad figuram, ut solet,
sermo recurrit, omnes hæretici Nicolaitæ esse probantur: Nicolaus enim
interpretatur stultus populus.” What
this means, I am as unable to say as was Vitringa: it perhaps arises from thus
understanding בַּל
עָם, ‘non-populus:’ cf. Deut.
32:21.) But this is very forced, and is properly repudiated by some of the best
modern Commentators: e. g. by De Wette, Ebrard, and Stern. (See also Winer,
Realw. sub voce: Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 2. 774 ff.: Gieseler, Kirchengesch.
i. 1. 113 note.) In the first place, the names are by no means parallel, even
were we to make Balaam, as some have done, into בַּעַל עָם, lord of the people (Ἀρχέλαος): and next, the view derives no support from ver. 14 f., where the
followers of Balaam are distinct from the Nicolaitans: see note there. And
besides, there is no sort of reason for interpreting the name otherwise than
historically. It occurs in a passage indicating simple matters of historical
fact, just as the name Antipas does in ver. 13. If we do not gain trustworthy
accounts of the sect from elsewhere, why not allow for the gulf which separates
the history of the apostolic from that of the post-apostolic period, and be
content with what we know of them from these two passages? There is nothing
repugnant to verisimilitude in what Clem.-Alex. relates of the error of
Nicolaus; nor need all of those, who were chosen to aid the Apostles in
distributing alms, have been, even to the end of their lives, spotless and
infallible. At least it may be enough for us to believe that possible of one of
them, which the post-apostolic Fathers did not hesitate to receive), which I also hate (this strong
expression in the mouth of our Lord unquestionably points at deeds of
abomination and impurity: cf. Isa. 59:8; Jer. 44:4; Amos 5:21; Zech. 8:17).
(Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical
Commentary, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Guardian Press, 1976], 4:563-65)
Ch. 2:6: “But thou hast this,
that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”—I find
no evidence of the derivation of the word Nicolaitans from a man called
Nicolas. Various biblical writers have said truly that Νικολας, or Νικολαος, is = בעלעם,
or בלעם, the conqueror, idol, or fascinator of the
people. Fürst, Simon, Leusden, and Gesenius explain the word variously:
“Antiquity of the people; not of the people; mighty one of the people; lord of
the people; prevailer with or conqueror of the people.” Balaamites are
mentioned in ver. 14, and the connecting of the two is called a conjecture; but
it is met only by a conjecture. The Balaamites of old, the Nicolaitans of the
apostolic age, the Mohammedans, Mormonites, Socialists, and other men-pleasers
of modern times, have so much in common, or similar, that it is most natural to
group them together. The name, as significant and allegorical, is applicable to
them all. (James Glasgow, The Apocalypse: Translated and
Expounded [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872], 148)
Ver. 6. Nicolaitanes.—A
branch of the Gnostics who held it to be lawful to eat meats offered to idols,
and who practised fornication. They traced their origin to Nicolas, one of the
seven deacons, but there is no clue to the assumed connection between them.
They were the antinomians of the Asiatic Church. Some think the word is but a
Greek form of the name Balaam, or as symbolical of Balaam, and so Nicolaitanes
was equivalent to Balaamites. (Robert Tuck, I & II Peter, I,
II & III John, Jude, Revelation [The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic
Commentary; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1892], 443)
Ver. 6. The message ends with a tardy echo of 2 b. The prophet admits that one redeeming feature in the church is
the detestation of the N. Not all the spirit of animosity at Ephesus is amiss.
When directed, as moral antipathy, against these detestable Nikolaitans
(corresponding to the Greek quality of μισοπονηρία), it is a healthy feature of their Christian consciousness. The
Nikolaitans have been identified by patristic tradition, from Irenæus
downwards, with the followers of the proselyte Nikolaos (Acts 6:5, where see
note), who is alleged, especially by Tertullian and Epiphanius, to have lapsed
into antinomian license, as the result of an overstrained asceticism, and to
have given his name to a sect which practised religious sensuality in the days
before Cerinthus. The tenets of the latter are in fact declared by Irenæus to
have been anticipated by the Nicolaitans, who represented the spirit of
libertinism which, like the opposite extreme of legalism at an earlier period,
threatened the church’s moral health. But if the comment of Vict. were
reliable, that the N. principle was merely ut
delibatum exorcizaretur et manducari posset et ut quicumque fornicatus esset
octauo die pacem acciperet, the representation of John would become
vigorously polemical rather than historically accurate. The tradition of the
N.’s origin may of course be simply due to the play of later imagination upon
the present narrative taken with the isolated reference to Nikolaos in Acts
6:6. On the other hand it was not in the interest of later tradition to
propagate ideas derogatory to the character of an apostolic Christian; indeed,
as early as Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii.
20, iii. 4; cf. Constit. Ap. vi. 8),
a disposition (shared by Vict.) to clear his character is evident. Whatever was
the precise relation of the sect to Nikolaos, whether some tenet of his was
exploited immorally or whether he was himself a dangerously lax teacher, there
is no reason to doubt the original connexion of the party with him. Its
accommodating principles are luminously indicated by the comment of Hippolytus
(ἐδίδασκεν ἀδιαφορίαν βίου) and the phrase attributed to him by
Clem. Alex, (παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ), a hint which is confirmed, if the
Nikolaitans here and in ver. 15 are identified with the Balaamites (νικο-λαος, in popular etymology, a rough Greek equivalent for בלע עם, perdidit uel absorpsit populum). This
symbolic interpretation has prevailed from the beginning of the eighteenth
century (so Ewald, Hengstenberg, Düst., Schürer, Julicher, Bousset). The
original party-name was probably interpreted by opponents in this derogatory
sense. It was thus turned into a covert censure upon men who were either
positively immoral or liberally indifferent to scruples (on food, clubs,
marriage, and the like) which this puritan prophet regarded as vital to the
preservation of genuine Christianity in a pagan city. A contemporary parallel
of moral laxity is quoted by Derenbourg, Hist,
de la Palestine (1867), p. 363. If Nikolaos was really an ascetic himself,
the abuse of his principles is quite intelligible, as well as their popularity
with people of inferior character. Pushed to an extreme, asceticism confines
ethical perfection to the spirit. As the flesh has no part in the divine life,
it may be regarded either as a foe to be constantly thwarted or as something
morally indifferent. In the latter case, the practical inference of sensual
indulgence is obvious, the argument being that the lofty spirit cannot be
soiled by such indulgence any more than the sun is polluted by shining on a
dunghill. (James Moffat, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” in
The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary, 5 vols. [New York: George
H. Doran Company, n.d.], 351-52)
Ver. 6. But this thou hast, that
thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, &c.] Though these Christians
had left their first love, yet they bore an hatred to the filthy and impure
practices of some men, who were called Nicolaitans;
who committed fornication, adultery, and all uncleanness, and had their wives
in common, and also ate things offered to idols; who were so called, as some
think, from Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven deacons in Acts 6:5 though as
to Nicolas himself, it is said, that he lived with his own lawful married wife,
and no other, and that his daughters continued virgins all their days, and his
son incorrupt; and that these men, so called, only shrouded themselves under
his name, and abused a saying or action of his, or both, to patronize their
wicked deeds: he had used to advise παραχρησθαι τη σαρκι, by which be meant a restraining of all
carnal and unlawful lusts; but these men interpreted it of an indulgence in
them, and so gave themselves up to all uncleanness; and whereas, he having a
beautiful wife, and being charged with jealousy, in order to clear himself of
it, he brought her forth, and gave free liberty to any person to marry her as
would; which indiscreet action of his these men chose to understand as allowing
of community of wives. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, that these Nicolaitans were not
called so from any man, but from the word נכילה,
Nicolah, let us eat, which they often
used to encourage each other to eat things offered to idols. However this be,
it is certain that there were such a set of men, whose deeds were hateful; but
neither their principles nor their practices obtained much in this period of time,
though they afterwards did; see ver. 15. Professors of the Christian religion
in general abhorred such impure notions and deeds, as they were by Christ: which also I hate; all sin is hateful to
Christ, being contrary to his nature, to his will, and to his Gospel; and
whatever is hateful to him should be to his people; and where grace is, sin
will be hateful, both in themselves and others; and men’s deeds may be hated
when their persons are not; and hatred of sin is taken notice of by Christ,
with a commendation. (John Gill, An Exposition of the New
Testament, 3 vols. [The Baptist Commentary Series; London: Matthews and
Leigh, 1809], 3:696)
