Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Revelation 2:6

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

6. But this thou hast ] This is one point in which thou art not wanting. Compare Rev 2:25, Rev 3:2; Rev 3:11, where faithfulness is conceived as a treasure possessed and to be guarded.

thou hatest the deeds ] Compatible with love to the persons: cf. St Jude 23.

Nicolaitans ] See Excursus II.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

But this thou hast – This thou hast that I approve of, or that I can commend.

That thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans – Greek, works ( ta erga). The word Nicolaitanes occurs only in this place, and in the Rev 2:15 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 the notes on Rev 2:15. 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 Rev 2:15 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 Irenaeus, and by some of the other fathers, that the name was derived from Nicolas, one of the deacons ordained at Antioch, Act 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 beth 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 Rev 2:20, which is supposed to be symbolical there. Vitringa supposes that the word is derived from nikos, victory, and laos, people, and that thus it corresponds with the name Balaam, as meaning either baal am, lord of the people, or baala am, 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 used here refers to a class of people who bore that name, and who were well known in the two churches specified;

(c)That in Rev 2:15 they are expressly distinguished from those who held the doctrine of Balaam, Rev 2:14, So hast thou also ( kai) 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. Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. i., 26) says that their characteristic tenets were the lawfulness of promiscuous sexual 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. section 69) says that the questions about the Nicolaitanes have difficulties which cannot be solved. Neander (History of the Christian Religion, as translated by Torrey, vol. 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 pagans, and in the excesses which attended them – just as the Jews were led astray of old by the Moabites, Num. 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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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 Ac 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, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian, have spoken largely concerning them. See more in my preface to 2d Peter, where are several particulars concerning these heretics.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

But this thou hast; thou hast yet thus much to commend thee.

That thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes; thou hatest the deeds of those who teach the lawfulness of a common use of wives, and eat things offered to idols; for these, they say, were the tenets of the Nicolaitanes, so called from one Nicholas; but whether he were one of the first deacons, named Act 6:5, (who, they say, to avoid the imputation of jealousy, brought forth his wife, being a beautiful woman, and prostituted her), or from some other of that name, I cannot determine.

Which I also hate: God, as a lover of his own order, and of human society, hateth such doctrines and practices as are contrary to the rule of his word, and tend to the confusion of human societies.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

6. ButHow graciously, afternecessary censure, He returns to praise for our consolation, and asan example to us, that we would show, when we reprove, we havemore pleasure in praising than in fault-finding.

hatest the deedsWeshould hate men’s evil deeds, not hate the men themselves.

NicolaitanesIRENUS[Against Heresies, 1.26.3] and TERTULLIAN[Prescription against Heretics, 46] make these followers ofNicolas, one of the seven (honorably mentioned, Act 6:3;Act 6:5). They (CLEMENTOF ALEXANDRIA[Miscellanies, 2.20 3.4] and EPIPHANIUS[Heresies, 25]) evidently confound the latter GnosticNicolaitanes, or followers of one Nicolaos, with those of Revelation.MICHAELIS’ view isprobable: Nicolaos (conqueror of the people) is the Greekversion of Balaam, from Hebrew “Belang Am,“”Destroyer of the people.” Revelation abounds in suchduplicate Hebrew and Greek names: as Apollyon, Abaddon:Devil, Satan: Yea (Greek, “Nai“), Amen. Thename, like other names, Egypt, Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic. CompareRev 2:14; Rev 2:15,which shows the true sense of Nicolaitanes; they are not a sect, butprofessing Christians who, like Balaam of old. tried to introduceinto the Church a false freedom, that is, licentiousness; this was areaction in the opposite direction from Judaism, the first danger tothe Church combated in the council of Jerusalem, and by Paul in theEpistle to Galatians. These symbolical Nicolaitanes, or followers ofBalaam, abused Paul’s doctrine of the grace of God into a plea forlasciviousness (2Pe 2:15; 2Pe 2:16;2Pe 2:19; Jdg 1:4;Jdg 1:11 who both describe thesame sort of seducers as followers of Balaam). The difficultythat they should appropriate a name branded with infamy in Scriptureis met by TRENCH: TheAntinomian Gnostics were so opposed to John as a Judaizing apostlethat they would assume as a name of chiefest honor one which Johnbranded with dishonor.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans,…. 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 c, from Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven deacons in Ac 6:5; though as to Nicolas himself, it is said d, 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 , by which he 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 , “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 Re 2:15. 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.

c Vid. Irenaeum adv. Haeres, l. 1. c. 27. & Tertull. de Praescript. Haeret. c. 46, 47. d Clement. Alex. Strom. l. 3. p. 436. & Euseb, Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 29.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

That thou hatest ( ). Accusative object clause in apposition with (this). Trench tells of the words used in ancient Greek for hatred of evil () and (hater of evil), neither of which occurs in the N.T., but which accurately describe the angel of the church in Ephesus.

Of the Nicolaitans ( ). Mentioned again in verse 15 and really meant in verse 2. Irenaeus and Hippolytus take this sect to be followers of Nicolaus of Antioch, one of the seven deacons (Ac 6:5), a Jewish proselyte, who is said to have apostatized. There was such a sect in the second century (Tertullian), but whether descended from Nicolaus of Antioch is not certain, though possible (Lightfoot). It is even possible that the Balaamites of verse 14 were a variety of this same sect (verse 15).

Which I also hate ( ). Christ himself hates the teachings and deeds of the Nicolaitans (, not , deeds, not people), but the church in Pergamum tolerated them.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “But this thou hast,” (aIla touto echeis) “But this thou hast or dost hold,”

2) “That thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes,” (hoti miseis ta erga ton nikolaiton) “That thou hatest the works (deeds) of the Nicolaitanes; the “people-conquerors,” bossy, bully, church-bosses, those who posed as a licentious law to themselves, living immorally, feasting gluttons, Mat 24:49; 1Pe 5:2-3; 3Jn 1:9-11; 2Pe 2:1-3.

3) “Which I also hate,”(ha kago miso) “Which (works or deeds) I also hate,” Mat 20:25-28. Where there is no hatred, there is no love, no genuine affection. For he who commanded to love the good as truthfully commanded to hate the evil, the wrong, the sinful, that which offends an holy God, Amo 5:15.

God hates:

1). every false way, Psa 119:104; Psa 119:128;

2). vain thoughts, Psa 119:113;

3). lying, Psa 119:163;

4). robbery, Isa 61:8

5). even the doctrine (teaching) of the Nicolaitanes, Rev 2:15

What God hates, abhors so should his church and his children, Amo 5:15; Joh 15:14; Jas 1:22.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(6) But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds (better, works) of the Nicolaitanes.The Nicolaitanes were, as has been expressed, the Antinomians of the Asiatic Church. The life and conduct were little thought of, and the faith professed was everything. Some have thought that they were a sect who derived their name, under some colourable pretext, from Nicolas the Proselyte; others hold that the name is purely symbolical, signifying destroyer of the people, and that it is no more than the Greek form of Balaam. (See Notes on Rev. 2:14-15, below.) The existence of a sect called Nicolaitanes in the second century is attested by Irenus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

6. But An added mitigation of the rebuke, and a directing how to avoid the removal.

Hatest the deeds The Ephesians hated better than they loved. Severe pietists hate sinners often more than they love goodness. They abhor antichrist more than they love Christ. And these are in danger of mixing an impure passion with their moral antagonism, which may produce a fall from Christian love. After having warned his Ephesians of this danger, our seer reiterates the rightness of their abhorrence of the corruptionists, assuring them of Christ’s authentication therein.

Nicolaitans The professed followers of Nicolas, one of the first seven deacons of Jerusalem, as we have noted on Act 6:5. The earliest authorities are decisive on this point. Says Irenaeus: “The Nicolaitans also have Nicolaus as their master, one of the first seven who were ordained to the deaconship by the apostles.” Tertullian: “Another heretic emerged Nicolaus. He was one of the seven deacons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.” Later, and so less trustworthy, authorities exculpate Nicolas, under excuse either that he was misunderstood by his followers or that they claimed his authority falsely, or that it was another Nicolas, a bishop of Samaria, who was their real founder. As we have said in our note above quoted, the sexual licentiousness of the sect was based upon a philosophical maxim, namely, that all evil resides in matter. From this principle two opposite inferences could be drawn, and two opposing sects be formed. 1. It could be affirmed that all material indulgence must be avoided, and thence would arise asceticism, with its rejection of meats, monasticism, enforced celibacy, self-flagellation, and denial of the real corporeity of Christ. 2. It could, on the other hand, be affirmed that all material sins could be indulged, and yet the spirit be pure, and thence would arise the most unrestrained inebriety and debauchery. It was this last sect which our Lord gives over to a holy and divine hate. See our note on Act 6:5; Act 8:9-12; Rom 14:1-6; 2Th 2:7. Well might the true heart hate the deeds of this sect, for it would have buried Christianity in base licentiousness. But while the Christian would hate their deeds, he would earnestly wish to save the men.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘But this you do have, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans which I also hate.’

We know little about the Nicolaitans but they were clearly influential then in leading astray the churches, and were probably followers of a Nicolaus (variously identified). They apparently taught that it was good to eat things sacrificed to idols and to behave immorally, engaging in self-expression and full release (see Rev 2:14-15). This meant both a compromise with the Roman religion, with its sacrifices to Roma and its love feasts, and with other religions, thus denying the exclusivity of Christ. This then meant involvement in idolatry and licentiousness.

To openly eat things sacrificed to idols would be seen as acknowledging the gods who were being ‘worshipped’, and licentious behaviour, introducing overt sexual expression outside marriage (often with ‘sacred prostitutes’), was a common feature in many religions of the day. Misused sex and idolatry, two constant enemies of the church, these things Christ hates. But there was none of this in the Ephesian church. They had maintained their purity.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Rev 2:6. The deeds of the Nicolaitans, Some have thought that these heretics derive their name from Nicolas, one of the seven deacons; but that name was so common among the Jews, that no stress can be laid on an argument drawn from thence. The substance of what ancient writers say concerning them is, that they taught the lawfulness of lewdness, and idolatroussacrifices, esteeming those things indifferent in their own nature; and that their practices were suitable to such principles. See Rev 2:14-15. 1Jn 1:3; 1Jn 1:10.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rev 2:6 . Not for the purpose of alleviating the pain of the church concerning the reproof of Rev 2:4 , [968] but because the Lord’s love for his church gladly recognizes what is to be properly acknowledged, and once more, but in a new and more definite way, makes prominent in opposition to Rev 2:4 sqq. ( ) the one point of commendation already in Rev 2:2 . Just because the church was rejected for no longer having the first love to their Lord, is it once more expressly acknowledged that it is still so far of one mind with him, as to hate the wicked works which he hates. Thus Rev 2:6 has enough that is peculiar, as not to appear a mere repetition of Rev 2:2 , and contains no marks whatever whereby Rev 2:2-3 , are to be understood in the sense of Hengstenberg.

With . neither , nor the like, is used to complete the construction: the explanation of the in ., . . . , shows that the common possession is commendable.

The is not “a strong expression for censuring,” [969] but is just as earnestly meant as the . [970] But it is justly remarked already by N. de Lyra, [971] that the hatred is directed not against the persons, but against the works. [972]

Concerning the Nicolaitans, [973] as well concerning their name as also their conduct, it is possible to judge only by a comparison with Rev 2:14 sqq. Irenaeus, [974] Hippolyt., [975] Tertullian, [976] Clemens Alex., [977] Jerome, [978] Augustine, [979] and other Church Fathers derive the sect from a founder Nicolaus, and that, too, the deacon mentioned in Act 6:5 , of whom they have more to relate as they are more remote from him in time. That this is derived entirely from this passage, and is of no more importance than that according to which the Ebionites are represented as springing from a certain Ebion, [980] is shown, first , from the fluctuation of the tradition which also knew how to defend that church officer, so highly commended in Acts, from the disgrace of having founded a troublesome sect, [981] and, secondly , from the circumstance that the patristic tradition, from the very beginning, refers to Rev 2:6 ; Rev 2:14 sqq. Nicolaus of Act 6 was thought of because none other of that name was known. [982] Since Chr. A. Heumann, [983] and J. W. Janus, [984] the opinion has become almost universal, that the designation (from and ) suggests the Hebrew name Balaam (from and , i.e., swallowing-up, or destruction, of the people), whereby the Balaamite nature of those Nicolaitanes is to be indicated. To this Rev 2:14-15 , refer. [985] Yet it cannot be positively decided whether John found the word used already in this sense, or was himself the first to frame it. A comparison may be made with the name Armillus given to antichrist, [986] i.e., . [987]

The Nicolaitans are of course not identical [988] with the mentioned in Rev 2:2 , since the latter expression is very general: yet, at all events, they belong to “them which are evil;” and the idea, which in itself is highly improbable, must not be inferred, [989] that in Rev 2:2 ; Rev 2:6 , two entirely different kinds of false teachers are meant, of whom the former may be regarded disciples of John, [990] or Jewish teachers, [991] or strict Jewish Christians, [992] while the Nicolaitans, who, according to De Wette, etc., are again distinct from Balaamites, [993] as those of a more heathen tendency, viz., false teachers who surrendered themselves [994] to a false freedom. [995] Tertullian and other Church fathers, N. de Lyra, and the older expositors, connect the Nicolaitans with the Gnostics; Hengstenb. also regards them identical with the deniers of the Son, in the Epistles of John, by referring the warning in Joh 5:21 [996] to the ethnicizing ways of the false teachers there antagonized. But for all this, there is no foundation. What especially contradicts Hengstenberg’s conjecture is the fact that the (Gnostic) false teachers of the Epistles of John are attacked just as decidedly because of their false doctrines, as the Nicolaitans of the Apoc. because of their evil deeds. [997] That the aberrations are practical, which even Hengstenb. emphasizes, but without ground alleges also of the false teachers in 1 John, is shown already by Rev 2:2 ( ). We shall therefore have to think of the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing libertines. [998] This is not contradicted by the fact that they assumed apostolic authority; for if they possibly professed to vindicate their Christian freedom in the Pauline sense, they might likewise wish to be apostles like Paul. [999] [See Note XXIX., p. 155.]

[968] Grot., Hengstenb.

[969] De Wette.

[970] Cf. on Rev 2:2 .

[971] Cf. also Hengstenb., etc.

[972] Cf. Rev 2:14 . Incorrectly, Calov.: “dogmas.”

[973] Cf. Gieseler’s Kirchengeschichte , i. 1, sec. 29; Winer, Rwb .; literature in Wolf.

[974] Haer ., i. 26.

[975] Ref. Omn. Haer ., ed. Gott., 1859, p. 408.

[976] Praescr. Haer ., 46.

[977] Strom ., ii. 20, p. 490; iii. 4, p. 522.

[978] Adv. Lucifer, 23.

[979] Haer ., 5.

[980] Cf. Tertullian, l. c. 33.

[981] Cf. Clemens Alex.

[982] Against Ebrard and Klief., who, as well as Grot., Calov., and the older and Catholic expositors in general, hold to the patristic statement.

[983] Act. Erud. Ann ., 1712, p. 179; Poecile , ii. 392.

[984] De Nicol. ex Haeret. Catalogo Expungendis. Viteb. , 1723. Cf. Vitr., Wetst., Eichh., Herder, Heinrichs, who, however, is inclined to affirm that there was at Ephesus a Nicolaus. Cf. also Ewald, Gesch., Jer., vii. 172 sqq., Zllig, Hengstenb., etc.

[985] Cf., on the other hand, De Wette.

[986] Cf. Commentary on 1Jn 2:18 .

[987] K. Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt ., p. 263 sqq

[988] Hengstenb.

[989] Ewald.

[990] Eichh.

[991] Zll.

[992] Ewald.

[993] See on Rev 2:14-15 .

[994] Ewald.

[995] Cf. Rev 2:14 with Act 15:29 .

[996] Which, however, is not “directed against heathenism clothed in a Christian garb.”

[997] Cf. Rev 2:14 ; Rev 2:20 .

[998] Cf. also A. Ritschl, Entst. d. Altkath. K. Bonn , 1857, p. 134 sq.

[999] According to Volkm., the strict Judo-Christian author of the Apoc. had in mind the Apostle to the Gentiles and his adherents. Cf. also Hilgenfeld, Kanon , p. 228. Cf. Introduction, sec. 2, note.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XXIX. Rev 2:6 .

The argument in the long and thorough discussion in Gebhardt (pp. 206 216) is to prove the distinction between the Nicolaitans and those errorists mentioned in Rev 2:2 , “them which say they are apostles,” etc., referring to Judaizing teachers, the conflict with whom is now in the background, while, with Dust., he regards the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing teachers of an Antinomian type. He traces the two classes, as prophesied already by St. Paul in his charge to the elders of Ephesus, Act 28:29-30 , the latter verse referring to those here mentioned. Sieffert ( Herzog, R. E. ): “Gentile Christian Antinomians who abused Paul’s doctrine of freedom.” Schultze (in Zckler’s Handbuch ): “A Gnostic Antinomianism, against which Paul had contended in the Epistle to the Colossians, and especially Jude, and Peter in his Second Epistle; and whose adherents John means in his First Epistle, by the name of antichrists, combining with false gnosis docetic error and a heathen life, as the head of whom Cerinthus appeared (Iren., i. 26; Euseb., iii. 28).”

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Ver. 6. But this thou hast ] That they might not say, when called upon to repent, Nay, but there is no hope, Jer 2:25 ; Jer 18:12 . Christ picks out that which is praiseworthy in them, and commends it. Despair carries men to hell, as the devils did the swine into the sea; cast not away therefore your confidence, &c.

The works of the Nicolaitans ] Who taught a community of wives, and that it was but a thing indifferent to commit adultery. (Irenaeus, Theod.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

6 .] Notwithstanding, this thou hast (this one thing: there is no need to supply or the like: of what sort the is, is explained by what follows. We may notice the tender compassion of our blessed Lord, who, in his blame of a falling church, yet selects for praise one particular in which His mind is yet retained. This is for our comfort: but let us not forget that it is for our imitation also. , . Areth [18] in Cat.) that thou hatest the works (“non dixit Nicolaitas, sed facta: quia person sunt ex charitate diligend, sed eorum vitia odio sunt habenda.” Lyra. It would have been well with the church, had this always been remembered. , see below, must be referred to the moral delinquencies of this sect) of the Nicolaitans (there has been much dispute who these were. 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 Irenus (Hr. i. 26. 3(27), p. 105, “Nicolait autem magistrum quidem habent Nicolaum, unum ex vii., qui primi ad diaconium ab apostolis ordinati sunt: qui indiscrete vivunt”), Tertullian (Prscr. Hr. 46, vol. ii. p. 63, “alter hreticus Nicolaus emersit. Hic de septem diaconis qui in Actis App. allecti sunt, fuit.” He then describes his execrable impurities), Clem.-Alex [19] (in two passages, which are worth citing, as I shall presently have to comment on them: 1) Strom, ii.20 (118), p. 490 P., . , . : 2) ib. iii. 4 (25), p. 522 P.: , , ), Euseb. (H. E. iii. 29, citing Clem.-Alex [20] , as above), Epiphanius (Hr. 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 [21] (de hres. 5, vol. viii. p. 26), and many other fathers, citations from whom may be seen in Stern’s notes, h. 1.: also Areth [22] in Catena, referring to Epiph.

[18] Arethas, Bp. of Csarea in Cappadocia, Cent y . X. 2

[19] -Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

[20]-Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

[21] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

[22] Arethas, Bp. of Csarea in Cappadocia, Cent y . X. 2

We have already seen, in Clem.-Alex [23] , 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, are spoken of: and Victorinus of Pettau, in our earliest extant commentary on the Apocalypse, says, “Nicolait autem erant illo tempore ficti homines et pestiferi, qui sub nomine Nicolai ministri fecerunt sibi hresin,” &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 ( ). 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, , or, Chald., , ‘perdidit vel absorpsit populum.’ Consequently the name Nicolaitans = Balaamites, as is also inferred from Rev 2:14 . 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 Haym [24] , 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 hretici Nicolait 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 , ‘non-populus:’ cf. Deu 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 , lord of the people ( ): and next, the view derives no support from Rev 2:14 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 Rev 2:13 . 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 [25] 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 ; Amo 5:21 ; Zec 8:17 ).

[23]-Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

[24] Haymo, Bp. of Halberstadt , 841 853

[25]-Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rev 2:6 . 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 ), it is a healthy feature of their Christian consciousness. The Nikolaitans have been identified by patristic tradition, from Irenus downwards, with the followers of the proselyte Nikolaos (Act 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 Irenus 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 [899] 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 [900] ’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 Act 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 ( ) and the phrase attributed to him by Clem. Alex, ( ), a hint which is confirmed, if the Nikolaitans here and in Rev 2:15 are identified with the Balaamites ( – , in popular etymology, a rough Greek equivalent for , perdidit uel absorpsit populum). This symbolic interpretation has prevailed from the beginning of the eighteenth century (so Ewald, Hengstenberg, Dst., Schrer, 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.

[899]. cod. Purpureus. 6th century (fragments of all the Gospels).

[900]. cod. Purpureus. 6th century (fragments of all the Gospels).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

deeds = works, as Rev 2:5.

Nicolaitanes. History has no record of these. Tradition says much. They will appear “in that day”. All we do know is that they are hateful to God.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

6.] Notwithstanding, this thou hast (this one thing: there is no need to supply or the like: of what sort the is, is explained by what follows. We may notice the tender compassion of our blessed Lord, who, in his blame of a falling church, yet selects for praise one particular in which His mind is yet retained. This is for our comfort: but let us not forget that it is for our imitation also. , . Areth[18] in Cat.) that thou hatest the works (non dixit Nicolaitas, sed facta: quia person sunt ex charitate diligend, sed eorum vitia odio sunt habenda. Lyra. It would have been well with the church, had this always been remembered. , see below, must be referred to the moral delinquencies of this sect) of the Nicolaitans (there has been much dispute who these were. 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 Irenus (Hr. i. 26. 3(27), p. 105, Nicolait autem magistrum quidem habent Nicolaum, unum ex vii., qui primi ad diaconium ab apostolis ordinati sunt: qui indiscrete vivunt), Tertullian (Prscr. Hr. 46, vol. ii. p. 63, alter hreticus Nicolaus emersit. Hic de septem diaconis qui in Actis App. allecti sunt, fuit. He then describes his execrable impurities), Clem.-Alex[19] (in two passages, which are worth citing, as I shall presently have to comment on them: 1) Strom, ii.20 (118), p. 490 P.,- . , . : 2) ib. iii. 4 (25), p. 522 P.: , , ), Euseb. (H. E. iii. 29, citing Clem.-Alex[20], as above), Epiphanius (Hr. 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[21] (de hres. 5, vol. viii. p. 26), and many other fathers, citations from whom may be seen in Sterns notes, h. 1.: also Areth[22] in Catena, referring to Epiph.

[18] Arethas, Bp. of Csarea in Cappadocia, Centy. X.2

[19]-Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

[20]-Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

[21] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

[22] Arethas, Bp. of Csarea in Cappadocia, Centy. X.2

We have already seen, in Clem.-Alex[23], 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, are spoken of: and Victorinus of Pettau, in our earliest extant commentary on the Apocalypse, says, Nicolait autem erant illo tempore ficti homines et pestiferi, qui sub nomine Nicolai ministri fecerunt sibi hresin, &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 ( ). 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, , or, Chald., , perdidit vel absorpsit populum. Consequently the name Nicolaitans = Balaamites, as is also inferred from Rev 2:14. 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 Haym[24], 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 hretici Nicolait 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 , non-populus: cf. Deu 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 , lord of the people (): and next, the view derives no support from Rev 2:14 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 Rev 2:13. 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[25] 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; Amo 5:21; Zec 8:17).

[23]-Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

[24] Haymo, Bp. of Halberstadt, 841-853

[25]-Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, “to conquer,” and laos, “the people,” or “laity.” There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or “clergy,” which later divided an equal brotherhood Mat 23:8 into “priests” and “laity.” What in Ephesus was “deeds” Rev 2:6 had become in Pergamos a “doctrine Rev 2:15.

Nicolaitanes Rev 2:15, contra,; 1Pe 5:2; 1Pe 5:3; Mat 24:49.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

that: Rev 2:14, Rev 2:15, 2Ch 19:2, Psa 26:5, Psa 101:3, Psa 139:21, Psa 139:22, 2Jo 1:9, 2Jo 1:10

Reciprocal: Lev 14:40 – take away Deu 16:22 – which Act 6:5 – Nicolas Act 20:30 – of your Gal 1:7 – pervert 2Ti 3:8 – resist Tit 1:10 – there Heb 1:9 – hated Rev 2:2 – how

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Rev 2:6. Nicolaitanes. There is little definiteness in the treatment of this subject by the histories and lexicons and other works of reference. Thayer merely comments that they were “the followers of Nicolaus,” a heretic in the time of the apostles. Robinson makes similar remarks about the subject. We note that both the deeds and the doctrine of this sect are condemned. It had something to do with a life of fleshly indulgencies. The church at Ephesus rejected this sect which was one other point in its favor stated in the letter written by John.

Comments by Foy E. Wallace

Verse 6

8. “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate”–Rev 2:6.

The claim that this designation of a sect or a party derived its name from Nicolas, of Act 6:5, rests on assertion. There is no historical or factual evidence of it. It is more consistent with the code language of Revelation to regard the term Nicolaitanes as a symbolic expression, along with the use of the word Balaam. The two words actually are similar in meaning, one meant a “victor of the people” and the other a “devourer of the people.” These meanings of the two words significantly unite the two symbols as signs of the religious seductions of the Libertine party in the Ephesian church.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rev 2:6. The Lord cannot leave them without a fresh word of commendation. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Who the persons thus referred to were we shall best learn at Rev 2:15. In the meantime it is enough to say that we have here more than a mere repetition of what had been said already at Rev 2:2; and that the last words, which I also hate, appear to be added partly at least for the sake of bringing out the fact that, notwithstanding the declension of the Ephesian Christians, there was still one point on which their Lord and they were similarly minded.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

As if Christ had said, “Though thou art not what thou shouldest be, yet this thou hast commendable in thee, that thou shouldest be, yet this thou hast commendable in thee, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, (who held community of wives, and ate things offered to idols,) which impure sect I also hate for their licentious doctrine and lewd practices, which tend to the ruin and bane of human societies.”

Note here, 1. That it is not unlawful to call heretics by the name of their leaders; the Nicolaitans are here so called from one Nicolas, supposed to be the deacon mentioned, who having a beautiful wife exposed her as common, to avoid the imputation of jealousy.

Note, 2. That Christ hated all licentious doctrines and loose practices, and so should we.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rev 2:6. But Or nevertheless; this thou hast This honour and praise remaining; divine grace seeks whatever may help him that is fallen to recover his standing; that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes A sect so called, it is thought, from Nicolas, one of the seven deacons mentioned Act 6:5; according to ancient writers, their doctrine and their lives were equally corrupt. They allowed the practice of the most abominable lewdness and adulteries, as well as sacrificing to idols; all which they placed among things indifferent, and pleaded for as branches of Christian liberty.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

6. Here God again commends their scrupulous orthodoxy in the loyal fight they nobly maintain against the Nicolaitan heresy, which taught then, as now, that sin resided in the body; so their bodies were compelled to sin so long as they lived.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament