Does anyone have any knowledge on who the Nicolaitans are and why Christ was against them?
Revelations
[FONT=comic sans ms, arial, helvetica][SIZE=-1]2:6[/SIZE] but this you have, that you do hate the works of the Nicolaitans, that I also hate[/FONT]
Thanks.
Wow, thanks for pointin' that out!1) You will love the bishop as the Lord - Apostolic Fathers.
2) You will not have a love feast without a bishop - Ibid.
3) The bishop rules as the Lord Jesus, and the presbyters (elders) rule as the apostles - Ibid.
REBUKED by John: "Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us (apostles) with malicious words ..."- 3 Jn 10.
4) Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch - Eusebius.
5) Nikolaos, a prosylete from Antioch - Acts 6.5.
6) Nikolas was Ignatius was "the original preacher!"
See: Condemnation of "preachers" (messengers/angels) - Col 2.18; 2Tim 2.2; 1Jn 2.27.
1) You will love the bishop as the Lord - Apostolic Fathers.
2) You will not have a love feast without a bishop - Ibid.
3) The bishop rules as the Lord Jesus, and the presbyters (elders) rule as the apostles - Ibid.
REBUKED by John: "Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us (apostles) with malicious words ..."- 3 Jn 10.
4) Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch - Eusebius.
5) Nikolaos, a prosylete from Antioch - Acts 6.5.
6) Nikolas was Ignatius was "the original preacher!"
See: Condemnation of "preachers" (messengers/angels) - Col 2.18; 2Tim 2.2; 1Jn 2.27.
Your view is twisted here too.For several years Ignatuius boasted, "I am going to Rome to be a martyr, to fight the beasts. Please do not try to stop me, I want to do this."
But then, Clement of Rome exposed him, "Where is Ignatius? Has anyone heard from him?"
From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated. Ignatius to the Romans, 5.
Oh blessed and happy men, whose names are in the book of life, from whom the devils fled, and heretics did fear them, who (by holiness) have stopped the mouths of them that spake perverse things! But I, like David, will cry out, 'where are thy loving-kindnesses which have been ever of old? Where is the blessed choir of bishops and doctors, who shined like lights in the world and contained the word of life? 'Dulce est meminisse'; their very memory is pleasant. Where is that Evodious, the sweet savour of the church, the successor and imitator of the holy apostles? Where is Ignatius, in whom God dwelt? Where is St. Dionysius the Areopagite, that bird of paradise, that celestial eagle? Where is Hyppolitus, that good man aner Xristos, that gentle sweet person? Where is great St. Basis ...."
(Lib. de Consummatt, Seculi, Inter opera Ephraim Syri.)
THE DOCTRINE OF THE NICOLAITANES
"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:6). "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:15).
When the Lord was showing John on Patmos what the seven churches would be like, He commended the church at Ephesus because they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which the Lord also detested. In Pergamos, the third church, these deeds had become accepted doctrine, which the Lord also hated. For whatever reason the Lord chose not to let history record the precise teachings of the Nicolaitanes. He does, however, want us to understand just what this bunch of hooligans is about and therefore He has given us one infallible piece of evidence.
There are three named heresies among the seven churches the Nicolaitanes, Balaam, and the woman Jezebel. None of these are identified under these names in church history, despite the frantic efforts of historians to tell us that Nicholas and Jezebel were real persons even going so far as to blacken the good name of Nicholas of Antioch (one of the seven deacons of Acts 6:5), as the guilty party. It is said by some that Nicholas founded a movement of apostates who had pagan feasts and were most immoral in their behavior. They taught that in order to master sensuality one would have to know by experience the whole range of it first. Naturally this spawned the most bizarre and wanton orgies and other fleshly endeavors as a necessary step on the road to perfection. Thus the historians applied to them the two Old Testament names that symbolized such extravagances: Balaam and Jezebel. Since Balaam corrupted the people of Israel and thus conquered them, it was said that Nicholas did likewise. This group was supposedly forced out of Ephesus and found a place of establishment in Pergamos. But the problem about this belief is that it is not true. There is absolutely no history for it. It is at best tradition, but I view it as mere myth and folklore a fairy tale!
The names are symbolic of the heresies they represent. When a name appears in the scriptures its meaning sheds light upon the spiritual reality behind the name. What was this thing God hated but man loved and would not stop doing? What are these Nicolaitanes? Well understand it when we know what the name means! The word comes from two Greek words: nikao, which means "to rule over or to conquer," and laos, which means "the laity or the people." Put these definitions together and you get a domineering ruling class within the body of Christ whose main agenda is to get the upper hand, conquer, subordinate, and subdue those who they consider "less gifted," "less knowledgeable," and "less qualified" than themselves!
In the religious world there are those who are called "clergy" and those who are called "laity." Where do you suppose these titles came from? "Laity, lay person, and layman" are all derivatives from the Greek word laos mentioned above! This is a title that has come to us from religious Babylon! The clergy are called the "reverends," "doctors," "pastors," "teachers," "evangelists," "overseers," "bishops," "ministers," "priests," "superintendents," "leaders," etc. These are often termed "men of the cloth" men who wear special attire as a matter of identification as "clergy." These are the people who have the power, authority, and lordship! The rest of us poor folks are just "laity."
What were the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes? They were exalting the "clergy" over the "laity"! The clergy class were dominating the laity, the people. The clergy were exalted whereas the laity were abased. The clergy became the authority, they became the fountain of all truth, they had the last word, and the laity were the "dumb sheep" that were instructed to follow and do what they were told. I once read that the saddest thing that happened to the church was when it stopped being a family and became an audience. Most people have missed the point completely; they conceive of the church as a drama wherein they are merely spectators. In this drama the minister is the principle actor, God is his prompter whispering His lines in his ear should he chance to forget them and the congregation are the critics who pass their judgment upon the performance when all has been said and done. This can be perceived by the comments of many people to the minister (actor) who has now made his way to the front door to receive the acclamation of the spectators. "Good job, preacher! You really did a good job today. You really let em have it!" Or the comment, "The choir was really beautiful today." The whole idea expressed seems to be that it was a drama; it was a performance, a show, and you express your acceptance and your approval. You are the critic and it is up to you to pass your judgment.
We have here a "caste system" of "clergy" and "laity" which has been clearly and soundly repudiated by the firstborn Son of God! The firstborn Son, the pattern Son, the proto-type of what the life of sonship is all about, said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men hold them in subjection; but it must not be so among you. On the contrary, whoever desires to be first among you must be your slave; and whosoever may desire to take rank among you, let him be your servant: just as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve. You are not to be called teacher, for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. And you must not be called leaders, for you have one Leader, the Christ. He who is greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whosoever humbles himself shall be raised to honor" (Mat. 20:25-27; 23:8-12, Amplified & Ferrar Fenton). Men love to rule, even though God has called all of us to serve one another. How many churches or groups can we point out today who observe these words of the Lord Jesus? THINK ABOUT IT!
Gods people, since the days of king Saul, have been accustomed to appointing kings, priests, prophets, bishops, pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, overseers, leaders, and rulers of all kinds, to hear the word of the Lord for them, and rule over them by it, instead of hearing and knowing the Lord for themselves. But that old order has since passed away! It has not passed away for those who remain in religious Babylon, but God has established a new and spiritual order for His elect who are in Christ. This new order is not really new, for it is the very same order the Lord Jesus gave to His disciples! It is the order of sonship! And this new order of the spirit of sonship replaces all those substitutes, whether they be bishops, pastors, priests, elders, or anything else. Oh, yes, there are spiritual ministries in the body of Christ! But these spiritual ministries are servants, not leaders or rulers. In this new kingdom day God is making His elect to be sons of the Father with the spiritual ability to HEAR all the Lord would tell us and to KNOW Him by personal experience of His fullness. No longer do His called and chosen ones submit to the lordship of others who can hear and act "for" them, but as brethren in the body of Christ they share the same mind, nature, life, and power and so admonish, encourage, confirm, and bless one another as each joint supplies. ONLY THE HEAD RULES! There is one Head and one Leader, even Christ, who dwells within. These are such simple principles, and so divine, that one would think all men could understand, but the carnal mind never understands!
The word of the Lord is coming forth today! This fresh, new word is not given only to designated apostles, prophets, pastors, or teachers. It is better, rather, to avoid those who claim such titles and offices and turn your spiritual ears to the heavens of Gods Spirit, and hear for yourself what your Father has to say. The word that you receive will then be confirmed by all who are walking in the Spirit and hearing from the Father. How beautiful this is! What safety there is in this order of the Spirit! Fathers anointed word of life, wisdom, power, and authority is radiating out of the Spirit of the Son within us. Let us HEAR HIM and then obediently DO all He tells us to do! Christ alone is the true Head, Lord, and King of all His elect and chosen ones. His faithful and obedient elect are hearing His pure word from His pure mind. And they are fulfilling His word, walking out His righteousness and will out of His holy nature and power. They are worshipping Him in spirit and in truth, as our Lord told us to do, and not after the traditions of the church systems. By these necessary principles of consecration and yieldedness unto the Lord, those called to sonship are becoming a holy, separated people unto the Lord, prepared to serve His holy kingdom purposes in all the earth.
I do not seek to revile, but rather to speak the truth in love as I warn all who seek after life, immortality, and sonship to God to flee from the deeds and doctrines of the Nicolaitanes as you would flee from a poisonous snake or a lion in the jungle. Let us reverently consider together just how this heresy entered in among the Lords people. What a flood of light fell upon the world in the ministry of Jesus and His apostles! Then following His ascension, by the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the spirit of Christ, the Lord came again in mighty Spirit power to indwell His people. The church was birthed, and gathered from Jew and Gentile alike, a vast multitude into its bosom. The shadows of the law were replaced by the glorious and eternal reality of a living, indwelling Christ. In those few holy years Christ Himself within was the only Head of the church and unity and harmony flowed like a river and the body of Christ was one. There was no government but the government of the Spirit. Love and wisdom shone like the sun from the mind of God. When the human body knows no government but the government of its head, all is order and unity, and there is health and power. So also it was with the body of Christ!
And what glorious days those were! One only has to read the book of Acts to see how much God blessed His people in those days. Mighty signs and wonders were performed as God confirmed His word with signs following. The word of God, anointed by the Holy Spirit, swept the world like a prairie fire. It encircled the mountains and crossed the oceans. It made kings to tremble and tyrants to fear. It was said of those early Christians that they turned the world upside down! So powerful was their message and spirit. In spite of persecution it grew and multiplied, for God dwelt mightily in the midst of His people. The knowledge of the glory of the Lord covered the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Even before the apostles had departed their earthly life, a spirit and system had set in among the saints of the Lord and many people were wearing the Babylonish garment. They were instituting rules and regulations, laying down laws, formulating creeds, observing days, establishing sacraments and ordinances, elevating human government, becoming disciples of Paul, of Apollos, of Cephas, and of many others. The babble had begun and the mysterious man of sin was raising his ugly head. Before too many years had passed men began to set themselves up as "bishops" and "lords" over Gods heritage in place of the Holy Spirit.
While I concur that the "laity" needs to act like sons and daughters of the Living God, rather than spectators in a performance that they critique, the initial premise is to be rejected. It risks bashing leadership, or thwarting it, and that is likely to cause more problems than it solves.Awesome
While I concur that the "laity" needs to act like sons and daughters of the Living God, rather than spectators in a performance that they critique, the initial premise is to be rejected. It risks bashing leadership, or thwarting it, and that is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
The probable reason there is little historical evidence is because the sect was small and not too much worth writing about, unless of course you were John, and living and ministering to Asia Minor, where the problem actually existed. But there was in fact a historical basis confirming it going as far back as Clement of Alexandia. As far as historical sources go, that's not too shabby. That's mid second century. Early enough for direct knowledge and given by perhaps the most erudite individual known to Christianity at that time.
Now as for ruining the reputation of Nicholas of Antioch. That's not how Eusebius explained it. The story is more to the effect that a man finds that his wife is very beautiful and gives him lustful thoughts. In his struggle for lust he ultimately conquers his selfish feelings, giving her up to the apostles, which means that he is delivered from his lust - a statement that would be entirely in keeping with the teaching of Clement of Alexandria on temperance in marriage. Any fair assessment of history would conclude that this statement then got misconstrued as meaning that the apostles were having sport with her, which was preposterous. Apparently the group used it (the devolved report of the saying, not the actual things said or done, which were all quite innocent) as an example of Christian licentiousness.
We then get from that people claiming the Christians were engaging in "love fests" (a reference to the agape feasts) and rejecting the law, even sinning deliberately that grace should abound all the more, as in ...
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, ... why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.It was all malicious slander, but if there was a small group of "Christians" using their liberty as an excuse for licentious behavior, then so much the more should they have been hated by someone like John and the Lord, seeing that the Roman government would certainly take up on such views and use it as a reason to persecute orthodox Christians, which is exactly what John was warning the Churches in Asia Minor about - that Dioclecian Caesar was going to be as bad as Nero had been. And there was, apparently, some such group, and they went by the name "Nicolatians," which is the rest of the story, as given by Clement of Alexandria.
(Romans 3:5-8)
You cannot deny the historical side of this just because there is a gap of a hundred years between Clement and John or Paul. Here we are dealing with a letter written to seven specific churches in Asia Minor. What can you tell me about each of those churches from a historical perspective? Who were the members there? Does the fact that we don't have many records tell you that there was no such church? Or should we understand those churches to all have Greek meaning or metaphorical meaning, whatever you choose to make it that fits your preconceived rejection of ecclesial authority?
Here is the problem with the Greek roots theory. Not only does it dismiss perfectly healthy historical data, but it uses roots without grammar, concluding whatever it wants, thus becoming meaningless to all. For it is just as easily construed as God hates it when the laity rule, thus disrespecting their rulers, as it does that God hates it when there are rulers over the laity, because the Greek roots do not supply a subject and object. There is no hint of inflection in the word John gives, other than what it actually is - a group of people he is referring to.
Let us again visit the Greek in this verse: ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἔχεις , ὅτι μισεῖς τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν ἃ κἂγω μισῶ . God hates the works of the Nicolatians. The inflection "wv" is in relation here to the works, not to either Niko or Laos. But if we were to look to the word for an object it would not be Niko, but Laos, as the wn portion belongs to the laos. That is to say that the rulership, if we were to really look at the roots of this word as being the meaning intended, belongs to the laity, not that the rulership is over the laity. If it was over the laity, rather than belonging to the laity then it would be Νικολαϊτην with an heta rather than the omega.
This brings up an interesting thought and a deep irony. The same people trying to look at the Greek roots of this word Νικολαϊτῶν also believe strongly in rejecting ecclesial authority. They want and believe in equal authority for all Christians. This despite the clear message of Paul and the writer of Hebrews:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17)I've underlined the word ἡγουμένοις here because some translations have it as "leaders" and others have it as "rulers." This word can also be rendered as "princes" or "governors." The writer to the Hebrews points specifically to the leadership over the soul, which indicates a pastoral position. No matter how it is rendered, there is one in authority over others, who are being exhorted to be subject to those authorities.
Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπείκετε , αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν
"Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed." (Titus 3:1)
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the New Testament teaches that there should be no authority in the church. Rather, Christ appointed first apostles, then prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:10-12).
And here is more irony. John also mentions Jezebel. We often hear of a Jezebel spirit being in people. Usually this in reference to wives who refuse to submit to their husbands. What is this spirit? It is a rejection of God given authority - a spirit of rebellion. Jezebel rejected the authority of the Kingdom as He set it up - in Jerusalem under David. She allowed and supported contrary religion to what God had set up. The split between the North and South Kingdom was a Protestant movement that rejected the authority of King David and his dynasty, splitting the kingdom in half, rejecting unity.
We do not have a record of who that Jezebel may have been that John was referring to. But which way are we going to have it? If we say that Nicolatianism is a non-God given authority over a laity that was meant not to have any authority over it except Christ, then how can we also have a problem with a Jezebel spirit, which assumes there is such a thing as a God-given authority that can be rejected to begin with?
To answer, one may say that the "Jezebel" spirit is limited to the rejection of Christ and does not ever pertain to the rejection of any authority God has given to any other man because no such authority exists.
Really? Well to maintain such a position one must believe that hubands have no spiritual authority over their wives. Wives are not to submit to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22, 24; Collassians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).
Similarly, they must also believe that overseership is not really overseership. It is just seership. We are all shepherds who oversee the church. And we can ignore what Paul said to the Corinthians.
"And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?Since we are interested in Greek, the word "overseer" is the best translation for the word episcopos. Epi means "over." Scopos" as in telescope, means "see." Paul was rather explicit in his epistles to Timothy and Titus that there was such a position as "overseer" in the church and marked out some of the qualities of leadership that were required before they should be appointed as such, an appointment that came with an anointing, which is to say that it was a God-given appointment.
"(1 Corinthians 12:28-29)
See 1 Timothy 2:1-2; Titus 1:7. The word "overseer" is sometimes translates as "bishop." But it is always the Greek word episcopos. This word was used not only of the overseers ordained by the apostles for such work, but also of the apostles themselves, as in Acts 1:20. The word "pastor" (ποιμήν is only found in Ephesians 4:11, but as it refers to shepherding, or tending, it is thought to be the same as overseeing. The LXX uses this word as it has the Psalmist describing David "tending" his flock in the innocence of his heart, guiding them with skillful hands (Psalm 78:72). Along these lines we see references also to the Good Shepherd, Christ, who is the fulfillment of this type and shadow (John 10:11, 14; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:4).
But the fact that Christ is the head and shepherd of us all makes Him chief shepherd. It does not take away from His shared authority as if He set no shepherds up in the church. Clearly He did. That is what Paul was speaking to Timothy and Titus about.
As I said in previous posts in this thread, if we want to talk about abuse in the church, and abuse of authority, that is one thing. And if you wish to apply this to the term Nicolatians in doing so, go ahead. But that is eisegesis. It is not what the text was about. It doesn't work that way when you look at the Greek. It doesn't work that way when you look at the historical record. And the context is a complaint not of rulership over the laity, or rulership by the laity, but of the works of whoever the Nicolatians were - their works. What were their works? Well, they were ungodly. That much we can be sure of. Abuse of authority is certainly an ungodly work. But so is licentiousness. And so is rejection of authority.
Pick the evil you wish to target. The great city of Ephesus was destroyed and has never been larger than a small village to this day. It's churches were rebuilt as monuments, rather than fruitful vinyards in the love of God. They held what was called the "robbers council" there in the fifth century, before it was destroyed by the Turks. And there was a St. Mark of Ephesus who unsuccessfully attempted to unify a divided church at the council of Florence, some 900 years later, which is about the best Ephesus has had to offer since. John's message was a message to the Ephesians, in particular - the church over which John was said to be overseer, and where his tomb is now found. Maybe if we rediscovered also that first love, that love that John was talking about, we could see it rise up again as something more than a memorial.
You are correct. History doesn't matter, that is if it gives something other than what is found in the Bible. But when we are attempting to determine what is in the Bible, what it means, and we are given the opportunity to learn from the apostles directly, that is not simply history. It is revelation. It is what was revealed to the apostles.]It is not the historical side of a view that matters when it comes to truth in God's Word, it is the hidden spiritual side that is so relevant. The Catholic Church has its history and so do all religions. Leadership in religion is far too bias and opinionated and too full of it self to look honesty and openly at God's Word; if this was not true then there would not be 10,000 religions asserting themselves over God's people. God knows what he is a doing, religion has no clue and are missing the mark.
The Book of revelation is the most spiritual Book in the whole Bible and is not literal.
despite the frantic efforts of historians to tell us that Nicholas and Jezebel were real persons even going so far as to blacken the good name of Nicholas of Antioch (one of the seven deacons of Acts 6:5), as the guilty party. It is said by some that Nicholas founded a movement of apostates who had pagan feasts and were most immoral in their behavior. They taught that in order to master sensuality one would have to know by experience the whole range of it first. Naturally this spawned the most bizarre and wanton orgies and other fleshly endeavors as a necessary step on the road to perfection.
It is important to me to take this approach because of the possibility that what is considered "orthodox" is not really truth. The way to check that is not through study of the later fathers, but the earlier, and the Scriptures themselves. The later fathers may offer some insight into the earlier fathers. So they may be of some use. But the object is to arrive at the one true faith Jesus preached.
Those who use the Bible alone have tens of thousands of opinions. And being without guidance from pastors just magnifies that problem. The solution is clearly not to do without guidance from those who have more education than we do ourselves. Education is not an end-all. But only fools reject understanding. And there will be no path to unity without it.
I don't have to believe the clergy when they speak to me. I can check their facts and statements. As a member of the church, an heir of all the glory of God, I know that God can use me to correct bishops and priests if they are wrong. However, there is no reason to assume that what they say is wrong, or to distrust or dishonor those who are placed in authority over the church. Not only does the Bible command us to honor those who are in authority but it also warns against creating divisions. John described those who departed from him as antichrists and liars and warned his "little children" not to fall into their same error.