Nicolationism ...

[Tychicum]

Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

OK ... it's a blank slate. I have read many many opinions on Nicolationism ...but it has to be more than simple divisions between the "clergy" and the "laity".

Here is a theory ...

Nicolas

The only other clue to Nicolaitanism available within the New Testament is the lone occurrence of the name "Nicolas" in Acts 6:5. It appears in the section describing the dispute between the Hebrews and the Hellenists over the neglect of the latter's widows. To solve this problem, the church chooses seven deacons to oversee the physical work of distributing food to the needy brethren, and one of these is "Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch."

Again, this description provides the most meager of hints about the man but enough to propose some conclusions. Nicolas is a Hellenist, meaning primarily that he spoke Greek, but probably also suggesting that he possessed a Greek education. As such, "they [the ‘Hellenists'] maintained a more liberal outlook than the ‘Hebrews,' including the apostles" (F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, p. 219), especially regarding keeping the law. This "liberal outlook" toward the law later formed the heart of the debate at the Council of Jerusalem in ad 49 (Acts 15).

That Luke calls him a proselyte tells us that he is a Gentile who converted to Judaism before his calling to Christianity. Becoming a proselyte required a Gentile to keep Jewish law in its entirety, undergo circumcision, be baptized and make a special sacrifice at the Temple. This rigorous process indicates that Nicolas must also have been quite devout and dedicated in his beliefs. The church's choice of him as one of the first deacons reveals he likely possessed standout natural abilities and leadership qualities, as well as fulfilling the apostles' qualifications of being "of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom" (Acts 6:3).

The last tidbit of information is that he is from Antioch, the largest city and capital of the Roman province of Syria. The city's residents—Greeks, Macedonians, Syrians, Jews, Romans and others—brought to it their own languages, cultures, philosophies and religions. F.F. Bruce writes, "Its cosmopolitan population and material wealth provided an apt setting for cultural exchange and religious syncretism" (ibid., p. 264). This urban, multicultural, religious mélange formed Nicolas' background.

Unfortunately, it is in the context of syncretism that Nicolas is last mentioned in the post-biblical, historical record. Both Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.26.3; 3.10.6) and Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 3.4.25f) consider Nicolas of Antioch to be the founder of the Gnostic sect known as the Nicolaitans. Another early writer, Hippolytus, adds that Nicolas "departed from sound doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food" (Refutation of All Heresies, 7.24), meaning he taught the Gnostic belief of the irrelevance of physical things. This reinforces Clement's claim that Nicolas became an ascetic and that his followers later perverted his teachings to encompass idolatry and immorality (2.20.12), becoming what we know as Nicolaitans.

From this information, we can hypothesize the evolution of Nicolaitanism. Roman church historian Eusebius writes that Nicolas himself was a moral man (Ecclesiastical History, 3.29). Though sincere and devout, he came to believe that the only way to grow spiritually was to consider his body and its desires as unimportant. In this way, he could ignore them in favor of spiritual pursuits. His fundamental doctrine appears to have been "the flesh must be treated with contempt."

Over the years, however, this teaching took on a more Gnostic spin: Since the flesh is unimportant, even contemptible, what one does in the flesh is of no consequence. Spiritual life, growth and ultimately salvation occur in the soul, and since God is spirit, He has no regard for the flesh. Therefore, Nicolaitans reasoned, what does it matter if one satisfies the flesh's desires? At some point in its early history, then, Nicolaitanism evolved from an ascetic philosophy to a licentious one—one that Christ says He hates.

Are there others worth considering ...


.

 

[cubanito]

IMO it is unfruitful to speculate from such extremely meager references. Best to say "I dunno" and move on until and if something is dug up from those ancient times.

JR

 

[Tychicum]

Revelation 2:15-16 KJV So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (16) Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Something tells me that it isn't a good idea to ignore God's saying that He "hates" something. If He said it He wants us to know. If He wants us to know ... eventually we will figure it out.

But I don't think ignoring it will produce God's desired result.

 

[cubanito]

Something tells me that it isn't a good idea to ignore God's saying that He "hates" something. If He said it He wants us to know. If He wants us to know ... eventually we will figure it out.

But I don't think ignoring it will produce God's desired result.

Presuming that if He said it He wants us to know is false. This message may have been exclusive to those in that local Church at that time who certainly did know what was being referenced. In addition, future generations may uncover who the Nicolatians really were. Perhaps some cave somewhere holds ancient documents that will be discovered about or by the Nicolatians IN GOD'S due time that will enlighten future generations.

In the 1800's a movement began to discredit the Bible as a buch of documents edited during the early Medieval age. One reason these "scholars" gave for disbelieving the ancient clarity of the OT was the many specific prophecies about Christ. In due time, when they had built their fanciful edifices to the sky, God appointed a little arab boy to throw a stone into a cave near the dead sea, uncovering large parts of the Bible 900 years older than anything previously known. By this God pulled the rug from under these "higher critics" and exposed them for the frauds they are.

Who but God knows why we know nothing about the Nicolatians?

In the meantime, all you have posted is so way out on a limb that it makes the allegorical fancies of the medieval Church seem quite solid.

let's not imitate the DaVinci code by so mixing truth with speculation that one is left confused. All you have posted is speculation, right?

If it is sheer speculation, make that clear.

JR

 

[Tychicum]

So you propose a variant of "don't ask don't tell" ... ?

Even a child knows that without asking they won't know a thing about anything ...

One variation on "Nicolationism" is the farce hierarchy present in many churches who have a "laity" which is separate from the "clergy" class ...

You wouldn't have a "conflict of interest" in your attemptis to prohibit discussions on the topic of Nicolations would you ... ?

(that is my naturally suspicious side which is different than my naturally occurring inquisitive side ... but on they may come to an agreement)


†

 

[lightninboy]

I guess there shouldn't be a "clergy" and a "laity."