Albert Barnes Commentary Revelation 2:6

"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." — Revelation 2:6 (ASV)

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

That thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes. Greek: works—ta erga. The word Nicolaitanes occurs only in this place and in Revelation 2:15. From the reference in the latter place, it is clear that the doctrines which they held prevailed at Pergamos as well as at Ephesus. However, from neither place can anything now be inferred regarding the nature of their doctrines or their practices, unless it is supposed that they held the same doctrine that was taught by Balaam (see the notes on Revelation 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 Revelation 2:15 their doctrine. Various conjectures, however, have been formed regarding this class of people and the reasons why the name was given to them.

In regard to the origin of the name, there have been three opinions:

1. One opinion, mentioned by Irenaeus and some of the other fathers, is that the name was derived from Nicolas, one of the deacons ordained at Antioch (Acts 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 to give 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. If a name had been assumed 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, rather 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. They believe it was not designed to designate any particular sect but to denote those who resembled Balaam. This word, they argue, is used in the same manner as the word Jezebel in Revelation 2:20, which is considered symbolical there. Vitringa supposes that the word is derived from the Greek nikos (victory) and laos (people), and thus it corresponds with the name Balaam, which in Hebrew can mean either lord of the people or he destroyed the people. He suggests that, as the same effect was produced by their doctrines as by those of Balaam—leading the people to commit fornication and to join in idolatrous worship—they might be called Balaamites or Nicolaitanes, that is, corrupters of the people. However, to this view it may be replied:

   • That it is far-fetched and is adopted only to remove a difficulty;

   • 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;

   • That, in Revelation 2:15, they are expressly distinguished from those who held the doctrine of Balaam (Revelation 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 there can be no objection to it. It is in accordance with what usually occurs regarding sects, whether orthodox or heretical: they derive their origin from some person whose name they continue to bear. Since 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.

Regarding the opinions which they held, there is as little certainty.

Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses i.26) says that their characteristic tenets were the lawfulness of promiscuous intercourse with women and of eating things offered to idols. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.29) states substantially the same thing. He refers to a tradition regarding Nicolaus: that he had a beautiful wife and was jealous of her; and being reproached with this, he renounced all intercourse with her and made use of an expression that was misunderstood as implying that illicit pleasure was proper.

Tertullian speaks of the Nicolaitanes as a branch of the Gnostic family and as extinct in his time. 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, volume 1, pages 452-453) numbers them with Antinomians. However, he expresses some doubt whether the actual existence of such a sect can be proved. He rather inclines to an opinion noted above, that the name is symbolical and 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.

Neander 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 that attended them—just as the Jews were led astray of old by the Moabites (Numbers 25). However, Neander does not profess to be able to determine the origin of the name. He 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 also supposes 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. However, everything regarding the origin of this sect, the reason for the name given to it, and the opinions they held, is involved in great obscurity, and there is no hope of throwing more light on the subject.

It is generally agreed among the writers of antiquity who have mentioned them that they were distinguished for holding opinions that countenanced gross social indulgences. This is all that is really necessary to be known regarding the passage before us, for this will explain the strong language of aversion and condemnation used by the Saviour regarding the sect in the epistles to the churches of Ephesus and Pergamos.

Which I also hate. If the view taken above 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.