The Nicolaitans

So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Rev 2:15)

A number of the early church fathers wrote about the Nicolaitans. Some said they were followers of a man named Nicolas that was one of the deacons from Acts 6. Others said this man was someone that had the same name but was a different person. Several people claimed this man endorsed and taught profound debauchery and immorality. In any case, the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitans were something that Jesus found particularly evil. He commended those who avoided them and He rebuked those Christians who put up with them.

Since there seems to be no clear consensus on what the deeds/doctrine of the Nicolaitans were, some look to the name itself to find a clue.

C. I. Scofield writes in his reference Bible:

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 (Matt. 23:8) into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" (Rev. 2:6) had become in Pergamos a "doctrine" (Rev. 2:15).[31]

While the Roman church formally along came a couple centuries later (about 313 AD) there was already this Nocolaitan doctrine in place by the time of John's letter of Revelation, 65 AD or 95 AD. The idea of “conquering the people” seems like a reasonable guess since someone always wants to rule and people always want to look up to a leader. If this is the doctrine that Jesus says He hates, we then see that this is a abomination to the Lord's plan for His people.

If we really want to look to the meaning of the word Nicolaitan, there may be another way of understanding it.

The framers of the United States system of government in the 1700s looked at all forms of human government (up to that time). They obviously could not include Soviet communism at those early days. They considered what worked and what did not work. The saw the weaknesses and the excesses of each type of government. They created a form of government that had the best of everything they knew and avoided the faults of what had existed in the past.

One form of rule they thought was one of the evil, useless forms of government was “democracy”. In our day, in the U.S., there is a particular political party that makes much noise about something they call democracy. The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood this to equal mob rule, as illustrated by The French Revolution later (1789). The founding fathers wanted to avoid mob rule as well as the oppression by a single tyrant. What they came up with was a Republic – rule by law. They eliminated the rule by mob mentality and rule by one or a few elites. This was the theory. Of course, it was not applied in a perfect world and not by perfect people. Justice for all was an ideal and did not reach to all. Nonetheless, it was probably the best form of human government the world had ever seen...on paper. (Foolish or evil people today are trying to “improve” on the American experiment. Just one problem: They forgot to look at what has already not worked historically.)

If a doctrine, that Jesus hates, comes from a word Nicolaitans, “to conquer” and “the people”, could this allow for an understanding of rule by the people and not ruling over the people? Producing a clergy-laity or elite-peasant system is certainly evil because it destroys the understanding of the Body (Col 1:18, 24) that Jesus intends for His people. However, it is the Apostles, through their writings in the Bible, that have been tasked with laying a foundation, building upon Jesus' words (1 Cor 3:10). John, the apostle, tells us about there being children, young men, and fathers (1 John 2:12-14), spiritually speaking. Not everyone is at the same place on their Christian journey. Not only do we need mature leaders, God has chosen certain people as “gifts” to the church in order to help us.

This is certainly not a vote for the Roman Church system, but rule by “the majority” is just as evil. In most evangelical churches, the pastor is elected by a pulpit or candidate committee. A vote of the majority determines if he will be brought in as “presiding employee” of the congregation. This is often decided by if he is handsome, does he tell jokes, is he positive and encouraging, and does his wife play piano. Where are qualities such as knowledgeable of the Scriptures? Does he have any insight into...anything? Is he free from scandal? Is he even saved? These things often do not matter because the “majority” is making all the decisions.

Who is it that makes a certain religious book a best seller? Many times it is opinion makers that jettison all truth in favor of unscriptural notions. How many times do you hear of a pastor being found out as immoral or even unsaved? The mob rules by determining upon the flesh instead of hearing from the Lord regarding major decisions.

There often seems to be a fine balance between tyranny and lowest common denominator mentality. While we humans will naturally tend to line up behind one against the other, the Bible seems to endorse both. They seem to be a check against the opposite one becoming dominant.

Does Jesus hate a few elites ruling over the people in His church or does He hate a mob ruling against an unpopular truth of Scripture? Perhaps this is why an historical doctrine of the Nicolaitans is not spelled out in the scriptures or in history.

Ideally, a minister will love his people and the people will love and respect their shepherd. The Body of Christ will be mutually submitted to each other as they recognize the authority and function of each member of that Body.

May 1, 2025

The Ministry Pages