Nicolaitans

Well, the term 'nico' is said to mean ruling over or conquering. And 'lait' refers to the laity. So I suppose that they were cult like and ruled over their laity with a false belief system.

No one knows what they believed though.

 

I was told once that they held themselves above the common believers, much like the popes.

I was also told once that they taught that sin brought glory to God.

MacArthur says that the writings of the early church fathers link the Nicolaitions to the Nicolaus of Acts 6:5, one of the men who oversaw the distribution of food.
He says the deeds seem to be the abuse of Christian liberty in regards to sexual temptations.

Jack is correct in saying that no one really knows for sure.

MR

 

I tend to agree with Jack. The one hint, IMO, Biblically, is that what were "deeds of the Nicolaitans" which the church at Ephesus hated, as they obviously knew about it, had become "doctrine of the Nicolaitans" and was at least tolerated, if not supported, at Thyatira. (Rev.2:15) And the resurrected and glorified Lord Jesus Christ said he hated both the deeds and the doctrine.

The New Scofield Referece Bible (NKJV) has a footnote that suggests along the lines of MacArthur. Perhaps this is correct, that this was somewhat akin to 'anti-nomianism'. This seems to be a possibility. But the etymology of the word is definitely as Jack has suggested. Regardless, I would assume the seven churches that John was instructed to write to, would have understood, even if we have lost the definitive idea, today. I'd suggest that staying away from both these ideas is a very good practice. And that you or I couldn't go wrong to avoid both!
In His grace,
Ed

 

Primarily, sexual immorality. A sense of sexual freedom outside the (heterosexual) marriage relationship.

Also, eating meat offered to idols.

 

I would say this suggestion is taken from the NKJV. It may not be entirely incorrect as to the first part, at least, (see above post) but would suggest the several other translations I checked, render the reading of "thus", in Rev. 2:15 as more along the lines of "in the same manner", or "likewise". The fact that the text offers somewhat of a 'comparison', suggests that these are, in fact, somewhat different.
Certainly, no place in Scripture suggests that "exual immorality" is to be accepted practice. Paul, Jesus, and others offer dire warnings and even, curses against such. But the same Paul, writing to the Corinthians seems to put eating meat offered to idols in a category that we might dub as "doubtful things" or things "fully allowed, but should be avoided in certain circumstances, especially for testimony."
Ergo, I suggest that your suggestion is probably mistaken.
In his grace,
Ed

 

I would agree that it is highly unlikely to have been the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.

MR

 

Amateur etymology isn't the way to figure out the theology of a group of heretics.....

Some information has have survived that was written by (near)contemporaries of the Nicolaitans, covering their actions.
The most famous example being the following.
"the Nicolaitans are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles [Acts 6:5]. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence . . . teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." ( Irenaeus, Against Heresies, i.xxvi.3

 

Sexual immorality is the primary thing and what the Lord was talking about, if I recall correctly.

Actually, I may have been mistaken about the 'eating of meat sacrificed to idols'. I was thinking about another of the 7 churches, though I've seen it mentioned in several commentaries re. the Nicolaitans. It is far secondary to the sexual immorality in any case.

Does anyone have harder information about the sexual immorality?

 

(near)contemporaries was probably stretching it a bit, considering that Irenaeus wrote a century later...