Jesus was in favor of hate

JESUS WAS IN FAVOR OF HATE
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Revelation2:6 6But you have this in your favor: You
hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
BIBLEHUB COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(6) But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds (better, works)of the
Nicolaitanes.—The Nicolaitaneswere, as has been expressed, the Antinomians
of the Asiatic Church. The life and conduct were little thought of, and the
faith professedwas everything. Some have thought that they were a sectwho
derived their name, under some colourable pretext, from Nicolas the
Proselyte;others hold that the name is purely symbolical, signifying
“destroyerof the people,” and that it is no more than the Greek form of
Balaam. (See Notes onRevelation2:14-15, below.)The existence of a sect
calledNicolaitanes in the secondcentury is attestedby Irenæus, Tertullian,
and Clement of Alexandria.
BensonCommentary
Revelation2:6. But — Or nevertheless;this thou hast — This honour and
praise remaining; divine grace seekswhatevermay help him that is fallen to
recoverhis standing; that thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitanes — A sect
so called, it is thought, from Nicolas, one of the sevendeacons mentioned Acts

6:5; according to ancientwriters, their doctrine and their lives were equally
corrupt. They allowedthe practice of the most abominable lewdness and
adulteries, as well as sacrificing to idols; all which they placed among things
indifferent, and pleaded for as branches of Christian liberty.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
2:1-7 These churches were in such different states as to purity of doctrine and
the powerof godliness, that the words of Christ to them will always suit the
casesofother churches, and professors. Christknows and observes their
state;though in heaven, yet he walks in the midst of his churches on earth,
observing what is wrong in them, and what they want. The church of Ephesus
is commended for diligence in duty. Christ keeps an accountof every hour's
work his servants do for him, and their labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.
But it is not enoughthat we are diligent; there must be bearing patience, and
there must be waiting patience. And though we must show all meekness to all
men, yet we must show just zealagainsttheir sins. The sin Christ chargedthis
church with, is, not the having left and forsakenthe objectof love, but having
lost the fervent degree of it that at first appeared. Christ is displeasedwith his
people, when he sees them grow remiss and cold toward him. Surely this
mention in Scripture, of Christians forsaking their first love, reproves those
who speak ofit with carelessness, andthus try to excuse indifference and sloth
in themselves and others;our Saviour considers this indifference as sinful.
They must repent: they must be grieved and ashamedfor their sinful
declining, and humbly confess itin the sight of God. They must endeavour to
recovertheir first zeal, tenderness, and seriousness,and must pray as
earnestly, and watchas diligently, as when they first setout in the ways of
God. If the presence of Christ's grace and Spirit is slighted, we may expect the
presence ofhis displeasure. Encouraging mention is made of what was good
among them. Indifference as to truth and error, goodand evil, may be called
charity and meekness, but it is not so; and it is displeasing to Christ. The
Christian life is a warfare againstsin, Satan, the world, and the flesh. We
must never yield to our spiritual enemies, and then we shall have a glorious
triumph and reward. All who persevere, shallderive from Christ, as the Tree
of life, perfection and confirmation in holiness and happiness, not in the
earthly paradise, but in the heavenly. This is a figurative expression, taken

from the accountof the garden of Eden, denoting the pure, satisfactory, and
eternal joys of heaven; and the looking forward to them in this world, by
faith, communion with Christ, and the consolations ofthe Holy Spirit.
Believers, take your wrestling life here, and expect and look for a quiet life
hereafter;but not till then: the word of God never promises quietness and
complete freedom from conflict here.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
But this thou hast - This thou hast that I approve of, or that I can commend.
That thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitans - Greek, "works" (τὰ ἔργα ta
erga). The word "Nicolaitanes"occurs onlyin this place, and in the
Revelation2:15 verse of this chapter. From the reference in the latter place it
is clearthat the doctrines which they held prevailed at Pergamos as wellas at
Ephesus;but from neither place can anything now be inferred in regard to the
nature of their doctrines or their practices, unless it be supposed that they
held the same doctrine that was taught by Balaam. See the notes on
Revelation2:15. From the two passages, comparedwith eachother, it would
seemthat they were alike corrupt in doctrine and in practice, for in the
passagebefore us their deeds are mentioned, and in Revelation2:15 their
doctrine. Various conjectures, however, have been formed respecting this
class ofpeople, and the reasons why the name was given to them:
I. In regard to the origin of the name, there have been three opinions:
(1) That mentioned by Irenaeus, and by some of the other fathers, that the
name was derived from Nicolas, one ofthe deacons ordainedat Antioch, Acts
6:5. Of those who have held this opinion, some have supposedthat it was given
to them because he became apostate andwas the founder of the sect, and
others because they assumedhis name, in order to give the greatercredit to
their doctrine. But neither of these suppositions rests on any certain evidence,
and beth are destitute of probability. There is no proof whatever that Nicolas
the deaconeverapostatizedfrom the faith, and became the founder of a sect;

and if a name had been assumed, in order to give credit to a sectand extend
its influence, it is much more probable that the name of an apostle would have
been chosen, or of some other prominent man, than the name of an obscure
deaconof Antioch.
(2) Vitringa, and most commentators since his time, have supposedthat the
name Nicolaitanes was intendedto be symbolical, and was not designedto
designate any sectof people, but to denote those who resembledBalaam, and
that this word is used in the same manner as the word "Jezebel" inRevelation
2:20, which is supposedto be symbolical there. Vitringa supposes that the
word is derived from νίκος nikos, "victory," and λαός laos, "people," andthat
thus it corresponds with the name Balaam, as meaning either ‫צּב‬ ‫םצ‬ bàal ̀am,
"lord of the people," or ‫צּב‬ ‫ם‬ baalà ̀am, "he destroyed the people"; and that,
as the same effectwas produced by their doctrines as by those of Balaam, that
the people were led to commit fornication and to join in idolatrous worship,
they might be called"Balaamites"or"Nicolaitanes," thatis, corrupters of the
people. But to this it may be replied:
(a) that it is far-fetched, and is adopted only to remove a difficulty;
(b) that there is every reasonto suppose that the word used here refers to a
class ofpeople who bore that name, and who were well known in the two
churches specified;
(c) that in Revelation2:15 they are expresslydistinguished from those who
held the doctrine of Balaam, Revelation2:14, "So hastthou also (καὶ kai)
those that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes."

(3) it has been supposed that some personnow unknown, probably of the
name Nicolas, orNicolaus, was their leader, and laid the foundation of the
sect. This is by far the most probable opinion, and to this there canbe no
objection. It is in accordance withwhat usually occurs in regard to sects,
orthodox or heretical, that they derive their origin from some person whose
name they continue to bear; and as there is no evidence that this sect
prevailed extensively, or was indeed known beyond the limits of these
churches, and as it soondisappeared, it is easilyaccountedfor that the
characterand history of the founder were so soonforgotten.
II. In regard to the opinions which they held, there is as little certainty.
Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. i., 26) says that their characteristic tenets were the
lawfulness of promiscuous sexual intercourse with women, and of eating
things offered to idols. Eusebius (Hist. Ecclesiastes3. 29)states substantially
the same thing, and refers to a tradition respecting Nicolaus, thathe had a
beautiful wife, and was jealous ofher, and being reproachedwith this,
renounced all intercourse with her, and made use of an expressionwhich was
misunderstood, as implying that illicit pleasure was proper. Tertullian speaks
of the Nicolaitanesas a branch of the Gnostic family, and as, in his time,
extinct. Mosheim (De Rebus Christian Ante. Con. section69) says that "the
questions about the Nicolaitanes have difficulties which cannotbe solved."
Neander(History of the Christian Religion, as translated by Torrey, vol. i, pp.
452, 453)numbers them with Antinomians; though he expresses some doubt
whether the actualexistence ofsuch a sectcan be proved, and rather inclines
to an opinion noticedabove, that the name is symbolical, and that it is used in
a mystical sense, according to the usual style of the Book of Revelation, to
denote corrupters or seducers ofthe people, like Balaam. He supposes that the
passagerelates simply to a class of persons who were in the practice of
seducing Christians to participate in the sacrificialfeasts ofthe pagans, and in
the excesseswhichattended them - just as the Jews were ledastray of old by
the Moabites, Numbers 25.

What was the origin of the name, however, Neanderdoes not profess to be
able to determine, but suggeststhat it was the custom of such sects to attach
themselves to some celebratedname of antiquity, in the choice of which they
were often determined by circumstances quite accidental. He supposes also
that the sectmay have possesseda life of Nicolas ofAntioch, drawn up by
themselves or others from fabulous accounts and traditions, in which what
had been imputed to Nicolas was embodied. Everything, however, in regard to
the origin of this sect, and the reasonofthe name given to it, and the opinions
which they held, is involved in great obscurity, and there is no hope of
throwing light on the subject. It is generallyagreed, among the writers of
antiquity who have mentioned them, that they were distinguished for holding
opinions which countenancedgross socialindulgences. This is all that is really
necessaryto be known in regardto the passage before us, for this will explain
the strong language of aversionand condemnation used by the Saviour
respecting the sectin the epistles to the Churches of Ephesus and Pergamos.
Which I also hate - If the view above takenof the opinions and practices of
this people is correct, the reasons why he hated them are obvious. Nothing can
be more opposed to the personalcharacterof the Saviour, or to his religion,
than such doctrines and deeds.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
6. But—How graciously, after necessarycensure, He returns to praise for our
consolation, andas an example to us, that we would show, when we reprove,
we have more pleasure in praising than in fault-finding.
hatestthe deeds—We should hate men's evil deeds, not hate the men
themselves.
Nicolaitanes—Irenæus [AgainstHeresies,1.26.3]andTertullian [Prescription
againstHeretics, 46]make these followers of Nicolas, one ofthe seven

(honorably mentioned, Ac 6:3, 5). They (Clement of Alexandria [Miscellanies,
2.20 3.4]and Epiphanius [Heresies, 25])evidently confound the latter Gnostic
Nicolaitanes,orfollowers of one Nicolaos,with those of Revelation. Michaelis'
view is probable: Nicolaos(conquerorof the people) is the Greek versionof
Balaam, from Hebrew "Belang Am," "Destroyerofthe people." Revelation
abounds in such duplicate Hebrew and Greek names: as Apollyon, Abaddon:
Devil, Satan:Yea (Greek, "Nai"), Amen. The name, like other names, Egypt,
Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic. Compare Re 2:14, 15, which shows the true
sense ofNicolaitanes;they are not a sect, but professing Christians who, like
Balaamof old. tried to introduce into the Church a false freedom, that is,
licentiousness;this was a reactionin the opposite direction from Judaism, the
first danger to the Church combated in the councilof Jerusalem, and by Paul
in the Epistle to Galatians. These symbolicalNicolaitanes, orfollowers of
Balaam, abusedPaul's doctrine of the grace ofGod into a plea for
lasciviousness(2Pe 2:15, 16, 19;Jude 4, 11 who both describe the same sort of
seducers as followers ofBalaam). The difficulty that they should appropriate
a name branded with infamy in Scripture is met by Trench: The Antinomian
Gnostics were so opposedto John as a Judaizing apostle that they would
assume as a name of chiefesthonor one which John branded with dishonor.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
But this thou hast; thou hastyet thus much to commend thee.
That thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitanes;thou hatestthe deeds of those
who teachthe lawfulness of a common use of wives, and eat things offered to
idols; for these, they say, were the tenets of the Nicolaitanes, so calledfrom
one Nicholas;but whether he were one of the first deacons, named Acts 6:5,
(who, they say, to avoid the imputation of jealousy, brought forth his wife,
being a beautiful woman, and prostituted her), or from some other of that
name, I cannotdetermine.

Which I also hate:God, as a lover of his own order, and of human society,
hateth such doctrines and practices as are contrary to the rule of his word,
and tend to the confusionof human societies.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But this thou hast, that thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitans,....Though
these Christians had left their first love, yet they bore an hatred to the filthy
and impure practices ofsome men, who were called"Nicolaitans";who
committed fornication, adultery, and all uncleanness, and had their wives in
common, and also ate things offered to idols; who were so called, as some
think (c), from Nicolas ofAntioch, one of the seven deacons in Acts 6:5;
though as to Nicolas himself, it is said(d), that he lived with his own lawful
married wife, and no other, and that his daughters continued virgins all their
days, and his son incorrupt; and that these men, so called, only shrouded
themselves under his name, and abused a saying or actionof his, or both, to
patronize their wickeddeeds: he had used to advise , by which he meant a
restraining of all carnal and unlawful lusts; but these men interpreted it of an
indulgence in them, and so gave themselves up to all uncleanness;and
whereas, he having a beautiful wife, and being chargedwith jealousy, in order
to clearhimself of it, he brought her forth, and gave free liberty to any person
to marry her as would; which indiscreetaction of his these men chose to
understand as allowing of community of wives. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, that
these Nicolaitans were not calledso from any man, but from the word
"Nicolah", "letus eat", which they often used to encourageeachotherto eat
things offered to idols. Howeverthis be, it is certain that there were such a set
of men, whose deeds were hateful; but neither their principles nor their
practices obtainedmuch in this period of time, though they afterwards did;
see Revelation2:15. Professors ofthe Christian religion in generalabhorred
such impure notions and deeds, as they were by Christ:
which also I hate; all sin is hateful to Christ, being contrary to his nature, to
his will, and to his Gospel;and whateveris hateful to him should be to his
people; and where grace is, sin will be hateful, both in themselves and others;
and men's deeds may be hated when their persons are not; and hatred of sin is
takennotice of by Christ, with a commendation,

(c) Vid. Irenaeum adv. Haeres, l. 1. c. 27. & Tertull. de Praescript. Haeret. c.
46, 47. (d) Clement. Alex. Strom. l. 3. p. 436. & Euseb, Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 29.
Geneva Study Bible
But this thou hast, that thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitanes, whichI also
hate.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Revelation2:6. Not for the purpose of alleviating the pain of the church
concerning the reproof of Revelation2:4,[968]but because the Lord’s love for
his church gladly recognizes whatis to be properly acknowledged, andonce
more, but in a new and more definite way, makes prominent in opposition to
Revelation2:4 sqq. (ἈΛΛΆ) the one point of commendation already in
Revelation2:2. Just because the church was rejectedfor no longerhaving the
first love to their Lord, is it once more expresslyacknowledgedthat it is still
so far of one mind with him, as to hate the wickedworks which he hates. Thus
Revelation2:6 has enough that is peculiar, as not to appeara mere repetition
of Revelation2:2, and contains no marks whateverwhereby Revelation2:2-3,
are to be understood in the sense ofHengstenberg.
With τοῦτο ἔχ. neither ἈΓΑΘΌΝ, nor the like, is used to complete the
construction:the explanation of the ΤΟῦΤΟ in ὌΤΙ ΜΙΣ., Κ.Τ.Λ., shows that
the common possessionis commendable.
The ΜΙΣΕῖς is not “a strong expressionfor censuring,”[969]but is just as
earnestlymeant as the ΜΙΣῶ.[970]But it is justly remarked already by N. de
Lyra,[971]that the hatred is directed not againstthe persons, but againstthe
works.[972]

Concerning the Nicolaitans,[973]as wellconcerning their name as also their
conduct, it is possible to judge only by a comparisonwith Revelation2:14 sqq.
Irenaeus,[974]Hippolyt.,[975]Tertullian,[976]Clemens Alex.,[977]
Jerome,[978]Augustine,[979]andother Church Fathers derive the sectfrom
a founder Nicolaus, and that, too, the deaconmentioned in Acts 6:5, of whom
they have more to relate as they are more remote from him in time. That this
is derived entirely from this passage, andis of no more importance than that
according to which the Ebionites are representedas springing from a certain
Ebion,[980]is shown, first, from the fluctuation of the tradition which also
knew how to defend that church officer, so highly commended in Acts, from
the disgrace ofhaving founded a troublesome sect,[981]and, secondly, from
the circumstance that the patristic tradition, from the very beginning, refers
to Revelation2:6; Revelation2:14 sqq. Nicolaus ofActs 6 was thought of
because none other of that name was known.[982]Since Chr. A.
Heumann,[983] and J. W. Janus,[984]the opinion has become almost
universal, that the designationΝικολαἰται (from ΝΙΚᾶΝ and ΛΑΌς)suggests
the Hebrew name Balaam(from ‫ב‬ֶ ַ‫ע‬ and ‫ּב‬ָ‫,ם‬ i.e., swallowing-up, or
destruction, of the people), whereby the Balaamite nature of those
Nicolaitanes is to be indicated. To this Revelation2:14-15, refer.[985]Yetit
cannot be positively decided whether John found the word used alreadyin
this sense, orwas himself the first to frame it. A comparisonmay be made
with the name Armillus given to antichrist,[986]i.e., ἘΡΗΜΌΛΑΟς.[987]
The Nicolaitans are of course not identical[988]with the ΚΑΚΟΊ mentioned
in Revelation2:2, since the latter expressionis very general:yet, at all events,
they belong to “them which are evil;” and the idea, which in itself is highly
improbable, must not be inferred,[989]that in Revelation2:2; Revelation2:6,
two entirely different kinds of false teachers are meant, of whom the former
may be regarded disciples of John,[990]orJewishteachers,[991]orstrict
JewishChristians,[992]while the Nicolaitans, who, according to De Wette,
etc., are again distinct from Balaamites,[993]as those ofa more heathen
tendency, viz., false teachers who surrendered themselves[994]to a false

freedom.[995]Tertullian and other Church fathers, N. de Lyra, and the older
expositors, connectthe Nicolaitans with the Gnostics;Hengstenb. also regards
them identical with the deniers of the Son, in the Epistles of John, by referring
the warning in John 5:21[996]to the ethnicizing ways of the false teachers
there antagonized. But for all this, there is no foundation. What especially
contradicts Hengstenberg’s conjecture is the fact that the (Gnostic)false
teachers ofthe Epistles of John are attackedjust as decidedly because oftheir
false doctrines, as the Nicolaitans ofthe Apoc. because oftheir evil deeds.[997]
That the aberrations are practical, which even Hengstenb. emphasizes, but
without ground alleges alsoofthe false teachers in 1 John, is shown alreadyby
Revelation2:2 (ΚΑΚΟΎς). We shall therefore have to think of the Nicolaitans
as ethnicizing libertines.[998]This is not contradicted by the factthat they
assumedapostolic authority; for if they possibly professedto vindicate their
Christian freedom in the Pauline sense, they might likewise wishto be apostles
like Paul.[999][See Note XXIX., p. 155.]
[968]Grot., Hengstenb.
[969]De Wette.
[970]Cf. on Revelation2:2.
[971]Cf. also Hengstenb., etc.
[972]Cf. Revelation2:14. Incorrectly, Calov.:“dogmas.”
[973]Cf. Gieseler’s Kirchengeschichte, i. 1, sec. 29;Winer, Rwb.; literature in
Wolf.

[974]Haer., i. 26.
[975]Ref. Omn. Haer., ed. Gott., 1859, p. 408.
[976]Praescr. Haer., 46.
[977]Strom., ii. 20, p. 490;iii. 4, p. 522.
[978]Adv. Lucifer, 23.
[979]Haer., 5.
[980]Cf. Tertullian, l. c. 33.
[981]Cf. Clemens Alex.
[982]Against Ebrard and Klief., who, as well as Grot., Calov., and the older
and Catholic expositors in general, hold to the patristic statement.
[983]Act. Erud. Ann., 1712, p. 179;Poecile, ii. 392.

[984]De Nicol. ex Haeret. Catalogo Expungendis. Viteb., 1723. Cf. Vitr.,
Wetst., Eichh., Herder, Heinrichs, who, however, is inclined to affirm that
there was at Ephesus a Nicolaus. Cf. also Ewald, Gesch., Jer., vii. 172 sqq.,
Züllig, Hengstenb., etc.
[985]Cf., on the other hand, De Wette.
[986]Cf. Commentary on 1 John 2:18.
[987]K. Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt., p. 263 sqq
[988]Hengstenb.
[989]Ewald.
[990]Eichh.
[991]Züll.
[992]Ewald.
[993]See on Revelation2:14-15.
[994]Ewald.

[995]Cf. Revelation2:14 with Acts 15:29.
[996]Which, however, is not “directedagainstheathenism clothed in a
Christian garb.”
[997]Cf. Revelation2:14; Revelation2:20.
[998]Cf. also A. Ritschl, Entst. d. Altkath. K. Bonn, 1857, p. 134 sq.
[999]According to Volkm., the strict Judæo-Christianauthor of the Apoc.
had in mind the Apostle to the Gentiles and his adherents. Cf. also Hilgenfeld,
Kanon, p. 228. Cf. Introduction, sec. 2, note.
NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR
XXIX. Revelation2:6. τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν
The argument in the long and thorough discussionin Gebhardt (pp. 206–216)
is to prove the distinction betweenthe Nicolaitans andthose errorists
mentioned in Revelation2:2, “them which saythey are apostles,”etc.,
referring to Judaizing teachers, the conflict with whom is now in the
background, while, with Dust., he regards the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing
teachers ofan Antinomian type. He traces the two classes, as prophesied
already by St. Paul in his charge to the elders of Ephesus,
Expositor's Greek Testament

Revelation2:6. The messageends with a tardy echo of 2 b. The prophet
admits that one redeeming feature in the church is the detestationof the N.
Not all the spirit of animosity at Ephesus is amiss. When directed, as moral
antipathy, againstthese detestable Nikolaitans (corresponding to the Greek
quality of μισοπονηρία), it is a healthy feature of their Christian
consciousness. The Nikolaitanshave been identified by patristic tradition,
from Irenæus downwards, with the followers of the proselyte Nikolaos(Acts
6:5, where see note), who is alleged, especiallyby Tertullian and Epiphanius,
to have lapsed into antinomian license, as the result of an overstrained
asceticism, and to have given his name to a sectwhich practisedreligious
sensuality in the days before Cerinthus. The tenets of the latter are in fact
declaredby Irenæus to have been anticipated by the Nicolaitans, who
representedthe spirit of libertinism which, like the opposite extreme of
legalismat an earlierperiod, threatened the church’s moral health. But if the
comment of Vict. were reliable, that the N[899]principle was merely ut
delibatum exorcizareturet manducari possetet ut quicumque fornicatus esset
octauo die pacem acciperet, the representationof John would become
vigorously polemicalrather than historicallyaccurate. The tradition of the
N[900]’s originmay of course be simply due to the play of later imagination
upon the present narrative takenwith the isolatedreference to Nikolaos in
Acts 6:6. On the other hand it was not in the interest of later tradition to
propagate ideas derogatoryto the characterof an apostolic Christian; indeed,
as early as Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii. 20, iii. 4; cf. Constit. Ap. vi. 8), a disposition
(shared by Vict.) to clearhis characteris evident. Whateverwas the precise
relation of the sectto Nikolaos, whethersome tenet of his was exploited
immorally or whether he was himself a dangerouslylax teacher, there is no
reasonto doubt the original connexionof the party with him. Its
accommodating principles are luminously indicated by the comment of
Hippolytus (ἐδίδασκενἀδιαφορίανβίου)and the phrase attributed to him by
Clem. Alex, (παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ), a hint which is confirmed, if the
Nikolaitans here and in Revelation2:15 are identified with the Balaamites
(νικο-λαος, in popular etymology, a rough Greek equivalent for ‫ע‬ ‫ב‬ ‫,ּבב‬
perdidit uel absorpsitpopulum). This symbolic interpretation has prevailed
from the beginning of the eighteenth century (so Ewald, Hengstenberg, Düst.,
Schürer, Julicher, Bousset). The original party-name was probably

interpreted by opponents in this derogatorysense. It was thus turned into a
covertcensure upon men who were either positively immoral or liberally
indifferent to scruples (on food, clubs, marriage, and the like) which this
puritan prophet regardedas vital to the preservationof genuine Christianity
in a pagan city. A contemporary parallel of moral laxity is quoted by
Derenbourg, Hist, de la Palestine (1867), p. 363. If Nikolaoswas reallyan
ascetic himself, the abuse of his principles is quite intelligible, as well as their
popularity with people of inferior character. Pushedto an extreme, asceticism
confines ethical perfectionto the spirit. As the flesh has no part in the divine
life, it may be regardedeither as a foe to be constantlythwarted or as
something morally indifferent. In the latter case, the practicalinference of
sensualindulgence is obvious, the argument being that the lofty spirit cannot
be soiled by such indulgence any more than the sun is polluted by shining on a
dunghill.
[899]. cod. Purpureus. 6th century (fragments of all the Gospels).
[900]. cod. Purpureus. 6th century (fragments of all the Gospels).
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
6. But this thou hast] This is one point in which thou art not wanting.
Compare Revelation2:25, Revelation3:2; Revelation3:11, where faithfulness
is conceivedas a treasure possessedand to be guarded.
thou hatestthe deeds]Compatible with love to the persons:cf. St Jude 23.
Nicolaitans]See Excursus II.
Pulpit Commentary

Verse 6. - They are againcommended for their goodpoints. But it is possible
to hate what Christ hates without loving what he loves. It is possible to hate
false doctrine and lawlessness, andyet be formal and dead one's self. Who the
Nicolaitans were we cannotnow determine with certainty. The name Nicolaus
may be intended as a Greek equivalent of Balaam, but this is by no means
certain. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria write as if the sectof Nicolaitans
existed in their day. A common belief was that their founder was Nicolaus of
Antioch, one of the sevendeacons. Irenaeus (1:26), followedby Hippolytus
('Refut.,' 7:24), supports this view; Ignatius ('Trall.,' 9) and the Apostolic
Constitutions (6:8), are againstit. The Nicolaitans may have claimed him as
their founder, or similarity of name may have causedconfusionwith a
different person. The doctrine of the Nicolaitans, andthat of Balaam(ver. 14),
and that of the woman Jezebel(ver. 20), seemto have this much in common -
a contention that the freedom of the Christian placed him above the moral
Law. Neitheridolatry nor sensuality could harm those who had been made
free by Christ. The moral enactments of the Law had been abrogatedby the
gospel, no less than the ceremonial. The specialmention of "the pollutions of
idols" and "fornication," in the decrees ofthe Council of Jerusalem(Acts
15:20, 29), seems to show that this pernicious doctrine was already in
existence in A.D. . In 2 Peter2 and Jude 1:7-13 a similar evil is denounced. It
appears in other heretical sects, especiallythose of Gnostic origin, e.g.
Cerinthians, Cainites, Carpocratians.In this way we may explain the
statementof Eusebius ('Hist. Eccl.,'3:29), that the Nieelaitanheresylasted
only for a short time; i.e. its religious libertinism did not die out, but passed
over into other sects. Note thatit is "the works ofthe Nicolaitans,"notthe
men themselves, that Christ hates. He loves the sinner, while he hates the sin.
"It would have been well with the Church had this always beenremembered"
(Alford).
Vincent's Word Studies
The Nicolaitans
From νικᾶν to conquer, and λαός the people. There are two principal
explanations of the term. The first and better one historical. A sectspringing,
according to credible tradition, from Nicholas a proselyte of Antioch, one of

the sevendeacons ofJerusalem(Acts 6:5), who apostatizedfrom the truth,
and became the founder of an Antinomian Gnostic sect. Theyappear to have
been characterizedby sensuality, seducing Christians to participate in the
idolatrous feasts ofpagans, and to unchastity. Hence they are denoted by the
names of Balaamand Jezebel, two leading agents of moral contamination
under the Old Testamentdispensation. Balaamenticedthe Israelites, through
the daughters of Moab and Midian, to idolatry and fornication (Numbers 25;
Numbers 31:16). Jezebelmurdered the Lord's prophets, and setup idolatry in
Israel. The Nicolaitans taughtthat, in order to master sensuality, one must
know the whole range of it by experience;and that he should therefore
abandon himself without reserve to the lusts of the body, since they concerned
only the body and did not touch the spirit. These heretics were hated and
expelled by the Church of Ephesus (Revelation2:6), but were tolerated by the
Church of Pergamum (Revelation2:15). The other view regards the name as
symbolic, and Nicholas as the Greek rendering of Balaam, whose name
signifies destroyeror corrupter of the people. This view is adopted by Trench
("SevenChurches"), who says:"The Nicolaitans are the Balaamites;no sect
bearing the one name or the other; but those who, in the new dispensation,
repeatedthe sin of Balaamin the old, and sought to overcome or destroy the
people of God by the same temptations whereby Balaamhad soughtto
overcome them before." The names, however, are by no means parallel:
Conqueror of the people not being the same as corrupter of the people.
Besides, in Revelation2:14, the Balaamites are evidently distinguished from
the Nicolaitans.
Alford remarks:"There is no sort of reasonfor interpreting the name
otherwise than historically. It occurs in a passageindicating simple matters of
historicalfact, just as the name Antipas does in Revelation2:13."

STUDYLIGHTRESOURCES
Adam Clarke Commentary
The deeds of the Nicolaitanes- These were, as is commonly supposed, a sectof
the Gnostics, who taught the most impure doctrines, and followedthe most
impure practices. Theyare also supposed to have derived their origin from
Nicolas, one ofthe sevendeacons mentioned Acts 6:5; (note). The Nicolaitanes
taught the community of wives, that adultery and fornication were things
indifferent, that eating meats offered to idols was quite lawful; and mixed
severalpaganrites with the Christian ceremonies. Augustine, Irenaeus,
Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian, have spokenlargely concerning them.
See more in my preface to 2d Peter, where are severalparticulars concerning
these heretics.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "The Adam Clarke
Commentary".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/revelation-2.html. 1832.
Return to Jump List return to 'Jump List'
Albert Barnes'Notes onthe Whole Bible
But this thou hast - This thou hast that I approve of, or that I can commend.

That thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitans - Greek, “works”( τὰ ἔργα ta
erga). The word “Nicolaitanes”occurs onlyin this place, and in the Revelation
2:15 verse of this chapter. From the reference in the latter place it is clearthat
the doctrines which they held prevailed at Pergamos as wellas at Ephesus;
but from neither place cananything now be inferred in regard to the nature
of their doctrines or their practices, unless it be supposed that they held the
same doctrine that was taught by Balaam. See the notes on Revelation2:15.
From the two passages, comparedwith eachother, it would seemthat they
were alike corrupt in doctrine and in practice, for in the passagebefore us
their deeds are mentioned, and in Revelation2:15 their doctrine. Various
conjectures, however, have beenformed respecting this class of people, and
the reasons whythe name was given to them:
I. In regard to the origin of the name, there have been three opinions:
(1) That mentioned by Irenaeus, and by some of the other fathers, that the
name was derived from Nicolas, one ofthe deacons ordainedat Antioch, Acts
6:5. Of those who have held this opinion, some have supposedthat it was given
to them because he became apostate andwas the founder of the sect, and
others because they assumedhis name, in order to give the greatercredit to
their doctrine. But neither of these suppositions rests on any certain evidence,
and beth are destitute of probability. There is no proof whatever that Nicolas
the deaconeverapostatizedfrom the faith, and became the founder of a sect;
and if a name had been assumed, in order to give credit to a sectand extend
its influence, it is much more probable that the name of an apostle would have
been chosen, or of some other prominent man, than the name of an obscure
deaconof Antioch.
(2) Vitringa, and most commentators since his time, have supposedthat the
name Nicolaitanes was intendedto be symbolical, and was not designedto
designate any sectof people, but to denote those who resembledBalaam, and

that this word is used in the same manner as the word “Jezebel”in Revelation
2:20, which is supposedto be symbolical there. Vitringa supposes that the
word is derived from νίκος nikos“victory,” andλαός laos“people,” andthat
thus it corresponds with the name Balaam, as meaning either ‫צּב‬ ‫םצ‬
bàal ̀am“lordof the people,” or ‫צּב‬ ‫ם‬ baalà ̀am“he destroyedthe people”;
and that, as the same effectwas produced by their doctrines as by those of
Balaam, that the people were led to commit fornication and to join in
idolatrous worship, they might be called“Balaamites”or“Nicolaitanes,”that
is, corrupters of the people. But to this it may be replied:
(a)that it is far-fetched, and is adopted only to remove a difficulty;
(b)that there is every reasonto suppose that the word used here refers to a
class ofpeople who bore that name, and who were well known in the two
churches specified;
(c)that in Revelation2:15 they are expresslydistinguished from those who
held the doctrine of Balaam, Revelation2:14, “So hastthou also ( καὶ kai)
those that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.”
(3) it has been supposed that some personnow unknown, probably of the
name Nicolas, orNicolaus, was their leader, and laid the foundation of the
sect. This is by far the most probable opinion, and to this there canbe no
objection. It is in accordance withwhat usually occurs in regard to sects,
orthodox or heretical, that they derive their origin from some person whose
name they continue to bear; and as there is no evidence that this sect
prevailed extensively, or was indeed known beyond the limits of these
churches, and as it soondisappeared, it is easilyaccountedfor that the
characterand history of the founder were so soonforgotten.

II. In regard to the opinions which they held, there is as little certainty.
Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. i., 26) says that their characteristic tenets were the
lawfulness of promiscuous sexual intercourse with women, and of eating
things offered to idols. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii., 29) states substantiallythe
same thing, and refers to a tradition respecting Nicolaus,that he had a
beautiful wife, and was jealous ofher, and being reproachedwith this,
renounced all intercourse with her, and made use of an expressionwhich was
misunderstood, as implying that illicit pleasure was proper. Tertullian speaks
of the Nicolaitanesas a branch of the Gnostic family, and as, in his time,
extinct. Mosheim (De Rebus Christian Ante. Con. section69) says that “the
questions about the Nicolaitanes have difficulties which cannotbe solved.”
Neander(History of the Christian Religion, as translated by Torrey, vol. i, pp.
452,453)numbers them with Antinomians; though he expressessome doubt
whether the actualexistence ofsuch a sectcan be proved, and rather inclines
to an opinion noticedabove, that the name is symbolical, and that it is used in
a mystical sense, according to the usual style of the Book of Revelation, to
denote corrupters or seducers ofthe people, like Balaam. He supposes that the
passagerelates simply to a class of persons who were in the practice of
seducing Christians to participate in the sacrificialfeasts ofthe pagans, and in
the excesseswhichattended them - just as the Jews were ledastray of old by
the Moabites, Numbers 25.
What was the origin of the name, however, Neanderdoes not profess to be
able to determine, but suggeststhat it was the custom of such sects to attach
themselves to some celebratedname of antiquity, in the choice of which they
were often determined by circumstances quite accidental. He supposes also
that the sectmay have possesseda life of Nicolas ofAntioch, drawn up by
themselves or others from fabulous accounts and traditions, in which what
had been imputed to Nicolas was embodied. Everything, however, in regard to
the origin of this sect, and the reasonofthe name given to it, and the opinions
which they held, is involved in great obscurity, and there is no hope of
throwing light on the subject. It is generallyagreed, among the writers of
antiquity who have mentioned them, that they were distinguished for holding
opinions which countenancedgross socialindulgences. This is all that is really

necessaryto be known in regardto the passage before us, for this will explain
the strong language of aversionand condemnation used by the Saviour
respecting the sectin the epistles to the Churches of Ephesus and Pergamos.
Which I also hate - If the view above takenof the opinions and practices of
this people is correct, the reasons why he hated them are obvious. Nothing can
be more opposed to the personalcharacterof the Saviour, or to his religion,
than such doctrines and deeds.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Barnes, Albert. "Commentaryon Revelation2:6". "Barnes'Notes onthe
Whole Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/revelation-
2.html. 1870.
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
But this thou hast, that thou hatestthe works ofthe Nicolaitans, whichI also
hate.
The works ofthe Nicolaitans ... This is not a reference merely to the evil deeds
of the group mentioned, but to the promulgation of their evil doctrine, as
appears a little later. Who were they? Irenaeus said that, "They are the
followers of that Nicolas who was one of the sevenfirst ordained to the
diaconate by the apostles."[24]Theytaught that it was a matter of

indifference to commit adultery or eatthings sacrificedto idols. "It was an
exaggerationof the doctrine of Christian liberty which attempted an ethical
compromise with heathenism."[25]The reference to the Nicolaitans and to the
doctrine of Balaamin the same passage(Revelation2:14,15),a moment later,
togetherwith the phrase "in like manner" seems to indicate that the teachings
were essentiallythe same. Despite the assertionof Irenaeus cited above, some
students refuse to allow the identification of that sectwith Nicolas, one ofthe
Seven(Acts 6:5), Lenski complaining that, "It is a moral law not to make a
noble Christian man a Judas without full evidence that he turned out to be a
Judas."[26]Ofcourse, no one can disagree with that; but Moffattdeclares
that, "There is no reasonto doubt the originalconnectionof the party with
him (Nicolaus)."[27]Stillit must be confessedthat very little is known of this
sectexceptwhat is revealed here.
[24] Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Translatedby Roberts and
Donaldson(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, n.d.), p. 352.
[25] Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation(Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), p. 61.
[26] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 90.
[27] James Moffatt, op. cit., p. 351.
Copyright Statement
James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved.

Bibliography
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "Coffman
Commentaries on the Old and New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/revelation-2.html. Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
But this thou hast, that thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitans,....Though
these Christians had left their first love, yet they bore an hatred to the filthy
and impure practices ofsome men, who were called"Nicolaitans";who
committed fornication, adultery, and all uncleanness, and had their wives in
common, and also ate things offered to idols; who were so called, as some
thinkF3, from Nicolas ofAntioch, one of the sevendeacons in Acts 6:5; though
as to Nicolas himself, it is saidF4, that he lived with his own lawful married
wife, and no other, and that his daughters continued virgins all their days, and
his sonincorrupt; and that these men, so called, only shrouded themselves
under his name, and abuseda saying or action of his, or both, to patronize
their wickeddeeds:he had used to advise παραχρησθαι τη σαρκι, by which he
meant a restraining of all carnaland unlawful lusts; but these men
interpreted it of an indulgence in them, and so gave themselves up to all
uncleanness;and whereas, he having a beautiful wife, and being chargedwith
jealousy, in order to clearhimself of it, he brought her forth, and gave free
liberty to any personto marry her as would; which indiscreetaction of his
these men chose to understand as allowing of community of wives. Dr.
Lightfoot conjectures, that these Nicolaitans were notcalled so from any man,
but from the word ‫יכנ‬ ‫,ה‬ "Nicolah", "letus eat", which they often used to
encourage eachotherto eat things offered to idols. Howeverthis be, it is
certain that there were such a setof men, whose deeds were hateful; but
neither their principles nor their practices obtainedmuch in this period of

time, though they afterwards did; see Revelation2:15. Professors ofthe
Christian religion in generalabhorred such impure notions and deeds, as they
were by Christ:
which also I hate; all sin is hateful to Christ, being contrary to his nature, to
his will, and to his Gospel;and whateveris hateful to him should be to his
people; and where grace is, sin will be hateful, both in themselves and others;
and men's deeds may be hated when their persons are not; and hatred of sin is
takennotice of by Christ, with a commendation,
Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernisedand adapted
for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rightes Reserved,
Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard
Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855
Bibliography
Gill, John. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "The New John Gill Exposition
of the Entire Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/revelation-2.html. 1999.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But — How graciously, afternecessarycensure, He returns to praise for our
consolation, andas an example to us, that we would show, when we reprove,
we have more pleasure in praising than in fault-finding.

hatestthe deeds — We should hate men‘s evil deeds, not hate the men
themselves.
Nicolaitanes — Irenaeus [Against Heresies, 1.26.3]and Tertullian
[PrescriptionagainstHeretics, 46]make these followers ofNicolas, one of the
seven(honorably mentioned, Acts 6:3, Acts 6:5). They (Clement of Alexandria
[Miscellanies,2.20 3.4]andEpiphanius [Heresies, 25])evidently confound the
latter Gnostic Nicolaitanes,orfollowers of one Nicolaos, withthose of
Revelation. Michaelis‘view is probable: Nicolaos(conquerorof the people) is
the Greek versionof Balaam, from Hebrew “{(Belang Am},” “Destroyerof
the people.” Revelationabounds in such duplicate Hebrew and Greek names:
as Apollyon, Abaddon: Devil, Satan:Yea (Greek, “{Nai}”), Amen. The name,
like other names, Egypt, Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic. Compare Revelation
2:14, {Rev_2:15}, which shows the true sense ofNicolaitanes;they are not a
sect, but professing Christians who, like Balaamof old. tried to introduce into
the Church a false freedom, that is, licentiousness;this was a reactionin the
opposite direction from Judaism, the first dangerto the Church combatedin
the councilof Jerusalem, and by Paul in the Epistle to Galatians. These
symbolical Nicolaitanes, orfollowers ofBalaam, abused Paul‘s doctrine of the
grace ofGod into a plea for lasciviousness (2 Peter2:15, 2 Peter2:16, 2 Peter
2:19; Judges 1:4, Judges 1:11 who both describe the same sort of seducers as
followers of Balaam). The difficulty that they should appropriate a name
branded with infamy in Scripture is met by Trench: The Antinomian Gnostics
were so opposedto John as a Judaizing apostle that they would assume as a
name of chiefesthonor one which John branded with dishonor.
Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text
scannedby Woodside Bible Fellowship.

This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-BrownCommentary is in the
public domain and may be freely used and distributed.
Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Revelation2:6". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/revelation-2.html.
1871-8.
William Godbey's Commentary on the New Testament
6. Here God againcommends their scrupulous orthodoxy in the loyal fight
they nobly maintain againstthe Nicolaitanheresy, which taught then, as now,
that sin resided in the body; so their bodies were compelled to sin so long as
they lived.
Copyright Statement
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Godbey, William. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "William Godbey's
Commentary on the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ges/revelation-2.html.

Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
That thou hatest(οτι μισεις — hoti miseis). Accusative object clause in
apposition with τουτο — touto (this). Trench tells of the words used in ancient
Greek for hatred of evil (μισοπονηρια — misoponēria) and μισοπονηρος —
misoponēros (hater of evil), neither of which occurs in the N.T., but which
accuratelydescribe the angelof the church in Ephesus.
Of the Nicolaitans (τωνΝικολαιτων— tōn Nikolaitōn). Mentionedagain in
Revelation2:15 and really meant in Revelation2:2. Irenaeus and Hippolytus
take this sectto be followers ofNicolaus of Antioch, one of the sevendeacons
(Acts 6:5), a Jewishproselyte, who is said to have apostatized. There was such
a sectin the secondcentury (Tertullian), but whether descendedfrom
Nicolaus ofAntioch is not certain, though possible (Lightfoot). It is even
possible that the Balaamites ofRevelation2:14 were a variety of this same sect
(Revelation2:15).
Which I also hate (α καγω μισω — ha kagō misō). Christ himself hates the
teachings and deeds of the Nicolaitans (α — ha not ους — hous deeds, not
people), but the church in Pergamumtolerated them.
Copyright Statement
The Robertson's WordPictures of the New Testament. Copyright �
Broadman Press 1932,33,Renewal1960. All rights reserved. Used by
permission of Broadman Press (Southern BaptistSunday SchoolBoard)
Bibliography
Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "Robertson's Word
Pictures of the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/revelation-2.html.
Broadman Press 1932,33.Renewal1960.

Vincent's Word Studies
The Nicolaitans
From νικᾶν toconquer, and λαός thepeople. There are two principal
explanations of the term. The first and better one historical. A sectspringing,
according to credible tradition, from Nicholas a proselyte of Antioch, one of
the sevendeacons ofJerusalem(Acts 6:5), who apostatizedfrom the truth,
and became the founder of an Antinomian Gnostic sect. Theyappear to have
been characterizedby sensuality, seducing Christians to participate in the
idolatrous feasts ofpagans, and to unchastity. Hence they are denoted by the
names of Balaamand Jezebel, two leading agents of moral contamination
under the Old Testamentdispensation. Balaamenticedthe Israelites, through
the daughters of Moab and Midian, to idolatry and fornication (Numbers
href="/desk/?q=nu+31:16&sr=1">Numbers 31:16). Jezebelmurdered the
Lord's prophets, and set up idolatry in Israel. The Nicolaitans taught that, in
order to master sensuality, one must know the whole range of it by
experience;and that he should therefore abandon himself without reserve to
the lusts of the body, since they concernedonly the body and did not touch the
spirit. These heretics were hatedand expelled by the Church of Ephesus
(Revelation2:6), but were toleratedby the Church of Pergamum (Revelation
2:15). The other view regards the name as symbolic, and Nicholas as the
Greek rendering of Balaam, whose name signifies destroyer or corrupter of
the people. This view is adopted by Trench (“SevenChurches”), who says:
“The Nicolaitans are the Balaamites;no sectbearing the one name or the
other; but those who, in the new dispensation, repeated the sin of Balaamin
the old, and soughtto overcome or destroy the people of God by the same
temptations whereby Balaamhad soughtto overcome them before.” The
names, however, are by no means parallel: Conqueror of the people not being
the same as corrupter of the people. Besides, in Revelation2:14, the
Balaamites are evidently distinguished from the Nicolaitans.

Alford remarks:“There is no sort of reasonfor interpreting the name
otherwise than historically. It occurs in a passageindicating simple matters of
historicalfact, just as the name Antipas does in Revelation2:13.”
Copyright Statement
The text of this work is public domain.
Bibliography
Vincent, Marvin R. DD. "Commentaryon Revelation2:6". "Vincent's Word
Studies in the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/vnt/revelation-2.html. Charles
Schribner's Sons. New York, USA. 1887.
Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
But this thou hast, that thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitans, whichI also
hate.
But thou hast this — Divine grace seekswhatevermay help him that is fallen
to recoverhis standing.
That thou hatestthe works of the Nicolaitans — Probably so calledfrom
Nicolas, one ofthe sevendeacons, Acts 6:5. Their doctrines and lives were
equally corrupt. They allowedthe most abominable lewdness and adulteries,
as well as sacrificing to idols; all which they placed among things indifferent,
and pleaded for as branches of Christian liberty.
Copyright Statement

These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website.
Bibliography
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "JohnWesley's Explanatory
Notes on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wen/revelation-2.html. 1765.
Abbott's Illustrated New Testament
The Nicolaitanes. There is another allusion to this class in Revelation2:15.
Various traditions and conjectures have come down to us in respectto this
sect, whose deeds and whose doctrines, it seems, were alike hateful to God. All
that is important, however, for our purpose, is clear, namely, that God is
pleasedwhen the church is decided and firm in withstanding every
corruption, in sentiment and practice within her pale.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Abbott, John S. C. & Abbott, Jacob. "Commentaryon Revelation2:6".
"Abbott's Illustrated New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ain/revelation-2.html. 1878.

Scofield's ReferenceNotes
Nicolaitanes
From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no
ancient authority for a sectof the Nicolaitanes.If the word is symbolic it
refers to the earliestform of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which
later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity."
What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation2:6 had become in Pergamosa
"doctrine Revelation2:15.
Nicolaitanes,Revelation2:15, contra,;1 Peter5:2; 1 Peter5:3; Matthew
24:49.
Copyright Statement
These files are consideredpublic domain and are a derivative of an electronic
edition that is available in the Online Bible Software Library.
Bibliography
Scofield, C. I. "ScofieldReferenceNoteson Revelation2:6". "Scofield
Reference Notes(1917Edition)".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/srn/revelation-2.html. 1917.
John Trapp Complete Commentary
6 But this thou hast, that thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitans, whichI also
hate.

Ver. 6. But this thou hast] That they might not say, when calledupon to
repent, Nay, but there is no hope, Jeremiah2:25; Jeremiah 18:12. Christ picks
out that which is praiseworthyin them, and commends it. Despaircarries men
to hell, as the devils did the swine into the sea;castnot awaytherefore your
confidence, &c.
The works ofthe Nicolaitans]Who taught a community of wives, and that it
was but a thing indifferent to commit adultery. (Irenaeus, Theod.)
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Trapp, John. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". John Trapp Complete
Commentary. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/revelation-
2.html. 1865-1868.
Sermon Bible Commentary
Revelation2:6
What was Hopeful in Ephesus.

At a first glance this verse seems out of its place. It looks like a part of the
Lord's commendation that had been forgottenat the proper moment, and is
now mentioned as an afterthought. A little reflection, however, shows that it
occupies its proper place, and it carries force from this very fact. Here is, so to
speak, a starting-point for return to first love. This very "hatred" will make
the revival of love the easier. Letthem be encouragedand take heart and hope
accordingly.
I. I do not think we can speak with much certainty about Nicolaitanism. We
may setit down as a heathenish mode of life under a Christian designation,
turning the grace of God into licentiousness,a reconciling of Christian faith
with the practice of fleshly lusts, or Antinomian principles.
II. The Ephesianbelievers had not been poisonedby that false and deadly
charity which speaks smoothand honeyed things to sin, and stands on friendly
terms with it. They "hated" the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, andwe are to take
the word "hate" in its full force as the opposite of love. Coexistentwith hatred
of their deeds, there doubtless was compassionfor the men themselves and
some endeavour to save them.
III. Christ hates as well as loves. He would not be perfectif He did not; He
would lack one of the most regalqualities of His nature. The angelof the
Church of Ephesus was at one with Christ in hating the deeds of the
Nicolaitanes;and this, so far as it went, was a token of vitality and vigour in
the Church's system, and it formed a starting-point for return to first love. It
was not merely a goodsign, but a goodthing. Once let a Church or an
individual ceaseto be shockedby Nicolaitane deeds, make light of them, wink
at them, apologise forthem, and the downward course is all but certain. On
the other hand, so long as evil is sternly hated, there is not merely the

possibility, but the hope, of returning first love, with all that this restoration
involves.
J. Culross, Thy First Love, p. 95.
Reference:Revelation2:6.—W. Arnot, GoodWords, vol. iii., pp. 189-191.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Nicoll, William R. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "Sermon Bible
Commentary".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/sbc/revelation-2.html.
Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
Revelation2:6. The deeds of the Nicolaitans,—Some have thought that these
heretics derive their name from Nicolas,one of the sevendeacons;but that
name was so common among the Jews, thatno stress canbe laid on an
argument drawn from thence. The substance of what ancient writers say
concerning them is, that they taught the lawfulness of lewdness, and
idolatroussacrifices,esteeming those things indifferent in their own nature;
and that their practices were suitable to such principles. See Revelation2:14-
15. 1 John 1:3; 1 John 1:10.

Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Coke, Thomas. "Commentaryon Revelation2:6". Thomas Coke
Commentary on the Holy Bible.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tcc/revelation-2.html. 1801-
1803.
Greek TestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentary
6.] Notwithstanding, this thou hast (this one thing: there is no need to supply
ἀγαθόνor the like: of what sort the τοῦτο is, is explained by what follows. We
may notice the tender compassionof our blessedLord, who, in his blame of a
falling church, yet selects forpraise one particular in which His mind is yet
retained. This is for our comfort: but let us not forgetthat it is for our
imitation also. μεταξὺ τῶν λυπηρῶν τίθησι καὶ τὰ πρὸς εὐθυμίανἄγοντα, ἵνα
μὴ τῇ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ καταποθῇ τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Areth(18) in Cat.) that
thou hatestthe works (“non dixit Nicolaitas,sedfacta:quia personæ sunt ex
charitate diligendæ, sed eorum vitia odio sunt habenda.” Lyra. It would have
been well with the church, had this always been remembered. τὰ ἔργα, see
below, must be referred to the moral delinquencies of this sect)of the
Nicolaitans (there has been much dispute who these were. The prevailing
opinion among the fathers was, that they were a sectfounded by Nicolaus the
proselyte of Antioch, one of the sevendeacons. So Irenæus (Hær. i. 26. 3(27),
p. 105, “Nicolaitæ autemmagistrum quidem habent Nicolaum, unum ex vii.,
qui primi ad diaconium ab apostolis ordinati sunt: qui indiscrete vivunt”),

Tertullian (Præscr. Hær. 46, vol. ii. p. 63, “alter hæreticus Nicolaus emersit.
Hic de septem diaconis qui in Actis App. allecti sunt, fuit.” He then describes
his execrable impurities), Clem.-Alex(19) (in two passages,whichare worth
citing, as I shall presently have to comment on them: 1) Strom, ii.20 (118), p.
490 P.,— τοιοῦτοι δὲ καὶ οἱ φάσκοντες ἐαυτοὺς νικολάῳ ἓπεσθαι
ἀπομνημόνευμάτι τἀνδρὸς φέροντες ἐκ παρατροπῆς τὸ δεῖν παραχρήσασθαι
τῇ σαρκί. ἀλλʼ ὁ μὲν γενναῖος κολούεινδεῖν ἐδήλου τάς τε ἡδονὰς τάς τε
ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ τῇ ἀσκήσει ταύτῃ καταμαραίνειντὰς τῆς σαρκὸς ὁρμάς τε καὶ
ἐπιθέσεις. οἱ δὲ εἰς ἡδονὴν τράγωνδίκην ἐκχυθέντες οἷονἐφυβρίζοντες τῷ
σώματι καθηδυπαθοῦσιν:2) ib. iii. 4 (25), p. 522 P.: περὶ τῆς νικολάου ῥήσεως
διαλεχθέντες ἐκεῖνο παρελείπομεν· ὡραίαν, φησί, γυναῖκα ἔχων οὗτος μετὰ
τὴν ἀνάληψιν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος πρὸς τῶν ἀποστόλωνὀνειδισθεὶς ζηλοτυπίαν
εἰς μέσον ἀγαγὼντὴν γυναῖκα γῆμαι τῷ βουλομένῳ ἐπέτρεψεν· ἀκόλουθον
γὰρ εἶναί φασι τὴν πρᾶξιν ταύτηνἐκείνῃ τῇ φωνῇ τῇ ὅτι παραχρήσασθαι τῇ
σαρκὶ δεῖ), Euseb. (H. E. iii. 29, citing Clem.-Alex(20), as above), Epiphanius
(Hær. xxv. pp. 76 ff., where he gives a long accountof Nicolaus and his
depravation and his followers):so also Jerome (dial. adv. Lucif. 23, vol. ii. p.
197)and Aug(21) (de hæres. 5, vol. viii. p. 26), and many other fathers,
citations from whom may be seenin Stern’s notes, h. 1.: also Areth(22) in
Catena, referring to Epiph.
We have alreadyseen, in Clem.-Alex(23), symptoms of a desire to vindicate
Nicolaus the deaconfrom the opprobrium of having been the founder of such
a sect;and we find accordinglyin the apostolicalconstitutions, οἱ νῦν
ψευδώνυμοι νικολαΐταιare spoken of: and Victorinus of Pettau, in our
earliestextant commentary on the Apocalypse, says, “Nicolaitæ autemerant
illo tempore ficti homines et pestiferi, qui sub nomine Nicolaiministri fecerunt
sibi hæresin,” &c. Thence we advance a step farther, and find another
Nicolaus substituted for the deaconof that name. So in Dorotheus (cited in
Stern) we find him describedas a bishop of Samaria ( ὃς ἐπίσκοπος σαμαρείας
γενόμενος ἑτεροδόξησενἅμα τῷ σίμωνι). And an apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. p. 498 (Stern), speaks ofa
Corinthian of this name, infamous for licentious practices. We come now to
the secondprincipal view with regard to this sect, which supposes their name

to be symbolic, and Nicolaus to be the Greek rendering of Balaam, ‫ּב‬ָ‫ם‬ ‫ב‬ֶ ָ‫,ם‬ or,
Chald., ‫ּב‬ָ‫ם‬ ‫ב‬ֶ ָ‫,ם‬ ‘perdidit vel absorpsitpopulum.’ Consequently the name
Nicolaitans = Balaamites, as is also inferred from Revelation2:14 . This view
seems first to have been broached by Chr. A. Heumann in the Acta
Eruditorum for 1712, andsince then has been the prevailing one. (There is a
trace in ancient times of a mystical interpretation, e. g. in Haym(24), gloss.
ord., who says, “Nicolaus, stultus populus, id est, Gentiles Deum ignorantes:”
and Ambrose Ansbert, “sia proprietate ad figuram, ut solet, sermo recurrit,
omnes hæretici Nicolaitæ esseprobantur: Nicolaus enim interpretatur stultus
populus.” What this means, I am as unable to sayas was Vitringa: it perhaps
arises from thus understanding ‫ּב‬ָ‫ם‬ ֶ‫,ם‬ ‘non-populus:’ cf. Deuteronomy32:21 .)
But this is very forced, and is properly repudiated by some of the best modern
Commentators:e. g. by De Wette, Ebrard, and Stern. (See also Winer, Realw.
sub voce:Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 2. 774 ff.: Gieseler, Kirchengesch. i. 1. 113
note.) In the first place, the names are by no means parallel, even were we to
make Balaam, as some have done, into ‫ּב‬ָ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ם‬ ֶ‫,ם‬ lord of the people ( ἀρχέλαος ):
and next, the view derives no support from Revelation2:14 f., where the
followers of Balaamare distinct from the Nicolaitans:see note there. And
besides, there is no sort of reasonfor interpreting the name otherwise than
historically. It occurs in a passage indicating simple matters of historicalfact,
just as the name Antipas does in Revelation2:13. If we do not gain
trustworthy accounts of the sectfrom elsewhere,why not allow for the gulf
which separates the history of the apostolic from that of the post-apostolic
period, and be content with what we know of them from these two passages?
There is nothing repugnant to verisimilitude in what Clem.-Alex(25) relates of
the error of Nicolaus;nor need all of those, who were chosento aid the
Apostles in distributing alms, have been, even to the end of their lives, spotless
and infallible. At leastit may be enough for us to believe that possible of one
of them, which the post-apostolic Fathers did not hesitate to receive), which I
also hate (this strong expressionin the mouth of our Lord unquestionably
points at deeds of abomination and impurity: cf. Isaiah59:8; Jeremiah 44:4;
Amos 5:21; Zechariah 8:17).
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Alford, Henry. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". Greek TestamentCritical
ExegeticalCommentary.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/revelation-2.html. 1863-
1878.
Expository Notes with PracticalObservations onthe New Testament
As if Christ had said, "Though thou art not what thou shouldestbe, yet this
thou hast commendable in thee, that thou shouldest be, yet this thou hast
commendable in thee, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, (who held
community of wives, and ate things offered to idols,) which impure sectI also
hate for their licentious doctrine and lewd practices, whichtend to the ruin
and bane of human societies."
Note here, 1. That it is not unlawful to callheretics by the name of their
leaders;the Nicolaitans are here so called from one Nicolas, supposedto be
the deaconmentioned, who having a beautiful wife exposedher as common, to
avoid the imputation of jealousy.
Note, 2. That Christ hated all licentious doctrines and loose practices,and so
should we.
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Burkitt, William. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". Expository Notes with
PracticalObservations onthe New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wbc/revelation-2.html. 1700-
1703.
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament
Revelation2:6. Not for the purpose of alleviating the pain of the church
concerning the reproof of Revelation2:4,(968)but because the Lord’s love for
his church gladly recognizes whatis to be properly acknowledged, andonce
more, but in a new and more definite way, makes prominent in opposition to
Revelation2:4 sqq. ( ἀλλά) the one point of commendation already in
Revelation2:2. Just because the church was rejectedfor no longerhaving the
first love to their Lord, is it once more expresslyacknowledgedthat it is still
so far of one mind with him, as to hate the wickedworks which he hates. Thus
Revelation2:6 has enough that is peculiar, as not to appeara mere repetition
of Revelation2:2, and contains no marks whateverwhereby Revelation2:2-3,
are to be understood in the sense ofHengstenberg.
With τοῦτο ἔχ. neither ἀγαθόν, nor the like, is used to complete the
construction:the explanation of the τοῦτο in ὄτι ΄ισ., κ. τ. λ., shows that the
common possessionis commendable.

The ΄ισεῖς is not “a strong expressionfor censuring,”(969)but is just as
earnestlymeant as the ΄ισῶ.(970)But it is justly remarked already by N. de
Lyra,(971)that the hatred is directed not againstthe persons, but againstthe
works.(972)
Concerning the Nicolaitans,(973)as wellconcerning their name as also their
conduct, it is possible to judge only by a comparisonwith Revelation2:14 sqq.
Irenaeus,(974)Hippolyt.,(975)Tertullian,(976)Clemens Alex.,(977)
Jerome,(978)Augustine,(979)andother Church Fathers derive the sectfrom
a founder Nicolaus, and that, too, the deaconmentioned in Acts 6:5, of whom
they have more to relate as they are more remote from him in time. That this
is derived entirely from this passage, andis of no more importance than that
according to which the Ebionites are representedas springing from a certain
Ebion,(980)is shown, first, from the fluctuation of the tradition which also
knew how to defend that church officer, so highly commended in Acts, from
the disgrace ofhaving founded a troublesome sect,(981)and, secondly, from
the circumstance that the patristic tradition, from the very beginning, refers
to Revelation2:6; Revelation2:14 sqq. Nicolaus ofActs 6 was thought of
because none other of that name was known.(982)Since Chr. A.
Heumann,(983) and J. W. Janus,(984)the opinion has become almost
universal, that the designationνικολαἰται (from νικᾶν and λαός) suggeststhe
Hebrew name Balaam(from ‫ב‬ֶ ַ‫ע‬ and ‫ּב‬ָ‫,ם‬ i.e., swallowing-up, or destruction, of
the people), whereby the Balaamite nature of those Nicolaitanes is to be
indicated. To this Revelation2:14-15, refer.(985)Yetit cannot be positively
decided whether John found the word used already in this sense, orwas
himself the first to frame it. A comparisonmay be made with the name
Armillus given to antichrist,(986)i.e., ἐρη΄όλαος.(987)
The Nicolaitans are of course not identical(988)with the κακοί mentionedin
Revelation2:2, since the latter expressionis very general:yet, at all events,
they belong to “them which are evil;” and the idea, which in itself is highly
improbable, must not be inferred,(989)that in Revelation2:2; Revelation2:6,

two entirely different kinds of false teachers are meant, of whom the former
may be regarded disciples of John,(990)orJewishteachers,(991)orstrict
JewishChristians,(992)while the Nicolaitans, who, according to De Wette,
etc., are again distinct from Balaamites,(993)as those ofa more heathen
tendency, viz., false teachers who surrendered themselves(994)to a false
freedom.(995)Tertullian and other Church fathers, N. de Lyra, and the older
expositors, connectthe Nicolaitans with the Gnostics;Hengstenb. also regards
them identical with the deniers of the Son, in the Epistles of John, by referring
the warning in John 5:21(996)to the ethnicizing ways of the false teachers
there antagonized. But for all this, there is no foundation. What especially
contradicts Hengstenberg’s conjecture is the fact that the (Gnostic)false
teachers ofthe Epistles of John are attackedjust as decidedly because oftheir
false doctrines, as the Nicolaitans ofthe Apoc. because of their evil deeds.(997)
That the aberrations are practical, which even Hengstenb. emphasizes, but
without ground alleges alsoofthe false teachers in 1 John, is shown alreadyby
Revelation2:2 ( κακούς). We shalltherefore have to think of the Nicolaitans
as ethnicizing libertines.(998)This is not contradicted by the factthat they
assumedapostolic authority; for if they possibly professedto vindicate their
Christian freedom in the Pauline sense, they might likewise wishto be apostles
like Paul.(999)[See Note XXIX., p. 155.]
NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR
XXIX. Revelation2:6. τῶν νικολαϊτῶν
The argument in the long and thorough discussionin Gebhardt (pp. 206–216)
is to prove the distinction betweenthe Nicolaitans andthose errorists
mentioned in Revelation2:2, “them which saythey are apostles,”etc.,
referring to Judaizing teachers, the conflict with whom is now in the
background, while, with Dust., he regards the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing
teachers ofan Antinomian type. He traces the two classes, as prophesied

already by St. Paul in his charge to the elders of Ephesus, Acts 28:29-30, the
latter verse referring to those here mentioned. Sieffert (Herzog, R. E.):
“Gentile Christian Antinomians who abused Paul’s doctrine of freedom.”
Schultze (in Zöckler’s Handbuch): “A Gnostic Antinomianism, againstwhich
Paul had contendedin the Epistle to the Colossians,and especiallyJude, and
Peterin his SecondEpistle; and whose adherents John means in his First
Epistle, by the name of antichrists, combining with false gnosis docetic error
and a heathen life, as the head of whom Cerinthus appeared(Iren., i. 26;
Euseb., iii. 28).”
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". Heinrich Meyer's
Critical and ExegeticalCommentary on the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/revelation-2.html. 1832.
Matthew Poole's EnglishAnnotations on the Holy Bible
But this thou hast; thou hastyet thus much to commend thee.
That thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitanes;thou hatestthe deeds of those
who teachthe lawfulness of a common use of wives, and eat things offered to
idols; for these, they say, were the tenets of the Nicolaitanes, so calledfrom
one Nicholas;but whether he were one of the first deacons, named Acts 6:5,
(who, they say, to avoid the imputation of jealousy, brought forth his wife,

being a beautiful woman, and prostituted her), or from some other of that
name, I cannotdetermine.
Which I also hate:God, as a lover of his own order, and of human society,
hateth such doctrines and practices as are contrary to the rule of his word,
and tend to the confusionof human societies.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Poole, Matthew, "Commentaryon Revelation2:6". Matthew Poole's English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/revelation-2.html. 1685.
Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
Nicolaitanes;a corrupt sect, who seemto have turned Christian liberty into
licentiousness.
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Edwards, Justin. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "Family Bible New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/fam/revelation-
2.html. American TractSociety. 1851.
Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools andColleges
6. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἔχεις. This one point in which thou art not wanting. Compare
Revelation2:25, Revelation3:2; Revelation3:11, where faithfulness is
conceivedas a treasure possessedand to be guarded.
μισεῖς τὰ ἔργα. Compatible with love to the persons:cf. St Judges 1:23.
τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν. See Excursus II.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
"Commentary on Revelation2:6". "Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools
and Colleges".https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/revelation-
2.html. 1896.

Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
6. But—An added mitigation of the rebuke, and a directing how to avoid the
removal.
Hatest the deeds—The Ephesians hatedbetter than they loved. Severe pietists
hate sinners often more than they love goodness. Theyabhor antichrist more
than they love Christ. And these are in dangerof mixing an impure passion
with their moral antagonism, which may produce a fall from Christian love.
After having warned his Ephesians of this danger, our seerreiterates the
rightness of their abhorrence of the corruptionists, assuring them of Christ’s
authentication therein.
Nicolaitans—The professedfollowers ofNicolas, one of the first seven deacons
of Jerusalem, as we have noted on Acts 6:5. The earliestauthorities are
decisive on this point. Says Irenaeus:“The Nicolaitans also have Nicolaus as
their master, one of the first sevenwho were ordained to the deaconshipby
the apostles.”Tertullian:“Another heretic emerged— Nicolaus. He was one of
the sevendeacons mentionedin the Acts of the Apostles.” Later, and so less
trustworthy, authorities exculpate Nicolas, under excuse either that he was
misunderstood by his followers orthat they claimed his authority falsely, or
that it was another Nicolas,a bishop of Samaria, who was their real founder.
As we have said in our note above quoted, the sexuallicentiousness ofthe sect
was basedupon a philosophical maxim, namely, that all evil resides in matter.
From this principle two opposite inferences could be drawn, and two opposing
sects be formed. 1. It could be affirmed that all material indulgence must be
avoided, and thence would arise asceticism, with its rejectionof meats,
monasticism, enforcedcelibacy, self-flagellation, anddenial of the real
corporeity of Christ. 2. It could, on the other hand, be affirmed that all
material sins could be indulged, and yet the spirit be pure, and thence would
arise the most unrestrained inebriety and debauchery. It was this last sect
which our Lord gives over to a holy and divine hate. See our note on Acts 6:5;
Acts 8:9-12; Romans 14:1-6;2 Thessalonians2:7. Well might the true heart

hate the deeds of this sect, for it would have buried Christianity in base
licentiousness. Butwhile the Christian would hate their deeds, he would
earnestlywish to save the men.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Whedon, Daniel. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "Whedon's Commentary
on the Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/whe/revelation-
2.html. 1874-1909.
PeterPett's Commentary on the Bible
‘But this you do have, you hate the works ofthe Nicolaitans whichI also hate.’
We know little about the Nicolaitans but they were clearly influential then in
leading astraythe churches, and were probably followers ofa Nicolaus
(variously identified). They apparently taught that it was goodto eat things
sacrificedto idols and to behave immorally, engaging in self-expressionand
full release (seeRevelation2:14-15). This meant both a compromise with the
Roman religion, with its sacrificesto Roma and its love feasts, and with other
religions, thus denying the exclusivity of Christ. This then meant involvement
in idolatry and licentiousness.

To openly eat things sacrificedto idols would be seenas acknowledging the
gods who were being ‘worshipped’, and licentious behaviour, introducing
overt sexual expressionoutside marriage (often with ‘sacredprostitutes’), was
a common feature in many religions of the day. Misusedsexand idolatry, two
constantenemies of the church, these things Christ hates. But there was none
of this in the Ephesianchurch. They had maintained their purity.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "PeterPett's Commentary on
the Bible ". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/revelation-
2.html. 2013.
Foy E. Wallace'sCommentaryon the Book of Revelation
8. "But this thou hast, that thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitanes, whichI
also hate"--2:6.
The claim that this designationof a sector a party derived its name from
Nicolas, ofActs 6:5, rests on assertion. There is no historicalor factual
evidence of it. It is more consistentwith the code language ofRevelationto
regard the term Nicolaitanes as a symbolic expression, along with the use of
the word Balaam. The two words actually are similar in meaning, one meant a
"victor of the people" and the other a "devourer of the people." These

meanings of the two words significantly unite the two symbols as signs of the
religious seductions of the Libertine party in the Ephesianchurch.
Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition available at
BibleSupport.com. Public Domain.
Bibliography
Wallace, FoyE. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "FoyE. Wallace's
Commentary on the Book of Revelation".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/foy/revelation-2.html. 1966.
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Revelation2:6. The Lord cannot leave them without a fresh word of
commendation. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the
Nicolaitans, whichI also hate. Who the persons thus referred to were we shall
best learn at Revelation2:15. In the meantime it is enough to say that we have
here more than a mere repetition of what had been said alreadyat Revelation
2:2; and that the last words, ‘which I also hate,’ appear to be added partly at
leastfor the sake ofbringing out the factthat, notwithstanding the declension
of the EphesianChristians, there was still one point on which their Lord and
they were similarly minded.
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Schaff, Philip. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "Schaff's Popular
Commentary on the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/scn/revelation-2.html. 1879-
90.
The Expositor's Greek Testament
Revelation2:6. The messageends with a tardy echo of 2 b. The prophet
admits that one redeeming feature in the church is the detestationof the N.
Not all the spirit of animosity at Ephesus is amiss. When directed, as moral
antipathy, againstthese detestable Nikolaitans (corresponding to the Greek
quality of μισοπονηρία), it is a healthy feature of their Christian
consciousness. The Nikolaitanshave been identified by patristic tradition,
from Irenæus downwards, with the followers of the proselyte Nikolaos(Acts
6:5, where see note), who is alleged, especiallyby Tertullian and Epiphanius,
to have lapsed into antinomian license, as the result of an overstrained
asceticism, and to have given his name to a sectwhich practisedreligious
sensuality in the days before Cerinthus. The tenets of the latter are in fact
declaredby Irenæus to have been anticipated by the Nicolaitans, who
representedthe spirit of libertinism which, like the opposite extreme of
legalismat an earlierperiod, threatened the church’s moral health. But if the
comment of Vict. were reliable, that the N(899)principle was merely ut
delibatum exorcizareturet manducari possetet ut quicumque fornicatus esset
octauo die pacem acciperet, the representationof John would become
vigorously polemicalrather than historicallyaccurate. The tradition of the
N(900)’s originmay of course be simply due to the play of later imagination
upon the present narrative takenwith the isolated reference to Nikolaos in
Acts 6:6. On the other hand it was not in the interest of later tradition to
propagate ideas derogatoryto the characterof an apostolic Christian; indeed,

as early as Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii. 20, iii. 4; cf. Constit. Ap. vi. 8), a disposition
(shared by Vict.) to clearhis characteris evident. Whateverwas the precise
relation of the sectto Nikolaos, whethersome tenet of his was exploited
immorally or whether he was himself a dangerouslylax teacher, there is no
reasonto doubt the original connexionof the party with him. Its
accommodating principles are luminously indicated by the comment of
Hippolytus ( ἐδίδασκενἀδιαφορίανβίου)and the phrase attributed to him by
Clem. Alex, ( παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ), a hint which is confirmed, if the
Nikolaitans here and in Revelation2:15 are identified with the Balaamites (
νικο- λαος, in popular etymology, a rough Greek equivalent for ‫ע‬ ‫ב‬ ‫,ּבב‬
perdidit uel absorpsitpopulum). This symbolic interpretation has prevailed
from the beginning of the eighteenth century (so Ewald, Hengstenberg, Düst.,
Schürer, Julicher, Bousset). The original party-name was probably
interpreted by opponents in this derogatorysense. It was thus turned into a
covertcensure upon men who were either positively immoral or liberally
indifferent to scruples (on food, clubs, marriage, and the like) which this
puritan prophet regardedas vital to the preservationof genuine Christianity
in a pagan city. A contemporary parallel of moral laxity is quoted by
Derenbourg, Hist, de la Palestine (1867), p. 363. If Nikolaoswas reallyan
ascetic himself, the abuse of his principles is quite intelligible, as well as their
popularity with people of inferior character. Pushedto an extreme, asceticism
confines ethical perfectionto the spirit. As the flesh has no part in the divine
life, it may be regardedeither as a foe to be constantlythwarted or as
something morally indifferent. In the latter case, the practicalinference of
sensualindulgence is obvious, the argument being that the lofty spirit cannot
be soiled by such indulgence any more than the sun is polluted by shining on a
dunghill.
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". The
Expositor's Greek Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/revelation-2.html. 1897-
1910.
JosephBenson's Commentaryof the Old and New Testaments
Revelation2:6. But — Or nevertheless;this thou hast — This honour and
praise remaining; divine grace seekswhatevermay help him that is fallen to
recoverhis standing; that thou hatestthe deeds of the Nicolaitanes — A sect
so called, it is thought, from Nicolas, one of the sevendeacons mentioned Acts
6:5; according to ancientwriters, their doctrine and their lives were equally
corrupt. They allowedthe practice of the most abominable lewdness and
adulteries, as well as sacrificing to idols; all which they placed among things
indifferent, and pleaded for as branches of Christian liberty.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Benson, Joseph. "Commentaryon Revelation2:6". JosephBenson's
Commentary. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rbc/revelation-
2.html. 1857.

E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
deeds = works, as Revelation2:5.
Nicolaitanes.History has no recordof these. Tradition says much. They will
appear "in that day". All we do know is that they are hateful to God.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "E.W.
Bullinger's Companion bible Notes".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/revelation-2.html. 1909-
1922.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
hate.
But. How graciouslyHe returns to praise for our consolation, and as an
example to us, that we should show, when we reprove, we have more pleasure
in praising than fault-finding.

Hatest the deeds - hate men's evil deeds, not the men.
Nicolaitanes.Irenaeus ('Haereses,'1:26, 3) and Tertullian ('Praescriptione
Haereticorum,' 46)suppose followers of Nicolas,one of the seven (Acts 6:3;
Acts 6:5), as there was a Judas among the twelve. They, Clemens
Alexandrinus ('Stromata,'2: 20; 3: 4) and Epiphanius ('Haereses,'25),
confound the later Gnostic Nicolaitanes, followersofone Nicolas, withthose of
Revelation. Michaelis'view is: Nicolas (conquerorof the people) is the Greek
of Balaam, from the Hebrew: Bil`am (Hebrew #1109)`Am (Hebrew #5971),
Destroyerof the people. Revelationabounds in duplicate Hebrew and Greek
names: Apollyon, Abaddon; Devil, Satan; Yea [ Nai (Greek #3483)], Amen.
The name, like other names, Egypt, Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic. Compare
Revelation2:14-15, which shows the true sense;not a sect, but professing
Christians who, like Balsam, introduced a false freedom - i:e., licentiousness;a
reactionfrom Judaism, the first danger to the Church, combated in the
council of Jerusalem, which, while releasing Gentile converts from legal
bondage, required their abstinence from idol meats, and concomitant
"fornication;" also in the letter to Galatians. These Nicolaitanes,orfollowers
of Balaam, as Christ designates themby a name expressing their true
character, abusedPaul's doctrine of the grace of Godinto a plea for
lasciviousness(2 Peter2:15-16;2 Peter2:19; Jude 1:4; Jude 1:11, who both
describe such seducers as followers ofBalaam). They persuaded many to
escape obloquy, by yielding in what was a testof faithfulness, the eating of idol
meats: going further, they joined in fornication of the idol feasts, as permitted
by Christ's 'law of liberty.' Thus the 'love-feasts'were made like paganorgies
(Jude 1:12).
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Revelation2:6". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible -
Unabridged". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/revelation-
2.html. 1871-8.
The Bible Study New Testament
Here . . . in your favor. The Nicolaitans taughtthat Christian liberty gave
permission to live immorally. They were right to hate what the Nicolaitans did
[not the Nicolaitans themselves].
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Ice, Rhoderick D. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "The Bible Study New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ice/revelation-
2.html. College Press, Joplin, MO. 1974.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(6) But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds (better, works)of the
Nicolaitanes.—The Nicolaitaneswere, as has been expressed, the Antinomians
of the Asiatic Church. The life and conduct were little thought of, and the
faith professedwas everything. Some have thought that they were a sectwho
derived their name, under some colourable pretext, from Nicolas the

Proselyte;others hold that the name is purely symbolical, signifying
“destroyerof the people,” and that it is no more than the Greek form of
Balaam. (See Notes onRevelation2:14-15, below.)The existence of a sect
calledNicolaitanes in the secondcentury is attestedby Irenæus, Tertullian,
and Clement of Alexandria.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "Ellicott's
Commentary for English Readers".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/revelation-2.html. 1905.
Treasuryof Scripture Knowledge
hate.
that
14,15;2 Chronicles 19:2; Psalms 26:5; 101:3;139:21,22;2 John 1:9,10
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Torrey, R. A. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "The Treasuryof Scripture
Knowledge". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tsk/revelation-
2.html.
Walter Scott's Commentary on Revelation
THE NICOLAITANES.
Revelation2:6. — "But this thou hast, that thou hatestthe works of the
Nicolaitanes,whichI also hate." The doctrinal faithfulness of the Ephesian
assemblyand its unswerving condemnation of evil have been already matters
of warmestcommendation (vv. 2, 3), followedby censure couchedin terms of
severe simplicity (v. 4), and judgment has been finally threatened, a judgment
which repentance alone could avert (v. 5). Now one specialcharacterof evil is
specified, hated alike by the Lord and by the angel. The absence oflove has
been deplored, but hatred, love's antithesis, was rightly present. The
Nicolaitanes were nothated, for they shared in the generallove of God (John
3:16), but their works were, and for this the angelis commended. They must
have been works of a decidedly evil characterwhich calledforth such a stern
word of reprobation. Who, then, were the Nicolaitanes,and what their tenets
and deeds? A satisfactoryanswerto these questions is well-nigh impossible.
The Nicolaitanesas an immoral and exceedinglyimpure sectundoubtedly
existed, but whether Nicolas ofAntioch, the last of the "seven" (Acts 6:5), was
the originatorof the sectbearing his name cannot be determined with any
degree of certainty. Irenaeus is the first Church father or writer who affirms
it. Others, however, considerthat Nicolas is wrongedwhen chargedwith the
impure teachings and deeds of that sect;all the more evil that it existed under
the coverof Christianity. If, indeed, the deaconwas the founder of the sect,
then he must have seriously lapsedfrom the faith. But on this we cannot
pronounce with certainty. It has been conjecturedthat the Nicolaitanesare

identical with the followers ofBalaam.{*"Nicolas(‘Conquerorof the people')
is identified with Balaam, according to one etymology of the latter word, as
the ‘lord' according to another, as the ‘devourer' of the people. Both
derivations are, however, uncertain, and the best Hebraists (Gesenius and
Furst, the latter admitting the possibility of ‘devourer') explain the name as
meaning ‘not of the people,'i.e., an alien and foreigner." — E. H. Plumptre
D.D. But this is difficult to understand in the light of verses 14 and 15, where
the evils are separatelynamed. "So thou also hastthose who hold the doctrine
of the Nicolaitanesin like manner." The latter, it would seem, was the grosser
evil of the two. All early writers, however, are agreedon the main features of
this sectas being of an impure and licentious character.{*Ecumenius says they
were "mostimpious in doctrine, and in their lives most impure." W. Kelly
tersely sums up, saying: "The essenceofNicolaitanismseems to have been the
abuse of grace to the disregardof plain morality." — "Lectures on the Book
of Revelation," page 48.}Nicolaitanismtherefore would appearto have
combined the professionof Christianity with the impurities of Paganism.
Fleshly indulgence is a practicaldenial of the holy nature of Christianity, and
cannot be toleratedby the Lord, nor by any who are faithful to the Name of
Him Who is "the holy, the true" (Revelation3:7).
As to this evil, Ephesus and Pergamos, the first and third churches present a
marked and striking contrast. The first turned in holy loathing from these
impurities; the third shelteredthe propagators of these filthy teachings. What
was hated by Ephesus was acceptedby Pergamos;the one "deeds," the other
"doctrine;" but doctrine, goodor bad, ever bears its own fruit. The point is,
Ephesus would have none of it. Pergamospermitted it to corrupt and poison
the sources ofpurity and morality.
Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition available at
BibleSupport.com. Public Domain.

Bibliography
Scott, Walter. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". "WalterScott's
Commentary on Revelation".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/sor/revelation-2.html.
E.M. Zerr's Commentary on SelectedBooksofthe New Testament
Nicolaitans. There is little deﬁniteness in the treatment of this subject by the
histories and lexicons and other works ofreference. Thayermerely comments
that they were "the followers ofNicolaus," a heretic in the time of the
apostles. Robinsonmakes similarremarks about. the subject. We note that
both the deeds and the doctrine of this sectare condemned. It had something
to do with a life of ﬂeshly indulgencies. The church at Ephesus rejectedthis
sectwhich was one other point in its favor statedin the letter written by John.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Zerr, E.M. "Commentary on Revelation2:6". E.M. Zerr's Commentary on
SelectedBooksofthe New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/znt/revelation-2.html. 1952.

Hanserd Knollys' Commentary on Revelation
Revelation2:6
Revelation2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans,
which I also hate.
"Nicolaitanes"
The Nicolaitans were so called, eitherfrom that Nicolas, { Acts 6:5} a
proselyte of Antioch, from whose faith and manners they had degenerated;or
rather from some other man of that name (different from Nicolas the Deacon,
both in faith and holy life) from whose corrupt doctrine and wickeddeeds,
those here, and in Revelation2:15 are calledNicolaitans. Thoughneither the
doctrine, nor the deeds of those Nicolaitans be here named, yet we may
conclude they were unsound and damnable doctrines, and ungodly wicked
deeds, for Christ againand againtestified that he hated them. { Revelation
2:6; Revelation2:15} And so did this church which Christ took notice of,
saying "WhichI also hate;" and therefore he exercisedthis greatpatience
towards this church-"this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the
Nicolaitans."
Copyright Statement
Bibliography

Jesus was in favor of hate

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was in favor of hate

Similar to Jesus was in favor of hate (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was in favor of hate