Who were the Nicolaitans? Free Reprint Article

NotifySnack

Christian Articles for All of your Publishing Needs!

LIKE US

Translate this Page Here

Word Count: 5641

Send Article To Friend

Print/Use Article

Contact Martin De Beer

Who were the Nicolaitans?

by Martin De Beer
9/15/2015 / Prophecy

The significance of the Nicolaitans

This sect is mentioned only twice in the Bible.

Rev 2:6 But you have this, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Rev 2:15 So you also have those who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

This sect is so despicable that it is unambiguously deemed worthy of the hatred of men and of God.

Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you, Mat 5:45 so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

1Jn 4:20 If anyone says, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar. For if he does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 1Jn 4:21 And we have this commandment from Him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

Jesus taught Love, even in death:

Luk 23:33 And when they came to the place which is called Calvary, they crucified Him and the criminals there, one on the right, and one on the left. Luk 23:34 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do. And parting His clothing, they cast lots.

Given these teachings by our Lord, Jesus Christ, it is quite astonishing that Jesus did not only condone but shared hatred when connected to the Nicolaitans. However, we must note that it is their teaching and deeds which are hated, not the members of the sect individually. Most of these are poor souls, often exhibiting exemplary Scriptural knowledge, have and are being deceived and in urgent need of redemption and enlightenment, which can only come through the Truth.

In chapters two and three of the Book of Revelation Jesus addresses several religious variants, teachings and practices prevalent in the Church and rebukes certain churches on the basis of their deviation from the Truth. However, none of these deviations are met with the strongest possible opposition, hate, except for the deeds and teachings of the Nicolaitans.

Thus the deception and seduction presented by the teachings of Balaam and Jezebel appear to be subordinate to the deeds and teachings of the Nicolaitans? The Nicolaitans could be described as the superlative of all other deviant deeds and teachings and, not being referred to previously or by any other apostle by this name, this sect as a movement with a distinct identity, must have made its actual or formative appearance towards the end of the first century, when only John still remained. The other deviant teachings, including Judaism being centuries old in John's time, this new deviant must be accepted to be related to the "new" religion, to be called Christianity. To allege or believe that Christianity would be spared deviance is surely ludicrous: most of Paul and some of the other Apostles' letters specifically address these deviances, of which several obviously sprang to life even before the Book of Revelation was written!

Thus we should understand and acknowledge that this sect, called the Nicolaitans, is of extreme or superlative importance, when compared to the other deviations mentioned. Seen in the light of this comparison it is actually differentiated and highlighted as the most noteworthy and dangerous of deviant teachings, by Jesus Christ personally, in that its deeds and teachings are worthy of hatred.

The etymological meaning of the word, Nicolaitans

When trying to identify the Nicolaitans, this vague noun suddenly appears to become extremely complicated. Quite a few eloquent scholars have attempted to provide clarification to this seemingly elusive noun but few provide any real identification of what these deeds and teachings would entail. This is partly due to the fact that some of these earliest analysts are often ascribed a traditional place of reverence in the historic school of theological thought and commentary. Consequently subsequent analysts and commentators have often been hesitant to question or even challenge their suggestions as to the identity, deeds and teachings of the Nicolaitans. Subsequent scholars, rather than consider the word objectively, have mostly accepted an existing explanation or tried to formulate hypotheses based on the prevailing understandings of this sect. Herein lies the very beauty of the word: the true meaning hidden in plain sight and the true picture distorted by a veil of deception and subsequent conditioning!

The most concrete approach to analysing the word, to my thinking, would be to utilise the tool of etymology. Setting aside any possible Biblical or theological assistance in analysing the word Nikholaos and referring exclusively to the secular Greek, returns a combination of the words nike and laos meaning "victory" and "people" or "laity". Online Etymology Dictionary: Nicholas

Thus in Greek the word simply means the "victor of the people" or "victor over the people". Now, who were the victors of or over the people in John's time? Undeniably, the Romans of the Roman Empire?

John explicitly informs us in Revelation 1 that it was written while he was a prisoner of the Romans, incarcerated on the island Patmos for preaching the Word. Now, what contribution does this geographical and circumstantial information provide to our understanding of the following verses or is it merely mentioned so that we can imagine that John had a lot of time on his hands, or that he was so rebellious towards the Romans and adamant to serve God, that even whilst incarcerated, he was serving God by writing the Revelation? All of these observations might be true, but more functionally it serves to show an extremely precarious situation: if Jesus had directed John to write "Romans" he probably wouldn't have made it off of Patmos alive. If he had been directed to write "Romans", the concept "Nicolaitans" would also have been limited by subsequent commentators to the Roman Empire and religion, even the Roman Catholic Church, when this noun must be of a much more universal application. Jesus wanted us to apply our unfettered minds to the actual word and the concept it represents when interpreting it and not get caught up in the web of conditioning and stereotyping.

2 Tim 1:7 For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Etymologically the Nicolaitans would be those who overcame the peoples' sound mind and subjected them to their doctrine by way of physical, intellectual and/or psychological coercion and domination by way of the spirit of fear. Like the Romans, we could expect their deeds and teaching to be a universal form of social engineering contained and expressed in an evolved and constantly evolving system, linked to all aspects of life from religion, through economics to governance and personal attitudes. Furthermore it would be fluid and accommodating able to evolve and absorb various religions with relative ease. One could probably call this universal school of thought Universalism.

Thus at the turn of the first century this noun, etymologically, historically and with no reference to the Bible or commentary by Biblical scholars, would undoubtedly point to the Romans and the Roman Empire. The word seems quite simple and straightforward, when interpreted in a secular vacuum?

What clues does the Bible give as to the identity and teachings of the Nicolaitans?

1 Joh 2:18 Little children, it is the last time. And just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have risen up, from which we know that it is the last hour. 1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they were of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out so that it might be revealed that they were not all of us.

This description is somewhat vague to us as we don't know to whom John is referring, but we can expect that the addressees knew precisely to whom he was referring. Their ancient identity is ultimately irrelevant to us, but what is relevant is that they were part of the Christian fold but deviated from the pure teachings of the apostles, John at least, by creating their own Jesus and gospel outside of the existing Church. What is further quite obvious is the reference to the plural. This would clearly represent several protagonists or even many, as stated in the text, who were initially part of the Church but split off to form the church.

Consequently this "antichrist movement", which would pave the way for the ultimate and final Antichrist, through two millennia, was established by numerous Christian delinquents in John's time. The reference to the Nicolaitans thus appears to be a reference to these people in the broader sense of describing the complete or whole "antichrist establishment", rather than an exclusively religious group, being founded and developed to prepare humanity for the appearance of the Antichrist in due time: the Nicolaitans preparing for the Nicolaitan, thus the superlative evil and worthy of their deeds and teachings being unambiguously hated.
Likewise Paul identified these delinquents:

Rom 1:21 Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. Rom 1:25 For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

John was just the first, through the Revelation received from Jesus Christ, to provide a name for this "antichrist establishment" or movement, to wit the Nicolaitans, a new noun that would unambiguously identify them to the Elect, until the end of time.

Mat 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect.

John identified antichrists in his time and Jesus said they would come and be on the earth until the end. Our secular understanding of this noun is obviously supported by Scripture from Jesus Christ, through John to Paul.

We so often want to read between the lines and find a hidden meaning in Scripture, even when we don't need to, then when we need to we can't or won't? Why would this devastating and dangerous teaching, based on Christianity, only emerging after Christ and paving the way for Satan and his side in the final showdown be left nameless? Worse, left completely unaddressed in the ultimate Book of the Bible, whilst seemingly lesser and known evils such as the teachings of Balaam, Jezebel and Judaism are addressed directly by name? Surely God would not permit or approve of such a glaring omission in the Book expressly dictated by Him to John with the intent of enlightening the Elect?

Explanations relating to the Nicolaitans provided by the church

Let us now consider the perspective provided by early church scholars, some often referred to as the "church fathers".

According to Irenaeus, the Nicolaitans were followers of one Nicolas, one of the first deacons appointed by the apostles (Acts 6:5):

"The Nicolaitans are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 26, 3

We might expect the description by Irenaeus to be the most accurate, as he lived in the second century, relatively shortly after the Revelation had been written, and he is reputed to have heard the teachings of Polycarp, an alleged disciple of the apostle John. Although this suggested "close" connection to John through Polycarp attempts to impress upon our judgment we need to heed the actual words: he had heard the words of Polycarp, not necessarily known him personally or followed his teachings, and Polycarp was an alleged disciple of John but obviously not sufficiently close or influential enough in the early Church for John to have ever mentioned him in any of his writings. For all we know, Polycarp and subsequently Irenaeus, could very well be of those "who went out"!

Irenaeus' choice of words is quite interesting too:

Nicolas is mentioned only once by name in the New Testament and that is at his ordination as a deacon, by the apostles (Act 6:5).
Consequently there is absolutely no Biblical evidence that he ever relinquished his faith, neglected his duties or was ever admonished or excommunicated for any misconduct.
Given his position in the early Church, we might expect at least some minor reference to any such deviation, especially from John when referring to "those who went out" and due to the significance of the Nicolaitans.
"Unrestrained indulgence" is extremely vague as Jesus' critics referred to Him as a glutton and a winebibber, an unrestrained indulgent of food and wine (Luk 7:34).
Irenaeus alleges that the character of these men is "very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John", when in fact this group is merely mentioned as being extremely reprehensible but absolutely no mention is made of their specific "character" let alone it being "plainly pointed out" (Rev 2:6; Rev 2:15).
He further refers to the "Apocalypse of John", when it is actually the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" given to John to record, as scribe, and John is clearly and definitely not the Source, nor the messenger, just the scribe (Rev 1:1).
This is quite clear from Revelation 1:1 and it is consequently impossible that Irenaeus could have misunderstood John's role in the presentation of the Book, to ascribe it to John, when Jesus Christ is unambiguously declared to be the Source in the very first verse.
This contention might serve to show an attempted intentional deception or avoidance in that Irenaeus actually derogates from the authority of the Source, Jesus Christ, in ascribing the Book to John, whilst being an accomplished author and regarding himself as sufficiently qualified not only to judge, but to write on heretics and heresies (Mat 7:1).
Being critical of others and their mistaken beliefs, Irenaeus was adequately "qualified" and eloquent to comment sensibly on the matter, yet he alleges a mere reference to be the "character" of these men "plainly pointed out", which is absolutely false, actually a blatant lie, and then implicitly blasphemes or denies the Holy Source by ascribing the source of the Book of Revelation to a mortal, John (1 Joh 2:22).
Likewise the Revelation is meant to be a blessing to those read, hear and keep it at heart (Rev 1:3), but Irenaeus does not refer to it as "the Revelation of Jesus Christ" but "the Apocalypse of John": "Revelation" being positive, what Jesus showed John regarding the wonders of the end times and Believers' release as opposed to "Apocalypse" being negative, the catastrophic destruction of the world and the end of Satan.
One must ask whether he secretly doubted the authenticity of the Book of Revelation or, alternatively, if he found the contents of the Book to be so personally revolting and incredible, compared to his future expectations, that he refused to acknowledge the authority of its actual Source, preferring to ascribe it to His servant, John?
One could rightly ask if Irenaeus found the climax of the Revelation, the fall of the Antichrist at the return of the King of kings and the subsequent subjection and judgment of Satan, so distasteful that he obviously attempts to derogate from the actual status of the Book and its Source?
Is this not an obvious yet shrouded denial that Jesus is the Christ, Who came in the flesh and the sign of the antichrist/Nicolatians (1 Joh 2:22)?
The fact that he attempts to avoid the identity issue by referring to the Book of Revelation, as containing an authoritative description relating to the Nicolaitans, would seem to suggest that he indeed recognised and acknowledged the authenticity of the Book.
That being the case, he necessarily exhibits a veiled yet discernible resistance towards the other contents of the Book and subsequently also towards its Source.
His references to practicing adultery and idolatry bring nothing new to the reprehensible acts set out in the references to the teachings of Balaam and Jezebel, in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Revelation, and are essentially nothing more than a very vague or broad repetition of these.
Given this result the explanation by Ireneaus in reference to the Nicolaitans, is essentially superfluous and extremely disappointing, when one would expect him to be one of the most credible witnesses and commentators on the word and the group it refers to.

Apart from the reference to this poor Nicolas in Acts 6:5 there is no other or further mention of him in the Bible, yet some of these early writers would choose to brand him an heretic. A further problem with this explanation is that Nicolas is clearly singled out as the scapegoat in identifying this sect, which is even supposedly named after him, whilst Jesus, John and Paul all refer to these delinquent deserters in the plural, suggesting a group or organisation of persons rather than the creation of an individual. Now, for Irenaeus not to know who these deserters (antichrists) were or what grouping they formed and were constantly building is totally incredible. The only explanation for this failure would seem to be either ignorance or malicious intent? This would appear to be strike one for the church, at the very least, requiring the objective reader or adjudicator to be extremely cautious of this explanation and any of the doctrines and dogmas brought forth by these early scholars.

But we also need to realize that the writings of Irenaeus, together with those of Clement and Ignatius, were amongst the earliest signs of the developing doctrine of the so-called primacy of Catholicism. This would suggest a possible motive: to allay suspicion and ascribe the despicable sect to some dead man, whom most Believers never even knew existed, whilst these conspirators were actually providing false testimony to conceal their real role in history.

The letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, address the deceptive teachings of Balaam, which specifically refer to eating things offered to idols and fornication and the teachings of the false prophetess Jezebel, with specific reference to fornication and idolatry. Thus, at first glance, Irenaeus' explanation of the meaning of "Nicolaitans", except for reference to its supposed founder, is essentially a repetition of what is said relating to the teachings of Balaam and Jezebel. Irenaeus factually adds nothing new. Balaam points to deceptive teachings causing people to stumble, whilst Jezebel points to seductive teachings causing people to corrupt. Both of these have some measure of persuasion or enticement in their approach to their target or victims and don't necessarily or primarily include blatant coercion.

The most intriguing aspect of these references to existing practices is the lack of any reference whatsoever to the greatest "new" and prevalent theology of all: Roman paganism. The Romans are said to have obtained such widespread influence due to their religious tolerance for the divergent beliefs of their conquered subjects. The Romans were quite amicable to their conquered subjects' retaining their religious beliefs and customs. This fact is proven in the New Testament, in that the Jews were permitted to continue their religious rites and customs and to apply Jewish law, but they were prohibited from imposing a sentence of death. This is why they had to bring Jesus before Pontius Pilate in order to achieve their objective towards Him. In certain instances, if these religious practices or beliefs were conducive to Roman objectives, some of these foreign practices and beliefs would be fused with or absorbed into Roman pagan belief and practice.

At the time of writing of the Revelation, Roman paganism was, in actual fact, a collection of various previous pagan religions, including Babylonian and Greek paganism, fused together and evolved to present a single universal state religion. Babylonian and Greek paganism were arguably both much more influential than Balaam and Jezebel combined, yet not mentioned at all? Is this a serious omission or error on the part of Jesus Christ in His Revelation or would these references be superfluous due to the reference to Nicolaitans and the actual meaning of this word?

Roman paganism was fluid, willing and able to accept additions and changes, if those were thought to be conducive to the advancement of the empire. This very consideration would later pave the way for Catholicism to become the Roman state religion, in turn creating the opportunity to make Christianity the base religion of the western world for all time to come! For any protestant commentator to contend that Christian doctrines, dogmas and the church contained no threat to salvation they would subsequently have to admit that the Reformation was an unnecessary exercise in bloodshed and extreme suffering?

Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary of Irenaeus, stated that Nicolas actually led a chaste life, and brought up his children in purity, but that on a certain occasion, having been sharply reproved by the apostles as a jealous husband, he repelled the charge by offering to allow his wife to become the wife of any other person. According to Clement, Nicolas was also in the habit of repeating a saying "that it is our duty to fight against the flesh and to abuse it" and that his words were perversely interpreted by the Nicolaitans as authority for their immoral practices.
Clement of Alexandria, Stomata,iii.4, ss25-26
This account is clearly completely different and simultaneously contradictory to that of Irenaeus? This account brings some fresh, differing detail not merely a repetition of what had been said relating to Balaam and Jezebel. But where Irenaeus wants to condemn Nicolas, Clement clearly does not. On the conflicting testimonies of these two witnesses alone, Nicolas is entitled to discharge on the charge of heresy?

Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins. At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be made sure.

When we weigh his testimony frankly, it would seem that Irenaeus didn't really know who the Nicolaitans were either or he intentionally presented a nonsensical supposed definition, which is actually a combination of references to two other religious deviations, also mentioned in the seven letters, in a concerted effort to prevent discovery of the true meaning: that he and his fellow clergy were already in fact designing and founding "Grand Nicolaitanism" within the Church! They were actively making the Church into the church.

Possibly Irenaeus' successors realized this inadequacy in his explanation and attempted, unsuccessfully, to end the debate and ultimately to improve upon the legend by adding to it.

Eusebius (3rd century) alleged that the sect was short-lived, probably in an attempt to put an end to conflicting theories and further investigation. It is doubtful that this superlative deviation would be mentioned in the Revelation which, according to the first verse of the first chapter, applies to the future and etymologically and historically it is shown to describe the "antichrist establishment" or movement, if it were of a limited existence and affect? However, dispensationalists have attempted to underscore the suggestion by Eusebius to "forget the Nicolatians" by limiting the application of the seven letters to supposed periods in church history. I obviously cannot support this view, but shall address my reasons for my dissent in another article.

According to Epiphanius (4th century), Nicolas had an attractive wife, and had refrained from intercourse in imitation of those whom he saw to be devoted to God. He endured this for a while but in the end could not bear to control his incontinence. But, being ashamed of his defeat and suspecting that he had been found out, he ventured to say, "Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 25, 1

The objective adjudicator would make some interesting observations regarding Epiphanius and his explanation:

Firstly he is more than a century behind Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria in time and should consequently have less evidence available to him from which to draw a conclusion, regarding the person or character of Nicolas.
Despite this fact he adds some intricate details, which neither of his predecessors ever mentioned, yet attempting to reconcile their views: Nicolas attempting to be chaste, but failing and thereafter advocating daily copulation (indulgence) to qualify for eternal life!
Epiphanius appears to promote the need for celibacy, by way of suggestion, by drawing the long since deceased Nicolas into this debate: Nicolas wanted to be as devoted as those he saw around him, who according to Epiphanius, were celibate although we know that Peter, at least, the Rock on which the Church was built, was married!
Then Epiphanius proceeds to reconcile with the explanation presented by Irenaeus by adding that the poor Nicolas failed, ashamed of failing and possibly being found out, consequently turned to advocating daily copulation (indulgence) supposedly to accommodate his inability to control the flesh.
These conflicting explanations try to connect with Clement and Irenaeus' explanations in that Nicolas initially attempted to abuse the flesh, by denying it the desires that God created in it, and on giving up he attempted to abuse the flesh by way of indulgence. The first abuse serving to clamp onto Clement's explanation and the second to attach to Irenaeus' explanation, but Clement specifically noted the second explanation to be a "perverse" interpretation of Nicolas' true attitude and character by the Nicolaitans?
Thus we have two conflicting theories from the second century, an attempt to kill the debate in the third and a very dubious attempt at reconciling the two opposing theories in the fourth century, with some detail added, which simultaneously wants to suggest that celibacy was regarded as a virtue necessary for enviable devotion in the first century, whilst we know several of the apostles were married (1 Corinthians 9:5)!
This testimony leads to the irresistible conclusion that it is a concerted effort to reconcile the opposing theories, lay the debate to rest and promote the Catholic requirement of celibacy in the priesthood as a centuries' old requirement for devotion.
Can one imagine more contradictions in terms: a renowned author supposedly opposing the Nicolaitans and then committing the exact same perverted reference to Nicolas that Clement ascribes to the very Nicolaitans?
Nicolaitans attempting to escape discovery by providing false testimony or subduing debate and further investigation into their secretive sect?

Strike three for the church.

Bede in the seventh century alleges that Nicolas allowed other men to marry his wife, which contention is not confirmed by any of the previous commentators.
Bede, Explanation of the Apocalypse, 2.16

Clement alleged he had offered his wife in matrimony in response to a complaint of jealousy, not that he actually allowed it, ie that it happened! To the contrary Clement expressly testified that the Nicolaitans perversely interpreted Nicolas' words to justify their own immoral practices: in other words he never did any of these things, the Nicolations just used him as a shield for their own immorality!

Thomas of Aquinas in the thirteenth century imagined that Nicolas supported polygamy or the holding of wives in common, an addition that is actually only supported by Bede's explanation.
Summa Contra Gentiles iii.124

Yet another Nicolaitan, if Clement's description is to be accepted? Strike four for the church's explanation. Aren't only three strikes allowed till out?

Deu 19:16 If a false witness rises up against any man to testify a falling away against him, Deu 19:17 then both the men who are disagreeing shall stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges which shall be in those days. Deu 19:18 And the judges shall make careful inquiry. And behold, if the witness is a false witness and has testified falsely against his brother, Deu 19:19 then you shall do to him as he had thought to have done to his brother. So you shall put the evil away from among you.

As with most legends, the legend of Nicolas seems to have gained substance and momentum over time, whilst constantly moving further away from the truth? Fact is, Irenaeus and Clement were in the best position to provide the freshest, strongest or best explanation of the noun and evidently even their successors found their explanations so unacceptable that they attempted to expand upon them. However some seem to have preferred the explanation most prejudicial to the memory of the poor Nicolas, and although they were further removed in time from the actual occurrence or fact they regarded themselves as qualified to add detail, seemingly in an attempt to justify or promote their own particular doctrines, dogmas and philosophies. The question is what wider role did these false witnesses play in the theology and philosophy that we and our church actually follow and apply today? Aren't we all subjects and adherents to Nicolaism albeit in differing degrees? Don't we maybe need to rethink at least a small part of our belief system and accepted doctrines and dogmas due to Nicolaitan influence?

No objective, adult judge would even require an explanation from Nicolas in response to these combined testimonies: to which of the several theories or versions would he be required to respond? He would be worthy of acquittal in a just and fair human court?

Consequently the attempted connection of the Nicolaitans to the deacon Nicolas per se, must fail and be rejected and all we are left with is the normal etymological meaning of the word: "victors of" or "over the people".

Conclusion

The Nicolaitans were of superlative importance in the realm of evil in the first century and they will be until the return of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The Nicolations are simply the final and ultimate product of Satan's experiments at dominating humanity and Creation, since the beginning of time. Satan wanted to be God and rule Creation (Isa 14:12-14) but God gave that dominion to mankind (Gen 1:26). Satan could only ever essentially exercise his limited dominion in Creation by way of proxy, through mankind, until the final confrontation, which the Revelation describes. Only then, if he could win, would he have any hope of direct and actual dominion over anything but his minions. The Word ensures us he will lose and if we understand and believe the Word then we know he has already lost even on the basis of our mortal testimony (Rev 12:10 11).

The brilliance of this noun is surely unsurpassed? It includes all past and present deviant teachings in that they are all capable of inclusion in a universal religion, yet it spreads wider to envelope social, political and economic deeds and teachings (philosophies) such as imperialism, colonialism and definitely all contemporary forms of territorial, political and economic hegemony! This one word describes the epitome of evil not only in its institutionalised form of the "antichrist establishment" but its ultimate personae of the Antichrist and Satan attempting to be God!

The noun, "Nicolaitans", is the collective noun for the supporters of Satan as opposed to the children of God: the supporters of death and destruction as opposed to the children of Love (1 Joh 4:8). Whoever preaches death and destruction, regardless of how many Bible verses he or she might quote or the supposed "good" reason for sowing such death and destruction is a Nicolaitan and no child of God (Love) because there is no Love in them. Whoever supports a Nicolaitan is likewise a Nicolaitan regardless of how obedient he or she might allege or actually be to other Biblical prescripts.

Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the Law? Mat 22:37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39 And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

There is no question that the Nicolaitans are not only very much alive and well, but also extremely strong and always gaining impetus. Ultimately the only useful questions we personally need to answer are: how much of our contemporary world comprises Nicolaitans, their deeds and teachings, who are they individually and do you or I form part of their number? In answering this question we would do well to remember that there are no big sins and little sins. Likewise just one percent Nicolaitan support or following is sufficient to qualify us as Nicolaitans, completely.

Thus my plea: for us to earnestly and honestly re-evaluate the doctrines and dogmas we often hold so dear, sometimes to the point of being sacrosanct, yes equal to if not above God Himself, but ultimately the brainchildren of men, often quite disturbed and untruthful men, Nicolaitans, it would seem?

Martin de Beer

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com-CHRISTIAN WRITERS

If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! Click here and TRUST JESUS NOW