A popular view of Jesus is that His being all love means that He cannot hate anyone or anything. In light of this, Revelation 2:6 has a very curious statement from Jesus:

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. [KJV]

They are mentioned again in Revelation 2:15. This time, Jesus specifies that He hates their doctrine.

So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Who were the Nicolaitans, and what are their beliefs and actions that bring forth Jesus' hatred?


There are several lines of speculation as to who the Nicolaitans were, but no real evidence. It does seem that they were an early Christian sect, of whom John of Patmos says the Lord disapproved.

H. A. Ironside (http://www.a-voice.org/library/nicolait.htm) says a commonly held view is that they were followers of Nicolaos, mentioned along with Stephen as others as being one of the first deacons appointed to the Church. According to this hypothesis, Nicolaos went his own way, leading a Christian sect given over to false doctrines or immoral behaviour.

G. R. S. Mead, in Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?, points out that Nicolaos is etymologically equivalent in Greek to Balaam in Hebrew. Revelation 2:14 refers to the doctrine of Balaam just before once again mentioning the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in verse 2:15. The author may see the Nicolaitans as similar to the followers of Balaam, who supposedly allowed their followers to eat food sacrificed to idols. Irenaeus

The second-century Church Father, Irenaeus combines these views in Against Heresies:

The Nicolaitanes 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.

If the issue is the eating of food sacrificed to pagan idols, it would seem that Christian doctrine had moved on since the time of the apostle Paul, who expressed indifference to eating food the Corinthians thought might have been sacrificed to pagan idols. In 1 Corinthians 10:27-28, Paul tells them that when offered food they should eat it without enquiring whether it had been sacrificed to idols. Only if their host actually volunteers that the food had been sacrificed to idols should they decline to eat it. The inference Paul makes is that if Christians knowingly eat food sacrificed to idols, they are assenting to the sacrifices, rather than any spiritual concern.

Others have read this as an untranslated Greek word meaning 'rulers over the people,' so that the Nicolaitans were Christian leaders who imposed a hierarchical order in the church and sought to lord it over those below them in the pecking order. If this is the meaning, it foreshadows the actions of the hierarchical Church of later centuries.

| improve this answer | |
  • I wonder what you mean by "rather than any spiritual concern", what could be more spiritual than: "by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ" – Jack says try topanswers.xyz Dec 13 '14 at 7:55
  • @JackDouglas I fully agree that Paul was concerned for the spiritual welfare of his Christian communities, but I don't see this citation in my Bible, at or near 1 Cor 10:27-28. If what I said was not clear, I meant only that Paul did not see the mere fact of eating sacrificed food as causing spiritual harm - only the knowledge that it has been sacrificed. So, Paul was "indifferent" to eating things sacrificed to idols, and speaking for himself: "If I partake thankfully, why am I reviled for that over which I give thanks." His advice is not to cause offence (10:31-32) by enquiring. – Dick Harfield Dec 13 '14 at 19:35
  • It's from 1Cor8, the beginning of the train of thought about food sacrificed to idols. I don't think Paul meant it any differently than Irenaeus did. I think Irenaeus also was only concerned about those who knowingly ate food sacrificed to idols with indifference. See this page from a book on Google books for example. – Jack says try topanswers.xyz Dec 13 '14 at 19:45
  • Nicolaitans sounds like modern day prosperity victory gospel. Nico = victory. I am picturing the TVangelists yelling "victory" and "prosperity" as the requisite evidence of being "in the presence of lord". – Cynthia Avishegnath Dec 15 '14 at 12:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.