|
The job of doing Bible exposition not only involves interpretation
(finding what the passage means) and illustration (highlighting the
meaning with real life situations) but also application (exhortations to
action based on the truths found in the text). The application of a
text can easily be ignored because this is the harder thing to do. No
one feels pressured by Bible study or story-telling, but reproof, rebuke
and exhortation may bring antipathy from the hearers. The angel told
John that the Scripture would be sweet to the taste but would grow
bitter as it is digested, processed and lived out (Rev. 10:1-11).
In
a day of relativism, positivism, syncretism and diversity, direct
application of Biblical principles to specific situations in people’s
lives is the first thing to go. Confrontation becomes a real deterrent
to the success game these days as people, Christian and non-Christian,
do not like spiritual truths presented in such a personal manner.
However, in the second chapter of Revelation the Lord Himself directly
applies familiar Old Testament truths from the life of Balaam (2:14) and
Jezebel (2:20) to the compromises and sins of the churches in Pergamos
and Thyatira. He also applies a newer label, the Nicolaitans, to the
sins of Ephesus and Pergamos in the same manner, even adding that their
practice was something that He Himself hated.
The Problem
The
church at Ephesus had been the strategic center of Asian evangelism
since Paul founded the church in Acts 19. It is probable that most of
the Asian churches were started as mission projects from Ephesus. But
in the thirty years since, while remaining busy and active in good works
(nine different expressions of their Christian works are given in
2:2-3), they had grown cold toward what should have remained as their
first love—the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. Unless they took
specific steps (2:4) to remedy the problem they would lose their place
of blessing. Part of the pressure brought upon the Ephesian church was
the growing doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Ephesus still “hated” this
contemporary expression of worldliness while Pergamos had begun
accepting it and Thyatira had fully incorporated it into the church.
Wm. M. Ramsay, in his notes on Pergamos explains,
The honourable history and the steadfast loyalty of the Pergamenian
Church, however, had been tarnished by the error of a minority of the
congregation, which had been convinced by the teaching of the
Nicolaitans. This school of thought and conduct played an important
part in the Church of the first century. Ephesus had tried and rejected
it; the Smyrnaean congregation, despised and ill-treated by their
fellow-citizens, had apparently not been much affected by it; in
Pergamum a minority of the Church had adopted its principles; in
Thyatira the majority were attracted by it, and it there found its chief
seat, so far as Asia was concerned.1
As
Paul left the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, he warned them
For I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the
flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:29-30). By AD
95 these wolves had come to be known as Nicolaitans.
The Definition
It is
not entirely clear where this group of deceivers got their name.
History has given us a few choices, one of which or a combination, is
probably correct. 1) One view, which goes as far back as Iranaeus,
relies on the ancient writer Epiphanius who wrote that the name is taken
from Nicolas, one of the first deacons (Acts 6:5), who fell into
immorality and apostasy which was still affecting the church at that
time.2 2) A second view was that Nicolas himself was a good
and moral man who used an unfortunate expression for “abusing the
flesh,” by which he meant to mortify the flesh but which his followers
perverted into “indulging the flesh.”3 By this time they
were practicing having common wives and idol worship as morally
acceptable. 3) A popular view is that the name “Nicolaitan” comes from
nikao, “to consume” and
laos, “the people.” In that
case it would be the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name “Balaam” which
also means “to conquer” or “consume the people.”4 4) Some
take this to be a Gnostic group which followed Cerinthus and was being
propagated by a local man whose name happened to be Nicolas.5
A
highly possible conclusion is that this was a licentious group who had
mixed with the pagan practices of the day including eating meat offered
to idols and committing fornication (2:14, 20) and came to be associated
with the name “Nicolaitans” because of local history and closeness to
other similar groups. They seem to be equated with the doctrines of
Balaam and Jezebel by context and the text (verse 15,
houtos, “thus
you have”). The following descriptions of the Nicolaitans and their
beliefs are worth repeating here.
Albert Barnes describes them: “By plausibly teaching that there could
be no harm in eating what had been offered in sacrifice—since an idol
was nothing, and the flesh of animals offered in sacrifice was the same
as if slaughtered for some other purpose, it would seem that these
teachers at Pergamos had induced professing Christians to attend on
those feasts—thus lending their countenance to idolatry, and exposing
themselves to all the corruption and licentiousness that commonly
attended such celebrations.”6 Alan Johnson quotes Fiorenza,
“The Nicolaitans are according to Revelation a Christian group within
the churches of Asia Minor and have their adherents even among the
itinerant missionaries and the prophetic teachers of the community.
They claim to have insight into the divine or, more probably, into the
demonic. They express their freedom in libertine behavior, which allows
them to become part of their syncretistic pagan society and to
participate in the Roman civil religion.”7 William Smith is
more specific in his application when he writes, “Mingling themselves in
the orgies of idolatrous feasts, they brought the impurities of those
feasts into the meetings of the Christian Church. And all this was
done, it must be remembered, not simply as an indulgence of appetite,
but as part of a system, supported by a ‘doctrine’ accompanied by the
boast of a prophetic illumination (2 Pet. 2:1).”8
We
should note again, that what was adopted by the entire congregation in
Thyatira had just become a doctrine for a few in Pergamos. In Ephesus,
however, the decision was still being made whether this teaching that
they had always hated (and no doubt Pergamos and Thyatira had also at
one time) would be allowed in the church. Ramsay adds a note that
sounds familiar where worldliness pushes its way into the church: “It
is clear also that the Nicolaitans rather pitied and condemned the
humbler intelligence and humbler position of the opposite section in the
church; and hence we shall find that both in the Thyatiran and in the
Pergamenian letter St. John exalts the dignity, authority and power that
shall fall to the lot of the victorious Christian.”9
The Application
As
I have noted, the Lord makes an application from Balaam and Jezebel
directly to the worldliness of Pergamos and Thyatira. The label of
“Nicolaitan” was a modern description of the growing worldliness and
dying love in Ephesus. We ought to be able to make the same kind of
application from the first century directly to our day as He made from
Balaam and Jezebel to their day.
1)
Worldliness had become a doctrine in the churches. They had found a way
to justify their practices with a teaching that the culture and customs
of the Greeks and Romans were not something to be shunned. Ramsay
writes:
It was evidently an attempt to effect a reasonable compromise with the
established usages of Graeco-Roman society and to retain as many as
possible of those usages in the Christian system of life. It affected
most of all the cultured and well-to-do classes in the Church, those who
had most temptation to retain all that they could of the established
social order and customs of the Graeco-Roman world, and who by their
more elaborate education had been trained to take a somewhat artificial
view of life and to reconcile contradictory principles in practical
conduct through subtle philosophical reasoning.10
Our
churches today have established a “doctrine” that the world’s culture is
morally neutral except where an overt sin is specifically mentioned by
name. All other applications of Scripture to culture and life have
become out of bounds. To our generation music in all its forms must
remain morally neutral, only the words can be right or wrong; the body
can be uncovered by parts, and as long as the whole body isn’t uncovered
all at once, it can’t be called nakedness (if it is it conveniently
becomes the looker’s “problem”); crude language of any kind is now
allowed as long as God’s name isn’t specifically mentioned—and even then
it is permitted as an exclamation; all worldly places of amusement,
revelry and exhibition are allowed as long as a person’s thoughts don’t
get too carried away; separation is now seen as an historic mistake
foisted upon the church by extreme fundamentalists! If challenged by
anyone about these or similar issues of worldliness, the apologetic is
always to point out that no one can be 100% consistent and therefore it
is wrong to “judge” the sin at any level.
Just as Nicolas’ statement of mortifying the body was turned into
indulging the body, our churches have turned separation from outward
things into separation of the mind only; where our use of methods was
within a Christian life-style, it now includes anything the world also
uses; where worship meant falling prostrate before a sovereign God, it
now means screaming, dancing, waving, laughing and applauding before a
God who changes as we change. Surely this is the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans!
2)
Idol worship had become a harmless cultural adventure that believers
could take or leave because of their superior understanding. John Gill
wrote, “Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, that these Nicolaitans were not
called so from any man, but from the word
Nicolah, “let us eat,” which
they often used to encourage each other to eat things offered to idols.
However this be, it is certain that there were such a set of men, whose
deeds were hateful.”11
How
can we doubt that today’s churches are eating the meat offered to idols
when they attend all the places of worldly and ungodly entertainment,
watch things like American Idol, cheer for the most ungodly heroes, and
then bring such “meat” back into the churches by copying those “idols”
with their own Christian singers, preachers, entertainers and
self-centered showmanship. Surely this is the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans!
3)
Immorality became a commonly accepted practice. The Jerusalem council
knew that fornication went hand in hand with eating things offered to
idols (Acts 15:28-29). Balaam knew that if the Israelites fell for one
they would fall for the other. Alan Johnson writes, “The prevalence of
sexual immorality in first-century pagan society makes it entirely
possible that some Christians at Pergamum were still participating in
the holiday festivities and saw no wrong in indulging in the ‘harmless’
table in the temples and the sexual excitement everyone else was
enjoying.”12 Today’s polls and surveys will continue to
flood in that show immorality as high in the church as out of the
church. We cannot keep feeding our young people the idol meat of the
world without it resulting in copying the indulgences of the flesh.
Surely this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans!
The Solution
The
Lord’s formula for recovery is simple: Remember, Repent, Redo or
Remove! (vs.5) The probability of the Asian churches all following it
was as remote as it is today. It is this writer’s opinion that our
culture is not more innocent than it used to be, nor is it more morally
neutral, nor has today’s church become spiritually stronger than their
first-century counterparts. Within my life-time alone conservative
churches have made an obvious 180 degree turn while using the same
terminology and printing the same literature. But saying it doesn’t
make it so. Ephesus, Pergamos and Thyatira were all commended for their
good works. But these did not nullify God’s judgment for their
participation in worldliness. God is not a pragmatist. His means and
ends have always been equal. These are the warnings of a Savior
who walketh among the seven golden
candlesticks (2:1); the One which
hath the sharp sword with two edges
(2:12); the One who hath his
eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet like fine brass (2:18).
Notes:
1. Wm. M. Ramsay, The
Leters To The Seven Churches Of Asia (New York: Hodder &
Stoughton, nd) 298.
2. See Barnes’ Notes and Wm. Smith’s Dictionary for
examples.
3. See John Gill’s Commentary for an example.
4. See Alan Johnson and John Walvoord for examples.
5. See R.C.H. Lenski for an example.
6. Albert Barnes, Notes
on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980) 76-77.
7. Alan Johnson, “Revelation” in
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 435.
8. William Smith,
Dictionary of the Bible (Hartford: S.S. Scranton & Co., 1899)
626.
9. Ramsay, 301.
10. Ramsay, 299.
11. John Gill,
Exposition of the Bible, vol. 6 (London: Wm. Hill
Collinridge,1853 ) 941.
12. Johnson, 441.
| 
