Nicolaitan

[Binaca Chugger]

Occasionally, this word will appear on the forum.  It appears only twice in Scripture, both occurrences in the same chapter.  While we do know that God hates their deeds, what are their deeds?

Growing up at FBCH, we were taught that this is the Denominational Board seeking to control the churches (conquer the laity) of the SBC and we should thus hate what God hates and hate the Denominational Board of the SBC.  I have since learned that not everything JH taught us was correct - including the amount of control the denominational board holds over the SBC churches.

I have heard this word used whenever a mog attempts to act in a domineering, manipulative fashion.  But, it would seem that this would meet the same definition that JH gave us.

Some commentators of the Scripture have linked it to the lasciviousness of the doctrine of Balaam and offered hints that maybe the deacon Nicholas had an "open marriage."  However, this is commonly refuted by other commentators.

So......... What are the deeds of the Nicolaitans that God hates?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A hierarchical authority ruling over the laity.  Why does God hate it? 

The approbation of "ordinary elders" demands a set of elders who are extra special, thus creating "rank" in the otherwise Divine brotherhood, all of which DESTROYS fellowship, creates division and strife, and fosters envy. It is no marvel that Jesus hates this, condemns it, and demands the guilty repent.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-does-god-hate-practices-of-the-nicolaitans.html

 

[Citadel of Truth]

A hierarchical authority ruling over the laity.  Why does God hate it? 

The approbation of "ordinary elders" demands a set of elders who are extra special, thus creating "rank" in the otherwise Divine brotherhood, all of which DESTROYS fellowship, creates division and strife, and fosters envy. It is no marvel that Jesus hates this, condemns it, and demands the guilty repent.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-does-god-hate-practices-of-the-nicolaitans.html

I suspected that you would be the first to respond and also the first to get it wrong. There is no way that you can support this view from the Bible.

The link you provided is nothing more than a game of semantics that arrive at a preconceived idea. Gail Riplinger does the same thing to prove that the NASB is not a Bible. It is not a credible defense.

I whole-heartedly agree with Barnes when he says:

The word Nicolaitians occurs only in this place, and in Rev. 2:15. From the reference in the latter place, it is clear that the doctrines which they held prevailed at Pergamos as well as at Ephesus; but from neither place can anything now be inferred in regard to the nature of their doctrines or their practices,

You have to step away from the Word of God and fully into extra-biblical sources to come up with any definition and be dogmatic about it.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

A hierarchical authority ruling over the laity.  Why does God hate it? 

The approbation of "ordinary elders" demands a set of elders who are extra special, thus creating "rank" in the otherwise Divine brotherhood, all of which DESTROYS fellowship, creates division and strife, and fosters envy. It is no marvel that Jesus hates this, condemns it, and demands the guilty repent.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-does-god-hate-practices-of-the-nicolaitans.html

I suspected that you would be the first to respond and also the first to get it wrong. There is no way that you can support this view from the Bible.

The link you provided is nothing more than a game of semantics that arrive at a preconceived idea. Gail Riplinger does the same thing to prove that the NASB is not a Bible. It is not a credible defense.

I whole-heartedly agree with Barnes when he says:

The word Nicolaitians occurs only in this place, and in Rev. 2:15. From the reference in the latter place, it is clear that the doctrines which they held prevailed at Pergamos as well as at Ephesus; but from neither place can anything now be inferred in regard to the nature of their doctrines or their practices,

You have to step away from the Word of God and fully into extra-biblical sources to come up with any definition and be dogmatic about it.

That sure comes in handy when you want to bang your personal drum.

 

[T-Bone]

Growing up at FBCH, we were taught that this is the Denominational Board seeking to control the churches (conquer the laity) of the SBC and we should thus hate what God hates and hate the Denominational Board of the SBC.  I have since learned that not everything JH taught us was correct - including the amount of control the denominational board holds over the SBC churches.

If ignorance is bliss...FBCH must be the most tranquil place on earth.  Sure would love them to show me these "Denominational Boards"...sounds like FBCH is teaching their people to be Don Qxiote (sp).

 

[Citadel of Truth]

That sure comes in handy when you want to bang your personal drum.

Does it change the truth at all? The difference is, I may interpret scripture differently than you, but I do not totally step away from the scripture to support my doctrine. If I have an opinion, it will be clearly stated as my opinion; I'll not be dogmatic about it. 

 

[T-Bone]

That sure comes in handy when you want to bang your personal drum.

Does it change the truth at all? The difference is, I may interpret scripture differently than you, but I do not totally step away from the scripture to support my doctrine. If I have an opinion, it will be clearly stated as my opinion; I'll not be dogmatic about it.

HEY!!!!!! Don't you realize only the Clergy are allowed to do that?????  8)

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

That sure comes in handy when you want to bang your personal drum.

Does it change the truth at all? The difference is, I may interpret scripture differently than you, but I do not totally step away from the scripture to support my doctrine. If I have an opinion, it will be clearly stated as my opinion; I'll not be dogmatic about it.

Umm, actually COT, I was agreeing with you. My bad if it came off as otherwise. (I wondered when I posted that if you would think I was directing that at you) TRT is quite guilty of departing from the scriptures when he asserts his peculiarities.

Case in point.
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/house-meeting-questions/

 

[subllibrm]

That sure comes in handy when you want to bang your personal drum.

Does it change the truth at all? The difference is, I may interpret scripture differently than you, but I do not totally step away from the scripture to support my doctrine. If I have an opinion, it will be clearly stated as my opinion; I'll not be dogmatic about it.

Umm, actually COT, I was agreeing with you. My bad if it came off as otherwise. (I wondered when I posted that if you would think I was directing that at you) TRT is quite guilty of departing from the scriptures when he asserts his peculiarities.

Case in point.
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/house-meeting-questions/

Then the fight started!  ;D

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

That sure comes in handy when you want to bang your personal drum.

Does it change the truth at all? The difference is, I may interpret scripture differently than you, but I do not totally step away from the scripture to support my doctrine. If I have an opinion, it will be clearly stated as my opinion; I'll not be dogmatic about it.

Umm, actually COT, I was agreeing with you. My bad if it came off as otherwise. (I wondered when I posted that if you would think I was directing that at you) TRT is quite guilty of departing from the scriptures when he asserts his peculiarities.

Case in point.
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/house-meeting-questions/

Then the fight started!  ;D

I was enjoying that thread sullibrm.

 

[subllibrm]

That sure comes in handy when you want to bang your personal drum.

Does it change the truth at all? The difference is, I may interpret scripture differently than you, but I do not totally step away from the scripture to support my doctrine. If I have an opinion, it will be clearly stated as my opinion; I'll not be dogmatic about it.

Umm, actually COT, I was agreeing with you. My bad if it came off as otherwise. (I wondered when I posted that if you would think I was directing that at you) TRT is quite guilty of departing from the scriptures when he asserts his peculiarities.

Case in point.
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/house-meeting-questions/

Then the fight started!  ;D

I was enjoying that thread sullibrm.

 

That makes one of us. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

My interpretation is perfectly consistent with scripture. 

Luke 22: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

Matt 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Matt 23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

1 Peter 5 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.

To repeat: "27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave". 

Slave parking:

Also, any good slave puts his name on the sign, and is the focal point of the assembly. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

So Teacher is a poor translation of "kathegetes". Master is a far better translation of the word.

The office of bishop/overseer was and is an office placed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 20.28)

Saying the NT church requires earthly leadership is not unbiblical.

You also proved nothing with your example. You can argue the extent of church leadership's authourity, but that doesn't make those who don't agree with you guilty of the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. You first must establish conclusively that "Lording it" is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. You have not even remotely done so.

What you said was:
The Lord hates lording it over the flock
The Lord hates the doctrine of the Nicolaitans
Therefore, the doctrine of the Nicolaitans is lording it over the flock.

Yuo may as well have connected the dots from Proverbs 6:6-19
Perhaps the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was
A proud look
or
A lying tongue
or
Hands that shed innocent blood
or
A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations
or
Feet that be swift in running to mischief
or
A false witness that speaketh lies
or
He that soweth discord among the brethren


According to your logic all are as valid as your hypothesis

 

[Citadel of Truth]

That sure comes in handy when you want to bang your personal drum.

Does it change the truth at all? The difference is, I may interpret scripture differently than you, but I do not totally step away from the scripture to support my doctrine. If I have an opinion, it will be clearly stated as my opinion; I'll not be dogmatic about it.

Umm, actually COT, I was agreeing with you. My bad if it came off as otherwise. (I wondered when I posted that if you would think I was directing that at you) TRT is quite guilty of departing from the scriptures when he asserts his peculiarities.

Case in point.
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/house-meeting-questions/

My apologies. It appeared to be directed at me. Fire away at the Tomato! I'll be right there beside you.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

My interpretation is perfectly consistent with scripture...[unrelated scripture passages snipped]

They may support your belief in a plurality of elders but they in no way prove that your offered definition of "Nicolatian" is in any way founded in scripture. You simply grabbed a title and attached your own meaning to it. Are you a Nicolatian??? 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So Teacher is a poor translation of "kathegetes". Master is a far better translation of the word.

Strongs

2519 kathēgētḗs (from 2596 /katá "down" and 2233 /hēgéomai, "to lead") – properly, a leader; someone bringing others "down the road of learning" by giving needed instruction; a master-teacher. (In Modern Greek this term refers to a "professor," Abbott-Smith.)

4461 rhabbí– a rabbi; a teacher-scholar recognized by the Jewish public for accumulating a great number of Bible-facts, i.e. respected for his accumulation of knowledge.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

So Teacher is a poor translation of "kathegetes". Master is a far better translation of the word.

Strongs

2519 kathēgētḗs (from 2596 /katá "down" and 2233 /hēgéomai, "to lead") – properly, a leader; someone bringing others "down the road of learning" by giving needed instruction; a master-teacher. (In Modern Greek this term refers to a "professor," Abbott-Smith.)

4461 rhabbí– a rabbi; a teacher-scholar recognized by the Jewish public for accumulating a great number of Bible-facts, i.e. respected for his accumulation of knowledge.

So, that set me back, and here's what I found. Your not posting the Strongs definitions. Now, TRT, I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you did this unknowingly, but to clarify, you are not posting the Strongs definitions. You are posting the defintion from the "HELPS Word-studies" definition at (probably) biblehub.com.

I became suspicious when my Bible program strongs definitions didn't line up. So, I dug out my Strongs. My Bible program Strongs (Swordsearcher) and my hard copy Strongs match up. Youre definitions are word for word from the HELPS Word-studies definitions at biblehub.com, but they are listed in the Strongs dictionary underneath the Strongs entry.

So, here are the Strongs definitions fomr the words in question.
kathegetes
from a compound of 2596 and 2233; a guide, i.e. (figuratively) a teacher:—master.

rhabbi
of Hebrew origin (7227 with pronominal suffix); my master, i.e Rabbi, as an official title of honor:—Master, Rabbi.


Kathegetes gives guide first, Rabbi, master. and an official title of honour. Neither definition supports the primary translation as teacher.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So Teacher is a poor translation of "kathegetes". Master is a far better translation of the word.

Strongs

2519 kathēgētḗs (from 2596 /katá "down" and 2233 /hēgéomai, "to lead") – properly, a leader; someone bringing others "down the road of learning" by giving needed instruction; a master-teacher. (In Modern Greek this term refers to a "professor," Abbott-Smith.)

4461 rhabbí– a rabbi; a teacher-scholar recognized by the Jewish public for accumulating a great number of Bible-facts, i.e. respected for his accumulation of knowledge.

So, that set me back. Here's what I found. Your not posting the Strongs definitions. Now, TRT, I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you did this unknowingly, but to clarify, you are not posting the Strongs definitions. You are posting the defintion from the "HELPS Word-studies" definition at (probably) biblehub.com.

I became suspicious when my Bible program strongs definitions didn't line up. So, I dug out my Strongs. My Bible program Strongs (Swordsearcher) and my hard copy Strongs match up. Youre definitions are word for word from the HELPS Word-studies definitions at biblehub.com, but they are listed in the Strongs dictionary underneath the Strongs entry.

So, here are the Strongs definitions fomr the words in question.
kathegetes
from a compound of 2596 and 2233; a guide, i.e. (figuratively) a teacher:—master.

rhabbi
of Hebrew origin (7227 with pronominal suffix); my master, i.e Rabbi, as an official title of honor:—Master, Rabbi.

Kathegetes gives guide first, Rabbi, master. and an official title of honour. Neither definition supports the primary translation as teacher.

Yes, my mistake. I think biblehub is where I found it.  Strongs is a bit terse. 

Dodson

4462
ῥαββουνί,      ARAMaic transliterated word (indeclinable)
Rabbi, my master
Rabbi, my master, teacher; a title of respect often applied to Christ.

2519
καθηγητής, ου, ὁ,      Noun, Masculine
a leader, teacher, guide
a leader, teacher, guide, master.

John 1:38 They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), “where are You staying?”

Strongs:

1320
διδάσκαλος (didáskalos)
from 1321; an instructor (genitive case or specially)
:--doctor, master, teacher.

Dodson

1320
διδάσκαλος, ου, ὁ,      Noun, Masculine
a teacher
a teacher, master.

So it means master/leader/teacher.  You know, like a pastor. 

 

[prophet]

Since the word is transliterated, an understanding of what it meant to the (origin tongue) Greeks is in order.
The Greek Hero would return from battle, with a line behind him of conquered people.
As he entered the city gates,  he would shout "Nikkolaos", being interpreted : "I won these people".
The word laity, comes from the word for stone, and is of the same root word for laos, or people.
The Greeks believed that when soldiers died on a battlefield, they turned to stones. 
One of the gods picked them up, and tossed them over his shoulder, and as they hit the ground, they became mortals, reborn.
So, and to this day, conquered people are called "laity", or "laymen".
Nikkos is: "to  conquer", and the name Nicholas means conqueror of the people, and is a version of the word, Nikkolaos.

Since Ephesus was commended for its stand against Nicholaitan deeds, and we have more written to and about Ephesus, than any other church, an indepth study of Ephesus et al, will reveal a very different polity, than most modern evangelical churches have.

God established the law of two witnesses, in the Law.

He called the disciples by 2,
and even names them by 2, in Matt 10.
He sent them out by 2, in Mark  6
Commanded that speakers in the assembly be by at least 2, in 1Cor. 14.
And, during the Trib, will have two witnesses, still.

Diotrophes was pointed out, for his desire to rise above the other elders...

In I Tim 5, Tim is charged not to elevate one elder.

It all fits, and it all points to our turning away from the checks and balances that God originally installed in His system.

Of course, the Nicolaitan church- kings on this forum, and in most churches we all know of, wont look into this or admit it, why would they, it would be self-defeating?

But it is all there, he that hath an ear, let him hear.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

TRT, I didn't hit reply because the posts are long, gets cluttered.

You are obfuscating. The word in Matthew 23 is not didaskalos. It is kathegetes.

You are also poorly interpreting the passage.

Christ spake to the multitude as well as the disciples (vs 1) and told them to observe/heed/obey the scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses seat (the place of authourity) (vs 2), not as they did, but as we are supposed to. Simple answer, when they speak according to the scriptures, they speak truth, and we ought to heed it.

It was their insatiable desire for recognition that he was speaking against, he was not saying no one is to lead, their is no earthly authourity except Christ.

You are trying to interpret hyper-literally. Paul used the title "king" when addressing some, and he recognized the bishops and deacons by title.

You are purporting that there are no leaders today, every man leads himself. Even prophet would disagree with that.