Replies

Yes, I saw that. I had heard and believed the version where “Nicolaitan” related to “lording it over people.” I now recognize the possibility that this is what is called a genetic fallacy, defined in Wikipedia as “a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.”

Very often this fallacy will surface in language debates, such that someone will pull out the etymology of some contested term and argue from the raw etymology directly to the meaning without asking whether the contemporaneous usage of the term (lexicography) squares with the etymology. That’s an error, because words can shift in meaning quite dramatically from their primitive etymological origins.

For example, if an atheist says “goodbye,” do they mean “I am leaving now,” or do they mean “God be with ye?” Because if we went with strict etymology in a vacuum, you’d have to say he meant “God be with ye,” which of course is an absurd conclusion. So while the etymology isn’t totally irrelevant, it is only one of a number of factors we use to get at the meaning.

For example, there is some evidence that this group may have been a faction led by a real person really named Nicolas. In this case the etymology behind the name could be completely irrelevant.

But even if we say the etymology is relevant, with Nicolaitan, there are multiple possible etymologies. The most common understanding is essentially what ES has stated, that it is a composite that means something like conqueror of people. But that is also just what the given name Nicholas means, and identifying a real individual with that name would not necessarily import the meaning of their name to this narrative.

But there is another very similar Greek word, nicolah, which means “Let us eat,” which has a strong resonance with the context, which describes the Nicolaitans as promoting the eating of things offered to idols, as well as fornication. So the “eating [things offered to idols] cult,” which gives also a very strong reason for it coming under such harsh condemnation by Jesus.

Going back to the “conqueror of people” line of reasoning, I can see that relating to the same context, but not in terms of the typical “clergy versus laity” objection, which presents the Nicolaitans as introducing a heretical priest/laity class stratification into the churches. Another, and I think better connection could be that factions in the ecclesia typically develop from someone’s need to exert power or control over others. This is one of the key defining attributes of cults.

Don’t misunderstand. I am a Protestant, and I believe the sacerdotal system of priesthood is anachronistic, and has no place in the New Covenant. I would , however, not see this passage as addressing that problem. There are plenty of other passages that hit the issue square on, and make for much better authority in the conclusions.

Peace,