Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 2:6 - 2:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_2:6. Not for the purpose of alleviating the pain of the church concerning the reproof of Rev_2:4,[968] but because the Lord’s love for his church gladly recognizes what is to be properly acknowledged, and once more, but in a new and more definite way, makes prominent in opposition to Rev_2:4 sqq. ( ἈΛΛΆ ) the one point of commendation already in Rev_2:2. Just because the church was rejected for no longer having the first love to their Lord, is it once more expressly acknowledged that it is still so far of one mind with him, as to hate the wicked works which he hates. Thus Rev_2:6 has enough that is peculiar, as not to appear a mere repetition of Rev_2:2, and contains no marks whatever whereby Rev_2:2-3, are to be understood in the sense of Hengstenberg.
With τοῦτο ἔχ . neither ἈΓΑΘΌΝ , nor the like, is used to complete the construction: the explanation of the ΤΟῦΤΟ in ὌΤΙ ΜΙΣ ., Κ . Τ . Λ ., shows that the common possession is commendable.
The ΜΙΣΕῖς is not “a strong expression for censuring,”[969] but is just as earnestly meant as the ΜΙΣῶ .[970] But it is justly remarked already by N. de Lyra,[971] that the hatred is directed not against the persons, but against the works.[972]
Concerning the Nicolaitans,[973] as well concerning their name as also their conduct, it is possible to judge only by a comparison with Rev_2:14 sqq. Irenaeus,[974] Hippolyt.,[975] Tertullian,[976] Clemens Alex.,[977] Jerome,[978] Augustine,[979] and other Church Fathers derive the sect from a founder Nicolaus, and that, too, the deacon mentioned in Act_6:5, of whom they have more to relate as they are more remote from him in time. That this is derived entirely from this passage, and is of no more importance than that according to which the Ebionites are represented as springing from a certain Ebion,[980] is shown, first, from the fluctuation of the tradition which also knew how to defend that church officer, so highly commended in Acts, from the disgrace of having founded a troublesome sect,[981] and, secondly, from the circumstance that the patristic tradition, from the very beginning, refers to Rev_2:6; Rev_2:14 sqq. Nicolaus of Acts 6 was thought of because none other of that name was known.[982] Since Chr. A. Heumann,[983] and J. W. Janus,[984] the opinion has become almost universal, that the designation Νικολαἰται (from ΝΙΚᾶΝ and ΛΑΌς ) suggests the Hebrew name Balaam (from áÆìÇò and òÈí , i.e., swallowing-up, or destruction, of the people), whereby the Balaamite nature of those Nicolaitanes is to be indicated. To this Rev_2:14-15, refer.[985] Yet it cannot be positively decided whether John found the word used already in this sense, or was himself the first to frame it. A comparison may be made with the name Armillus given to antichrist,[986] i.e., ἘΡΗΜΌΛΑΟς .[987]
The Nicolaitans are of course not identical[988] with the ΚΑΚΟΊ mentioned in Rev_2:2, since the latter expression is very general: yet, at all events, they belong to “them which are evil;” and the idea, which in itself is highly improbable, must not be inferred,[989] that in Rev_2:2; Rev_2:6, two entirely different kinds of false teachers are meant, of whom the former may be regarded disciples of John,[990] or Jewish teachers,[991] or strict Jewish Christians,[992] while the Nicolaitans, who, according to De Wette, etc., are again distinct from Balaamites,[993] as those of a more heathen tendency, viz., false teachers who surrendered themselves[994] to a false freedom.[995] Tertullian and other Church fathers, N. de Lyra, and the older expositors, connect the Nicolaitans with the Gnostics; Hengstenb. also regards them identical with the deniers of the Son, in the Epistles of John, by referring the warning in Joh_5:21[996] to the ethnicizing ways of the false teachers there antagonized. But for all this, there is no foundation. What especially contradicts Hengstenberg’s conjecture is the fact that the (Gnostic) false teachers of the Epistles of John are attacked just as decidedly because of their false doctrines, as the Nicolaitans of the Apoc. because of their evil deeds.[997] That the aberrations are practical, which even Hengstenb. emphasizes, but without ground alleges also of the false teachers in 1 John, is shown already by Rev_2:2 ( ΚΑΚΟΎς ). We shall therefore have to think of the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing libertines.[998] This is not contradicted by the fact that they assumed apostolic authority; for if they possibly professed to vindicate their Christian freedom in the Pauline sense, they might likewise wish to be apostles like Paul.[999] [See Note XXIX., p. 155.]
[968] Grot., Hengstenb.
[969] De Wette.
[970] Cf. on Rev_2:2.
[971] Cf. also Hengstenb., etc.
[972] Cf. Rev_2:14. Incorrectly, Calov.: “dogmas.”
[973] Cf. Gieseler’s Kirchengeschichte, i. 1, sec. 29; Winer, Rwb.; literature in Wolf.
[974] Haer., i. 26.
[975] Ref. Omn. Haer., ed. Gott., 1859, p. 408.
[976] Praescr. Haer., 46.
[977] Strom., ii. 20, p. 490; iii. 4, p. 522.
[978] Adv. Lucifer, 23.
[979] Haer., 5.
[980] Cf. Tertullian, l. c. 33.
[981] Cf. Clemens Alex.
[982] Against Ebrard and Klief., who, as well as Grot., Calov., and the older and Catholic expositors in general, hold to the patristic statement.
[983] Act. Erud. Ann., 1712, p. 179; Poecile, ii. 392.
[984] De Nicol. ex Haeret. Catalogo Expungendis. Viteb., 1723. Cf. Vitr., Wetst., Eichh., Herder, Heinrichs, who, however, is inclined to affirm that there was at Ephesus a Nicolaus. Cf. also Ewald, Gesch., Jer., vii. 172 sqq., Züllig, Hengstenb., etc.
[985] Cf., on the other hand, De Wette.
[986] Cf. Commentary on 1Jn_2:18.
[987] K. Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt., p. 263 sqq
[988] Hengstenb.
[989] Ewald.
[990] Eichh.
[991] Züll.
[992] Ewald.
[993] See on Rev_2:14-15.
[994] Ewald.
[995] Cf. Rev_2:14 with Act_15:29.
[996] Which, however, is not “directed against heathenism clothed in a Christian garb.”
[997] Cf. Rev_2:14; Rev_2:20.
[998] Cf. also A. Ritschl, Entst. d. Altkath. K. Bonn, 1857, p. 134 sq.
[999] According to Volkm., the strict Judæo-Christian author of the Apoc. had in mind the Apostle to the Gentiles and his adherents. Cf. also Hilgenfeld, Kanon, p. 228. Cf. Introduction, sec. 2, note.
XXIX. Rev_2:6. τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν