They appear twice, in Revelation 2, and Scripture never says what they taught. There is one solid clue, and it is sitting in the verse immediately before.
The Nicolaitans appear in exactly two verses, both in Revelation 2. Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for hating their practices, and rebukes the church at Pergamum for having people who hold to their teaching. That is the entire biblical record.
Scripture never says who they were or what they taught. Everything beyond those two verses is reconstruction, and the honest answer is that we do not know with confidence.
We do have one solid clue, though, and it is sitting right next to the second mention. Two verses earlier Jesus names the teaching of Balaam, and links it to eating food sacrificed to idols and to sexual immorality. That pairing is the best evidence available, and it points somewhere specific.
“But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”
Revelation 2:6, to Ephesus“Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.”
Revelation 2:15, to PergamumDetailed accounts of their doctrine, their founder, their rituals and their organizational structure, usually stated with confidence and no source.
A name, a note that Ephesus rejected them, and a note that Pergamum tolerated them. No description, no founder, no doctrine.
One more thing worth noticing. Ephesus is being corrected in that letter for having lost its first love, and the Nicolaitan line is the one thing Jesus puts in their favor. So whatever this was, rejecting it was right, even in a church that had other problems.
Any article that tells you confidently what the Nicolaitans taught is filling in blanks that Scripture left empty.
In the Pergamum letter, the Nicolaitan line does not arrive on its own. Verse 14 comes first.
“There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.”
Revelation 2:14 and 15Likewise is doing real work there. Jesus names one group, describes what their teaching produced, and then says the Nicolaitans are the same kind of thing. That is the closest we get to a definition.
And in Pergamum, that description is not abstract. The city was a center of Hellenistic religion and of the Roman imperial cult. Biblical Archaeology Society notes that the Great Altar of Pergamon is what some scholars interpret as referring to Satan's throne in the letter to that church.
Most crafts had one, most guilds had a patron deity, and meetings involved meals in temple precincts. Staying out of that was staying out of your trade.
Public life ran through the temples. Festivals, honors, the imperial cult. Abstaining marked you as antisocial rather than merely religious.
Not a demand to renounce Christ. A quiet suggestion that a small gesture at a civic meal need not mean anything.
Numbers has Balaam unable to curse Israel directly, so the harm comes instead through invitation to a feast. Not confrontation. Assimilation.
The best available evidence points to a teaching that made compromise with the surrounding religious culture feel reasonable.
Every post here is free to read. If this one helped you, you can help keep it that way. Pick an amount and finish on Stripe's secure checkout.
Change your amount, update your card, or cancel anytime. Enter the email you give with and Stripe sends you a secure link.
Manage My Giving"Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."2 Corinthians 9:7
They took their name from Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven chosen in Acts 6, who is said to have gone astray.
It is the earliest surviving explanation, which counts for something. It may also be an inference from the similarity of the names rather than independent knowledge. Clement of Alexandria later defended Nicolas and said his words had been misunderstood.
A teaching that permitted believers to participate in idol feasts and the sexual practices that went with civic and guild life.
This is the strongest one, because it comes from the passage rather than from outside it. The likewise in verse 15 ties them directly to the Balaam problem just described.
Nikao means conquer and laos means people, so the name is read as conquering the laity, and the group becomes a picture of clergy domination.
Treat it carefully. Nikolaos was a common personal name at the time, and reading a group's doctrine out of the etymology of a name is not a reliable method. The concern behind it is legitimate. The historical claim is not established.
What is the strongest clue about what the Nicolaitans taught?
Revelation 2:14 describes the Balaam teaching and its results, then verse 15 says likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. That connection comes from the text rather than from outside it.
Here is what makes this passage useful rather than obscure. Nobody in Pergamum was being asked to deny Christ at the guild dinner. They were being asked to be reasonable.
It is only a small ceremony. Everyone does it. Your family eats because of this trade. You know what you believe, so the gesture means nothing. That is how it works, and it worked well enough that Jesus had to write a letter about it.
Dramatic opposition. An obvious moment where somebody demands you renounce your faith and you either stand or fall.
Gradual accommodation, one sensible compromise at a time, until a church's actual allegiance has quietly relocated without anybody deciding it had.
The conquer the people interpretation gets used a lot in discussions about church structure, and we should be careful with it. We do hold that the fivefold gifts are functions rather than hierarchical offices, and we teach that. But we get there from Ephesians 4 and from how Jesus talks about leadership in Matthew 20, not from the etymology of a name in Revelation 2. Making a passage say something useful is not the same as reading it, and it is worth keeping the two apart. See the fivefold ministry.
Whatever the Nicolaitans were, the letters describe a church losing ground by agreement rather than by force.
It is worth remembering what Revelation 2 and 3 actually are. Seven letters, to seven named churches, in seven real cities you can visit the ruins of, about specific problems those congregations were having in their own generation.
Ephesus had endured hardship and lost its warmth. Pergamum was holding the line publicly and slipping privately. Laodicea was comfortable. These are pastoral letters, written to be read aloud in a room full of people who recognized themselves in them.
Which means the Nicolaitans are not a mystery cult to be decoded. They are a named pressure inside a specific church, and the reason the letter survives is that the pressure did not. Assimilation by small reasonable steps is not a first century problem. It is the normal way conviction erodes, and it has never needed anybody to be persecuted.
For the rest of the book, see what Revelation is about, when Revelation was written, a summary of Revelation, the seven trumpets and idolatry.
Two verses, no description, one strong clue, and the clue points at a teaching that made blending in sound sensible.
Most of these are small, private and hard to talk about. Send it here and somebody at Sound of Heaven will pray over it with you. You do not have to be a member and you do not have to give details.
They appear in exactly two verses, both in Revelation 2. Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for hating their practices and rebukes the church at Pergamum for tolerating those who hold their teaching. Scripture never says who they were, who founded them or what they taught. Everything beyond those two verses is reconstruction, and the honest answer is that we do not know with confidence. Any article that describes their doctrine in detail is filling in blanks the Bible left empty.
The strongest clue is the verse immediately before the second mention. Revelation 2:14 names the teaching of Balaam, who enticed Israel to eat food sacrificed to idols and commit sexual immorality, and verse 15 then says likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. That word likewise ties them to the same problem. In cities where trade guilds met in temple precincts and public life ran through the imperial cult, the pressure was toward accommodation rather than renunciation.
Irenaeus, writing in the second century, says they took their name from Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven chosen in Acts 6, and that is the earliest surviving explanation. It may also be an inference drawn from the similarity of the names rather than independent knowledge. Clement of Alexandria later defended Nicolas and argued his words had been misunderstood. It is worth knowing as the oldest tradition without being treated as settled fact.
That reading combines nikao, to conquer, with laos, people, and is often used to make the group a picture of clergy dominating laity. Treat it carefully. Nikolaos was a common personal name at the time, and deriving a group's doctrine from the etymology of a name is not a reliable method. The underlying concern about domineering leadership is legitimate, but Scripture makes that case in Ephesians 4 and Matthew 20 rather than here.
Because of what the pressure actually looked like. Nobody in Pergamum was being told to deny Christ at a guild dinner. They were being told to be reasonable, that the ceremony was small, that everyone does it, that their family ate because of that trade. The letters describe a church losing ground by agreement rather than by force, one sensible compromise at a time, until its allegiance had quietly relocated without anybody deciding it had.