Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation

by Albert Barnes

6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the [101]Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

6. But this thou hast. This thou hast that I approve of, or that I can commend. ¶ That thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes. Gr., works (τὰ ἔργα). The word Nicolaitanes occurs only in this place, and in the 15th verse of this chapter. 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, unless it be supposed that they held the same doctrine that was taught by Balaam. See Notes on [ver. 15]. From the two passages, compared with each other, it would seem that they were alike corrupt in doctrine and in practice, for in the passage before us their deeds are mentioned, and in ver. 15 their doctrine. Various conjectures, however, have been formed respecting this class of people, and the reasons why the name was given to them. I. In regard to the origin of the name, there have been three opinions. (1) That mentioned by Irenæus, and by some of the other fathers, that the name was derived from Nicolas, oneof the deacons ordained at Antioch, Ac. vi. 5. Of those who have held this opinion, some have supposed that it was given to them because he became apostate and was the founder of the sect, and others because they assumed his name, in order to give the greater credit to their doctrine. But neither of these suppositions rests on any certain evidence, and both are destitute of probability. There is no proof whatever that Nicolas the deacon ever apostatized from the faith, and became the founder of a sect; and if a name had been assumed, in order to give credit to a sect and extend its influence, it is much more probable that the name of an apostle would have been chosen, or of some other prominent man, than the name of an obscure deacon of Antioch. (2) Vitringa, and most commentators since his time, have supposed that the name Nicolaitanes was intended to be symbolical, and was not designed to designate any sect of people, but to denote those who resembled Balaam, and that this word is used in the same manner as the word Jezebel in ch. ii. 20, which is supposed to be symbolical there. Vitringa supposes that the word is derived from νῖκος, victory, and λαός, people, and that thus it corresponds with the name Balaam, as meaning either בַּעַל עָם, lord of the people, or בִּלַע עָם, he destroyed the people; and that, as the same effect was produced by their doctrines as by those of Balaam, that the people were led to commit fornication and to join in idolatrous worship, they might be called Balaamites or Nicolaitanes, that is, corrupters of the people. But to this it may be replied, (a) that it is far-fetched, and is adopted only to remove a difficulty; (b) that there is every reason to suppose that the word here used refers to a class of people who bore that name, and who were well known in the two churches specified; (c) that in ch. ii. 15 they are expressly distinguished from those who held the doctrine of Balaam, ver. 14, “So hast thou also (καὶ) those that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.” (3) It has been supposed that some person now unknown, probably of the name Nicolas, or Nicolaus, was their leader, and laid the foundation of the sect. This is by far the most probable opinion, and to this there can be no objection. It is in accordance with what usually occurs in regard to sects, orthodox or heretical, that they derive their origin from some person whose name they continue to bear; and as there is no evidence that this sect prevailed extensively, or was indeed known beyond the limits of these churches, and as it soon disappeared, it is easily accounted for that the character and history of the founder were so soon forgotten. II. In regard to the opinions which they held, there is as little certainty. Irenæus (Adv. Hæres. i. 26) says that their characteristic tenets were the lawfulness of promiscuous intercourse with women, and of eating things offered to idols. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 29) states substantially the same thing, and refers to a tradition respecting Nicolaus, that he had a beautiful wife, and was jealous of her, and being reproached with this, renounced all intercourse with her, and made use of an expression which was misunderstood, as implying that illicit pleasure was proper. Tertullian speaks of the Nicolaitanes as a branch of the Gnostic family, and as, in his time, extinct. Mosheim (De Rebus Christian Ante. Con. § 69) says that “the questions about the Nicolaitanes have difficulties which cannot be solved.” Neander (History of the Christian Religion, as translated by Torrey, i. pp. 452, 453) numbers them with Antinomians; though he expresses some doubt whether the actual existence of such a sect can be proved, and rather inclines to an opinion noticed above, that the name is symbolical, and that it is used in a mystical sense, according to the usual style of the book of Revelation, to denote corrupters or seducers of the people, like Balaam. He supposes that the passage relates simply to a class of persons who were in the practice of seducing Christians to participate in the sacrificial feasts of the heathens, and in the excesses which attended them—just as the Jews were led astray of old by the Moabites, Nu. xxv. What was the origin of the name, however, Neander does not profess to be able to determine, but suggests that it was the custom of such sects to attach themselves to some celebrated name of antiquity, in the choice of which they were often determined by circumstances quite accidental. He supposes also that the sect may have possessed a life of Nicolas of Antioch, drawn up by themselves or others from fabulous accounts and traditions, in which what had been imputed to Nicolas was embodied. Everything,however, in regard to the origin of this sect, and the reason of the name given to it, and the opinions which they held, is involved in great obscurity, and there is no hope of throwing light on the subject. It is generally agreed, among the writers of antiquity who have mentioned them, that they were distinguished for holding opinions which countenanced gross social indulgences. This is all that is really necessary to be known in regard to the passage before us, for this will explain the strong language of aversion and condemnation used by the Saviour respecting the sect in the epistles to the churches of Ephesus and Pergamos. ¶ Which I also hate. If the view above taken of the opinions and practices of this people is correct, the reasons why he hated them are obvious. Nothing can be more opposed to the personal character of the Saviour, or to his religion, than such doctrines and deeds.

7 He[102] that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the [103]tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

7. He that hath an ear, let him hear, &c. This expression occurs at the close of each of the epistles addressed to the seven churches, and is substantially a mode of address often employed by the Saviour in his personal ministry, and quite characteristic of him. See Mat. xi. 15; Mar. iv. 23; vii. 16. It is a form of expression designed to arrest the attention, and to denote that what was said was of special importance. ¶ What the Spirit saith unto the churches. Evidently what the Holy Spirit says—for he is regarded in the Scriptures as the Source of inspiration, and as appointed to disclose truth to man. The “Spirit” may be regarded either as speaking through the Saviour (comp. Jn. iii. 34), or as imparted to John, through whom he addressed the churches. In either case it is the same Spirit of inspiration, and in either case there would be a claim that his voice should be heard. The language here used is of a general character—“He that hath an ear;” that is, what was spoken was worthy of the attention not only of the members of these churches, but of all others. The truths were of so general a character as to deserve the attention of mankind at large. ¶ To him that overcometh. Gr., “To him that gains the victory, or is a conqueror”—τῷ νικῶντι. This may refer to any victory of a moral character, and the expression used would be applicable to one who should triumph in any of these respects:—(a) over his own easily-besetting sins; (b) over the world and its temptations; (c) over prevalent error; (d) over the ills and trials of life, so as, in all these respects, to show that his Christian principles are firm and unshaken. Life, and the Christian life especially, may be regarded as a warfare. Thousands fall in the conflict with evil; but they who maintain a steady warfare, and who achieve a victory, shall be received as conquerors in the end. ¶ Will I give to eat of the tree of life. As the reward of his victory. The meaning is, that he would admit him to heaven, represented as paradise, and permit him to enjoy its pleasures—represented by being permitted to partake of its fruits. The phrase “the tree of life” refers undoubtedly to the language used respecting the Garden of Eden, Ge. ii. 9; iii. 22—where the “tree of life” is spoken of as that which was adapted to make the life of man perpetual. Of the nature of that tree nothing is known, though it would seem probable that, like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it was a mere emblem of life—or a tree that was set before man in connection with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that his destiny turned on the question whether he partook of the one or the other. That God should make the question of life or death depend on that, is no more absurd or improbable than that he should make it depend on what man does now—it being a matter of fact that life and death, happiness and misery, joy and sorrow, are often made to depend on things quite as arbitrary apparently, and quite as unimportant as an act of obedience or disobedience in partaking of the fruit of a designated tree. Does it not appear probable that in Eden there were two trees designated to be of an emblematic character, of life and death, and that as man partook of the one or the other he would live or die? Of all the others he might freely partake without their affecting his condition; of one of these—the tree of life—he might have partaken before the fall, and lived for ever. One was forbidden on pain of death. When thelaw forbidding that was violated, it was still possible that he might partake of the other; but, since the sentence of death had been passed upon him, that would not now be proper, and he was driven from the garden, and the way was guarded by the flaming sword of the cherubim. The reference in the passage before us is to the celestial paradise—to heaven—spoken of under the beautiful image of a garden; meaning that the condition of man, in regard to life, will still be the same as if he had partaken of the tree of life in Eden. Comp. Notes on [ch. xxii. 2]. ¶ Which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Heaven, represented as paradise. To be permitted to eat of that tree, that is, of the fruit of that tree, is but another expression implying the promise of eternal life, and of being happy for ever. The word paradise is of Oriental derivation, and is found in several of the Eastern languages. In the Sanskrit the word paradésha and paradisha is used to denote a land elevated and cultivated; in the Armenian the word pardes denotes a garden around the house planted with grass, herbs, trees for use and ornament; and in the Hebrew form פַּרְדֵּס, and Greek παράδεισος, it is applied to the pleasure gardens and parks, with wild animals, around the country residences of the Persian monarchs and princes, Ne. ii. 8. Comp. Ec. ii. 5; Ca. iv. 13; Xen. Cyro. i. 3, 14 (Rob. Lex.). Here it is used to denote heaven—a world compared in beauty with a richly cultivated park or garden. Comp. 2 Co. xii. 4. The meaning of the Saviour is, that he would receive him that overcame to a world of happiness; that he would permit him to taste of the fruit that grows there, imparting immortal life, and to rest in an abode fitted up in a manner that would contribute in every way to enjoyment. Man, when he fell, was not permitted to reach forth his hand and pluck of the fruit of the tree of life in the first Eden, as he might have done if he had not fallen; but he is now permitted to reach forth his hand and partake of the tree of life in the paradise above. He is thus restored to what he might have been if he had not transgressed by eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and in the Paradise Regained, the blessings of the Paradise Lost will be more than recovered—for man may now live for ever in a far higher and more blessed state than his would have been in Eden.

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH AT SMYRNA.

The contents of the epistle to the church at Smyrna are these: (1) A statement, as in the address to the church at Ephesus, of some of the attributes of the Saviour, ver. 8. The attributes here referred to are, that he was “the first and the last,” that “he had been dead, but was alive”—attributes fitted to impress the mind deeply with reverence for him who addressed them, and to comfort them in the trials which they endured. (2) A statement (ver. 9), as in the former epistle, that he well knew their works and all that pertained to them—their tribulation, their poverty, and the opposition which they met with from wicked men. (3) An exhortation not to be afraid of any of those things that were to come upon them, for, although they were to be persecuted, and some of them were to be imprisoned, yet, if they were faithful, they should have a crown of life, ver. 10. (4) A command to hear what the Spirit said to the churches, as containing matter of interest to all persons, with an assurance that any who would “overcome” in these trials would not be hurt by the second death, ver. 11. The language addressed to the church of Smyrna is throughout that of commiseration and comfort. There is no intimation that the Saviour disapproved of what they had done; there is no threat that he would remove the candlestick out of its place. Smyrna was a celebrated commercial town of Ionia (Ptolem. v. 2), situated near the bottom of that gulf of the Ægean Sea which received its name from it (Mela, i. 17, 3), at the mouth of the small river Meles, 320 stadia, or about forty miles north of Ephesus (Strabo, xv. p. 632). It was a very ancient city; but having been destroyed by the Lydians, it lay waste four hundred years to the time of Alexander the Great, or, according to Strabo, to that of Antigonus. It was rebuilt at the distance of twenty stadia from the ancient city, and in the time of the first Roman emperor it was one of the most flourishing cities of Asia. It was destroyed by an earthquake, A.D. 177, but the emperor Marcus Aurelius caused it to be rebuilt with more than its former splendour. It afterwards, however, suffered greatly from earthquakes and conflagrations, and hasdeclined from these causes, though, from its commercial advantages, it has always been a city of importance as the central emporium of the Levantine trade, and its relative rank among the cities of Asia Minor is probably greater than it formerly bore. The [engraving] in this vol. will give a representation of Smyrna. The Turks now call it Izmir. It is better built than Constantinople, and its population is computed at about 130,000, of which the Franks compose a greater proportion than in any other town in Turkey, and they are generally in good circumstances. Next to the Turks, the Greeks form the most numerous portion of the inhabitants, and they have a bishop and two churches. The unusually large portion of Christians in the city renders it peculiarly unclean in the eyes of strict Moslems, and they call it Giaour Izmir, or the Infidel Smyrna. There are in it about 20,000 Greeks, 8000 Armenians, 1000 Europeans, and 9000 Jews. It is now the seat of important missionary operations in the East, and much has been done there to spread the gospel in modern times. Its history during the long tract of time since John wrote is not indeed minutely known, but there is no reason to suppose that the light of Christianity there has ever been wholly extinct. Polycarp suffered martyrdom there, and the place where he is supposed to have died is still shown. The Christians of Smyrna hold his memory in great veneration, and go annually on a visit to his supposed tomb, which is at a short distance from the place of his martyrdom. See the article “Smyrna” in Kitto’s Cyclopedia, and the authorities referred to there.

8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith [104]the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

8. And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write. On the meaning of the word angel, see Notes on [ch. i. 20]. ¶ These things saith the first and the last. See Notes on [ch. i. 8], [17]. ¶ Which was dead, and is alive. See Notes on [ch. i. 18]. The idea is, that he is a living Saviour; and there was a propriety in referring to that fact here from the nature of the promise which he was about to make to the church at Smyrna: “He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death,” ver. 11. As he had himself triumphed over death in all its forms, and was now alive for ever, it was appropriate that he should promise to his true friends the same protection from the second death. He who was wholly beyond the reach of death could give the assurance that they who put their trust in him should come off victorious.

9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but [105]thou art rich,) and I know the blasphemy of [106]them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the [107]synagogue of Satan.

9. I know thy works. The uniform method of introducing these epistles, implying a most intimate acquaintance with all that pertained to the church. See Notes on [ver. 2]. ¶ And tribulation. This word is of a general signification, and probably includes all that they suffered in any form, whether from persecution, poverty, or the blasphemy of opposers. ¶ And poverty. It would seem that this church, at that time, was eminently poor, for this is not specified in regard to any one of the others. No reason is suggested why they were particularly poor. It was not, indeed, an uncommon characteristic of early Christians (comp. 1 Cor. i. 26–28), but there might have been some special reasons why that church was eminently so. It is, however, the only church of the seven which has survived, and perhaps in the end its poverty was no disadvantage. ¶ But thou art rich. Not in this world’s goods, but in a more important respect—in the grace and favour of God. These things are not unfrequently united. Poverty is no hindrance to the favour of God, and there are some things in it favourable to the promotion of a right spirit towards God which are not found where there is abundant wealth. The Saviour was eminently poor, and not a few of his most devoted and useful followers have had as little of this world’s goods as he had. The poor should always be cheerful and happy, if they can hear their Saviour saying unto them, “I know thy poverty—but thou art rich.” However keen the feeling arising from the reflection “I am a poor man,” the edge of the sorrow is taken off if the mind can be turned to a brighter image—“but thou art rich.”¶ And I know the blasphemy. The reproaches; the harsh and bitter revilings. On the word blasphemy, see Notes on Mat. ix. 3; xxvi. 65. The word here does not seem to refer to blasphemy against God, but to bitter reproaches against themselves. The reason of these reproaches is not stated, but it was doubtless on account of their religion. ¶ Of them which say they are Jews. Who profess to be Jews. The idea seems to be that though they were of Jewish extraction, and professed to be Jews, they were not true Jews; they indulged in a bitterness of reproach, and a severity of language, which showed that they had not the spirit of the Jewish religion; they had nothing which became those who were under the guidance of the spirit of their own Scriptures. That would have inculcated and fostered a milder temper; and the meaning here is, that although they were of Jewish origin, they were not worthy of the name. That spirit of bitter opposition was indeed often manifested in their treatment of Christians, as it had been of the Saviour, but still it was foreign to the true nature of their religion. There were Jews in all parts of Asia Minor, and the apostles often encountered them in their journeyings, but it would seem that there was something which had particularly embittered those of Smyrna against Christianity. What this was is now unknown. It may throw some light on the passage, however, to remark that at a somewhat later period—in the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp—the Jews of Smyrna were among the most bitter of the enemies of Christians, and among the most violent in demanding the death of Polycarp. Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. iv. 15) says, that when Polycarp was apprehended, and brought before the proconsul at Smyrna, the Jews were the most furious of all in demanding his condemnation. When the mob, after his condemnation to death, set about gathering fuel to burn him, “the Jews,” says he, “being especially zealous, as was their custom—μάλιστα προθύμως, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς—ran to procure fuel.” And when, as the burning failed, the martyr was transfixed with weapons, the Jews urged and besought the magistrate that his body might not be given up to Christians. Possibly at the time when this epistle was directed to be sent to Smyrna, there were Jews there who manifested the same spirit which those of their countrymen did afterwards, who urged on the death of Polycarp. ¶ But are the synagogue of Satan. Deserve rather to be called the synagogue of Satan. The synagogue was a Jewish place of worship (comp. Notes on Mat. iv. 23), but the word originally denoted the assembly or congregation. The meaning here is plain, that though they worshipped in a synagogue, and professed to be the worshippers of God, yet they were not worthy of the name, and deserved rather to be regarded as in the service of Satan. Satan is the word that is properly applied to the great evil spirit, elsewhere called the devil. See Notes on Lu. xxii. 3, and Job i.