Where else is Thyatira mentioned in Scripture? You say it sounds like one of the seven churches of Asia Christ gave letters to in Revelation? Again, correct answer. And you may remember that in that letter, Jesus condemns them for allowing an apostate woman called "Jezebel" in their midst.
Who is this "Jezebel?" Most don't consider that to be her real name. The leading views is the pastor's wife (based on the reading of some manuscripts) and an unknown false teacher.
Yet some say that woman is Lydia, the first European convert, is that Jezebel. Any Biblical proof she fell away from the truth? Ab. So. Lute. Lee. None!
I don't have to hide the identity of the minority who smear Lydia's reputation because I never have read that view - rather, I read another book that mentioned this theory and dismissed it.
However, there's another person mentioned in Acts that is associated with false teaching, even though it isn't clearly stated. That is Nicolas, one of the seven deacons, a proselyte from Antioch. Should we be leery of him? I see NO hints of that from the text.
But let's return to Revelation. In the letter to Ephesus, they're praised for hating the deeds of the Nicolatians, which Jesus hates. A few verses later, the church in Pergamum is condemned for allowing those who teach the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which Jesus hates.
What do we know for sure about the Nicolatians? Basically, nothing outside of these two mentions. They're not mentioned anyplace else in Scripture. There is no mention of that sect in any writings except commentaries of Revelation.
One question I have. Is this word supposed to be transliterated and treated as a proper noun? Or should it be translated and treated as a common noun? If you take the second view, you'd come up with "Controlling the People." If that is what Nicolatianism is, it should be condemned, though it is practiced both religiously and politically.
But others - unfortunately a majority - assume that this was a Gnostic group formed by Nicolas. This is an ancient view, going back to the 2nd Century, and held by some of the Church Fathers. But is there Biblical proof that this Deacon went astray? Not a shred of evidence. Could it be named by somebody else named Nicolas? After all, later there was St. Nicolas - obviously not him, since he wasn't born yet, but still a sign others had that name? But no. They mimick the unprovable theory of the past and say this person had to be an apostate.
Does it make you mad when people jump to negative conclusions like this? It makes me mad. After all, we're commanded to love, and Paul says love thinks no evil (1 Corinthians 13:5).
Why do we assume negative things when there are other options that are not negative? That's not Christian love. And we should be slow to make such assumptions of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment