What are your thoughts on who the nicolaitans are or where??
Jonathan Edwards identifies the "Nicolaitans" with the same Nicholas of Antioch that was "one of the seven" appointed by the Jerusalem church in Acts 6. Indeed, this would be the only possible Biblical-reference & therefore "Nicolaitanism" must be understood through this individual. He was a Gentile proselyte (convert) to Judaism. (Recall what the Lord said about the proselyte to Judaism (Matt. 23:15). Also, Antioch is a city that repeats in the NT as a site of the Judaistic error. ie. "you must obey the law of Moses to be saved". This would tend to agree with its reference in the letter to Pergamum in which the false-teaching is contrasted to the teaching of Balaam. Given that Balaam's was a doctrine of licentiousness, the opposite (ie. "you hold likewise") would suggest a legalistic error is implicated. However, why would the Lord (in Rev. 2) use such a remote reference? Why use the more understood reference; "Judaizers"? This would suggest that the term "Nicolatianism" is a distinct doctrine rather than a general error. I conducted a lengthy study on this which I may post at a later time, and through which I am fairly confident we can narrow the teaching down to a fundamental false doctrine that has harmed a portion of Pentecostalism to the effect that the "circumcision of Christ" (ie. the "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh" per Col.2:11) must occur prior to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This issue has divided Pentecostalism since shortly after Azusa Street. I may post a more in-depth study at lamp-stand.com in the following months.
Check out what root words the word is composed of itself. Pretty interesting.