“ANGELS OF CHURCHES”
Human or Heavenly?
Revelation 1:20 20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels [#32 aggelos--angelos] of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Were these “angels” human or heavenly beings?
The answer to this has considerable importance since it is the primary scriptural “evidence” argued for monarchical bishops. The change in the second century from the oversight of a plurality of elders in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) was a significant step leading to the “Great Apostasy.” It is still argued today. That is not a reason to believe it speaks of heavenly beings but is a good reason to be correct as to the interpretation. A lot depends upon the meaning.
One indication as to their nature may be that Rev. 1:20 calls the “angels” “stars”—perhaps suggesting heavenly entities.
The primary evidence that it speaks of angels is the overwhelming use of angelos as heavenly beings. Out of 186 times “Angelos” (#32) is used in the New Testament, only seven times it clearly speaks of men. We know this because they are so identified. The general rule is that unless there is such identification, they were viewed as heavenly messengers.
Mat 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27 John the Baptist was a “messenger”
Luke 7:24 John sent messengers to Jesus
Luke 9:52 Jesus sent messengers ahead of him.
James 2:25 Israel sent out messengers
We have no case where ongelos is clearly identified as speaking of human messengers of churches. The Greek word used to describe messengers of the churches was “apostolos” (#652)
Epaphroditus was “messenger” (#652) of the church at Philippi, sent to minister to the needs of Paul. (Philippians 2:25)
2 Corinthians 8:19-23, Paul speaks of those who the churches appointed to travel with him to care for the collected money for the poor as “the messengers (#652) of the churches.”
These certainly were not monarchical bishops.
Being a “messenger” of a church does not prove they presided over the church, and most certainly it does not negate all of the evidence that elders ruled churches.
The practice of the apostles was to ordain elders in every church (Acts 14:23).
Acts 14:23 23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
No letter is addressed “to the bishop” over any church.
Philippians addresses the saints with special citation of the bishops and deacons—plural, no monarchical bishop. (Philip. 1:1) “Bishops” was just another name for elders, or pastors (Titus 1:5, 7).
Paul, writing to Timothy, clearly indicates that the elders/bishops were ruling the church at Ephesus.
1 Timothy 5:17 17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
Titus was told to ordain elders in every city.
Titus 1:5 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Indeed, Ephesus had existed for years without one-man oversight before Timothy was left there to deal with special problems that had arisen. The Ephesian letter gives no indication of a bishop over the church. When Paul called the elders from Ephesus to Miletus (Acts 20:17) they were clearly in charge and no single bishop is suggested as having oversight.
The roles of elders ruling, teaching, protecting, overseeing, feeding, shepherding and withstanding the Judaizers clearly established their oversight.
It is just too great a stretch to make the “seven angels of the churches” in Revelation to be monarchical bishops.
Primary evidence is how the word is used in context of Revelation. The fact that the book speaks of angels as heavenly beings 76 times with only these 8 under any question is significant and requires strong evidence to be legitimately viewed otherwise.
How a person commonly uses a word is very important to understanding what he intends. His usual meaning prevails unless strong evidence shows he is using it differently.
Examples both before and after Revelation 2 & 3 shows how the word was used:
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 5:2 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
Revelation
22:6 6 And he said unto me, These words are faithful
and true: and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angels
to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass.
Revelation 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had
heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel
which shewed me these things.
Revelation 22:16 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel
to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the
offspring of David, the bright, the morning star.
Daniel 12:1 shows that nations had angels standing up for them so there is no problem with having angels pictured as responsible for churches. (cf. Daniel 10:13, 20, 21)
Two arguments have been made for the exception that men, rather than heavenly beings are intended.
A. Why would John be told to write to a heavenly being?
B. The 2nd person singular indicates these “messengers” are accused of doing wrong which would be more likely spoken to men.
A. Objection: “Why would John be told to write to a heavenly being?”
This rests on a question which is itself inconclusive. The answer may be that it is just part of the imagery of churches having angels who are spoken of as if they were accountable.
It is argued that nowhere in the scriptures is anyone told to write to a heavenly being. However, that does not necessarily indicate it could not be done in the imagery of Revelation. People did speak to angels.
Alternatively, we have no case
where the word “angelos” is clearly identified as speaking of a
person presiding over a church.
Even when speaking of messengers of churches, not presiding over them, the Greek word used was “apostolos” (#652)
Epaphroditus was “messenger” (#652) of
the church at Philippi, sent to minister to the needs of Paul.
(Philippians 2:25)
2 Corinthians 8:19-23, Paul speaks of those
who the churches appointed to travel with him to care for the collected money
for the poor as “the messengers (#652) of the
churches.”
In fact, we have no example in scripture of any presiding bishop. Nor is any evangelist called a “messenger/angel” (#652). Why did not Paul write “to the angel/messenger at Ephesus”?
If the “angels” in Revelation 2 & 3 were evangelists, why did it not clearly say, “to the Evangelist at ........”? If they were presiding bishops, likewise. Why this unusual term otherwise used of heavenly beings throughout the letter?
If the “angels of the churches” were men, why were none of them identified? Angels are rarely named but when speaking to men, it is common to identify them.
Furthermore, does it not raise a question that all seven of these churches had an “angel”? If these “messengers” were sent from the churches to get information from John, or were to be sent by John to the churches there might be some likelihood but, in view of what is revealed in the New Testament it certainly raises serious questions about them being monarchical bishops as arose in the second century. The New Testament knows nothing of a “presiding bishop.”
B. Objection: “Some of these ‘messengers’ are accused of doing wrong which would be more likely spoken to men.”
Answer:
The "angels" were not the ones for whom the messages were intended. They were directed to the churches (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). The messengers were only the means of delivering the messages.
Rev. 2:10 “Fear none of these things which thou [2nd person, singular] shall suffer, behold the devil shall cast some of you [2nd person, plural -- people in the church] into prison." Both the singular and the plural are referring to the church.
Revelation 2:13 13 I know thy [2nd person singular] works, and where thou [2nd person singular] dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou [2nd person singular] holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you [2nd person plural], where Satan dwelleth.
Rev. 2:24-25. But unto you [2nd person plural] I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you [2nd person plural] none other burden. 25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
The above passages addresses the church both in the singular and the plural.
While
the letters are written to the messenger of the churches, the messages are
intended for the churches-- sometimes in the singular--the body as a
whole, and sometimes in the plural as individuals making up the body.
Use of the 2nd person singular or plural may refer either to the church as a whole or to the members as individuals. The church is a body composed of many individuals.
1 Corinthians 12:27 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
It would appear that the weight of evidence favors the “angels of the churches” as heavenly beings. There is no supporting evidence for monarchical bishops.