Featured Stars are angels

In robycop’s “seven church ages” false doctrine... thread, member 37818 mentioned that the seven angels in Revelation 1-3 are the seven pastors of the seven churches of Asia. I asked him what he based that on. A few others answered.

Since that subject diverges from the main theme of the opening post – that of the seven churches representing seven distinct church ages – I decided to start a separate thread regarding the angels of Revelation chapters 1-3.

 

Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. (Cf. Revelation 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, et al.)

Who are the ‘angels’ in Revelation 2-3? A common interpretation – perhaps the most common – is that the seven angels represent the seven pastors of each of the seven churches of Asia. The notion that angels represent pastors runs deep in our mindset. However, the deep-seated nature of that interpretation may disguise the proof or lack thereof that pastors are angels or that angels are pastors.

Revelation 1:20 is a verse in which the explanation or interpretation is supplied. John hears a voice, sees a vision. He sees the Lord Jesus Christ in the midst of seven golden candlesticks, holding seven stars in His hand. The vision ends with a command to write and an explanation of the mystery of the seven stars and seven candlesticks. The seven candlesticks are the seven churches of Asia to whom John is commanded to write. The seven stars are the angels of those seven churches. Has Jesus given the interpretation of the mystery, or has He only interpreted half and left the other half for us to decide? Many accept “angels” as the interpretation on the surface – an angel is a messenger and the messenger surely must be the pastor of the church.

The interpretation of Jesus is that the stars are angels (or messengers, if you wish). Jesus did not use any of the words for the office, pastor, elder, or bishop. If the stars are not angels, but rather pastors, that leaves the interpretation provided by our Lord as no interpretation or explanation at all. If stars are angels and candlesticks are churches, the mystery is revealed and there is no need to extend Jesus’s interpretation.

The most common use of “angel” (Gk. ἄγγελος) means angelic/spiritual beings, ministering spirits. According a search engine I consulted, angel or angels occur 75 times in the King James version of the book of Revelation. Sixty-seven occurrences unquestionably refer to angelic beings. If 1:20, 2:1,8,12,18, 3:1,7,14 do not refer to angelic beings, they are exceptions to the rule throughout the book. Chapter 1 opens with an angel who is an angel. Chapters 2-3 do not clearly indicate any reason for a difference from the other usage throughout the book, either before or after. It is unlikely that angel differs only in chapters 2-3, with no explanation. Everywhere in the book of Revelation, the angels are angels.

Stars that are angels are mentioned elsewhere in Revelation – and the stars who are angels in Revelation 12:3-9 are angelic spirit beings, not human beings. The dragon drew a third of the stars of heaven, verse 4. In verses 7 through 9 we find that the dragon is the Devil, and the stars are the angels who followed him.

The “pastor” interpretation breaks down. Rather than following the interpretation given by the Lord himself, one must continue to reinterpret it. Jesus says the stars are angels. Men say the stars are pastors who are only called angels. If pastors are called angels here, we find no confirmation of it elsewhere in the Scriptures. Pastors/elders/bishops are not called angels in the Bible.

Angel pastors make the salutations of the letters to the seven churches of Asia inconsistent with the greetings of other church letters found in the New Testament. No other New Testament church letter is written to the pastor alone. Rather, they were written to the church, i.e., the entire local congregation of saints in a particular place. Compare some of the other salutations: 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; and Philippians 1:1.

If the angels are single pastors (angel is singular in the letter to each church) the condition of these churches in Revelation is not consistent with the rest of the New Testament practice. In Acts 20:17, for example, the church at Ephesus had several overseers/elders. They were preaching/teaching elders (Cf. Acts 20:28). So, under the “angel=pastor interpretation” the church at Ephesus in Revelation has only one messenger/pastor, while the history of the church in Acts shows that they have plural elders/pastors. Local assemblies in the Bible are consistently portrayed as led by elders, plural.

In my opinion the popularity of the “angel=pastor interpretation” rises from two main reasons: 1). The angels as pastors just “makes sense”. Why would God send the message to the church to an angel? When Jesus’s simple explanation of Rev. 1:20 finds hard ground, it is carried away and another substituted for it. 2). Familiarity and commonality breeds popularity. It is the interpretation we hear most. It is the interpretation we have been taught. If it isn’t challenged, why should we seek another interpretation or try to strengthen the case to support it?

 

What I see in your explanation is that these "messengers" in Revelation 1-3 must be pastors because in some sense pastors deliver messages to churches. A human messenger who physically brought the letter to the church would be "most believable" if we want to go that route. The message is written (Revelation 1:11; 1:19; 3:1, et al.). It is not a sermon they are preaching.

One point of several explanations in the above post, that apparently doesn't suit your view. However, we can turn the tables and say the other explanation (angel=single pastor) suits the notion you seem to have against plurality of pastors. BTW, "consistently portrayed" and "mandatory" are not the same thing.

So you believe all the notes in the Geneva Bible just because they are in the Geneva Bible?

Malachi 2:7 directly says the priest is the messenger of the Lord. Revelation 1:20 directly says stars are angels/messengers, not that stars are pastors.

 

Since you are the one who said it, you need to define what you mean when you say the pastor is a messenger.

The route to which I refer is looking for what is "most believable." That is a pretty sketchy standard that varies according to the person doing the believing. By "of course" do you mean the runner/delivery person who delivered the message? That is what I was referring to. Like the ones in New Testament who carried to the churches letters that were written to them.

Says the Bible:
"What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia..."
"Write the things..."

 

Could not the interpretation of the messenger possibly affect the interpretation of the message? For example, if the message is to the singular messenger, might someone also expect that the singular "thous" and "thys" refer to that messenger, since their is numerical agreement in the noun and the pronouns?

 

And yet he is called a preacher, teacher, pastor, elder, shepherd, bishop, but nowhere called a messenger or angel in the sense that you apply it to Revelation 1-3.

Which two, and why?

Of course, it is a message. It is a written message given by Jesus Christ to John to the seven churches of Asia. We can toy with words if we wish, but I suspect if you receive a letter that is written to your church and read the letter, neither you nor your church would call it a sermon. No one is saying it is not a message. The disagreement is over who are the stars of Revelation 1:20.

 

But the question before us is whether the pastor is this messenger (i.e. the one in the letters in Revelation).

You, not I, are the one who wrote, "There are only two options here." Seems you should be able to explain what you meant. I do not limit the possible interpretations to two options, if that is what you mean, even if that is all that has been discussed. A person's interpretation is a person's interpretation, whatever it is.

No. The average reader, even if he or she does not agree, can see that post #2 is a serious inquiry into the meaning of stars/angels in Revelation 1-3.

 

The stars are angels is the interpretation that Jesus gives. That is what I accept, and in that sense it is my only one option. However, I clearly stated in the OP that the (probably) most common interpretation is that the seven angels represent the seven pastors of each of the seven churches of Asia. That is an "option" different from the other "two" that you mention I gave in the quote above. Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean.

"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." Feel free to remain unconvinced. I doubt you have any intention of considering "a new argument" (of which there are several more than one in the OP).