Stars are angels

[rlvaughn]

I don't have to read your mind, just your posts in this thread.

 

[agedman]

Is it not fair to hold that if God says something then it is true?

At any other place in Scriptures is it found that pastor/elder are referred to as angel(s)?

Some might think it odd that God would have John write to an angel rather than telling them Himself. It is as if John was subservient to angels.

Yet, does not Scripture teach believers are to judge angels?

It does ever amazes how some would construct an intellectual presentation of which resembles little in comparison to what is actually stated. Typically this is done when one is confronted with Scriptures that don’t fit the limited human rationale, and in seeking human acceptance and meaning are obliged to be remolded into that palatable.

 

[canadyjd]

8

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?

Again, how does John write a letter to angels in heaven? By what method does he deliver such a message? If the letter goes to these churches, do you suppose the angels are sitting around waiting to read a letter from John to get instructions from Jesus?

Does church history record the letters went the church leadership, or to angels?

Peace to you

 

[rlvaughn]

Again, how does John write a letter to angels in heaven? By what method does he deliver such a message? If the letter goes to these churches, do you suppose the angels are sitting around waiting to read a letter from John to get instructions from Jesus?

Does church history record the letters went the church leadership, or to angels?

First, I don't think we have to suppose the angels were in heaven, do we. For example, the angel in Revelation 1:1 was sent to John from heaven to Patmos. We know the angels were/are messengers God sends to minister to the heirs of salvation. There are all kinds of miraculous and wondrous things in the Bible I can't explain. If I become satisfied that I understand what God said about, then I don't worry whether I can explain it all.

 

[rlvaughn]

May I suggest we discuss the messages and not the messenger?

When I read the following quote by someone named Andrew Wilson, I thought about your statement above.

There is much in Revelation that is difficult to understand, and worrying about the recipients of these letters seems the least of our problems.

 

[loDebar]

All angels are not mess angers but the ones designated to minister to the sinful.
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Other verses do have "morning stars" or "first lights in heaven" as unfallen angels Job 38:7

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

the sons of God are the fallen angels

so it makes since there are angels designated to the churches as well as hopefully obedient ministers who are also messanger to the congregations

 

[rlvaughn]

RevMitchell mentioned about two options. Here are four different views I had read people posit as the interpretation of the angels in Revelation 1-3.

• The angels are heavenly spirit beings, what we most commonly think of when we hear the word angels.
• The angels are envoys sent from the churches to John, during the time he was exiled on the Isle of Patmos.
• The angels are those who audibly read the message to the churches.
• The angels are the pastors/elders of the churches.

In the view of some, the latter two are different, but with many others they are the same.

 

[canadyjd]

First, I don't think we have to suppose the angels were in heaven, do we. For example, the angel in Revelation 1:1 was sent to John from heaven to Patmos. We know the angels were/are messengers God sends to minister to the heirs of salvation. There are all kinds of miraculous and wondrous things in the Bible I can't explain. If I become satisfied that I understand what God said about, then I don't worry whether I can explain it all.

Were the letters delivered to spirit beings (angels) at these churches, or were they delivered to the human leaders in those churches? Did John disobey God by delivering these letters to people instead of angels?

Peace to you.

 

[rlvaughn]

Brother, it seems to me that you are looking for something totally outside the text and our knowledge to satisfy yourself that something can't be a certain way.

 

[loDebar]

Were the letters delivered to spirit beings (angels) at these churches, or were they delivered to the human leaders in those churches? Did John disobey God by delivering these letters to people instead of angels?

Peace to you.

"unto the angel........ write"
He did as he was told..

He also saw things things outside of time

Rev 1:19
Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 

[canadyjd]

Brother, it seems to me that you are looking for something totally outside the text and our knowledge to satisfy yourself that something can't be a certain way.

Ok. We can disagree brother. No problem

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

"unto the angel........ write"
He did as he was told..

He also saw things things outside of time

Rev 1:19
Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Thanks for the conversation.

Peace to you

 

[rlvaughn]

Ok. We can disagree brother. No problem

Certainly, it is no problem to me. This question is an intriguing one, but doesn't make or break fellowship with anyone, at least on my part. As far as my reply to you, I was just wondering and investigating what might be behind your questions.

 

[Reynolds]

The word is aggelos. It is translated angel roughly 80 times and messenger about 15 times. Which is it here? Context would suggest messenger / pastor. We can't dogmatically prove which it should be.

 

[canadyjd]

Certainly, it is no problem to me. This question is an intriguing one, but doesn't make or break fellowship with anyone, at least on my part. As far as my reply to you, I was just wondering and investigating what might be behind your questions.

I am interested in understanding scripture in the context it was written. I generally believe that the more I learn the more I realize how little I know. I'm always willing to be convinced that I've misunderstood a passage.

In this case, it seems logical to me to understand the angels of these churches to be the leadership/pastor.

Thanks for the conversation.

Peace to you

 

[David Kent]

Is it not fair to hold that if God says something then it is true?

At any other place in Scriptures is it found that pastor/elder are referred to as angel(s)?

Some might think it odd that God would have John write to an angel rather than telling them Himself. It is as if John was subservient to angels.

Yet, does not Scripture teach believers are to judge angels?

It does ever amazes how some would construct an intellectual presentation of which resembles little in comparison to what is actually stated. Typically this is done when one is confronted with Scriptures that don’t fit the limited human rationale, and in seeking human acceptance and meaning are obliged to be remolded into that palatable.

The book of revelation is a symbolic book. Other scriptures are not symbolic, The stars are a symbol of Angels. In other scriptures stars represent people, so it is in keeping with scriptutre that the stars/angels represent leaders of the church.

The candlesticks represent churches, so we can tell from that that the two witnesses in Rev 11 who are also described as candlesticks and olive trees are witnessing Churches in the dark ages.

 

[loDebar]

The book of revelation is a symbolic book. Other scriptures are not symbolic, The stars are a symbol of Angels. In other scriptures stars represent people, so it is in keeping with scriptutre that the stars/angels represent leaders of the church.

The candlesticks represent churches, so we can tell from that that the two witnesses in Rev 11 who are also described as candlesticks and olive trees are witnessing Churches in the dark ages.

where do stars represent people?

 

[agedman]

The book of revelation is a symbolic book. Other scriptures are not symbolic, The stars are a symbol of Angels. In other scriptures stars represent people, so it is in keeping with scriptutre that the stars/angels represent leaders of the church.

The candlesticks represent churches, so we can tell from that that the two witnesses in Rev 11 who are also described as candlesticks and olive trees are witnessing Churches in the dark ages.

When did the Scriptures state stars representing people?

When was the Scriptures stating the candlesticks were the actual churches?

Certainly there is symbolism in the Revelation, the same as nearly all the books of the Bible.

For example the tabernacle was both real and symbolic.

The high priest was both symbolic and real, too.

Do not dismiss the real when it is also symbolic.

One does not dismiss the other.

The two witnesses are not symbolic in the Revelation, but in fact two actual people who will attend and trouble the whole world.

How is it that the whole world rejoices, even gives presents to each other at the death of these two? Then how is it that three days later those same two are raised, and caught up into heaven?

Perhaps your post is showing how sometimes one can become so wrapped up in the symbolic that all becomes symbolic and nothing is real.

I take things exactly the opposite when it comes to the Revelation. That is I start from the premise that the events, the things presented are real. They may only be taken as symbolic if such is stated they are to be taken as such.

For example, the following passage has key words highlighted to indicate when to take something symbolic:

7The first angel blew his trumpet, and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood, and these were thrown upon the earth. And a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.

8The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

10The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. 11The name of the star is Wormwood.b A third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from the water, because it had been made bitter.

12The fourth angel blew his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, and a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of their light might be darkened, and a third of the day might be kept from shining, and likewise a third of the night.
​

Each of these events will be factually seen and witnessed as reality. The only one of them that is given in sense of symbolic is that in verse 8.

 

[Alan Gross]

Does anybody know what a church is?

 

[David Kent]

where do stars represent people?

Genesis 37:9,10
Daniel 8:10
Daniel12:3