John the Beloved is the amanuensis in the Revelation, writing what he heard on Patmos. But the letters are addressed in each case to “the angel of the church” in the cities mentioned. Elsewhere in this issue, articles discuss the subject of those letters. But my question is: What does the Lord mean when He speaks to “the angel” of the various churches cited?
There is no shortage of views by Bible students (which ought to warn us not to be too dogmatic here). Some, like Dean Alford, argue for literal angels who have particular responsibility to guard the assembly to which each is linked. It is suggested to be a similar situation to the angels delegated to oversee nations (see Dan. 10:13, 20).
William Hoste makes a good point when he says, referring to Revelation 1:20: “Others…see in the angels the symbol of those gifted to rule and edify in the churches–the under-shepherds responsible to the Great Shepherd. The objection to this, which I judge insuperable, is that a symbol cannot be interpreted by a symbol. The lampstands are symbolic of literal churches, and the stars can only represent literal angelic beings.”
While we recognize the special ministry of angels to those “who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. 1:14), it would seem unusual for the Lord to address such a being if His concern is with those in the church. To each the Lord begins: “Unto the angel of the church…I know thy works.” Is it some literal angel He holds responsible for these works of men?
Others have suggested that aggelos should be understood as “messenger,” speaking of the men who were to take these missives to their intended readers. It is used in this way of John the Baptizer (Mt. 11:10), of the “messenger of Satan” sent to buffet Paul (2 Cor. 12:7), and of the two spies protected by Rahab (Jas. 2:25). There is no question that these angels are in some way involved in these heart-stirring messages from the Saviour, but they seem, strangely, to be more the recipients than the transmitters. It would be like addressing the Roman epistle to Phoebe or the Philemon letter to Onesimus.
Of course, some looking for divine endorsement of a clerical system within the church find the symbolism virtually beyond question. It is, to them, a descriptive picture of the pastor or clergyman held accountable for that local church and its condition.
William Lincoln assesses this view: “How blinded men must be to quote a term like this in defense either of modern episcopacy, or of the dissenting pastor!” Such human positions are unknown in the New Testament.
I believe Walter Scott draws nearer to the answer when he comments: “We regard the angel of the church as symbolically representative of the assembly in its actual moral state. Representation is the thought…not official but moral representation…” Yet even this brings us back to the dilemma of a symbol (star) standing for a symbol (representation).
May I suggest that there is a direct link between the seven earthly and seven heavenly lights (Rev. 1:20). The lampstands, evaluated in these letters, are a mixture of true and false–Christendom, the professing Church. But the stars, shining brightly in the heavens, are the true spirit of Christianity in the Church–the light of the world. Angels are spirits (Heb. 1:7, 14). When Peter escaped from prison, the believers, thinking Rhoda had “seen a ghost,” said, “It is his angel (spirit)” (Acts 12:15). If this is so, then the angel of the church is that which is truly spiritual in the Church and only that which will respond to the words of Christ (see 1 Cor. 2:9-16).
Why belabor the point? Because the dire needs, failures, and sins of the Church are charged to all such. As Robert McClurkin writes: “The true Church must bear the responsibility for the inroads of evil that come into the churches. Who let Jezebel in…? Surely the watchmen must have been asleep.”
It is no good to point fingers, although evaluations must be made (Rev. 2:2). Are we willing to “hear what the Spirit says” and act upon it? Could it be He is talking to you?