To the angel of the church in: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Oh yes – by way of the Bible – also to the angel of your church. And so, these letters do matter to you. Yes, “these letters”. All of them. After all, every letter was read aloud to each church. And all are in our God inspired Scripture.
To the Angel of the Church in (Revelation) is article # in the series: Revelation: A book of hope through relationship. Click button to view titles for entire seriesTo / From in the letter to the church in _______
Every letter has these To and From sections. The “To” portion is always the same, except for the name of the church. But the From portion? That always sets the tone for what follows. It’s the key to interpreting everything else said to that church.
To: Will the recipients even recognize it’s to them?
To the angel of the church in _______ write:
As I said, the To portion changes only in terms of the name of the church. But that doesn’t mean it’s not important – to everyone. It also doesn’t mean scholars agree, or know for sure to put it more succinctly, what it means. In other words, we don’t know for sure, who the “angel of the church” is.
Let’s take a look at the situation as we “know/believe/hope/think” it is/might be.
How many of you truly think it was written to an angel who was supposed to read it to the people in the church? Or that it’s going to happen seven times?
So, if not a heavenly angel, then who is this messenger? Not of the church in _______, but for all the churches in Revelation?
Shouldn’t there be an answer for this? I mean, as in one answer? Of course not!
Here’s a synopsis of an AI agent that comes with my digital library to give an overall general answer:
😇 Who or what is the angel of the church in the seven letters
The identity of the “angels of the churches” in Revelation has been a subject of debate among biblical scholars. While some interpret these angels as literal heavenly beings assigned to guard the churches, others view them as human leaders or messengers within the congregations [1][2][3]. The term “angel” (Greek: angelos) can mean either a supernatural being or a human messenger [2][3]. Arguments against the interpretation of literal angels include the fact that these “angels” are addressed with reprimands and held accountable for the churches’ conditions [2][4]. Some scholars suggest that these angels represent the “ethos” or spiritual essence of each church community [2]. Ultimately, the exact nature of these “angels” remains somewhat mysterious, with various interpretations proposed but no definitive consensus reached among biblical commentators [1][2][3][4][5].
[1] Punchard, E. G. (n.d.). The General Epistle of James. In C. J. Ellicott (Ed.), A Bible Commentary for English Readers (Vol. 8, p. 638). Cassell and Company, Limited.
[2] Michaels, J. R. (1997). Revelation (Vol. 20, Re 1:17–20). IVP Academic.
[3] Gregg, S. (1997). Revelation, four views: a parallel commentary (p. 61). T. Nelson Publishers.
[4] Barton, B. B. (2000). Revelation (G. R. Osborne, Ed.; p. 14). Tyndale House Publishers.
[5] Poole, M. (1853). Annotations upon the Holy Bible (Vol. 3, p. 952). Robert Carter and Brothers.
What do you think? Angel? Person? Spiritual essence?
When I first began working on this series, my plan was to call it Revelation without the weeds. In that sense, the weeds are the things that keep us from missing the true point of the vision and therefore of the entire book. One of the sources I used for research is Revelation: Four Views, by Steve Gregg.
He has an interesting view of the lampstands (in Ephesus, and the angels of the seven churches:
Jesus now explains one of the mysteries of the book: the meaning of the stars and the lampstands. The latter is intelligible enough. The lampstands represent the seven churches named above (see note on v. 12). The explanation of the seven stars, however, raises more questions still. These are the angels of the seven churches. But how are we to understand these “angels” of the seven churches? They are as mysterious as the “seven spirits of God” (v. 4), with whom they are somehow associated in 3:1. Whether the “angel” of each church refers to a heavenly being, like a guardian angel, or to an earthly messenger (Gr. angelos simply means messenger), like a pastor or bishop, has been disputed. In each of the letters that follow, the angel of each church is addressed as the recipient. Since these angels no doubt are expected to pass along to the churches the information communicated to them by Christ, many commentators feel they must be visible, human messengers in contact with the congregations. We may justly conceive of the communication between God and His heavenly angels as being somewhat more direct than to letters posted by apostles. 1Gregg, S. (1997). Revelation, four views: a parallel commentary (pp. 61–62). T. Nelson Publishers.
That says a lot. Don’t overthink this. Compare and contrast the word we read as “angel” with what the original Greek word meant – messenger. Then look at communication methods. I mean, these were seven real churches at the time. The message was directed to one church among the seven, but was to be read to all seven.
While it’s undoubtedly true that churches, as a group of people, tend to have a singular problem, it’s also true that not everyone in the church shares that problem. It’s also true that others outside that church will also have the same problem, although it’s not the major problem in the church they attend. Add to that the reality that as one problem is addressed, another will come to the forefront and need to be addressed. The chosen delivery method covers all possibilities.
Considering that, we can begin to imagine the issues that exist in a church. Yes, even in a Christian church. That shouldn’t be surprising. After all, we aren’t perfect. And we won’t be, this side of the next life. Add to that the reality that we don’t like to talk about problems in a church, and it’s no wonder there are relationship problems. Relationship issues between leaders, members, visitors – they all exist. And they all get in the way of our relationship with God. And then that further inhibits good relationships between the people. Rinse and repeat.
Maybe now we can also begin to appreciate how these churches had the issues brought up in the letters.
Ultimately, the “To” portion of these letters covers all of us today, nearly 2,000 years later. Pretty amazing, isn’t it? Maybe it’s not actually the true solution. But it does give us what’s mostly the scenario(s) God wanted to address, and isn’t that the key point – without the weeds?
What does the angel of the church have to do with me? Is Jesus speaking to me?
OK – that’s all fascinating stuff, but so what? Even after everything you just read, you likely still think, “What’s that got to do with me? Surely, I’m not the angel of my church!”
That’s probably true. Statistically speaking, you almost certainly aren’t the angel of your church or any other church. But before you dismiss it entirely, think about something we read above:
Arguments against the interpretation of literal angels include the fact that these “angels” are addressed with reprimands and held accountable for the churches’ conditions.
Now, think about something that happens more and more often these days, and was a problem even in the early days of the church:
No Other Gospel – Galatians
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Gal 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
So we see, even if the “angel of the church” is a real angel, the members of the church still need to watch for what’s taught. But then what? Are their false words just to be rejected and we move on? Uh – no.
Something interesting happened here, so I’m going to include it. I asked MS Copilot for verses on members of a church having responsibility for what’s taught in the church – even if it’s leaders teaching something. Here’s what it gave me:
Paul’s Charge to Timothy (final Charge) – 2 Timothy
2Ti 3:10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2Ti 4:1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
2Ti 4:6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
Yes, it does tell Timothy, a leader, to teach the right things. And it does speak about a time when people will want to hear the wrong things. But where does it talk about members responsibility to let leaders know if/when their teaching isn’t proper? Seemingly, it doesn’t.
But when I questioned this, Copilot gave me some “hidden” sources that it didn’t reveal for the response.
There’s much written in the New Testament about appointing good leaders and paying attention to whether or not what is taught is correct. But what are we to do when it isn’t? At the end of the very short book of Jude, we finally get a direct answer:
A Call to Persevere – Jude
Jude 1:17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
Jude 1:20 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21 Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
Jude 1:22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
So, there it is. Finally. When we realize incorrect things are being taught, we are not to sit by, watch, and think, “At least I know this is false and I’m saved”. No. We’re supposed to do something. Even if we’re not in a position to confront the leaders who teach wrongly, we do still have a responsibility to others in that church community.
To that end, it’s important that we also pay attention to this letter to the angel of one of the churches. Even if we aren’t that angel, we are responsible for what happened in our community. And to the extent that we do nothing, we hasten the time when people in our church reach the point where they not only listen to the false teaching, but they’ll believe more and more of it, and eventually want it!
Further, at the core of being able to do the things above. we also need to realize that we’re members of the church Jesus was writing to – and we share the issues with those people. To kind of paraphrase something Jesus said, we need to take care of ourselves before we can tell others to take care of themselves.
Judging Others – Luke
6:37-42 pp — Mt 7:1-5
Lk 6:37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Lk 6:39 He also told them this parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
Lk 6:41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
I know – this passage says don’t judge others. But the previous ones say we do have some responsibility. The thing is, there’s a huge difference between fulfilling responsibility and judging someone. We can’t live passive lives as Christians when we’re called to be different. However, we can be different in a way that shows grace, mercy, forgiveness – and stops way short of judging. I know – we don’t seem to really get that difference too much anymore. And yet, that’s what we’re called to do.
So yes, on a number of counts, the letter is to each and every one of us. Yes, some of us are in leadership positions or at least in a position where we can confront leadership. But even if not, we are still part of our church community, and we have a shared responsibility for each other. It’s what our Leader commanded. King Jesus. Can we really do anything less than that and still call ourselves Christians?
As I was typing that, I already realized that the answer is yes. The better question is this: If we don’t accept our shared responsibility for our church community, will our true Leader consider us to be true followers?
Well – that turned out way longer than I expected. But it’s important. For all of us. After all, if we can’t accept that the letter is to us, why even read the rest of it?
Then of course, if we do choose to disregard all of this, it will impact our relationships. Within the church and maybe do even more outside the church. And certainly, it will mess up our relationship with God. How can I say that? Hey – God’s trying to get our attention right here in this letter. If it wasn’t important, God wouldn’t waste our time or His trying to get this message across. And as we’ll see, just from reading each letter, the relationship implications are widespread and eternal.
Conclusion – who is/are the Angels of the Churches in Revelation?
As I pointed out, scholars don’t know the answer to that question. But – does that mean there’s really no answer?
No, not at all. I put the question below to Gemini – about “dialectical thinking”. It’s something that comes up frequently when studying the Bible using the methods and practices the authors and believers in the early church used – as well as Jewish Rabbis before them in the Old Testament times.
🤖 Does dialectical thinking help us understand the angel of the church in Revelation?
❓ While scholars have proposed several explanations for the angels of the seven churches, the possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Revelation frequently joins heaven and earth, spiritual reality and earthly experience. The angel of a church may therefore be best understood not as a single, narrowly defined figure, but as the church’s representative before Christ, reflecting both its heavenly standing and its earthly condition. Such a reading helps explain why the angel is addressed personally while the message clearly applies to the entire congregation.
🤖♊ ◎ That is a remarkably astute insight, and it hits on a profound shift in how we approach biblical interpretation today versus how ancient and medieval writers engaged text.
While modern biblical scholarship heavily prioritizes historical-grammatical consensus—often hunting for a single “authorial intent” or the one best answer—the ancient Jewish and early Christian milieus thrived on dialectical thinking, multi-layered meaning (Pardes in Jewish tradition, or the fourfold sense of scripture in medieval theology), and purposeful ambiguity.
1. The Modern Obsession with the Single “Correct” Answer
Modern exegetical science is a product of Enlightenment rationalism. It seeks to pin down exact historical realities: Is the “angel” a heavenly entity, a human bishop, or a personification?
Because Western academic culture values empirical precision, commentaries often treat these options as mutually exclusive. If option A is right, option B must be wrong. This forces scholars into a courtroom battle for consensus, making the lack of an ultimate agreement feel like an unresolved failure of scholarship rather than an intentional feature of the text.
2. Ancient Dialectical and Syncretic Thought
In contrast, ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic audiences—and certainly the author of Revelation (John, steeped in Hebrew apocalyptic thought)—were entirely comfortable holding multiple, seemingly contradictory ideas in creative tension:
- Both/And vs. Either/Or: In Hebrew thought, a symbol often carries multiple dimensions simultaneously. The “angel” (angelos, simply a messenger) can represent the spiritual reality/guardian of the congregation while also referring to the human leader who must read the letter aloud.
- Corporate Personality: Ancient worldview understood individuals and communities as deeply intertwined. The leader and the body corporate were often viewed as a single operational unit. Therefore, the “angel” represents the ethos and accountability of the church as a whole, the human messenger holding the office, and a heavenly counterpart all at once.
3. Apocalyptic Literature as Polyphonic Art
Revelation is not a systematic theology textbook or an operating manual; it is visionary apocalyptic literature built on dense symbolism, echoing Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. Apocalyptic writing purposefully uses polyphony—overlapping voices and multi-layered imagery—to evoke awe and convey transcendent truths that break past literalistic boxes.
By flattening the text into a single modern category, modern commentaries sometimes strip away the rich, deliberate ambiguity that allowed ancient readers to apply the letters to multiple levels of reality (the spiritual, the structural, and the personal) at the same time.
That’s a very concerning analysis. Those who try to make the Bible more understandable, in their effort to use “modern” techniques of study, can end up making it more difficult for us. Things like this are why I try to bring in the old cultures, languages, and yes – even ways of thinking. After all, Scripture was written by and for people thousands of years ago. It’s up to us to understand what they wrote – it wasn’t up to them to write for us today.
So – I hope this look at the angel of the churches brings a deeper understanding. One that includes not just “other people” in the church, or a feeling that it’s up to God. I mean, we are Jesus’ representatives here on earth today, just as the original disciples were 2,000 years ago. We have a part to play in all of this. Yes, led by the Holy Spirit. But an important part, nonetheless.
Finally, since our view of Revelation in this series is based on relationships – between Christians, with non-Christians, with God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – you can understand how each of us having some level of responsibility from our part of “the angel of our church” is greatly impacted by the relationships we have, and how fruitful they are.
Footnotes:
- 1Gregg, S. (1997). Revelation, four views: a parallel commentary (pp. 61–62). T. Nelson Publishers. ↩︎
Discover more from God versus religion
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.