Angels Of The Seven Churches
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament [1]
The general practice of NT writers points to the conclusion that the word ‘angels,’ used in this connexion, is employed to denote superhuman and celestial personalities. We are not, however, without examples of its being used to indicate ordinary ‘messengers’ (cf. Luke 7:24; Luke 9:52, James 2:25, etc.). In this case it would be equivalent to the ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν ( 2 Corinthians 8:23; cf. Philippians 2:25), who were in some sense the official, if temporary, delegates of one Church to another. The fact that in the Apocalypse these ‘angels’ are to such a degree the recipients of praise and blame would seem to put both these simple interpretations out of court.
Many ingenious attempts have been made to employ the expression as a collateral or subsidiary proof that episcopacy had already been established within the lifetime of the Johannine author. The passages adduced from the OT in support of this view are certainly irrelevant; for, while it is conceivable that the chief minister of a Church should be styled ἄγγελος Κυρίου (cf. Haggai 1:13 and Malachi 2:7; see also Isaiah 44:26 and Malachi 3:1), it is difficult to understand the application to him of the designation ἄγγελος ἐκκλησίας ( Revelation 2:1, etc.). Nor, again, can the contention be sustained that the expression had its origin in the office of the sh e lîaḥ zibbûr , the messenger or plenipotentiary of the synagogue-for, as Schürer has pointed out, these ‘messengers’ were not permanent officials (see History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] ii. ii. 67), but persons chosen for the time by the ruler to pronounce the prayer at public worship (cf. Lightfoot, Dissertations on Apostol. Age , 1892, p. 158).
In supporting the contention that by the ‘angels’ of the Churches are meant the bishops, the strange conclusion has been maintained that in the words τὴν γυναῖκα [σου] Ἰεζάβελ ( Revelation 2:20) the author is referring to the Thyatiran bishop’s wife (see Grotius, Annotationes in Apoc., ad loc .). It ought to be pointed out that this theory is as old as Jerome, who in his commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2 adopts a similar interpretation; and Socrates ( HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).]iv. 23) describes Serapion as ‘the angel of the church of the Thmuitae’ (cf. Jerome, de Vir. illustr . 99, where he mentions Serapion as ‘ Thmueos Egypti urbis Episcopus ’). The same conception is attached to the expression by the 6th cent. commentators, Primasius the African ( Com. in Apoc .) and Cassiodorus the Italian ( Complexiones in Apoc .) in their reflexions on Revelation 1:20.
An examination of the use of the word ἄγγελος in the NT Apocalypse, apart from its connexion with the Churches, shows that the author invariably employs it to describe a spiritual being attached to the service of God or of Satan. We are, therefore, confronted with the difficulty of accounting for its presence here in a sense so completely different as the episcopal theory involves. There is, indeed, no valid reason to suppose that the author, even in a work as highly symbolical as this is, attaches an essentially different idea to the word when he speaks of ‘the Angels of the Seven Churches.’
If we can accept the textual purity of the Ascension of Isaiah , iii. 15, there is a remarkable parallel: ‘the descent of the angel of the Christian Church, which is in the heavens, whom He will summon in the last days.’ Even on the supposition that the Ethiopic version, supported by some Greek Manuscripts, is a correct translation of the original, and the simple word ‘Church’ is substituted for ‘angel of the Christian Church,’ we are confronted by the primitive identification of the Church and its angel (see Charles, Asc. of Isaiah, ad loc .).
Perhaps the most curious feature of the letters to the Asian Churches is the way in which the writer expresses himself in terms of stern reproof or of encouragement to their ‘angels.’ The objection to this difficulty is considered by Origen, who finds cause for marvel at the care shown by God for men: ‘forasmuch as He suffers His angels to be blamed and rebuked on our behalf’ ( hom. in Numbers 20:3; cf. in Luke 13 ).
As we have already seen, however, it is difficult to suppose that the writer intended the words to be understood as referring literally to angels who presided over the Churches. There is, no doubt, a natural inclination to see in his use of the phrase a reminiscence of the ‘princes’ of the Apocalypse of Daniel (ὁ ἄρχων βασιλείας Περσῶν, Daniel 10:13; cf. Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἄγγελος, Daniel 10:21). A similar belief with respect to the guardianship of individuals is referred to incidentally as held by Jesus ( Matthew 18:10), and we need not be surprised to find it applied to Churches in their corporate capacity by a writer whose teaching on the activity and functions of angels is so advanced.
Taking into account the symbolism of the whole book and the obviously symbolic mention of Jezebel ( Revelation 2:20; cf. Milligan on Revelation 10:1-3 in Schaff’s Pop. Com. on the NT ), there seems to be no interpretation more in harmony with the spirit of the writing than that which sees in this expression the personification of the characteristic spiritual tone and genius of each Church.
If we accept this conclusion as being most consonant with the general trend of thought throughout the writing, it may not be amiss to refer to the remarkable parallel in the fravashis , or ‘doubles,’ of Parsiism. Whatever the connexion between Persian and Jewish angelology-and it is not necessary to insist on a direct borrowing-it seems to be certain that, in the period immediately subsequent to the Captivity, Parsi influence shaped, at least indirectly and remotely, the development of Hebrew thought. ‘The fravashi of a nation or community is a conception found in three Avestan passages.… The fravashi is no longer a being necessarily good, but becomes a complete spiritual counterpart of the nation or the church, and capable therefore of declension and punishment’ ( Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 991b; cf. Journal of Theological Studies iii. 530ff.). The nexus may be, and probably is, not so mechanical and direct as J. H. Moulton seeks to establish. On the other hand, it seems as if a relationship of some kind between the allied forces of Magianism and Zoroastrianism, as they were refracted by the medium of Hellenistic culture and Hebrew thought, must be regarded as inevitable. It is enough to say that the ‘angel’ is the personified embodiment of the spiritual character and ethos of the Church. If this use of the word by the author has led to confusion and obscurity, the reason lies probably in the limitations of that symbolism which was the characteristic vehicle of Jewish apocalyptic literature (see W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches , 1904, pp. 57-73). Compare and contrast § 6 of the preceding article.
Literature.-See the works referred to throughout the article, and the Commentaries on the Apocalypse.
J. R. Willis.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible [2]
Angels Of The Seven Churches ( Revelation 1:20; Revelation 1:2-3 ). 1 . According to one set of opinions, these angels were men, and the majority of writers have held them to be (1) the presiding presbyters or bishops of their respective churches. But while this view is attractive and popular, the reasons against it are strong. Human officials could hardly be made responsible for their churches as these angels are. A bishop might be called an angel, i.e. a messenger, of God or of Christ (cf. Haggai 1:13 , Malachi 2:7 , 2 Corinthians 5:20 ), but would he be called ‘the angel of the church’? Above all, it is certain that at the early date to which the Apocalypse is now generally assigned a settled episcopate was unknown. (2) Others have supposed that the angels were congregational representatives , church messengers or deputies (which would be in harmony with the proper meaning of the word ‘angel’), or even the person who acted as ‘Reader’ to the assembled church (notice ‘he that readeth’ in Revelation 1:3 ). But if the responsibility put upon the angels is too great for bishops, it is much too great for any lesser functionaries. Besides, the glory and dignity assigned to them as the stars of the churches ( Revelation 1:20 ) is inconsistent with a position like that of a mere Reader or deputy.
2 . A good many have held that ‘angels’ is to be understood in its ordinary Scriptural application, not to men, but to celestial beings . In support of this are (1) the fact that throughout the rest of the book the Gr. word, which is of very frequent occurrence, is invariably used in this sense; (2) our Lord’s utterance in Matthew 18:10 , which suggests a doctrine of angelic guardianship; (3) the fact that in Daniel, to which the Apocalypse is so closely related, the guardianship of angels is extended to nations ( Daniel 12:1 ). The objections, however, are serious. No definite Scriptural teaching can be adduced in favour of the idea that churches have their guardian-angels. Messages intended for churches would hardly be addressed to celestial beings. Moreover, it is scarcely conceivable that such beings would be identified with particular churches in all their infidelities and shortcomings and transgressions, as these angels are (see, e.g. , Daniel 3:1; Daniel 3:15 ff.).
3 . The most probable view, accordingly, is that the angels are personifications of their churches not actual persons either on earth or in heaven, but ideal representatives. It is the church, of course, that receives the letter, the ‘Thou’ of address having manifestly a collective force, and it is to the church itself that the letter is sent (cf. Revelation 1:11 , where there is no mention of the angels). The idea of angels was suggested, no doubt, by the later Jewish beliefs on the subject, but it is used in a figurative manner which suits the whole figurative treatment, where the glorified Jesus walks among the golden candlesticks, and sends to the churches messages that are couched in highly metaphorical language. It might seem to be against this ideal view that the seven churches, as candlesticks, are definitely distinguished from the seven angels, as stars ( Revelation 1:12; Revelation 1:16; Revelation 1:20 ). But it is quite in keeping with the inevitable distinction between an actual and an ideal church that they should be thus contrasted as a lamp and a star.
J. C. Lambert.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [3]
It is evident from the contexts of the various Biblical passages in which the word "angel" appears, that the word does not always represent the same idea. In such passages as Daniel 12:1 and Acts 12:15 it would seem that the angel was generally regarded as a superhuman being whose duty it was to guard a nation or an individual, not unlike the jenei of the Arabs. However, in Malachi 2:7 and Malachi 3:1 (Hebrew) the word is clearly used to represent men. In the New Testament also, there are passages, such as James 2:25 (Greek), in which the word seems to be applied to men. The seven angels of the seven churches ( Revelation 1:20 ) received seven letters, figurative letters, and therefore it would seem that the seven angels are also figurative and may refer to the seven bishops who presided over the seven churches of Asia. Or the angels may be regarded as the personifications of the churches.
