Why Primary Pastors are the Angels of the Churches in the Book of Revelation

WHY PRIMARY PASTORS ARE THE “ANGELS” OF THE CHURCHES IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

“The N.T. example, while it permits the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not require a plural eldership in every case….There are indications, moreover, that, at least in certain churches, the pastor was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number….See, however, Acts 12:17…15:13…21:18…Gal. 1:19…2:12….These passages seem to indicate that James was the pastor or president of the church at Jerusalem, an intimation which tradition corroborates….1 Tim.3:2…Titus 1:7….1 Timothy 3:8,10, 12….In all these passages the bishop is spoken of in the singular number, the deacons in the plural. So too, in Rev. 2:1,8,12,18 and 3:1,7,14, ‘the angel of the church’ is best interpreted as meaning the pastor of the church; and if this be correct, it is clear that each church had, not many pastors, but one….A plural eldership is natural and advantageous, only where the church is very numerous and the pastor needs assistants in his work: and only in such cases can we say that New Testament example favors it.”
(Strong, “Systematic Theology,” 1907)

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.

In Revelation 1:20, the Holy Ghost plainly teaches us that the “candlesticks” are symbolic of seven, literal churches. The “stars” are symbolic of the “angels” of these churches. Each church has only one “angel” to whom each letter is addressed. It is therefore unreasonable to ask what the “angel” symbolizes; the “angel” is the literal interpretation of the symbol! The neglect of this basic, common-sense principle has caused much interpretive confusion in the Book of Revelation. For example, in Revelation 17:9, we are told by the Holy Ghost that the seven “heads” are seven “mountains.” “Mountains,” therefore, cannot be anything other than literal “mountains” (which, in English, can also mean large hills). “Mountain” is the interpretation of the “head” symbol. There are other examples such as this in the Book of Revelation. The main point at hand is that any interpretation of the “stars” in Revelation 1:20 that makes them anything other than literal “angels” is a reckless interpretation. It would make a new mystery out of something the Holy Ghost means as an interpretation of a mystery. Therefore, we have no choice but to interpret the “angels” of the churches as literal angels.

Yet, before we can conclude the interpretive process, we must examine the full meanings and usages of the word “angel.” It is at this point that we find that the word “angel” can apply to any messenger of God, whether it is a celestial being, or a human being. And when we examine the context and content of the seven letters in Revelation 2 and 3, we are forced to conclude that these literal “angels” are earthly and human. They can die and be thrown into prison at the hands of men (Revelation 2:10). They are also responsible and accountable to Jesus Christ for their individual churches. This responsibility implies a certain level of authority. This authority, although it should not be abused, must be exercised with diligence (Romans 12:8). When all of these facts are weighed, we are compelled to conclude that the traditional, common interpretation (i.e. that these “angels” are primary or head pastors) is indeed the correct one.

Origen is the well-spring from which the strange interpretation that these “angels” in Revelation 2 and 3 are celestial angels. Origen is the father of allegorical interpretation, and he is known for making such contextual messes. Origen (Hom. 20 in Num.) interpreted these angels to be celestial guardians of the churches. Origen’s view was rejected by the majority of interpreters due to the obvious contextual considerations in the seven letters.

But perhaps we may wonder why the Holy Ghost uses the word “angel” in the Book of Revelation instead of “bishop,” “elder” or “pastor.” We know that nothing is accidental in the mind and ways of God. When we examine the issue, we find that the word “angel” communicates certain truths concerning primary pastors that are not necessarily found in the other, more common words (“pastor,” “bishop,” “elder”). The word “pastor” shows forth the shepherding duty of God’s leader. The word “bishop” shows forth the watchful, overseeing aspects (Hebrews 13:17). Yet, the Holy Ghost uses one more word in order to teach us that the head pastor is not simply a watchful shepherd; he is God’s MESSENGER (i.e. “angel”) of each church. This means that he must not speak his own mind or agenda. He has not been given the place of leadership to present his own opinions. He must study to show himself approved unto God. He must preach the Word (not man’s vain philosophies). In this sense, we can see by the word “angel” (messenger) that there is a link between God’s prophets of old, and God’s New Testament pastors. Like the prophet of old, the New Testament pastor of a local church must not be afraid to speak God’s truth. He must not speak to be praised by men. Notice that prophets were called “messengers” (“angels” in Hebrew) of God in the Old Testament:

Haggai 1:13 Then spake Haggai the LORD’S messenger in the LORD’S message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the LORD.

The priests (for the same reason) are also called “messengers” (angels):

Malachi 2:7 For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: FOR HE IS THE MESSENGER of the LORD of hosts.

The Holy Ghost, by referring to head pastors of New Testament churches by this same term, reminds them of their awesome responsibility (James 3:1). They must keep knowledge. They must not depart from Scripture. Nevertheless, many are seeking the “law” at the mouth of Christ-hating psychologists, etc. Many pastors have forgotten their weighty responsibility before the Lord. Pastors must realize that they are as stars held in the hand of the Lord. They must speak heavenly truth. As they are firmly held in His right hand, they may be protected, or punished by the Lord!:

“The only true interpretation of this phrase is the one which makes the angels the rulers and teachers of the congregation, so called because they were the ambassadors of God to the churches, and on them devolved the pastoral care and government.”
(Schaff, “Bible Dictionary” – also “Concise Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge”; 1895, Sanford)

“['Angel'] is applied to the priest of the Old Testament, Mal. 2:7; to the minister of the New Testament, Rev. 1:20…”
(“Biblical and Theological Dictionary”)

“…in [other passages, the word 'Angel']…is applied to prophets (Isa.43:19. Hag.1:13, Mal.3); to priests (Ecc. 5:5; Mal. 2:7); TO MINISTERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Rev. 1:20).”
(“M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopedia,” 1890)

“Instances, however, of this application of it occur in the earlier Church historians, as, e.g., in Socrates, who styles Serapion Bishop of Thomais (Lib. 4, c.23)…. But though no such instances were forthcoming, it would prove nothing against the RECEIVED INTERPRETATION….the word ‘Angel,’ therefore, as being transferred from a heavenly to an earthly ministry, though it would very significantly as well as honourably characterize the office so designated, could scarcely be expected to pass into the general use as a title of individual ministers….it is naturally inferred from the use of this symbol [the star] in the present instance that the ‘angels’ of the seven churches were placed in authority over these churches. Moreover, the angel in each church is ONE, and the responsibilities ascribed to him correspond remarkably with those which are enforced ON TIMOTHY AND TITUS by St. Paul in the Pastoral Epistles. Again, this same title is given to the chief priest in the Old Testament, particularly in Malachi (2:7), where he is styled the angel or messenger of the Lord of Hosts, whose lips therefore were to keep knowledge….To the chief minister, therefore, of the New Testament, it may be fairly argued, the title is no less fitly applied.”
(“Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,” 1880)

We can therefore see that many crucial truths are pictured for us when the Bible refers to head pastors as “angels.” But these truths are lost or minimized when commentators (often running down the path of Korah) interpret these angels of the churches to be celestial angels or post-office delivery workers, etc. These interpretations do not fit the context. This is why the majority of interpreters have understood these “angels” to be head pastors. The only reason this plain truth is denied is due to the fact that there is only one angel in each church. And this is a great obstacle to those who deny primary pastors.

It is interesting that the Translators of the King James Bible used the word “angel” in Revelation 2 and 3. Did they believe that this word “angel” can only be applied to celestial beings? No. These men were very skilled in linguistics. Some could read and write in several ancient languages as children! They were therefore fully aware that the word “angel” is a transliteration, and that the word simply means “messenger.” They were fully aware that the word “messenger” is also applied in the Bible to human beings. This is why they wrote the following heading in the 1611 Bible over Revelation 2 and 3:

“What is commanded to be written to the Angel, that is, the Ministers of the Churches, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira: and what is commended, or found wanting in them.”

This would seem strange for the Translators to write if such usage of the word “angel” had no precedent at all in English. Secondly, the same Greek word IS used for humans who are God’s messengers (aggelos: Matthew 11:10, Luke 9:52, James 2:25, etc.). The KJV Translators chose to use the English word “messenger” in such texts, instead of “angel,” even though the Greek word is the same. The same occurs in Hebrew, where the same word is often translated as “messenger,” and at other times “angel.” “Angel” has been ADOPTED into English (like “apostle,” etc.). And English dictionaries list it as meaning simply “messenger,” like its Greek derivative:

“Angel in Scripture sometimes means man of God, prophet.”
(Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, 1775)

There are other places in the King James Bible where even the word “angel” may refer to a human messenger of God:

Ecclesiastes 5:6 Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before THE ANGEL, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?

This interpretation that the above “angel” is a human being cannot be considered unreasonable:

“‘…before the messenger,’ [hammalach,] the priest whose business it was to take cognizance of vows and offerings.”
(“Treasury of Scripture Knowledge”)

Adam Clarke writes:

“I believe that by the ‘angel’ nothing else is intended than the priest, whose business it was to take cognizance of vows and offerings. See Lev. 5:4-5. In Malachi 2:7, the priest is called the ‘angel of the Lord of hosts.’”

We can already see, based on such examples, that there is nothing strange about pastors being called “angels.” Henry Hammond (1605-1660), in regard to the “angels” of the seven churches, writes:

“…here are…no question, the governors of these seven churches…Thus in a Saxon Ms….Bishops are God’s ‘BYDELS,’ i.e. messengers or officers….The title was given to the chief priest in the Old Testament….These ‘angels’ are by ancient writers known and affirmed to be bishops….[they are called 'stars' because they are] to illuminate, and send out influences, and to rule the faithful under them.”
(Hammond on Revelation)

In regard to the Hebrew and Greek words for “angel,” it is a fact that such words are used many times for earthly representatives of God:

“Besides this, which is the highest application of the word ‘angel,’ we find the phrase used of any messengers of God such as the prophets (Isa. 52:19, Hag. 1:13, Mal. 3:1), the priests (Malachi 2:7), and the rulers of Christian churches (Rev. 1:20), much as, even more remarkably, the word ‘Elohim’ is applied, in Psalms 82:6, to those who judge in God’s name.”
(“Smith’s Bible Dictionary,” 1863)

And in regard to English word “angel” itself, it is certainly a debatable point whether or not the KJV itself ever uses this word (other than in Revelation 2 and 3) for humans. Christian tradition is rich with witnesses who have assigned other passages using the English word “angel” to humans (Psalms 104:4, Ecc. 5:6, 1 Corinthians 11:10).

But how would a first century Christian (familiar with Judaism) read the word “angel” in Revelation 2 and 3? We have some Biblical and historical evidence that answers this question. Notice that the early, Jewish synagogues had a CHIEF RULER of each synagogue:

Acts 18:7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man’s house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.
8 And Crispus, THE CHIEF RULER of the SYNAGOGUE, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

“Every synagogue appears, in the first place, to have possessed one official who exercised a presidency over the others, represented the congregation before the civil authorities, and had a general superintendence of the internal affairs of the congregation [Acts 18:8]…”
(“Imperial Bible Dictionary,” 1887)

“In smaller towns there was often but one Rabbi (Vitringa, p.549). Where a fuller organization was possible, there was a college of Elders…(Luke 7:3) PRESIDED OVER by one…(Luke 8:41, 49, 13:14; Acts 18:8, 17).”
(Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “Synagogue”)

We know from other texts that some synagogues could also be said to have plural rulers:

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the RULERS of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Yet, as we have seen from Acts 18, among this same group of rulers, ONE was the president. This PRESIDENT, was called the “angel of the synagogue” by the Jews!:

“Angel of the Church here answers exactly to that officer of the synagogue among the Jews called sheliach tsibbur, the messenger of the church….the angel or bishop at this time [church of Ephesus] was most probably Timothy, who presided over that church…”
(Adam Clarke, “Revelation Commentary”)

We can therefore already see that there is no ground to argue from the plurality of rulers of local churches that there is not also a primary or chief ruler among the other rulers (especially in light of the example of the “sentence” of James in Acts 15, and the “angels” of Revelation 2 and 3). But the most compelling point of all is that first century Christians, familiar with Jewish synagogues, would ALREADY BE FAMILIAR WITH CHIEF RULERS OF SYNAGOGUES OR ASSEMBLIES (James 2:2) BEING REFERRED TO AS “ANGELS”:

“Besides these there was ‘the public minister of the synagogue,’ who prayed publicly, and took care about the reading of the law, and sometimes preached, if there were not some other to discharge this office. This person was called the ANGEL OF THE CHURCH, and the Chazan or bishop of the congregation. The Aruch gives the reason of the name: ‘The Chazan (saith he) is the angel of the church (or the public minister), and the Targum renders…one that oversees; for it is incumbent on him to oversee how the reader reads, and whom he may call out to read in the law.’….he was called..overseer. Certainly the signification of the word bishop, and angel of the church, had been determined with less noise, if recourse had been made to the proper fountains, and men had not vainly disputed about the signification of words, taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the Temple being abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship and public adoration of God used in the synagogues, which was moral, into the Christian church; to wit, the public ministry, public prayers, reading God’s word, and preaching, &c. HENCE THE NAMES OF THE MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL WERE THE VERY SAME, THE ANGEL OF THE CHURCH, and the bishop; which belonged to the ministers in the synagogues…”
(John Lightfoot, “Exercitations upon St. Matthew,” 1658)

“The most prominent functionary in a large synagogue was known as the..(Sheliach; legatus)…the officiating minister….In him we find, as the name might lead us to expect, the prototype of the…[Angels] of Rev. 1:2, 2:1, etc. (Vitringa, p. 934)….It will at once be seen how closely the organization of the synagogue was reproduced in that of the Ecclesia [church]. Here also there was the single presbyter-bishop in small towns, a council of presbyters under one head in large cities.”
(Smith’s Bible Dict., “Synagogue”)

Samuel Miller (an early Presbyterian), writes:

“‘Dr. Gill, an eminent master of oriental, and especially of rabbinical learning, in his Commentary, writes….’there was but one Ruler in a Synagogue, though there were more Elders…’….It would seem to be impossible for any one to contemplate this statement, so amply supported by all sound authority, without recognizing, a striking likeness to the arrangements afterwards adopted in the New Testament Church. That this likeness is real, and has been maintained by some of the ablest writers on the subject, the following short extracts will sufficiently establish….The first quotation shall be taken from Bishop Burnet. ‘Among the Jews,’ says he, ‘he who was the chief of the Synagogue was called Chazan Hakeneseth, that is, the Bishop of the Congregation, and Sheliach Tsibbor, the Angel of the Church. And the Christian Church being modeled as near the form of the Synagogue as could be, as they retained many of the rites, so the form of their government was continued, and the names remained the same….’…A great deal might be said to prove that the Apostles, in their first constitutions, took things as they had been modeled to their hand in the Synagogue. And this they did, both because it was not their design to innovate, except where the nature of the Gospel dispensation obliged them to do it: As also, because, they took all means possible to gain the Jews, who we, find were zealous adherers to the traditions of their fathers, and not easily weaned from those precepts of Moses which by Christ’s death were evacuated. And if the Apostles went so great a length in complying with them in greater matters, as circumcision and other legal observances, (which appears from the Acts and Epistles,) we have good grounds to suppose that they would have yielded to them in what was more innocent and less important.’….The fourth quotation shall be taken from Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Stillingfleet, who, in his Irenicum, maintains a similar position with confidence and zeal. the following is a specimen of his language:- ‘That which we lay, then, as a foundation, whereby to clear what apostolical practice was, is that the Apostles, in forming Churches, did observe the customs of the Jewish Synagogue.’ In the same general doctrine, Grotius and Salmasius of Holland, decisively concur. By Grotius, the following strong and unqualified language is used:-’The whole polity, or order (regimen) of the Churches of Christ, was conformed to the model of the Jewish Synagogue.’”

“A president, deacons, a preceptor (song leader), and teachers can all be found in both the synagogue and the early church. We know from early sources that there were between 394 and 480 synagogues in Jerusalem during the first century, one being located within the precincts of the Temple itself (Jer. Talmud, Meg. 3:1; Ket. 105a; Sot. 7:7,8 Yoma 7:1). This is undoubtedly why the early pattern of the church had its origins in the Jewish synagogue. The many similarities between the ancient synagogue and the early church include the principal leader of the synagogue and the church’s being called the nasi or president. In the Christian congregation, the leaders were still called president rather than pastor as late as 160 C.E., by such non-Jewish writers as Justin Martyr (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 186). The nasi was the administrator of the synagogue. We know that James, the half-brother of Jesus, was the nasi of the early church at Jerusalem. Early documents such as the Didache suggest that the churches in Asia Minor and Greece treated the church at Jerusalem with much the same authority as the synagogues did the Sanhedrin (Hitchcock, Didache 8, ch. 11-15; Eusebius History 3:25.4).”
(Ron Moseley, “Synagogue Functionaries in the Local Church”)

“The chazan, or ‘overseer,’ in the synagogue answered to the bishop or ‘angel’ of the Church, who called seven of the synagogue to read the law every sabbath, and oversaw them. The parnasin of the synagogue, like the ancient ‘deacon’ of the Church, took care of the poor (Ac 6:1-7)”
(Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, I Cor.)

“Nor was it unimportant use to note the representation of Jesus Christ here given, as the ‘Priest’ of the churches; and the designation of their ecclesiastical presidents or bishops simply as ‘angels,’ a term borrowed not from the Temple, but from the SYNAGOGUE: in token, thus early, that the offices of the Levitical priests were to be regarded as fulfilled by Christ, and that the functions of the Christian bishop, or minister of the Church, were those of leading the devotions, and directing and animating the faith of the flock; not functions sacrificial or mediatorial….”
(E.B. Elliot, “Horae Apocalyptic,” 1862)

Much of the pattern of the synagogue was followed by Christian churches (by God’s careful providence). In a chapter entitled, “Arguments in favor of the early Christians copying in substance, the model of the Jewish synagogues,” David Benedict (“Fifty Years Among the Baptists,” 1860), quotes Vitringa as stating:

“So great was the similarity between the primitive Christian churches and the Jewish synagogues, that by the pagan nations they were mistaken for the same institutions.”

Albert Henry Newman writes:

“As a feature of synagogal organization the ELDERSHIP was too familiar an institution to be considered worthy of remark [in Acts]….The sabbath meetings were presided over by the ‘ruler of the synagogue.’”
(“A Manual of Church History,” American Baptist Pub., 1904)

Now notice the following words of Pember:

“….the institution of presbyters [elders], being no new thing, is not noticed in [NT] Scripture…” (G. H. Pember, Vol. 3, “The Church, the Churches and the Mysteries”)

We simply add that the concept of a “chief ruler” was treated in the same manner. It was not a new idea. It was already in place in the synagogues. Even the title “synagogue” was sometimes used for Christian assemblies (James 2:2); it is used in this manner in the early writings of Ignatius (Ep. ad Trall. c. 5, ad Polyc. c. 3).

In conclusion, the chief argument against interpreting the “angels” of Revelation 2 and 3 as head-pastors is that the word “angel” appears to the modern reader to be a strange term for a human being (pastor). Although this is no ultimate argument in itself, the evidence (Biblical and historical) actually reveals that the word “angel” (“messenger”) is a very common title for human leaders called and sent by God. For this cause, as the falling away seeks to decry the leadership of husbands, fathers, and head pastors, let churches rather pray for head pastors, and assist them, that they may be all that God has called them to be. They are servant-leaders that the Devil seeks to undermine and discourage in these last days. Let us resist the Devil that he may flee.

(Joey Faust)