Who Are The "Angels" of the Seven Churches in Revelation 1:20 and Addressed in Each of the Seven Letters In Revelation 2 and 3?

Revelation 1.20 is one of the many times in Revelation where we are told how to understand the symbolism used in the book. In Revelation 1.16 John sees Jesus holding seven stars in His right hand, and in Revelation 1.20 John tells his readers ... “the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches.” So, there is no doubt what the seven stars represent, but we must now interpret what “angel” (Gk angelos) means.

The word “angelos” translated “angels” in Revelation 1.20 and at the beginning of each of the seven letters (2.1, 8, 12, etc.), is found 175 times in the NT and 67 times in Revelation. The word means “messenger.” And the context in which it is found determines whether it is a heavenly messenger or a human messenger. Merrill Tenney writes, “No clear statement is given as to whether they are guardian angels, supernatural beings who were assigned to watch over the individual assemblies, or whether the word angelos is to be taken in the non-technical sense of ‘messenger’ as it is frequently used outside of the New Testament.” (Interpreting Revelation, p 55)

There are two main views regarding the identity of these seven angels. They are either heavenly messengers (i.e., unfallen, elect and good angels) or human messengers (possibly the pastor or church leaders or maybe even those who are delivering the letters to the churches).

In favor of understanding these angels to be supernatural, heavenly beings ...

The normal use of the word. Why would John use angelos if he intended his readers to understand Jesus to be addressing pastors or church leaders or the couriers of these letters? (Although, in a few limited passages in the NT it can mean a human messenger, i.e., Lk 7.24.)

The use of the word in the book of Revelation. Everywhere angelos appears in the book of Revelation outside of chapters 2 and 3, it always clearly refers to a heavenly being. So, if John is referring to human messengers as he records the words of Jesus to the churches, these seven times would be the only times in all 22 chapters that angelos refers to human messengers rather than heavenly beings.

In other places in the NT, angels have a relationship with the church (1 Cor 11.10; Eph 3.10; 1 Pet 1.12). So, angelic involvement in the church should not be a surprise.

Nowhere in the NT is a church leader called an angel. If John wanted to refer to the pastor or church leaders, he would have used the common word for elder in the NT.

Leadership in NT churches was always plural. It is interesting to note that each letter is sent to the “angel” (singular) of the church in Ephesus, in Smyrna, in Pergamum, etc. But the structure of the church in the NT is never to have a church governed by one human leader. Leadership in the NT was always plural – pastors and elders.

Seeing angelos as angelic beings provides a heavenly counterpart to the seven lampstands. Revelation 1.20 tells us the lampstands represent the seven churches of Asia Minor, and so they are the earthly counterpart of the “stars” if they are understood to mean heavenly beings.

Those who understand these angels to be heavenly beings, i.e., the angels-as-angels viewpoint, do not always agree on the function the angels have in relation to the churches. Ray Stedman believes the angels serve as guardian angels over the churches – “heavenly beings responsible for guiding the human leaders of each church.” Others see the angels as legal witnesses or observers to Christ’s evaluation of each church because angels in Revelation serve as instruments of God’s judgment.

Paul Benware concludes: It should not seem as strange that an angel might be assigned to a local church. If indeed God has assigned guardian angels to saved people, and if he has assigned angels to different nations, why is it not likely that the local church would be a place of angelic activity? Recall that John already informed us that an angel did bring him the content of this book. So, the context does point to angelic beings. (Understanding the Book of Revelation, pp 23-24)

In favor of understanding these angels to be human messengers ...

It seems unlikely that God would have sent the letter to a heavenly being. These letters were intended for real churches with real believers struggling with real issues. Why send it to an angelic being?

Holding the angels-as-human messengers view is consistent with the transmission process in Revelation 1.1. There we read that this revelation comes from God the Father, to Jesus, to an angel, to John, and then to the churches. To see the angels as heavenly beings would mean that Christ is sending a message to heavenly beings through John so that it may reach earthly churches through angelic representatives. That’s confusing and seems to conflict with Revelation 1.1. Seeing the angels as human messengers doesn’t change the transmission process.

The messengers of Revelation 2 and 3 seem to be included in the rebuke the churches receive. An equally difficult issue to resolve if one holds to the angels-as-angels view is the fact that the angel seems to be included in the message to the church. Most of the letters include words of condemnation or rebuke, so how would this apply to angelic beings? Are they also responsible for wrongdoing? Should they also repent?

Conclusion

There is no completely satisfactory answer to our question.

But regardless of how we understand angelos in Christ’s letters to the churches, it doesn’t change His message, even if we have questions about the messenger. The message of each of the letters is a message for us to understand and apply to the church today.