by

Angels of the Churches: Thoughts on the Recovery Version Translation

The RcV is one of the few English translations that translates Rev 1:20–2:1 with “messenger” instead of “angel.”

The mystery of the seven stars which you saw upon My right hand… The seven stars are the messengers (ἄγγελοι) of the seven churches… To the messenger (ὁ ἄγγελος) of the church in Ephesus write…

Most translations have “to the angel of the church in Ephesus” (e.g., NRSV). From the beginning, however, it was not so! William Tyndale, the first translator of the NT into English directly from the Greek (1526), gave us:

Unto the messenger of the congregacion of Ephesus wryte.

The RcV follows Tyndale here (and also Wuest’s 1961 translation, probably more directly).

In this post, I will show how the RcV reflects a longstanding interpretive tradition grounded in legitimate lexical and contextual considerations. An uncharitable reader may present the RcV’s rendering “messenger” in Revelation 2–3 as if it were idiosyncratic, misinformed, or linguistically irresponsible. But this isn’t the case.

The Greek word ἄγγελος simply means “messenger,” the identity of these “angels” has been debated throughout church history, and many respected interpreters—including Augustine, Gregory the Great, and Luther—have understood them as human representatives rather than heavenly beings.

What is at stake here is not merely a translation possibility. The debate concerns how Christ relates to and works within his churches. Christ holds actual believers responsible for the spiritual condition of the churches and calls them to bear and maintain his testimony.

Word, Translation, and Meaning—Three Distinct Things

The Greek word in question here is ὁ ἄγγελος (ho angelos). Its transliterated English form is “angel.”

Transliteration, however, is not translation. It simply replaces the letters of a source language with corresponding letters from another language. Well-known transliterated words in English are “Christ,” “baptize,” and “apocalypse.” Here’s the catch though. “Christ” does not tell us what Χριστός (Christos) means—it means “the anointed one.” “Baptize” doesn’t tell us what βαπτίζω (baptizo) means—it means “immerse.” “Apocalypse” doesn’t tell us what ἀποκάλυψις (apocalypsis) means—it means “an unveiling.”

Over time, the transliterated English word “angel” became a technical term for immaterial, heavenly beings that exist as intellectual substances. But the underlying Greek word ἄγγελος is broader in meaning: it simply refers to a messenger, whether heavenly or human.

The word is used in plenty of contexts where angelos clearly means “human messenger,” whether mundane or divinely appointed.

Luke 7 (vv. 24-27) is an good passage to see both categories of human ἄγγελοι:

And when the messengers (οἱ ἄγγελοι) of John went away, Jesus began to say to the crowds concerning John… This is he concerning whom it is written [in Mal. 2:7], “Behold, I send My messenger (ἄγγελος) before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You.”

The “angels” of John the Baptist have just come to ask Jesus whether he truly is the coming Messiah. After sending them back to John with some miraculous proof, Jesus identifies John as the “angel” prophesied in Malachi 2:7. In both cases, the “angels” of John (John’s messenger) and God’s “angel” (John), are human beings.

Prophets are “angels” too. In the OT, Haggai is call the Lord’s messenger (ἄγγελος) in Hag 1:13, and the prophets, in general, are called “angels” in 2 Chron 36:15-16, which says

The Lord sent word to them day after day through His messengers (ἄγγελοι)… But they mocked the messengers (ἄγγελοι) of God and despised His words and scoffed at His prophets.

In his first-century BC world history, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus describes the Jewish priests as “angels.”

The leadership of the people has always been entrusted to a priest, who excels all the rest in prudence and virtue… and they regard him as the messenger (ὁ ἄγγελος) and interpreter of the mind and commands of God… [the people] adore him as the high priest, who has interpreted to them the will of God.1

So there you have it, the Greek word “angel” can mean both run-of-the-mill messenger and also divinely commissioned messengers like prophets and priests who bear God’s word and interpret God’s will (of course, it can also just refer to “real” angels, like Gabriel in Luke 1:19).

So it’s possible that Rev 1:20 and 2:1f could either mean a heavenly angel in the technical sense or a human messenger in the broader sense.

Regarding the Greek, Peter Leithart concludes: “The word cannot decide the issue for us, and we are left to rely on the context.”2

Another two important points to note:

  1. While almost all English translations are united in using the word “angel of the church” here, that by does not mean that they share the same understanding regarding what that means.
  2. More specifically, just because an English version adopts the rendering “angel,” that doesn’t mean the translators think it means an angel in the traditional meaning of that word.

Darby is a good example of this second point. His understanding seems to have directly influenced Witness Lee. Although we will see, Darby already stands in a long line of understanding “angel” here as a human messenger of sorts.

Darby translates the verse like most everyone else, “to the angel of the church,” but Darby does not think this refers to an actual angel. He says the “angels” are

those who stand in responsibility through their connection with [Christ]… They should shine, and influence, and represent Him… What then is the angel?… It is… the mystical representative of one not actually seen… Elders may have practically been specially responsible from their position; but the angel represents the assembly, and especially those to whom—from nearness to Christ and communion with Him, or responsibility for it through the operation of His Spirit in them for His service—He looks for the state of His assembly in His sight.3

His influence on Lee here is clear. Lee says:

The messengers are the spiritual ones in the churches, the ones who bear the responsibility for the testimony of Jesus. They should be of the heavenly nature and should be in a heavenly position like stars… the Lord calls our attention back to the spiritual reality…. The office of the elders is easily perceived, but the believers need to see the importance of the spiritual and heavenly reality of the messengers for the proper church life to bear the testimony of Jesus in the darkness of the church’s degradation.4

Summing up this section: the word angelos means “messenger” (whether angelic or human, mundane or special). The RcV follows Tyndale and Wuest to translate angelos as “messenger.” Just because a Bible translates angelos as “angel” doesn’t mean the translator thinks it means an angel from heaven.

The Scholarly Options

NT scholars readily admit the difficulty of pinning down the meaning of ὁ ἄγγελος in Rev 1:20 and 2:1f.

Grant Osborne notes that, in Rev 2-3, “The meaning of the ‘angel’ is highly disputed.”5 David Aune says: “Determining the identity of these ἄγγελοι continues to be a major problem in the interpretation of Revelation… It is safe to say that no single solution is without problems.”6

There are three major views. The “angels” are:

  1. Angels—supernatural beings, guardian angels who guide and protect each congregation or heavenly counterparts to the earthly Christians communities
  2. Symbols—personifications of the essence of particular churches or symbols of the church’s spiritual condition
  3. Humans—bishops, or other leaders, ministers, and responsible saints in the church

1. The First View—Guardian Angels

Representatives of this view include: Origen,7 Gregory Nazianzus,8 Eusebius,9 Alford, Beale, and Koester.

The logic goes like this: since angels are associated with nations (Dan. 10:13, 20; 12:1) and natural phenomena (Rev. 16:5), they may also be set over churches. Moreover, because most uses of ἄγγελος in Revelation refer to heavenly beings, the eight occurrences in Rev. 1–3 should be understood in the same way.

A number of scholars, however, raise critical questions. Charles argues that this view is open to “unanswerable objections.”10 Osborne notes that the letters rebuke the “angels,” call them to repentance, and address concrete ecclesial failures for which they are responsible.11 These failings are difficult to reconcile with literal heavenly beings, something already pointed out by Augustine12 and Oecumenius,13 who wrote one of the first complete commentaries on Revelation. Peter Leithart likewise critiques this view as resting on “an abstract, ahistorical conception of what Jesus tells John to do,” and argues at length that “The contents of the messages confirm beyond reasonable doubt that the angels are human.”14 David Aune argues that appealing to the dominant usage of ἄγγελος in Revelation does not settle the question and this kind of reasoning is “flawed since it is a form of petitio principii, i.e., assuming in the premise of an argument the conclusion that is still to be proved.”15 Everyone agrees that most uses of ἄγγελος in Revelation refer to heavenly beings; the debated question is whether Rev. 2–3 is an exception. The immediate context creates significant tension with the guardian-angel view: the “angels” are blamed for failures, commanded to repent, closely identified with the churches’ spiritual condition, and addressed through ordinary epistolary conventions. Simply pointing to the majority usage elsewhere does not prove that these chapters are not exceptional. It ignores the fact that context can override dominant usage.

2. The Second View: Symbolic Spirit

This view says something like: “The ‘angel’ of the church is not its guardian angel… but its prevailing spirit.”16 Beckwith calls the angel “an ideal conception of its immanent spirit.”17

Representatives of this view include: Ramsay, Beckwith, Charles, Lohmeyer, Beasley-Murray,18 and Mounce.

Scholars also raise objections to this view. Aune says, “The origins of this conception are problematic” (111). Osborne: “this seems overly subtle. Furthermore, the other symbol, the lampstands, points to actual churches, so it is perhaps more likely that this points to actual beings.” Zahn: “A particular ‘spirit’ of an individual local church is a mythological fiction.” Charles admits himelf: “this last interpretation is not free from difficulty; for it in reality amounts to explaining one symbol ‘the stars’ by another symbol ‘the angels.’” (34)

3. The Third View: Human Beings

Representatives of this view include: Augustine,19 Cassiodorus,20 Gregory the Great,21 Bede,22 Alexander the Minorite, Nicholas of Lyra, Luther,23 Tyndale,24 Bullinger,25 Hugo Grotius, Jeanne Guyon,26 John Gill, RC Trench,27 Darby, T. Zahn, Lenski, Witness Lee, and Peter Leithart.28

Gregory the Great can be quoted:

“Since sacred Scripture is frequently accustomed to designating the Church’s preachers by the name of ‘angels’ because they proclaim the glory of the heavenly kingdom, we too can take ‘angels’ to mean ‘holy preachers.’ It is for this reason that John, when he writes in the Apocalypse to seven churches, speaks to the angels of the churches, that is, to those who preach to the people.”

The logic of this view is: “Since the ἄγγελοι of each church receives blame and condemnation as well as praise, proponents of this view argue that it is ludicrous to suppose that these are good angels sent by God.”29

Here’s the specific inflection they give to angelos as human messenger:

  • Augustine: heads of the church
  • Cassadorius: the bishop
  • Gregory the Great: the Church’s preachers
  • Pseudo-Dionysius: “our human hierarch”30
  • Bede: the rulers of the churches
  • Luther: bishops and teachers in Christendom
  • Bullinger: messengers, ministers and pastors

This interpretation repeatedly emerged across widely different theological traditions. What is striking is not merely the number of interpreters who adopt this view, but the breadth of traditions represented: Latin fathers, medieval exegetes, Reformers, Brethren interpreters, and modern scholars. Lee’s understanding, then, stands within a long tradition that includes some of the greatest thinkers of the church.

Lee’s view is also compatible with the view of Origen and Gregory Nazianzus, who really only mention the role of angels in the divine government to guard the church—brief comments that were not made in the context of an textual commentary on Revelation. Lee, likewise, has a high view of angels, saying “Apart from His salvation and His gospel, God carries out most of the affairs of the universe through angels.”31 Nonetheless, for exegetical and theological reasons, he takes these angelos to be human messengers, spiritual persons bearing responsibility for the testimony of Jesus.

Whatever conclusion one ultimately reaches, the RcV’s rendering cannot be dismissed as linguistically uninformed. The meaning of the “angels” of the churches has been disputed for centuries, and respected interpreters across church history have understood them as human representatives entrusted with the churches’ testimony. The RcV therefore stands within a legitimate and historic stream of interpretation rather than outside the bounds of responsible exegesis.

  1. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 40.3.5–6 ↩︎
  2. Leithart, Revelation 1-11, ITC, 122 ↩︎
  3. Darby, Synopsis, Vol. V, Colossioans–The Revelation (Bible Truth Publishers, 1980), 502-504. ↩︎
  4. RcV, Revelation 1:20, note 1. ↩︎
  5. Osborne, Revelation, 98. ↩︎
  6. Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, 108, 110. ↩︎
  7. Origen, Hom. on Luke 23. ↩︎
  8. Gregory of Nazianzus Oration 42.9, trans. Brian Daley, in Gregory of Nazianzus (Rutledge, 2006) 144-45: “I am convinced that different angels stand guard over different Churches, as John teaches me through the Apocalypse.” ↩︎
  9. Eusebius, Comm. on Ps. 47. ↩︎
  10. Charles, Revelation, vol. 1, ICC, 34: “This interpretation is open to unanswerable objections; for Christ is supposed to send letters to superhuman beings through the agency of John, and the letters in question are wholly concerned, not with these supposed angels, but directly with the Churches themselves and their spiritual condition.” ↩︎
  11. Osborne, Revelation, 98. ↩︎
  12. Augustine, Letter 43.22 WSA II/1, 168-9: “If he wanted us to understand this [Rev. 2:1-3] of an angel of the higher heavens and not of heads of the church, he would not go on to say, But I hold against you that you have abandoned your first love. Recall, then, from where you have fallen, and do penance, and do the works you did at first. If not, I shall come to you, and I shall move your candlestick from its place unless you do penance. This cannot be said to the higher angels who always retain their love.” ↩︎
  13. Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, Rev 2:1-7, in Greek Commentaries on Revelation, trans. William C. Weinrich (InterVasrsity, 2011), 10: “He speaks periphrastically of the church in Ephesus as an ‘angel’… For the guardian angel of the church had not committed sin, so that it required the admonition to repent. He is rather most holy and for this reason exists at the right hand of the Lord, giving as proof of this the purity of his nature and flashes as of light. Moreover, what need would there be for him who is conversing with the Evangelist to say, “write to him [the angel],” since the holy angel was present and was listening to the conversation (being on the right hand of the one speaking)? And, finally, the saint himself interprets the vision seen by him and says, “He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” He did not say “to the angels of the churches” but “to the churches.” And so also in the remaining interpretations you will find the words “write the following to the angel of the church,” not that he is speaking about the angel but about the church.” ↩︎
  14. Leithart, Revelation 1-11, 123. ↩︎
  15. Aune, Revelation 1-5, 109. ↩︎
  16. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977): ad loc. ↩︎
  17. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, 446. ↩︎
  18. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 69-70. ↩︎
  19. Augustine, Letter 43.22 WSA II/1, 168-9. See above. ↩︎
  20. Cassadorius, Brief Explanations On The Apocalypse, on Rev. 2:1, in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, (Catholic University Press of America, 2022), 18: “Then he warns in a letter to the angel of the Ephesians, that is, to the bishop who truly was able to be admonished through the writing.” ↩︎
  21. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job 34.7 [14], 38-53 ↩︎
  22. Bede, The Exposition of the Apocalypse, on Rev 1:20 (2011: 116): “’The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches.’ That is, the rulers of the churches. As Malachi says, ‘For the priest is the angel of the Lord of hosts.’” ↩︎
  23. Luther, Preface to Revelation, in LW 35, p. 401: “From these chapters [1-3] we learn in addition that the word ‘angel’ is to be understood later on, in other images or visions, to mean bishops and teachers in Christendom.” ↩︎
  24. Tyndale’s marginal note at Rev. 2:1 reads, “Messenger is the preacher of the congregation.” ↩︎
  25. Quoted in Bauckham 1978: 300: “And straightway [John] declareth what thing he understandeth by the candlesticks and stars, calling the candlesticks churches, and the stars angels of the churches. That is to wit, messengers, ministers and pastors.” ↩︎
  26. Guyon, Jeanne Guyon’s Apocalyptic Universe: Her Biblical Commentary on Revelation with Reflections on the Interior Life, trans. Nancy Carol James (Pickwick Publications, 2019), 8: “We see well the dignity of the pastors since Jesus Christ himself compares them to angels who are in his hand like stars to enlighten and guide people. What virtue and wisdom do we see in them? We have to watch them as brilliant stars, like distinguished lights in the sky of the church? If pastors are like stars, the faithful who compose the church, must be in a perfect union, as they are like a golden lampstand that it to say in love, burning like fire and illuminated with the same light.” ↩︎
  27. RC Trench, Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, (Charles Scribner, 1862), 78, 82-3: “The Angel must be some person or persons in the Church on earth, not one overlooking it from heaven… But if some human person in the Church, who but the chief shepherd, in other words, the bishop? …So many difficulties, embarrassments, improbabilities attend every other solution, all which disappear with the adoption of this, while no others rise in their room, that, were not other interests, often no doubt unconsciously, at work, it would be very hard to understand how any could have ever arrived at a different conclusion.” ↩︎
  28. Leithard, Revelation 1-11, 122-28. ↩︎
  29. Aune, Revleation 1-5, 112. ↩︎
  30. Pseudo-Dionysius, EH, 175-76: “I see nothing wrong in the fact that the Word of God calls even our hierarch an “angel,” for it is characteristic of him that like the angels he is… a messenger and that he is raised up to imitate, so far as a man may, the angelic power to bring revelation.” ↩︎
  31. Lee, CWWL 1932-1949, 4:453. ↩︎

Post a Comment