Landmark Baptist

It has been my experience over the years, when chapters 2 and 3 of Revelations are mentioned it seems always to have a negative connotation directed toward the church. The church has either lost her first love and is in danger of having the candlestick removed or she has become lukewarm and is in danger of being spewed out of God’s mouth. I do not believe either of these scenarios fit the context, the grammar or the Greek. Chapters 2 and 3 are specifically for whom they are addressed, the angel of the church. I know it’s hard for pastors to think that anything would be put into God’s word, which might be an indictment toward them. Albeit, I believe that is exactly what Revelations chapters 2 and 3 are all about. But, it is more than an indictment, it is also an overwhelming encouragement for every pastor who truly understands what is at stake. This may be long, but stay with me, I’ll present my argument as shortly as I can.

First, look to Rev. 1: 4-6 in these scriptures Grace and Peace are extended to the seven churches of Asia from God the Father, “him who is, and who was, and who is to come.” Also from the Holy Spirit symbolized by the seven spirits before his throne ( emphesis mine ). And from Jesus Christ who is mentioned specifically by name. Verse 6 indicates that we have, that is the seven churches of verse 4, been made kings and priests unto God. Note the present tense. It seems inconsistent to make these statements in these verses only to accuse one of leaving their first love, another of allowing the doctrine of Balaam to be taught, another having a reputation that they live and are yet dead, and yet another of being wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked, a few verse later. How could any of these conditions exist in a church where God is extending grace and peace, it would seem a contradiction in terms. These conditions may exist among individual members, but not the church as a whole. These segments of scripture are addressed “unto the angel” let us not add to what is clearly stated.

Rev. 1: 11 in this verse, John is told to write in a book what he sees. He is then to send a copy of the entire book to each of the seven churches which are in Asia. He is not told to send only that portion of chapter 2 which addresses the angel of the church of Ephesus, but the entire book including the addresses to all the angels of all the listed churches. Each church is named individually and each church was to get a completed copy of all 22 chapters, as we now designate location of scripture.

The grammar in chapters 2 and 3 have a peculiarity that is important. Every where a personal pronoun ( thee, thy, thou ) is used, it is in the second person singular. This use of the second person singular grammatically is in agreement with the address being to the angel of the church and not to the church. An address to a church would require a second person plural pronoun as it is everywhere else in scripture.
Phil. 1: 1-2 the church at Philippi being addressed, the “you” of verse 2 is in the second person plural. Also. 1 Cor. 1: 10-11 divisions among “you”, contentions among “you”, when the church is addressed with a personal pronoun it is plural, but not so in Rev. 2 and 3 obviously the address is to a single person, the angel or pastor.

The Greek has a bearing in Rev. 2: 5. We have all heard about the removal of the candlestick/Holy Spirit, if the church did not repent. Chapter 1: 20 identify exactly what is the candlestick. We don’t need to use our imagination to conjure up what we think the verse is speaking about, it is spelled out very clearly, “the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” The personal pronoun of Rev. 2: 5 translated “his” in the KJV is the antecedent of candlestick used earlier in this verse. Since the church is always spoken of in the feminine gender, to use a personal pronoun which is in the masculine gender would violate proper gender agreement. Some translation have translated the pronoun in the neuter form “its”, but this again does not agree with the feminine and therefore the agreeing pronoun should be “her”. It is translated “her” in The Concordant Version of the Sacred Scriptures Greek Text.

It is my opinion, that in this last book of the Bible, The Chief Shepherd singled out those who were his earthly shepherds over his earthly flock to point out the good and bad qualities among them. Timothy, who was most probably the pastor of Ephesus had left his first love. His church ( assembly) was endanger of being removed from him. There exist an Old Testament comparison found in Ez. 34: 10 where the Chief Shepherd when speaking against the shepherds of Israel stated, “I will deliver my flock from their mouth.” Christ was warning the pastor of the Ephesean church that the church would be taken from him. So, by exception, the pastor of the church at Smyrna, who was believed to be Polycarp, was told that he was rich and that a crown of life was promised to him for his faithfulness. There are 5 of these pastors which had character flaws or personal attitudes which needed to be changed or corrected. Two of these men had no charges laid against them. It is apparent that there were problems or persecutions existent in each of the churches. But, it was the angel and how he was dealing with those issues that is under the microscope in these two chapters.
The pastors of the Lord’s churches so often take that position far too lightly. This is the most influential office of the church. It has an enormous amount of responsibility to the local church, but a horrifying accountability to the God of creation. However, there are “special” blessings and rewards for those who use this office honorably.

Bro. Gaylor,
You make some interesting points. I would just like to comment on a few things. First, I do believe the pastor of the churches hold great responsibility for how the shepherd the flock of Jesus Christ. Second, I also have questioned why the severity of punishment to the church at Ephesus, if the "candlestick" means the removal of church authority, over the other erring churches. With that said, the phrase found repeated throughout chapters 2 and 3 , "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches," seems to be including in each indictment and praise the activity not only of the pastor but the congregation. I think as we examine churches, if a pastor who has been at a church for an extended period of time, then the congragation often times develops the personality of her pastor. So, if Timothy lost his firts love, then could it not then have an affect upon others as well? Certainly then, each pastor will be held accountable for his teaching, attitude and so forth that has such great influence over the Lord's Churches. It also seems, for example in Thyratira, Jesus states, "But unto you (the angel or pastor) I say, and unto the rest in Thyratira..." (Emphasis mine) that the whole congregation is under consideration. Certainly we may conclude that each pastor will be accountable for his pastoral role and each church member according to his/her conduct or behavior; for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ giving an account of what we have done whether our deeds are of quality or worthless (i.e. 2 Cor. 5:10, 1 Cor 3).
Again, great thoughts to ponder!
Pastor Todd

Brother Gaylor, in establishing a foundation for each letter being sent to the angel/pastor (singular) of the church, I think it is important to consider that there are no clear indications in the New Testament of a singular pastor of a church. All situations that can be established indicate a plurality of elders. IOW, why should we consider each of these letters is written to one pastor when the New Testament churches seemed to have more than one?

Bro. Todd,
You recognizing the potential of this belief is refreshing to me. I'll attempt a response to you on the issue you raise about the phrase, "he that hath an ear let him hear what the spirit saith unto the churches." Remember, the statements of Rev. 1: 1-2 this book of Revelations is the inspired word from Jesus to John. The rest of the New Testament is the inspired word from the Holy Spirit to the many different writers. At the conclusion of each of these addresses to the angel or pastor of the individual church is an admonishment to hear or understand what the Holy Spirit had said to the various churches. The church at Corinth, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalonica, and Rome recieved letter directed specifically to them, but they are not mentioned in Revelations. I believe this was an instruction for these pastors to study the rest of the New Testament.
Additionally, I believe the pastor at Thyatira was allowing a woman to preach an immoral life style. First thing wrong was the woman preacher and the second was her message. Because this pastor would not execute his responsibility or leadership role, the Lord had to deal with this problem through his providence. This is what brought on this pastors indictment. A church that is filled with new converts may not always recognize heresy when they hear it, but the man who assumes the position of "the messenger of God", overseer, must. Teaching fornication certainly should have been stopped.

Bro. Vaughn, I would tend to agree with you on the mutiplicity of Elders in the churches of the New Testament. However, the scriptures addressed to the Angel of these individual churches, of Rev. 2 and 3, point to one individual, singled out as the person with the primary responsibility of correcting either their own behavior or that of those advocating a heresy. The angel or pastor of the church at Smyrna was able to detect and expose the blasphemy of those who said they were Jews and were not, he was commended for his works. The Philadelphia pastor evidently did likewise and was also commended. It is important to have a working understanding of the term "Elder".

Elder is the translation of the Greek 'presbuteros', from which we get our word 'presbytery'. It means a senior. Under the heading of Elder there are a number of other words which refer to specific positions that an Elder may hold in the church. The Greek 'deakonos' is translated Deacon, but is also translated Ministers in 1Cor. 3: 5 where Paul speaks of himself and Apollos as being ministers by whom ye believed. Another word is 'episkopos' from which we get our English word episcopal, and is translated in the KJV by Bishop and Overseer. Another Greek word is 'poimen' it is translated as Shepherd and means to feed. We believe there are only two ordained offices in the church, they are Pastor or Overseer and Deacon. While, both of these offices fall under the general term Elder, I believe that a shepherd, an evangelist and any senior may be considered an Elder, having been long and faithful in the Lord's work. It is easy to see a plurality of Elders in the churches of the New Testament and at the same time recognizing the senior overseer as the 'angel' of the church or God's messenger of the church. In today's language there would be a Senior Pastor, Associate Pastor, Youth Pastor, Deacons and Evangelist all of whom would make up a churches presbytery or Elders.

I understand you to asserting that the overseers, deacons (and possibly other older leaders) made up the plural eldership of a NT church? Is that a correct understanding?

Assuming that may be correct it does not, however, address how one arrives at the interpretation that the "angel of the church of..." is the "senior pastor". Senior Pastors, Associate Pastors and Youth Pastors all all modern constructs not found in the New Testament. While it may be easy for others to see a plurality of elders and one senior overseer in the churches of the New Testament, I personally have not found the NT easy to understand that way.

Brother Vaughn,

You are absolutely correct. The New Testament consistently sets forth a plurality of overseers. This simple fact, if acknowledged, would dramatically change the way we view the work of the ministry. The reality that it would so effect our understanding of the ministry is doubtless the reason this truth is so vehemently resisted.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

Brother Calfats,

calfats wrote:Also from the Holy Spirit symbolized by the seven spirits before his throne ( emphesis mine ).

Why would the Holy Spirit be symbolized by seven spirits? My understanding is that the seven spirits were the seven angels of the churches and that they were angels, not pastors.

That these letters were addressed to churches, and not pastors per se, is seen in that each letter is ended with this admonition:

Jesus Christ wrote:He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

So we see that, not only is each letter addressed to a specific church, all of them were intended, in principle, for all the churches.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

Bro. Gaylor,
I appreciate your viewpoint expressed in this topic. You are always willing to present conclusions you have reached from your studies even when it is a minority or lone opinion.

I guess I would say I receive messages from Christ as the "angel" of the Liberty church in the course of my studies and in prayer, but these messages are given to me with the intention that I will deliver them to the church by way of sermon or lesson, so the message from Christ is for the church to be delivered through me. But, I am to include myself as the recipient of the message since I am a sheep and part of the flock as well.

Christ wanted major changes in some of these seven churches, with five of them told to repent. The most effective way for those changes to happen would be not only the pastor changing himself and working toward changes in the church, but also by him reading the letter from Christ directly to the church for added weight and emphasis.

Is it your opinion these pastors were to receive these letters as only being read and applied to them as pastor and not with the intention of reading the letter to the church?
If it was only for each pastor, were they forbidden or restricted in some way from reading the letter to the church?

At the very least, the opinion you have expressed should help us all realize that what is described in each of these churches did not develop and happen in a vacuum apart from the pastor. You are correct that most of the time these letters are taught or preached about today, the application is made primarily or solely to the church body by way of rebuke, as if the pastor has no role in the wrong doctrines and practices taking hold in each church.

Your opinion has helped me better realize these letters must be applied not only to the churches, but to the pastor of the churches as well.

Bro. Vaughn,
Sorry for being so long to respond. Time seems fleeting. I agree with the idea that titles of today are not always sufficient to identify the reality of New Testament days. Churches and church services have increasingly become more adjusted to the understanding of the world. Not, that they have necessarily become worldly, but just accommodating. I do not view this as being good or bad, it is just reality.

Matt. 23: 8-12 Teaches that there is only one master, and all of us are brethren. We are not to exalt ourselves, but are to magnify Christ and the Father. Jesus is Lord of all.
There are, however, offices in the church which are specifically identified, Apostles, Bishops, Deacons, etc. The office holder by virtue of his maturity level will have a greater or lesser degree of influence on a congregation. This influence is not to be forced, as in the case of Diotrephe, of 111 John, but is from the inner working of a church whereby a man has proved himself worthy of greater influence because his life displays Jesus in him.

Acts 1: 20-26 Judas had a Bishopric from which he fell as a result of gross sin in his life, the betrayal of Jesus. Matthias was chosen by the church to take the place of Judas.
James, the half brother of Jesus, seems to have been placed in a position as that of pastor of the church at Jerusalem. Paul, separates James from the 500 and all the Apostles in the sighting of Jesus after the resurrection. 1 Cor. 15: 6-7 In Acts 12: 17 Peter having been released from prison, told those praying at Mary’s house to go tell James. It is James in Acts 15: 13-21 and especially verse 19 where James gives sentence (his judgement) that proves to be the acceptable remedy for the problem in the church at Antioch. The debate or disputing may have gone on for hours if not days, it was James who seemed to collate the issue into an acceptable solution. It would seem that James was the angel of the church at Jerusalem at this time. He brought the message which resolved a delicate problem. There were many elders present, but it was the words of James that brought resolution. It would be my opinion that if the church at Jerusalem were in existence today that James would be the so-called Senior Pastor. There were apostles who were still members of this church such as Peter, but even Paul seems to place an order on the pillars of the Jerusalem church by placing James first ahead of both Peter and John who were apostles in Gal.2: 9.

Jesus, at the conclusion of the book of Revelations stated that he had sent his angel the Apostle John to testify of all the things in the book in the churches. Rev. 22: 16. John was to relate all 22 chapters to the churches, the 7 churches of Asia as identified in chapter 1 verse 11. Chapters 2 and 3, I contend are addressed specifically to the pastor or angel of the individual church he pastured. These pastors were not directed to pass these messages on to their respective church, that was John’s job. When a verse says, Unto the angel of the church at Smyrna, we are adding to, when we arbitrarily apply that message to the whole church at Smyrna. The message was for the pastor. If the message were unto the church at Smyrna that is how it would have been addressed. Rev. 1: 11

Gaylor

Bro. Osgatharp,

If the seven spirits before the throne were angels as in the heavenly host, I would not understand what ability an angel would have to extend grace and peace apart from the direction of God. These seven spirits are extending the same grace and peace that Jesus and the Father are extending and therefore, must be equal to them. Obviously an angel has not that ability within themselves.

Rev. 4: 5 I believe clearly identifies the seven spirits before the throne as the seven spirits of God.

Gaylor

calfats wrote:There are, however, offices in the church which are specifically identified, Apostles, Bishops, Deacons, etc. The office holder by virtue of his maturity level will have a greater or lesser degree of influence on a congregation. This influence is not to be forced, as in the case of Diotrephe, of 111 John, but is from the inner working of a church whereby a man has proved himself worthy of greater influence because his life displays Jesus in him.

I have no disagreement with you here. Both officers and even others in the church can have greater influence than the "average joe" because of the life that has displayed Christ. And officers can tend to have greater influence because of the office as well.

James, the half brother of Jesus, seems to have been placed in a position as that of pastor of the church at Jerusalem. Paul, separates James from the 500 and all the Apostles in the sighting of Jesus after the resurrection. 1 Cor. 15: 6-7

To me the statements here appear to be chronological -- "he was seen...then...After that...After that...then...And last of all..." Paul also separates Cephas/Peter in a sighting of Jesus after the resurrection, so that could just as well prove Peter was pastor.

In Acts 12: 17 Peter having been released from prison, told those praying at Mary’s house to go tell James. It is James in Acts 15: 13-21 and especially verse 19 where James gives sentence (his judgement) that proves to be the acceptable remedy for the problem in the church at Antioch. The debate or disputing may have gone on for hours if not days, it was James who seemed to collate the issue into an acceptable solution. It would seem that James was the angel of the church at Jerusalem at this time. He brought the message which resolved a delicate problem. There were many elders present, but it was the words of James that brought resolution. It would be my opinion that if the church at Jerusalem were in existence today that James would be the so-called Senior Pastor.

I was taught that James was the pastor of the Jerusalem, as I am sure that many others have been. But to me that seems to be more of a reading the present condition back into the New Testament account. We know that the Jerusalem church was spoken of as having elders plural, but never as having a singular elder. This does not negate the high degree of influence and respect that James had. I agree that the words of James moved this toward resolution (as well as those who spoke before him). But have not the words of some other than "senior pastor" brought about resolution in church matters? It is the wisdom and the timing of the words more than the rank of the speaker that brought the resolution. "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church...The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting..."

There were apostles who were still members of this church such as Peter, but even Paul seems to place an order on the pillars of the Jerusalem church by placing James first ahead of both Peter and John who were apostles in Gal.2: 9.

I don't take James' name placement in the sentence as evidence of an "order" or rank among the pillars of the church. In fact that would almost seem to be a contradiction of Jesus' adjuring "it shall not be so among you."

When a verse says, Unto the angel of the church at Smyrna, we are adding to, when we arbitrarily apply that message to the whole church at Smyrna. The message was for the pastor. If the message were unto the church at Smyrna that is how it would have been addressed. Rev. 1: 11

You are correct that, if the letter is to the senior pastor, we are in a sense "adding to" to apply it to the whole church. On the other hand, if the letter is to the church, we are in a sense "taking away" to apply it only to the "senior pastor". I think it would be profitable to look at the effects of the different angles of interpretations when placed on particular parts of the letter. But as you mention, time is fleeting and I don't know whether I'll have time to do so.

Two other things:
Are any other New Testament letters to churches written to the pastor only?
Does "angel" refer to a human elsewhere in the book of Revelation?

Brother Gaylor, while I'm at it, I decided to use the following method to look at the effects of the "senior pastor interpretation" when placed on particular parts of the letters. I thought it might save me some time to do it this way. Hope it makes sense to all.

I stuck the words "senior pastor" into the text on several occasions as a tool to remind the reader that under the interpretation that is who is referred to throughout with the singular.

Unto the senior pastor of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars (angels) in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks (churches); 2 I know thy works, senior pastor, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou, senior pastor, hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 3 And thou, senior pastor, hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou, senior pastor, hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou, senior pastor, art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee, senior pastor, quickly, and will remove thy candlestick (church) out of his place, except thou, senior pastor, repent. 6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

I can see where this could go either way in most places. But to me the biggest breakdown is that the candlestick/church will be removed if the senior pastor does not repent.

Bro. Rick,

You are correct, if I am persuaded of a particular belief or position as it relates to the scripture I will defend my belief, even if I am the only one who believes it. The truth is I believe everyone on this forum will defend their belief even if it is not very defendable, that is our nature.

The popular belief that is held by most is forced to ignore too many issues of grammar, gender agreement as well as the local text. The popular belief that these chapters of Rev. 2 and 3 are for the churches was put to the public by 16th and 17th century writers such as Matthew Henry. These commentators are Catholic protesters and really have a warped concept of the New Testament church. These men believe in an elevated position of pastor over the congregation and could not accept that the Lord would point out their character flaws. Especially in such a public forum as that of a book that would be read not only to the individual church they pastured, but to 6 other churches as well. However, now we know that these indictments and accolades have been read by all churches for centuries.

I know you are a busy pastor who also holds a secular job, time is precious. But, I would encourage you to look at the gender agreement between the church and it’s antecedent, the plural and singular nature of the personal pronouns. The most conspicuous is the address itself. “Unto the pastor of the Liberty MBC”. Would a letter so addressed be to the church or to the pastor?

Gaylor

calfats wrote:The popular belief that is held by most is forced to ignore too many issues of grammar, gender agreement as well as the local text...I would encourage you to look at the gender agreement between the church and it’s antecedent...

I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place...
Brother, would you mind going into a little more detail of how you feel this supports the letter to the pastor only view? Are you saying that the use of "his" somehow supports this? Or are you saying that "his" should be translated "her"? Or something else? What is your interpretation of this in the context?

calfats wrote:The popular belief that these chapters of Rev. 2 and 3 are for the churches was put to the public by 16th and 17th century writers such as Matthew Henry. These commentators are Catholic protesters and really have a warped concept of the New Testament church.

A look at Hanserd Knollys' An Exposition on the Book of the Revelation will give a view of an English Baptist writer who wrote before Matthew Henry. He could probably be said to fall somewhere in between our positions: "'Angel' in all these seven epistles, is a noun collective, comprehending all the bishops and presbyters, called elders, {Ac 20:17} in this Church of Ephesus, so in all other churches of Christ in Asia, and elsewhere." To me Knollys, and John Gill later, seem in their actual comments to fluctuate between applying these things to the ministers and the church.
http://www.mountzionpbc.org/books/HK_Revelation.htm

Bro. Vaughn,

In answer to the question you pose about any other New Testament letters to churches being only to the pastors, I find no such occurrence. I do find the letters of 1st and 2ed Timothy being written as an instruction for Elders. There are additional insights to be found in most of the other letters to the churches for pastors. At the conclusion of each of the letters of chapters 2 and 3 of Revelations, the individual pastor is instructed to hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

You also ask the question about the word, “angel” referring to humans elsewhere in Revelations. Yes, I believe angel is used abundantly in Revelations referring to humans. Each of the seven trumpets is blown by angels, and each of the seven vials is poured out by angels. I believe each of these angels to be humans in their glorified bodies, executing the wishes of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. The basis for this belief is found, to begin, in Revelations 17: 1 where one of the seven angels who had the seven vials came to talk with John. Then in chapter 18: 1 another angel came down. But, in Rev. 19: 10 John being overwhelmed by what he saw fell at the angels feet to worship him. Notice what the angel says to John in 10b, “See thou do it not! I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus.” Angels are not of our brethren, nor are they saved by the testimony of Jesus as are humans, angels stand on their own merit.
Additionally, Romans 16: 20a, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” It appears to me that during the tribulation period, those humans of the church age, who are judged worthy will be given the privilege of executing God’s justice on the forces of Satan in this world.

Finally, your question about the candlestick/church, please read again the second to the last paragraph of my original post. I attempted to address that issue in that paragraph. It seems that we have seen churches under abusive type leadership split in two. To make those who stay with the building or pastor the real church and those who left, the false church is unrealistic. Third John depicts a history of an abusive leader who was casting people out of the church. Those that were tolerating that kind of activity were only following the pastor, while Gaius, who was probably one, who was cast out is identified as being faithful. The Lord can move his faithful church away from the clutches of a tyrant like Diotrephe.

I do appreciate your willingness to at least explore the potential value of Rev. 2 and 3 when interpreted in this manner, even if you eventually reject it, I think you have seen the plausibility of such a view.

Gaylor.

Bro. Vaughn,

A P.S. The last paragragh of my original post also addresses the issue of the candlestick being removed. It is my opinion that the word translated "his" in the King James Version should have been translated "her". Rev. 2: 5. I believe it has the feminine ending in the Greek. However, I am not a Greek wizard at all, so please check it out.

Gaylor

Bro. Gaylor, sorry to be so extremely long in replying. I haven't been on the forum for quite a few days.

In answer to the question you pose about any other New Testament letters to churches being only to the pastors, I find no such occurrence. I do find the letters of 1st and 2ed Timothy being written as an instruction for Elders...

I don't think this is a strong point either way, but just something we ought to consider. On the one hand, I don't find other New Testament letters to the churches were sent or addressed to the pastor/pastors (cf. Phil. 1:1). On the other hand, I also don't think the other New Testament speak of the church in the singular pronoun but the plural. So that kind of gives a point to each side.

Yes, I believe angel is used abundantly in Revelations referring to humans. Each of the seven trumpets is blown by angels, and each of the seven vials is poured out by angels. I believe each of these angels to be humans in their glorified bodies, executing the wishes of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

I have never thought of it this way, and don't think I could -- although I do see how you get the thought from Rev. 19: 10. I think we would need to look further into angels as "brethren" and what is meant by "having the testimony of Jesus."

I do appreciate your willingness to at least explore the potential value of Rev. 2 and 3 when interpreted in this manner, even if you eventually reject it, I think you have seen the plausibility of such a view.

I'm not sure I would agree exactly on your wording "seen the plausibility". But I do think that you have brought up some legitimate points that need to be addressed in our thinking. Some may never give it much, if any, thought. For example, why the singular "thee/thy" instead of the plural "you/your" when speaking of the local church (if speaking of the church). Is star the symbol and angel the reality, or is angel just another symbol, etc., etc.

The last paragraph of my original post also addresses the issue of the candlestick being removed. It is my opinion that the word translated "his" in the King James Version should have been translated "her". Rev. 2: 5. I believe it has the feminine ending in the Greek. However, I am not a Greek wizard at all, so please check it out.

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if you were just discussing the variations, or if you meant you thought it should be that way.

Bro. Vaughn,

It is good to see you back on the forum, your response as in other times seem to point me in a direction which may require some additional comments. I would like to address two areas where I believe more evidence or clarification are needed.

First, The Revelation is obviously a book of symbols and symbolisms. The word translated “angel” is from the Greek “aggelos” and is also translated “messenger”. The angel of the individual church is the messenger to that particular church. Brother Howard referenced in his post on this subject that he prepares a message for the church he pastor’s after prayer and study. I believe that should be the practice of all pastors. However, I do not believe that is the emphasis of chapters 2 and 3 of The Revelation. Trying not to be too redundant, the message of these chapters is addressed to the angel of the church. The message of the entire book of The Revelation was prepared and sent by the angel of Jesus who was the apostle John to all the churches, Chapter 1: 11 and then re-confirmed in chapter 22: 16. These angels or messengers are the literal translation of “aggelos”. The word star as applied to these angels is symbolic. The Greek word translated “star” is “aster” and means to be scattered across the sky or broadcast as seed. These stars, however, are in the right hand of Jesus. In this position is expressed the ability of Jesus to lift them up and let them shine as church leaders if they are faithful or to close his hand as in a fist and thereby destroy them, if they abuse their office, they are under his control.
Chapter 1: 13 Christ is walking in the midst of the seven candlesticks/ churches. No ill will is associated with this position that I can find, but instead portrays harmony.

The second area I would like to re-address is the angel of Revelation 19: 10. As already stated, I believe this angel to be a resurrected saint in his glorified body. According to Roman 16: 20 it appears that God will use his saints to execute judgment on the world of Satan. Further evidence is found in Revelation 21: 9. Here we find one of the seven angels who had one of the seven vials full of the seven last plagues talking with John. Then, in chapter 22: 8 John again falls down to worship at this angels feet. But again is prevented from doing so by the angel, verse 9. Notice what this angels states, “See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, the prophets, and of them who keep the sayings of this book. Worship God.” My thought is that what John saw was a resurrected saint, who had kept the words of this book, therefore, a New Testament saint. He had the privilege of executing Gods’ judgment on Satan and was in his glorified body and therefore appeared divine to John, 1 Jn. 3:2.

Your thoughts and that of others as always are appreciated.

Gaylor