Messengers Not Angels In Revelation 1:20

[Hidden In Him]

No, one would not.

It does not make angels, elders.

They are messengers etc.

If the Bible says they are literal, as Rev speaks of other literal angels, then so be it.

Ugh... If they are angels, how did the angel in Ephesus leave his first love (Revelation 2:4)? How was the angel at Thyatira suffering the woman Jezebel to continue teaching heresy? Was he not executing judgment in disobedience to God? (Revelation 2:20). How and more importantly WHY would God make those of the synagogue of Satan come and worship at the angel of Philadelphia's feet? (Revelation 3:9). And how would the angel of Laodicea fulfill the following, where it says, "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see"? (Revelation 3:18).

It doesn't make sense.

 

[Enoch111]

By "messengers," the text is referring to the leaders of the churches, who would have not only been the ones to receive this letter but also been its readers to their congregations as well.

"Angels" (angelic beings) is the correct translation. There were no "leaders" as such in the New Testament churches. The Bible speaks of a "presbytery" in each church, which means a group of presbyters or elders over each local assembly as equals. This followed the Jewish custom of elders since the time of Moses.

Furthermore God the Father gave those revelations to the Lord Jesus Christ, who in turn asked an angel to convey them to the apostle John. At the same time John was asked to convey those letters to those seven churches through actual angels. And why not? Visitations by angels were relatively common at that time, plus the messages would have more authority coming through angels. As we go through Revelation, we see angels involved throughout.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Furthermore God the Father gave those revelations to the Lord Jesus Christ, who in turn asked an angel to convey them to the apostle John. At the same time John was asked to convey those letters to those seven churches through actual angels. And why not? Visitations by angels were relatively common at that time, plus the messages would have more authority coming through angels. As we go through Revelation, we see angels involved throughout.

Congrats on presenting it in a way that at least sounds quite plausible. That's well written.

The problem, however, is that numerous things in the letters are addressed to the "angel" specifically; things that do not seem to fit with what we would understand regarding angels of God (See Post #61 above).

 

[Enoch111]

You are misreading those letters.

Ugh... If they are angels, how did the angel in Ephesus leave his first love (Revelation 2:4)?

It is the church at Ephesus that is addressed in the singular. All its members are included. The same applies through out. The message is collectively to each church and the angel is simply the messenger.

 

[Hidden In Him]

It is the church at Ephesus that is addressed in the singular. All its members are included. The same applies through out. The message is collectively to each church and the angel is simply the messenger.

Ah, but I looked it up and you don't see anyone addressing the churches in the singular in the NT. When Paul writes to the churches, he always addresses them in the plural, and continually throughout a letter.

 

[Truther]

Ugh... If they are angels, how did the angel in Ephesus leave his first love (Revelation 2:4)? How was the angel at Thyatira suffering the woman Jezebel to continue teaching heresy? Was he not executing judgment in disobedience to God? (Revelation 2:20). How and more importantly WHY would God make those of the synagogue of Satan come and worship at the angel of Philadelphia's feet? (Revelation 3:9). And how would the angel of Laodicea fulfill the following, where it says, "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see"? (Revelation 3:18).

It doesn't make sense.

The angels were all fallen angels?

No, the angels were the messengers to the fallen saints.

They came and brought the word to the churches.

2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.


In those days, angels were common to some in the congregations.

I sure would like them to show up nowadays too.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I sure would like them to show up nowadays too.

So would I, LoL.

Well, I'm just saying, seems like the descriptions of the messengers in Revelations 1-3 doesn't really fit with what we know of the angels of God, IMO. But thanks fore the replies just the same.

God bless,
- H

 

[Truther]

So would I, LoL.

Well, I'm just saying, seems like the descriptions of the messengers in Revelations 1-3 doesn't really fit with what we know of the angels of God, IMO. But thanks fore the replies just the same.

God bless,
- H

You're welcome.

We have missionary brethren that had angels help them for years in Africa.

I have a book called the Unseen Hand, written by Nona Freeman.

I heard her speak about these awesome events as they were preaching and teaching in the continent.

It gives me goose bumps when I think of an angel(same angel), showing up every time they have trouble, even giving them gas on the side of the road as they were stranded, saying "I told you I would be around".

She has got to live an amazing life in the Holy Ghost.


https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51-aAkHOkQL.jpg

 

[jaybird]

I don't mean the teachings themselves are too "out there," LoL. I meant that the concept of angels delivering messages personally to seven churches is a little "out there."

why would the Father sending angels to a group of people at a church be any different than the father sending angels to other people? i dont understand why its different?

 

[Truther]

why would the Father sending angels to a group of people at a church be any different than the father sending angels to other people? i dont understand why its different?

The first century church was hard core in the supernatural realm.

Angels were big time helpers there.

They even broke Peter out...

 

[Truther]

I think it is time we start encountering angels in these last days too.

 

[jaybird]

I think it is time we start encountering angels in these last days too.

not likely to see them today because to many in the church try and explain them away with textbook logic. Jesus walking on water, that was probably just low tide or something.

 

[Truther]

not likely to see them today because to many in the church try and explain them away with textbook logic. Jesus walking on water, that was probably just low tide or something.

God help us.

 

[Hidden In Him]

why would the Father sending angels to a group of people at a church be any different than the father sending angels to other people? i dont understand why its different?

Because of the way the Lord describes them, among other things. The basis of my contention in the OP is the use of the singular voice throughout the letters, and the way they are addressed is not suggestive He is talking to angels but humans (see Post #61 above).

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think it is time we start encountering angels in these last days too.

We will eventually. I've heard it said in prophecy that the appearance of angels will eventually become so commonplace among Christians that it will cease to be a significant event.

 

[jaybird]

Because of the way the Lord describes them, among other things. The basis of my contention in the OP is the use of the singular voice throughout the letters, and the way they are addressed is not suggestive He is talking to angels but humans (see Post #61 above).

im not sure the messengers are different, the book of Revelation is whats different, the whole book is all prophetic, mystical and symbolic. not another book like it.

 

[Hidden In Him]

im not sure the messengers are different, the book of Revelation is whats different, the whole book is all prophetic, mystical and symbolic. not another book like it.

Well I agree with this. But it still doesn't explain for me the problems raised by Post #61.

 

[Truther]

We will eventually. I've heard it said in prophecy that the appearance of angels will eventually become so commonplace among Christians that it will cease to be a significant event.

Amen.

Since we are daily approached by fallen angels, I want to be approached daily by holy angels.

 

[Philip James]

If so, it's interesting info. Seems to suggest that the Catholic tradition kept the translation but reinterpreted it as a reference to humans.

Hi Hidden,

I'm not sure it even matters.. What's that old saying; ' as above so below' ?

Even if it is addressed to some type of guardian angel over the Church in Smyrna, it us indisputable that Polycarp was the bishop there at that time and so the 'angel' would have been working with him..

In any event it is a clear commendation of that Church and as seen in Polycarps letter, he commends Ignatius of Antioch...

It would not surrprise me at all if each particular church has its own guardian angel along the lines of nations angels mentioned in Daniel...

Peace be with you!

 

[Hidden In Him]

Even if it is addressed to some type of guardian angel over the Church in Smyrna, it us indisputable that Polycarp was the bishop there at that time and so the 'angel' would have been working with him..

Uck... can't go there, LoL. As someone pointed out they are ministering spirits. We don't work with them, they serve God in serving us.

It would not surprise me at all if each particular church has its own guardian angel along the lines of nations angels mentioned in Daniel...

Possible, but it doesn't answer the kind of questions I put forward in Post #61.

God bless, and hope you're having a wonderful evening!