# Beale on "angelos" in Revelation 2-3?



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2016)

I want to get Beale's commentary on Revelation, but can't at the moment. How does he translate the "angel/messenger" at the beginning of each letter? Does he see it as an angel in the traditional sense (counterpart to demons, etc) or is it just a human messenger from one church to another?


----------



## MW (Jul 21, 2016)

He takes the view that αγγελοι are heavenly angels who represent the church.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 21, 2016)

Here's the discussion from the commentary on Revelation 1:20:

The reference to “angels” has been variously identified as (1) heavenly beings, (2) heavenly beings who are representatives of or guardians over the churches so that the churches are also in mind, (3) human leaders or representatives of the churches,134 (4) or personifications of the prevailing spirit or character of the churches. The observation that ἄγγελος (“angel”) refers without exception to heavenly beings in the visionary portion of Revelation (about 60 times) points to the same identification here. These angels could be identified with the seven archangels known to Jewish tradition (e.g., 1 En. 20:1–8; Tob. 12:15), though this is far from certain.
The ἄγγελοι (“angels”) in 1:20 include both heavenly beings and the earthly churches, according to the idea of corporate representation, which is suggested further by recognizing that angelic beings are corporately identified with Christians as their heavenly counterparts elsewhere in the book: the angel in 19:10 and 22:9 says, “I am a fellow servant of you and your brothers.” In addition, the angel in Rev. 8:3–4 seems to represent saints, since he receives their prayers and presents them before God. Consequently, the “angels” in 1:20b refer to heavenly beings who also represent the church (see below for further analysis in favor of this conclusion).
Why are the churches addressed through their angelic representatives in the letters, especially since it does not seem logical to blame and reproach angels for the sins of the churches? The initial answer to this is that inherent to the concept of corporate representation is the representative’s accountability for the group and the group’s accountability for the actions of the representative. So there is some sense in which the angels are accountable (e.g., responsibility of oversight) for the churches, yet the churches also benefit from the position of the angels.
The fuller reason for addressing the churches through their representative angels is to remind the churches that already a dimension of their existence is heavenly, that their real home is not with the unbelieving “earth dwellers” (cf. “earth dwellers” in 3:10 and passim), and that they have heavenly help and protection in their struggle not to be conformed to their pagan environment. And one of the purposes of the church meeting on earth in its weekly gatherings (e.g., 1:3, 9) is to be reminded of its heavenly existence and identity by modeling its worship and liturgy on the angels’ and heavenly church’s worship of the exalted Lamb. This is why scenes of heavenly liturgy are woven throughout the Apocalypse, especially in concluding sections, which serve as interpretations of preceding visionary narratives. That such an emphasis on worship is already present in ch. 1 is evident from the liturgical background of 1:4–8, 10, which introduces the themes of the book.
The conclusion that ἄγγελοι in 1:20b refer to heavenly angels who represent the church is supported further by the following two broad considerations.
(1) Stars as metaphorical for both saints and angels in the OT and Judaism. The formal interpretation of the “stars” as “angels” of the churches in v 20b would seem to confirm further the suggestion above that the “stars” are drawn from Dan. 12:3, since Michael is seen as the guardian “angel” of Israel in Dan. 12:1 (cf. Dan. 10:21) and is associated directly with the “stars” of 12:3. The “stars” of Dan. 12:3 refer to the “wise” of Israel who are rewarded with the status of heavenly glory. This does not mean that ἄγγελοι in Rev. 1:20 refers exclusively to human leaders of the churches but probably that John also associated the “stars” of Daniel with heavenly beings in general, and the connection of this metaphor with the Danielic concept of angels in Judaism (cf. below) would have facilitated such an association (the metaphor occurs as early as Judg. 5:20).
Indeed, Dan. 12:3 probably likens the heavenly status of resurrected Israelites to that of angels since “stars” in Dan. 8:10 refer to angels, as borne out by 8:11; 7:27; and 8:24 (the latter two read “people of the saints” and may be intentionally ambiguous so as to allude both to angels and to Israelite saints). 1 En. 104:2–6 develops Daniel 12:3 in this manner by promising believers who endure tribulation that they “will shine like the lights of heaven … will have great joy like the angels of heaven … will become companions of the hosts of heaven” (cf. likewise especially 2 Baruch 51:5, 10 and 1 En. 43:1–44:1, as well as more generally Pseudo-Philo 33.5; 4 Macc. 17:5, 4 Ezra 7:96–97; and 2 En. 66:7, which liken deceased saints who have suffered to shining stars; the last three texts probably also develop Dan. 12:3). Israel is also promised that after its eschatological sufferings, it will “approach to the heaven of the stars, in the place of their habitation” (Assumption of Moses 10:9; cf. similarly 9:9; Wis. 3:7; 5:5–6; Ascension of Isaiah 8:14). Qumran and early Christian tradition affirm that such angelic status is available even in the present (1QH 3.19–23; 11.3–14; 1QSa 2.3–11; 1QM 7.4–6; cf. Martyrdom of Polycarp 2.3; Hermas, Similitudes 9.27.3).
On the equation in Jewish writings of the Zechariah lampstand and stars of Dan. 12:3, as well as the equation of the tabernacle’s lamps with stars, see above on 1:16.
(2) Angels as corporate representatives of saints in the OT, NT, and Jewish writings. In Daniel angels appear as the heavenly, protective counterparts to earthly nations (Dan. 10:20–21; 12:1; cf. 7:27; 8:10, 24), and the same phenomenon occurs generally in the NT (Matt. 18:10; Acts 12:15), the Targums (e.g., Targ. Jerusalem Gen. 33:10; 48:16), and Jewish apocalyptic literature, often as a development of Daniel (e.g., 1QM 12.1–10; 14.9–10; 17.5–9; 1 En. 89:68–90:27; Ascension of Isaiah 3:15 refers strikingly in this regard to “the descent of the angel of the church which is in the heavens … in the last days” in direct connection with “Michael … [who] will open his [Christ’s] grave”). This is based on the concept of corporate representation in which an individual represents a group, so characteristic of the OT, Jewish apocalyptic, and the NT itself. The same phenomenon is apparent in Rev. 1:20, so that the direct address “to the angel of the church” in each of the letters in chs. 2 and 3 is best understood against this background. The correspondence between Christ and the Spirit respectively at the beginning and end of each letter implies a like correspondence between the angel and churches respectively addressed at the beginning and end of each letter,144 further confirming the corporate identity of the two and the angels’ representative role.
The tradition of associating Israel with angels in all the texts mentioned above is set in contexts either of inaugurated eschatology (Qumran) or of the latter-day resurrection, which makes it all the more suitable as a background for the context of Rev. 1:20, where the same two eschatological features are found (in this respect, Christ’s resurrection is identified with that of eschatological Israel).
With regard to the grammatical problem in Rev. 1:20b: The accusative form λυχνίας (“lampstands”) in v 20 is grammatically inconsistent, since it should be in concord with the preceding gentive ἀστέρων (“stars”). Moulton explains it as a phenomenon common to the “less educated papyri,” so that no Semitism lies behind the irregularity. But John usually conforms to the rules of concord (e.g., 1:4c), so that the exceptions are probably not to be attributed to lapses of mind. Likely, there is a reason for the unusual case. On analogy with 1:12 (εἶδον ἑπτὰ λυχνίας) accusative λυχνίας in 1:20 is easily explained as the object of εἶδες “saw,” which follows “stars.” Or, it could be a device directing attention back to Zechariah 4 or back to the first occurrence of “lampstands,” in 1:12 (cf. ἑπτὰ λύχνοι [“seven lamps”] in Zech. 4:2; see on 1:12 for the Zechariah 4 allusion).​G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 217–219.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2016)

MW said:


> He takes the view that αγγελοι are heavenly angels who represent the church.



Interesting. That's more or less my own view, though I haven't taken it to any systematic conclusions.


----------



## MW (Jul 21, 2016)

Some of the reasons against this view are,

1) The angels are connected with the churches receiving the letters, which requires a messenger on a literal level at some stage of the process.

2) The angels are included in the letter as participating in the vices and virtues of the church.

3) There is no reason to take the term "angel" as univocal throughout the book when it is used in a wide variety of contexts; and it is clear that in some instances an angel identifies himself as a fellow-servant with John.

4) From the idealist perspective the stars serve as ideal symbols of church authority, but the angels/messengers are the literal explanation of that symbol; so the idea of a literal heavenly angel acting as representative reinvests the literal referent with new symbolic meaning.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2016)

Regarding (2) I noticed that last year when I started looking into that. I wonder if Beale addresses that in detail.


----------



## MW (Jul 21, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Regarding (2) I noticed that last year when I started looking into that. I wonder if Beale addresses that in detail.



Not that I recall. Ruben appears to have quoted the whole section.

The "stars" are the ideal symbol of the angels as the "lampstands" are the ideal symbol of the churches. Beale goes back to the Old Testament to explain what the "stars" symbolise, but then imports that meaning into his interpretation of the "angels." This undermines the relationship between ideal symbol and literal referent. The lampstands are the ideal representation of the churches, and the stars are the ideal representation of the angels, but neither the churches nor the angels are ideal representations of anything. The churches are not addressed according to their ideal symbolism but according to their actual condition, and the angels are addressed accordingly since they are angels of the churches.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 30, 2016)

I don't often disagree with Beale, though I do at this point; the Greek word _ἄγγελος_ / angel (plural _ἄγγελοι_ / angels) is also used a number of times in the NT to signify messenger (cf. Matt 11:10; Luke 7:24,27; 9:52; 2 Cor 12:7; James 2:25), and likewise with the Hebrew _mal'âk_, which can be translated angel or messenger. I rather hold with Hendriksen who considers them the pastors. Hendriksen refers to R.C. Trench's _Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia_ (pdf); or here (plain text) for an "excellent defense" of this view.

It is true John uses _ἄγγελος _nowhere in Revelation (or his Gospel) for messenger, though the OT use of _mal'âk_ for angel or messenger makes a good precedent. Outstanding scholars of Revelation will often disagree on minor points such as this, while in the main holding to the Biblical understanding—the Amillennial, or per Beale, the eclectic or modified idealist.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jul 31, 2016)

That the persons referred to are the Pastors of the 7 Churches is also Durham's view.


----------

