Achilles Heel of the Eldership Doctrine

[Mike R. Prevost]

OK. Here is my initial Achilles Heel post. I have had some time constratins so It's a little late.  Sorry.

 

But some background is in order. First, I believe and stand firmly behind the multiple elder church structure doctrine. On balance, I believe that this is what the scriptures teach. I say “on balance” because of the issue at hand.

 

I think it wise to try to argue both sides of an issue and see which side has the strongest argument and if there are some arguments that I cannot overcome. E.g., “Where are the chinks in my armor?” In order to “convince the gainsayers” (Tit 1:9), we need not only to explain how our assertions are plausible, but we need to also prove that they are in fact correct. To show that our assertions are merely plausible convinces only ourselves.  If possible, we need to leave the gainsayer with no ground on which to stand – no room to honestly cling to his positions. This is the angle from which I am approaching this topic.

 

I feel that the strongest argument for the single pastor model is the angels of the seven churches found in Revelation. Single pastor advocates interpret these angels as indicating the individual pastors of these seven churches. Of course, we do not believe the single pastor model, so we obviously need to deal with these arguments. You may not think that this would be a very strong argument in light of all our other evidence, but if I can hold my ground here, then I have a crow-bar that I can use to pry open most if not all of the multiple elder passages (e.g., “ordained them elders in every church” could mean one elder in each church).

 

Bro Houston has written an excellent article on the subject. If you have not read it, I suggest reading it in order to get some context for this discussion. His work does a very good job of delivering a plausible explanation of these angels. However, “I have somewhat against it”. ;)

 

So, I am going to argue from the point of view of a single pastor advocate (e.g., some single pastor trying to hold onto his exalted position).  But, at present, I do find the "angels of the churches" arguments of the other side to be stronger than the ones that I can come up with, hence this discussion. I want to be proven wrong, but not without a fight – I want the issue to be soundly resolved.  This seems to be a good place to do it.  There are some very smart folks here and the "Hot Pants" discussion shows that we can all behave ourselves while arguing vigorously.  Hopefully this will be a useful exercise.  Please remember that I'm debating here and intend no disrespect to Bro Houston or anyone else.  Given my time constraints, I will have to do this in a succession of posts.

 

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

MUAHAHAHAHA!!!! See you in the next post!

 

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

[Michael V. Frazier]

Some, I suppose, may make that charge.  But we must also remember that Paul (and Jesus) viewed even the subtleties of Scripture as inspired.  For example, see Paul's argument in Galatians 3:16 where he focuses on the singular usage of seed as opposed to seeds -- singular vs. plural -- to illustrate that God made His promise to Abraham and ultimately Christ.

Mike R. Prevost said:

BTW, are we making too big of a deal with the pronoun shifts?  Can't such shifts occur in casual conversation?

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

Here is a summary of where we are so far.

 

Although we may not have proven exactly what the angel is, we have greatly limited the solution space by proving several things.

• NO portion of the content of ANY of the letters, of necessity, applies exclusively to the angel itself, but ALL the content of EACH of the letters CAN be applied to its respective church as a whole.

• We can also see from the content of the letters that, although singular pronouns are used, the message is to each respective church as a whole and not to the singular angel.  Most of the content of the letters would not make sense if applied exclusively to the angel.  Some whole letters use exclusively singular pronouns.  In addition, the grammar of Rev 2:10 soundly proves that even when singular pronouns are used, the message is still to the church as a whole.

• In NO case, in ANY of the letters, is there ANY evidence that mandates that the single angel itself is actually even being addressed.  Rather, it is clearly evident that to write to the angel is to write to the church.  The potential argument from Rev 2:24 is soundly defeated by pointing out the "you" in "But unto you I say" is plural, and, additionally, that the "and" in "and unto the rest" is likely not part of the original text. 

• The human attributes and situations referenced in the letters apply to the church itself and not to the angel.  Not only does context demand this, but the grammar of Rev 2:10 proves it.

Given these facts, although there is a single angel associated with each church, there is no evidence mandating the interpretation that this single angel is any sort of human spiritual leader who is responsible for the church.  In most cases, attributing the content of the letter as being addressed to the angel itself is manifestly inappropriate.  Rather, it is much more likely that this angel is somehow a personification of some aspect of the church itself. Given the points above, this interpretation seems much more palatable to me than it originally did.

Is this getting boring yet?!?

[Michael V. Frazier]

I don't find it boring, but that's a subjective question. ( LOL ).  I think your summary is accurate.

[David Huston]

In Revelation 1:20 Jesus gives us the explanation of the symbolism He has employed. He says, "The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches." First let me say that the NKJV says "lampstand" instead of "candlestick." I think this term probably refers to an oil-burning vessel rather than an object we stick a wax candle in, which is more common today. The same Greek word is used in Hebrews 9:2 to refer to the Menorah, which burned oil, not wax candles. Second, there are two symbols being explained: 1) the seven stars and 2) the seven golden lampstands. We are told that the lampstands are in reality the seven churches in Asia: seven lampstands being the symbol and seven churches being the reality. We are also told that the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: seven stars being the symbol and seven angels being the reality. I cannot see why Jesus would explain a symbol with another symbol.

This is like those who say the water of John 3:5 is natural childbirth. This would be mixing something literal (the Spirit) with a symbol (water). I don't think Jesus was trying to confuse us here. If the word "Spirit" is to be taken literally, then so must the word "water." Likewise, if we take the seven churches to be actual local assemblies consisting of real people, then it seems to me we must take the angels as being actual angels. And since the word "angel" is used about 70 times in chapters 4 through 22 in the book of Revelation to refer to angels, why would a different meaning apply in chapters 2 and 3? 

A lampstand is an earthly light and a star is a heavenly light. In fulfillment of these symbols, a local church is an earthly messenger of God to the world and an angel is a heavenly messenger of God to the church. So I go back to my original proposal that the angels of the seven churches are just that, angels. Can anyone propose anything that would support this view, because if we can show that they are definitely angels, then we can show that they are definitely not single pastors.

[Mike R. Prevost]

David Huston said:

We are also told that the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: seven stars being the symbol and seven angels being the reality. I cannot see why Jesus would explain a symbol with another symbol. [...] So I go back to my original proposal that the angels of the seven churches are just that, angels. Can anyone propose anything that would support this view, because if we can show that they are definitely angels, then we can show that they are definitely not single pastors.

 

I understand the tension here.  Why would He even have a symbol for them if they were not an actual thing?

 

I think that it is still possible for them to be actual angels AS LONG AS writing to the angel = writing to the church.  I think this angel is a completely "pass through" entity.  I have no idea why He wrote to the angel instead of to the church.

[David Huston]

Bro. Prevost, ask your friend from Maine what he thinks about each church having its own angel and why.

[Mike R. Prevost]

David Huston said:

Bro. Prevost, ask your friend from Maine what he thinks about each church having its own angel and why.

 

Will do. 

 

The reason I say "AS LONG AS writing to the angel = writing to the church" is (1) I believe that it is provably the case, but (2) unless this IS the case, we are back to attributing human qualities to the angel itself.  We have shown via the arguments from Rev 2:10, that the human qualities there are attributed to the church and not to the angel.  So, in order to say the angel is a real spiritual being angel, you still have to maintain this "pass through" interpretation or you end up shooting yourself in the foot by having to explain the human qualities of the angel.

 

So, at this point, the angel COULD be anything as long as the pass-through aspect is maintained.  It COULD be a spiritual being angel, or if COULD even be the single-pastor.  I think it would be great if we could conclusively prove that it was a spiritual being angel.  I like this better than the literary device interpretation for the reasons you mentioned.  I will devote some time to looking at it more.

 

One of my single pastor advocate arguments related to this remains unaddressed: that the seven angels pop up elsewhere and serve a more global, rather than local role.  Do you have any responses to that argument?  Can you show that this is a different group of seven angels?

 

 

[David Huston]

I agree that the angels (whatever they are) must be "pass-through" agents, message bearers, mailmen. Clearly, as has been shown, they are not the intended audience of the letters, since the letters address issues that pertain only to humanity. But perhaps the angels are involved more directly in the every-day affairs of an assembly than we recognize. Perhaps Jesus was also telling these angels how He saw the current state of the assemblies under their care (whatever that care may look like).

Of course, some single pastors may agree that the contents of the letters pertain only to the assembly, but not to them, especially those who see themselves as set apart or in a different class from the rest of the assembly. This, of course, would be a preposterous proposal from our view, as those who believe leadership is a gift within the body and not apart from it.

As for the question as to whether the angels of the churches are the same angels that later appear as agents of judgment, I cannot say for certain. They are identified as "the angels of the seven churches," a designation that seems to me to make them different from the angels that pour out God's judgments. I'm not sure if this would affect one way or the other the argument that the angels are angels. What do you think?

 

[David]

Greetings all.  I am the “friend from Maine”.  I will come out of my hole, but just for a moment.  I am unusually busy and that is one reason why I have not been participating in the forums.

First – a hearty well done to all.  I read through the whole discourse. 

So I will cut to the chase with my understanding begging you forgiveness for not being exhaustive in my apology; lacking time for completely exercising the thesis.  I will respond briefly in Capotosto-esque forum style – the outline:

Angels are…well…angels.

• No metonyms here.
• All is literal unless there is strong reason for figurative or other literary form.
• Jesus already said lampstand=church -  Star=angel.  Interpretation done.
• There is no local proof otherwise.  There is no NT precedent.
• Revelation symbolism relies heavily on symbols already uncovered – we have no such revelation of pastors represented by angel stars.

Letters are to the churches/people who make up the churches

• You have all proved this well.  I won’t repeat.
• Don’t get too lost in singular and plural. If I am speaking to the church I can toggle between singular (The church in Biddeford is doing well) and plural (We are blessed) and selective plural (But we’ve got some humdingers amongst us!).

The question isn’t whether angels are angels.

• Having proved that the letters are the churches, the better question is, “Why would God, writing to churches, address the letters to angels?”
• Better questions sometimes yield better answers.

The letters are judicial

• The letters contain accusation, potential judgment, warning, etc.
• Angels are ministers of justice
• Angels are the LORD’s witnesses and instruments of judgment.
• Too long to do here, but consider in the OT – Cherubims at the gate of Eden, angels who go to Sodom to deliver and destroy, Elisha’s vision of horses and chariots of fire, law (ultimate judicial thing) came to Moses via angels…
• Consider the NT precedents in 1Cor. 4:9 / 6:3 / 11:10 – angels watching with discussions about judgment.
• Consider Revelation – Judgment after judgment at the hand of angels

Conclusion

• Angels are angels
• Letters are to the churches
• Addressed to angels, the witnesses and instruments of judgment.
• The LORD gives the accusation against the churches to the angels to prepare them to watch the response and execute judgment if necessary.
• One angel per city

Fictitious event to follow for Rhetoric sake…

• “Young scribe, take a note and deliver it to the moderator of that Ning thing.  To the moderator of the GCNing.  From the Friend from Maine.  I know youI know your apostolic apologies; you have many a good point and take many a noble stand as you defend the faith.  But I have a certain thing against you; you are too preoccupied with the length of a man’s trousers.  Cease from the vain jangling and get to the matters at hand.  Also, I have noted that you labored hard at logic and rhetoric, but there are many among you who are prone to hasty conclusions and rash generalizations.  Stop it and focus and sharpen y’all swords and prepare to convince the gainsayer and shut the mouths of lions!  Do well and get to write more.  Do poorly and get kicked from the forum.”

Since Mike Prevost is prone to “forum split personality disorder”, from here, he will defend my assertion with the precursor…

[ENTERING MY PRO-JUDICIAL AGENT MODE]   :-)

God Bless You All,

David

 

David Huston said:

Bro. Prevost, ask your friend from Maine what he thinks about each church having its own angel and why.

[Mike R. Prevost]

David said:

The letters are judicial

• The letters contain accusation, potential judgment, warning, etc.
• Angels are ministers of justice
• Angels are the LORD’s witnesses and instruments of judgment.
• Too long to do here, but consider in the OT – Cherubims at the gate of Eden, angels who go to Sodom to deliver and destroy, Elisha’s vision of horses and chariots of fire, law (ultimate judicial thing) came to Moses via angels…
• Consider the NT precedents in 1Cor. 4:9 / 6:3 / 11:10 – angels watching with discussions about judgment.
• Consider Revelation – Judgment after judgment at the hand of angels

Conclusion

• Angels are angels
• Letters are to the churches
• Addressed to angels, the witnesses and instruments of judgment.
• The LORD gives the accusation against the churches to the angels to prepare them to watch the response and execute judgment if necessary.
• One angel per city

 

OK.  So the Capotostian Hypothesis is that The Letters (which contain The Warnings and the Punishments) were written to the churches and delivered to the churches via The Book.  BUT, The Letters were addressed to The Angels because The Angels will carry out The Punishments if the churches don't heed The Warnings.

 

So, writing to the angels is sort of like the Governor of the state writing a letter to your city and CC'ing your county sheriff's office.

 

 

[David Huston]

Great points, Bro. Capotosto. Thanks for posting your thoughts. And Bro. Prevost, perhaps this would be something like a school principle sending a note to a teacher describing all the problems he has with the students. The teacher delievers the message and stands ready to hand out the rewards or enforce the penalities as needed. In this context, let's consider what Jesus says in Revelation 22:12-16, "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. 16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches."

[Mike R. Prevost]

David Huston said:

[...] And Bro. Prevost, perhaps this would be something like a school principle sending a note to a teacher describing all the problems he has with the students. The teacher delivers the message and stands ready to hand out the rewards or enforce the penalties as needed.

 

It seems like the analogy would be that the Principal (Jesus) sends a note to the Students (Church) that is addressed to the Teacher (Angel/Enforcer).  (As strange as it sounds.)

 

In your mind, how does the angel deliver OR read the letter to the church?  I understand the idea from your article that the spiritual angel smuggles the Letter (or Book) off the island.  I might can maybe/sorta/kinda go along with that, but I don't understand how the angel communicates the Letter or the Book to the Church.  Does the Angel stand before the congregation and read it?  And does he read the Letter or the Book?

 

It seems that one constraining fact is that the letters were delivered as part of The Book.  If we are proposing that there were mailmen (angels or otherwise), don't they have to be delivering The Book and not individual letters?  Also, *John* was told "What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia" (1:11).  Thou write and send.

 

The Capotostian Hypothesis says that "unto the angel [...] write" means only that the angels are being alerted to watch and judge, and that it is done in such a way that the Church KNOWS that the angels were "activated".  I.e., "Big Brother is watching you", "so be good for goodness sake!". 

 

I will be gone this weekend.  I want to work on developing the Angels = Judicial Agents idea from scripture.  One thing that would make this more persuasive is to find some strong historical evidence that the Jews or the 1st century saints viewed the angels as the executors of divine judgment.  Are there any "angelologists" among us?

 

I think we are really making some progress.  Prior to Bro Capotosto weighing in we had narrowed the solution space to a very small area, but we were still not able to put our finger on an exactly what the angels were.  I, at least, was still clueless and starting to bail out toward the rhetorical device argument.  The Capotostian Hyposthesis seems plausible and fits into this narrow solution space.  It just needs some further development and validation.   Any other proposed interpretations should also examined.