Ohio has noted that he has an interpretation of the scripture and John has indicated another. I look at the passage quoted in one recent post and find uncertainty as to the answer to the question.
Quote:
|
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false ... He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” (Rev 2:1–2, 7 NASB)
|
Who is this written to? To the messenger (angel) of the church. We can argue till the cows come home what that means and you will not have a definitive answer. We could decide to go with one of those interpretations, but we should be prepared to give grace to others who might still think otherwise.
The "messenger" . . . . Are they the one to whom the letter is addressed? Or are they simply the one taking the message. The words as translated into English seem to indicate that the messenger is the recipient of the letter. And if that is the case, to what extent should the messenger take the letter as instructions directed at him/her (I'll be generous) or as something to deliver to the church at large? I can find reason to treat some of it like Paul's letters to Timothy — directed to a leader in his role — and some directed to the church as a whole. Since there is no stated break between the two, which is which is not absolutely clear. And it is not absolutely clear that it is not simply a directive to the leadership of a church, or simply a message to everyone. (Remember that only a few could read, so there was no hint that this would be posted online for everyone to read. It could have been directed to the leadership for their willful change in direction.)
I am not arguing for or against any particular point on the spectrum.
I am suggesting that the kind of certainty that is being displayed is actually no more certain that the interpretation of other verses that gave us the doctrine of dirt. It is not entirely ridiculous that there could be such a position taken. But there is entirely too little to support it to make it a centerpiece, definitive doctrine by which you exclude others.
These positions based on Revelation (and other passages) are about as solid as a Southern California hillside during torrential rains. It is probably a good idea to think about it. And possibly to have at least a tentative conclusion for yourself. But not to use it for judgment upon any others.
This seems to fall into a discussion about doctrinal statements that I once heard. You need a general statement for the membership that tells them what you believe. To become "members," they need to be OK with it. If they want to teach anything, like a Sunday School class, they need to agree to not teach contrary to it (although discussion of alternatives is OK). And to be part of the leadership, you need to be able to stand by it even where you might personally think differently. (Remember that even the Acts 15 council did not declare unanimous agreement, only that it seemed good to go that way.)