Reference: Angels of the Seven Churches
Hastings
1. According to one set of opinions, these angels were men, and the majority of writers have held them to be (1) the presiding presbyters or bishops of their respective churches. But while this view is attractive and popular, the reasons against it are strong. Human officials could hardly be made responsible for their churches as these angels are. A bishop might be called an angel, i.e. a messenger, of God or of Christ (cf. Hag 1:13; Mal 2:7; 2Co 5:20), but would he be called 'the angel of the church'? Above all, it is certain that at the early date to which the Apocalypse is now generally assigned a settled episcopate was unknown. (2) Others have supposed that the angels were congregational representatives, church messengers or deputies (which would be in harmony with the proper meaning of the word 'angel'), or even the person who acted as 'Reader' to the assembled church (notice 'he that readeth' in Re 1:3). But if the responsibility put upon the angels is too great for bishops, it is much too great for any lesser functionaries. Besides, the glory and dignity assigned to them as the stars of the churches (Re 1:20) is inconsistent with a position like that of a mere Reader or deputy.
2. A good many have held that 'angels' is to be understood in its ordinary Scriptural application, not to men, but to celestial beings. In support of this are