Rev 2 & 3 - Singular second person

[Guest]

Dear Steve,

I had always assume that in the seven letters (Rev 2-3), the word "you" was plural, i.e. referring to each church group. I just read these chapters in the King James Version (!), the word was singular, as seen by the use of "thou", "thee" and "thy". [The one thing I love about 16th century English which never got carried through to modern day English is having different words for singular and plural 2nd person.]

Is there any significance for the use of the singular second person in these 7 letters?

One option I considered was that these commendations/rebukes were directed personally to each angel/messenger of each church (and thus it may not refer to any other person in each church). However, this would go against the usual understanding that these letters were actually directed to the church, so the next option was that the singular second person referred to individual congregations; except that in three letters (Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira) there is some use of the plural second person. A third option was that Jesus is going to judge individuals in each church (as seen by the promises in each letter) and hence He addressed individuals in each church group using the singular second person. Thinking about it now, I would understand the significance as per the third option.

Hmmm.... I thought I'd only ask my question. I didn't expect to formulate any kind of answer.

[Guest]

Hi Ben,

My assumption has been that the singular "you" is used because the "angel" to which each letter is addressed is singular. However, I have never settled upon a theory as to who or what may be designated by "the angel of the church..."

One possibilty is that it refers to the church itself, each being personified as a "messenger" (angelos) of Christ to the city in which each one is domiciled. If this were the case, then the singular "you" would fit the literary device, but would actually be addressing each church as a group.

If the "angel of the church" refers to a "pastor," as is so often suggested by preachers, then the above explanation would not work.