Sounds plausible, but not exegetically substantiated
Every other place in Revelation where John uses “angel ” (another 69 times), it is in reference to angelic beings, not humans . Thus, the preponderance of word usage decidedly favors angelic beings in Revelation 2-3
The NT nowhere else uses the term angel to refer to a pastor or elder, so there would have to be substantial contextual reasons for these angels to be called pastors
A messenger is someone who is sent on a mission and who, as a rule, comes, accomplishes his task, and then moves on. A pastor, on the other hand, settles in and tends his flock. He is there for the long haul.
Pastors were, in NT times, restricted to a certain locale geographically. But a messenger is one who moves about.
The genre of the Revelation fits what is called "apocalyptic." In apocalyptic literature there is a strong emphasis on angels, making that the primary inference.
Revelation 1:20 says that “angel” is the interpretation of “star.” It is better to follow the interpretation given than to invent a new one. The pastor view adds an interpretation beyond that of Revelation 1:20.
Scripture describes angels as stars in numerous passages (Job 38:7; Psalm 104:4; Isaiah 14:12; Luke 10:18; Hebrews 1:7); thus, to be consistent, we should take the stars of Revelation 1–3 to be angels also
Why did John give his revealed message to angels to give to the churches?
Evidently it was because John at the time was a prisoner in exile on Patmos (Revelation 1:9). He could not deliver the message himself; thus, by divine appointment, seven angels were dispatched who would impart the message to the churches. John was in a supernatural state when he received the message (1:10); therefore, it is not shocking to see him giving it to angels to pass it on.
We elsewhere discover that angels take an active interest in church life (1 Corinthians 4:9; 11:10; Ephesians 3:10; 1 Timothy 5:21). It is consistent, then, to interpret the angels of Revelation 1-3 as angelic beings, not as pastors.
Some might say that it is unthinkable to have angels give messages to churches. Why is that?
The Law to Moses (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2)
Prophetic revelation to Daniel (7:16–27; 8:16–26; 9:20–27; 10:1–12:13) and Zechariah (1:9; 2:3; 4:1, 5; 5:5; 6:4–5)
Announcement of the birth of John the Baptist to his father, Zacharias (Luke 1:11–20)
Announcement of the birth of Jesus to His mother, Mary (Luke 1:26–38), as well as to Joseph (Matthew 1:20–21)
Representatives of Paul in apostolic authority, not pastors.
It is unlikely that only one bishop is in view because otherwise it is difficult to explain 1 Timothy 5:17. Who are these plural elders if Timothy is the Pastor?
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor
Timothy was there to teach “how one ought to behave in the household of God” (3:15) until Paul returned (4:13). This shows that Timothy was, on a temporary , apostolic basis, one who was delegating to others the pastoral work of teaching
He did teach, oversee, and lead, but that does not necessitate the conclusion that he was the single-elder of a local church
Representatives of Paul in apostolic authority, not pastors
Appointed elders in each town.
If Titus is an example for today’s polity as a single-elder (instead of as only an apostolic representative), then should not the pastors today also be choosing elders for other churches in other towns?
If Titus is an example for a single-elder-led church (and is therefore a bishop), is he then the bishop of churches from every town?
If there are elders being appointed into these churches, then Titus cannot be the single elder of a church.
Titus is following as Paul commanded him and exercised his authority as a representative of Paul, not as the Pastor of a local church