A. B. Davidson.
ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES.— If these angels are men, they cannot be less than bishops ruling their several churches. In favour of this, we have — (1) Mai 2' 3', where the words may be used of men ; (2) the i^2)f n'^^'f, who, however, was not an officer of the synagogue, but one of the congregation called up for the occfusion to pronounce the prayer; (3) the settled character of episcopacy in Asia in the time of Ignatius. Against it are — (1) dy>fXoj, never used of men in NT, except Lk 9", Ja 2'' of ordinary messengers ; (2) the figurative character of the Apoc. generally, and of this part in particular. There are seven angels for seven churches ; and from the Saviour walking in a figurative tabernacle each of t hem receives a letter in figurative form, and full of figurative promises and threats. Whatever be said of the ' Nicolaitans,' 'that woman Jezebel ' (2*') can harilly be other than figurative. Even if the allusion is to a livin" prophetess, its form is figurative ; esp. if we read TTif ywatKi ffov — thy wife Jezebel ; (3) the relation of the angels to the churches is one of close identi- fication in praise and blame, to an extent for which no human ruler can be responsible j (4) settled monarchical government of churches in Asia can hardly date back to the Neronian persecution, or even to Domitiau's.
The imagery is suggested by the later Jewish belief in angels as guardians of nations {e.g. Dn 12') and of men (Ac 12"), like the ffenii of paganism. As, however, this belief is nowhere definitely con finned by Scrijiture, the angels are best regarde<i as personifications of their churches.
II. M. GWATKIN.
ANGER, as a verb, occurs Ps loO''^ ' They a"' him also (!D')tp:i) at the waters of strife,' and Ro 10" ' by a foolish nation I will a. (Trapo/ryii) you.' And twice in Apocr. : Sir 3" 'And he that a."^ (RV 'provoketh ) his mother is cui!<ed of God'; 19" ' he a""' him that nourisheth him ' ; to wliicli RV adds Wis 5** ' The water of the sea shall be a"' (AV 'rage') against them.' J. Hastings.
ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD. — Anthropopathi- cally described in UT by terms deri\ed from the ])hysical manifestations of human anger, iv, i?"!, [•^^, ."035;, "jyij, etc. ; in NT by the terms i5p->-^, Oiiii6t, anger or wrath may be defined generally as an energy of the divine nature called forth by the presence of daring or prcsuiiiptuous trans- gression, and expressing the reaction of the diWne holiness against it in the punishment or destruction
98 ANGER (AYRATH) OF GOD
ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD
of the transgressor. It is the ' zeal ' (•"iN;p) of God for the maintenance of His holiness and honour, and of the ends of His righteousness and love, when these are threatened by the ingratitude, rebellion, and wHful disobedience or temerity of the creature. In this light it appears both in the OT ipasHm) and in the NT (Mt 3', Jn 3**, Ro 1'^ Eph 5", Kev 19'' etc.), and is uniformly repre- sented as something very terrible in its effects. It is spoken of as ' kindled ' by the sins and provoca- tions of men (Ex 4", Nu 1 !'•'», Dt 29", 2 S G^ Is S^* etc. ), as ' poured out ' on men ( Ps 79", Is 42^, jer 44' etc.); its 'fierceness' is dwelt upon by psalmists and prophets (Ps 78" 8S'», Is 13', Jer 25^'- »« etc.); it bums do\vn to the lowest Sheol (Dt 32'^). Similarly, in NT, God is represented as ' a con- suming fire' (He 12=^; cf. Mt 3'^ 13« 2 Th !» 2"). At the same time, this a. is not pictured, as in heathen religions, as the mere outburst of capricious passion, but always appears in union with the idea of the divine holiness (that principle, as Martensen says, ' which guards the eternal distinction between Creator and creature, between God and man, in the union effected between them, and preserves the divine dignity and majesty from being infringed on,' and which on its positive side is in God the inflexible determination to uphold at all costs the interests of righteousness and truth) ; and as directed to the maintenance of the moral order in the world, and specially to the upholding of the covenant relation with Israel, an aspect of it which manifests its close alliance with righteousness and love. As in the human sphere, so in the divine, the keenest provocation to a. is that which lies in wounded or frustrated love, or in injury done to the objects of love (Nu 32"-", 2 K 17»-i«, Ezk 23, Am 3^ Ps 7" etc.). A. in God has thus always an ethical connotation, and manifests itself in subserviency to ends of righteousness and mercy, by which also its measure or limit is prescribed (Jer 10^). In its action in providence, it uses as its instruments the agencies of nature, as well as the passions and ambitious designs of men (cf. Is 10° 'O Assyrian, the rod of mine a.'), and afflicts the disobedient and rebellious with the calamities of war, famine, pestUenoe, and with o-ils generally (Dt 28">-«*, Am 4«-" etc. See analysis in Ritschl, Rccht. unci Ver.' ii, p. 125). So far. accordingly, as the Biblical representa- tions are concerned, the divine a. or wrath is not to be weakened down, or e.xplained away, ns is the fashion among theologians {e.g. Origen, Augustine, Turretin), into a mere 'anthropomorphism,' or general expression for God's aversion to sin, and His determination to punish it ; but is rather to be re- garded as a very real and awful affection of the divine nature, fitted to awaken fear in the minds of men (Ps 2"'", He 10^'). When we look to the historical development of this doctrine in Scripture, we find nothing to modify materially the repre- sentations just given. No real distinction can be predicated between the earlier and later descrip- tions of the divine wrath in OT, except that, as Kitschl points out {Recht. und Ver. ii. p. 127), they tend in the prophets to become more eschatological (see Day of the Loud; cf. Ko 2», Rev 6"). This, however, is not to be understood as if the di%nne wrath were not also manifested continuously throiigh history in the punishment of those whose evil-doing calls it forth (Ps "")• The later repre- sentations in the Scripture are every whit as strongly conceived as those of an earlier date. Wlien H. Schultz speaks of ' the im|ires.sion of the terrible God of the Semites' in tiie earlier ages, and says, ' the ancient Hebrews, too, tremble before a mysterious wrath of God ' {O.T. Theolorjy, ii. p. 175, Kng. tr.), he strangely forgets that the passages be cites are, on his own hypothesis, from the very