of Daniel (6 S.pxo}v ^aa-iXelas UepffQv, Dn 10""; cf. MixctTjX 6 dyyeXos, v.'-'). A similar belief with re- spect to the guardianship of individuals is referred to incidentally as held by Jesus (Mt 18'"), and we need not be surprised to find it applied to Churches in their corporate capacity by a writer whose teaching on the activity and functions of angels is so advanced.
Taking into account the symbolism of the whole book and the obviously symbolic mention of Jeze- bel (Rev 2-» ; cf. Milligan on Rev IQi-s in Scliatfs Fop. Com. on the NT), there seems to be no inter- pretation more in harmony with the spuit of tlie writing than that which sees in this expression the personification of the characteristic spiritual tone and genius of each Church.
If we accept this conclusion as being most con- sonant with the general trend of thought through- out the writing, it may not be amiss to refer to the remarkable parallel in the fravashis, or ' doubles,' of Parsiism. Whatever the connexion between Persian and Jewish angelology — and it is not necessary to insist on a direct borrowing — it seems to be certain that, in the period immediately sub- sequent to the Captivity, Parsi influence shaped, at least indirectly and remotely, the development of Hebrew thought. ' Thefravashi of a nation or community is a conception found in three Avestan passages. . . . The fravashi is no longer a being necessarily good, but becomes a complete spiritual counterpart of the nation or the church, and cap- able therefore of declension and punishment' {HDB iv. 991" ; cf. JThSt iii. 52Ufl'.). The nexus may be, and probably is, not so mechanical and direct as J. H. Moulton seeks to establish. On the other hand, it seems as if a relationship of some kind between the allied forces of Magianism and Zoro- astrianism, as they were refracted by the medium of Hellenistic culture and Hebrew thought, must be regarded as inevitable. It is enough to say that the ' angel ' is the personified embodiment of the spiritual character and ethos of the Church. If this use of the word by the author has led to con- fusion and obscurity, the reason lies probably in the limitations of that symbolism which was the characteristic vehicle of Jewish apocalyptic litera- ture (see W. ]M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, 1904, pp. 57-73). Compare and contrast § 6 of the preceding article.
Literature. — See the works referred to throughout the art., and the Commentaries on the Apocalj-pse.
J. R. Willis, ANGER. — 1. Human anger.— Except by the stoical mind which finds no place for strong emotion in a moral scheme, anger has been recog- nized as a quality Avhich, under certain conditions and within certain limits, may not only be per- missible but commendable. Its ready abuse has, however, led to its being commonly placed among the evils of human nature. The teaching of the early Christian Church recognizes both aspects. Condemnation of the abuse of anger is not wanting in the apostolic writings. Among the manifest works of the flesh are enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths {9v/xoi), factions (Gal 5'-"). St. Paul fears lest he shall find these evils in the Church when he comes to Corinth (2 Co 12-»). One of the marks of the greatest of Christian virtues is that it ' does not blaze forth in passionate anger ' {ov Trapoi^iverai [1 Co 13^]). In Christian circles, all bitterness and wrath and anger must be put away (Eph 4*' ; cf. Col 3*). The holy hands lifted up in prayer must be un- stained with anger and strife (1 Ti 2^). The ' bishop ' must be blameless, as God's steward, not self-willed, not soon angry (Tit 1'). St. James bids his readers be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God (!"• ''"). * Be not prone to
ANGER
ANGER
63
anger,' says the Didache (iii. 2), 'for anger leadeth to murder : nor a zealot, nor contentious, nor quick-tempered, for murder also is the outcome of these.'
On the other hand, Christian morality recognizes a righteous anger. The section of the Sermon on the Mount which teaches that whosoever is angry with his brother is in danger of the judgment (Mt 5-^'-) is primarily aimed at something other than passion — it is an emphatic condemnation of the spirit wliich despises and seeks to injure a brother. The violation of the law of brotherly love, manifest in the anger of Mt 5^^, might, indeed, provoke a legitimate wrath, e.fj. in the series of woes, terrible in intensity of language, pronounced by Jesus against the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23^^'*'). We should hesitate to acknowledge a man as morally and spiritually great who could remain unmoved in the presence of the world's wrongs. The early preachers would have been poor souls had they been able to hide their indignation at the mur- derers of Jesus (Ac 313- '•* 53» 7"'-). Could Peter well have been calm with Ananias and Sapphira ( Ac 5'), and later, with the commercially-minded, religious adventurer, Simon Magus (S'^"'*)? A certain prin- ciple of discrimination seems, however, to have been observed. Anger at personal insult or persecution was discouraged. Anger provoked by personal in- jury may have a protective value in a lower stage of tiie world's life, but the attitude of Christian ethics to this type is governed by the law of non- resistance laid down by the Sermon on the Mount. Man must return good for evil, show kindness to his enemy, leave retribution to God (Ro \2^^-^'^). St. Paul claims that, ' when reviled, we bless ; when persecuted, we bear it patiently ; when slandered, we try to conciliate' (1 Co 4'-), thus following the example of Jesus (1 P 2-^). One is tempted to regard the apology which followed the momentary outburst of St. Paul's passion against the high priest (Ac 23^) as an expression of the Apostle's principles of non-resistance rather than as an ac- knowledgment of priestly rights. But there is an altogether different attitude when that which is to be defended is a righteous principle, a weaker brother, or the faith or ethical standard of the Church. Elymas, the sorcerer, seeking to hinder a work of gxace, provokes a vigorous anger (Ac IS'**- ^^). On behalf of the purity of faith St. Paul resists St. Peter to the face (Gal 2i'). The Epistle to the Galatians is a piece of passionate writing, and a note of indignation runs through the later chapters of 2 Cor. (cf. 1 Co 1'^ 5^ etc.). The man who does not love the Lord Jesus, or the one who preaches a false gospel, let him be accursed — dvadeixa {\ Co 16'^). The indignation (ayavaKTrjais) of the Cor- inthian Church against the guilty person in the case of immorality, to which St. Paul has drawn attention, is commended by him (2 Co 7"). Simi- larly, the Church at Ephesus is congratulated on its hatred of the Nicolaitans (Kev 2*^). St. Paul ' burns ' if another is ' made to stumble ' (2 Co 11-"). In these instances, anger seems to have been re- garded as compatible with, and indeed expressive of, Christian character. The obvious danger of mistaken zeal for a cause or creed must, however, be kept in mind. The case of St. Paul's early life provides an illustration (Gal P^, Ph 3''). There may be a zeal for God, not according to knowledge (Ro 10-').