Anathoth – Anger

Anathoth

1. A town in Benjamin given to the Levites (Joshua 21:18) the modern ‘Anata, 2i miles N. of Jerusalem, an insignificant village with considerable ruins. It was the home of Abiathar (1 Kings 2:26) and of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1) re-occupied after the exile (Neh 7:27 10:19). 2. A Benjainite, son of Becher(l Ch7»).

W. EWING.

ANCESTOR -WORSHIP. —Every people whose religious beliefs have been investigated appears to have passed through the stage of Animism, the stage in which it was believed that the spirits of those recently dead were potent to hurt those they had left behind on earth. The rites observed to-day at an Irish wake have their origin in this fear that the spirit of the dead may injure the living. There are several traces of a similar belief in the OT. When a death took place in a tent or house, every vessel which happened to be open at the time was counted unclean (Numbers 19:15). It remained clean only if it had a covering tied over it. The idea was that the spirit of the dead person, escaping from the body, might take up its abode in some open vessel instead of entering the gloomy realms of Sheol. Many mourning customs find their explanation in this same dread of the spirit but lately set free from its human home. The shaving of the head and beard, the cutting of the face and breast, the tearing of the garments — apparently a survival of the time when the mourner stripped off all his clothes — are due to the effort of the survivor to make himself unrecognizable by the spirit.

But to admit that the OT contains traces of Animism is not the same as to declare that at one stage the Israelites practised Ancestor-worship. Scholars are divided into two groups on the subject. Some (Stade, G VI i. 451; Smend, AUtest. Relig. 112 f.) affirm that Ancestor-worship was of the very substance of the primitive religion of Israel. Others do not at all admit this position (Kautzsch, in Hastings’ DB, Extra Vol. 614; W. P. Paterson, ib. ii. 445). The evidence adduced for Ancestor-worship as a stage in the religious development of Israel proceeds on these lines:

(a) Sacrifices were offered at Hebron to Abraham, and at Shechem to Joseph, long before these places were associated with the worship of Jehovah. When a purer faith took possession of men’s hearts, the old sacred spots retained their sanctity, but new associations were attached to them. A theophany was now declared to be the fact underlying the sacredness; and the connexion with the famous dead was thus broken. In the same way sacred trees and stones, associated with the old Canaanitish worship, had their evil associations removed by being linked with some great event in the history of Israel. But this existence of sacred places connected with the burial of a great tribal or national hero does not at all prove Ancestor-worship. It is possible to keep fresh a great man’s memory without believing that he can either help or hinder the life of those on earth.

(6) Evidence from mourning customs. It is held that the cutting and wounding (Jeremiah 16:6 41:5). the covering of the head (Ezekiel 24:17. Jeremiah 14:3). the rending of the garments (2 Samuel 1:11 3:31), the wearing of sackcloth (2 Samuel 21:10. Isaiah 15:3). are to be explained as a personal dedication to the spirit of the dead. But all this, as we have seen, can be explained as the effort so to alter the familiar appearance that the spirit, on returning to work harm, will not recognize the objects of its spite. Then the customs that had to do with food, the fasting for the dead (1 Samuel 31:13, 2 Samuel 3:35) the breaking of the fast by a funeral feast after sundown (Hosea 9:4. 2 Samuel 3:35, Jeremiah 16:7). the placing of food upon the grave (Deuteronomy 26:14) — do not prove that Ancestor-worship was a custom of the Hebrews. They only show that the attempt was made to appease the spirit of the dead, and that this was done by a sacrifice, which, like all primitive sacrifices, was afterwards eaten by the worshippers themselves. When these funeral rites were forbidden, it was because they were heathenish and unfitting for a people that worshipped the true God.

(c) The terapMm, it is said, were some form of household god, shaped in human form (1 Samuel 19:13, 16). carried about as one of the most precious possessions of the home (Genesis 31), consulted in divination (Ezekiel 21:21). presumably as representing the forefathers of the family. But nothing is known with certainty regarding the teraphim. That they were of human form is a very bold inference from the evidence afforded by 1 S 19. The variety of derivations given by the Jews of the word teraphim shows that there was complete ignorance as to their origin and appearance.

(.d) In 1 Samuel 28:13 the spirit of Samuel, called up by the witch of Endor, is called elohim. But it is very precarious to build on an obscure passage of this kind, especially as the use of the word cIoMm is so wide (applied to God, angels, and possibly even judges or kings) that no inference can be drawn from this passage.

(c) It is argued that the object of the levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5 ff.) was to prevent any deceased person being left in Sheol without some one on earth to offer him worship. But the motive stated in v. 6, ‘that his name be not put out in Israel,’ is so sufflcient that the connexion of the levirate marriage with Ancestor-worship seems forced.

The case for the existence of Ancestor-worship among the Hebrews has not been made out. As a branch of the Semitic stock, the Hebrews were, of course, heirs of the common Semitic tradition. And while that tradition did contain much that was superstitious with regard to the power of the dead to work evil on the living, it does not appear that the worship of ancestors, which in other races was so often associated with the stage of Animism, had a place in Hebrew religion. R. Bkucb Taylob.

Anchor

See Ships and Boats.

Ancient of Days

Ancient of days occurs 3 times in Daniel (7*‘u. 22) as a title of God in His capacity as Judge of the world. In the Vision of the Great Assizes He is depicted as a very old and majestic figure, with white hair and white raiment, seated on a fiery throne, and having the books of the records of man opened before Him. The picture is no doubt suggested by the contrast between the Eternal God (Psalms 55:19) and the new-fangled deities which were from time to time introduced (Judges 5:8. Deuteronomy 32:17). rather than, as Hippolytus (quoted by Behrmann, Das Buck Danid, p. 46) suggests, by the idea of God as making the ages old without turning old Himself. In the troublous times which are represented by the Book of Daniel, It was at once a comfort and a warning to remember that above the fieeting phases of life there sat One who remained eternally the same (Psalms 90:1–3 102:24–27). At the same time it is worth remembering that the phrase in itself has no mystical significance, but, by an idiom common in Hebrew as in other languages, is merely a paraphrase for’ an old man.’ H. C. O. Lanohesteb.

Andrew

One of the twelve Apostles, Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:40). He belonged to Bethsaida of Galilee (v. 44). the harbour-town of Capernaum (see Bethsaida), and was a fisherman on the lake in company with Simon (Matthew 4:18 1:16). whose home he also shared (Mark 1:29). Ere he knew Jesus he had been influenced by the preaching of John the Baptist, and became his disciple, and it was on hearing the Baptist’s testimony that he attached himself to Jesus (John 1:35–40). He brought his brother Simon to the newly found Messiah (v. 41). thus earning the distinction of being the first missionary of the Kingdom of heaven; and it seems that, like the favoured three, he enjoyed a special intimacy with the Master (Mark 13:3). Tradition adds that he was crucified at Patrae in Achaia, and hung alive on the cross for two days, exhorting the spectators all the while. David Smith.

Andronicus

A Christian greeted by St. Paul (Romans 16:7) as a ‘kinsman,’ i.e. as a fellow-countryman (cf. H.0 9:3 16:11, 21). who had been imprisoned for Christ; distinguished as an Apostle (in the largest sense of the name), and a believer from early days, having perhaps come to Rome after the persecution of Acts 11:19).

A. J. Maclean.

Anem

(1 Chronicles 6:73 only). A town of Issachar, noticed with Ramoth. It appears to answer to En-gazmim (wh. see) in the parallel list (Joshua 21:29).

Aner

1. One of the three Amorite chieftains, the other two being Mamre.’and Eshcol, who were in covenant with Abraham (Genesis 14:13, 24). As Mamre is an old name for Hebron (Genesis 23:2). and Eshcol is the name of a valley not far from Hebron (Numbers 13:23). it is natural to suppose that Aner also was the name of a locality which gave its name to a clan. 2. (1 Chronicles 6:70 only). — A town of Manasseh, west of Jordan. The site is doubtful.

Angel

1 . Old Testament.— That in the OT the existence of angels is taken for granted, and that therefore no account of their origin is given, is to be explained by the fact that belief in them is based upon an earlier Animism,* such as is common to all races in the prepolytheistic stage of culture. The whole material for the development of Israelite angelology was at hand ready to be used. It must therefore not cause surprise if we find that in its earlier stages the differentiation between Jahweh and angels should be one of degree rather than of kind (see Angel of the Lohd). This is clearly brought out in the earliest of the Biblical documents (J), e.g. in Genesis 18; here Jahweh is one of three who are represented as companions, Jahweh taking the leading position, though equal honour is shown to all ; that the two men with Jahweh are angels is directly asserted in 19:1. where we are told that they

This view is supported by the various names in the OT for angels, and their varied functions (see below). went to Sodom, after it had been said in 18 that Jahweh ‘went his way.’ Moreover, Jahweh’s original identity with an angel, according to the early Hebrew conception, is distinctly seen by comparing, for example, such la passage as Exodus 3:2 with v. 4; in the former it Is the ‘angel of the Lord’ who appears in the burning bush, in the latter it is God; there is, furthermore, direct Identification in Genesis 16 21:17 ff. In the earliest document in which angels are mentioned (J) they appear only by twos or threes, in the later document(E) they appear in greater numbers (Genesis 28 32:1, 2) this is just what is to be expected, for J, the earlier document, represents Jahweh in a less exalted form, who Himself comes down to earth, and personally carries out His purposes; by degrees, however, more exalted conceptions of Him obtain, especially as the conception of His characteristic of holiness becomes realized, so that His presence among men comes to appear incongruous and unfitting, and His activity is delegated to His messengers or angels (see Angel OF THE LOKD).

(a) The English word ‘angel’ is too specific for the Hebrew (mal’akh) for which it is the usual equivalent ; for in the Hebrew it is used in reference to men {e.g. Genesis 32:4 W, Deuteronomy 2:26. Judges 6:35, Isaiah 33:7, Mai 1:1). as well as to superhuman beings. Besides the word mal’akh there are several other expressions used for what would come under the category of angels, viz.: ‘sons of God’ (.bene ‘elohim),* Genesis 6:2, 4;’ sons of the mighty’ (bene ‘elim), Psalms 89:7 29:1;’ mighty ones’ (gibborim), Joel 4 (3:11 EV); ‘the holy ones’ (qedoshim). Zee 14; ‘keepers’ (shBmerim), Isaiah 62; ‘watchers’ (‘irim), Daniel 4:14 ("). There are also the three expressions:’ the host of Jahweh’ (zeba’ Jahweh), Joshua 5:14; ‘the host of the height’ (zeba’ marom). Isaiah 24:21; ‘the host of heaven’ (zeba’ shamaim), Deuteronomy 17:3 (see also Cherubim, Sehaphim).

(6) Angels are represented as appearing in human form, and as having many human characteristics: they speak like men (1 Kings 19:5) they eat (Genesis 18:8) they fight (Genesis 32:1, Joel 4 (3:11). cf. 2 Samuel 5:24) they possess wisdom, with which that of men is compared (2 Samuel 14:17, 20) ; they have imperfections (Job 4:18). On the other hand, they can become Invisible (2 Kings 6:17, Psalms 104:4), and they can fly, it, as appears to be the case, seraphim are to be included under the category of angels (Isaiah 6:6).

(c) The functions of angels may be briefly summarized thus: they guide men, e.g. an angel guides the children of Israel on their way to the promised land (Exodus 23:20 ff.: see below), and it is by the guidance of an angel that Abraham’s servant goes in quest of a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:7, 40) in Job 33:23 an angel guides a man in what is right ; t they are more especially the guides of the prophets (1 Kings 13:18 IQ’"-, 2 Kings 1:3, 15. Zee 1:9) they bring evil and destruction upon men (2 Samuel 24:16, 17. 2 Kings 19:35. Psalms 35:6 78:49. Job 33:22; in Proverbs 16:14 the wrath of a king is likened to angels of death) ; on the other hand, they are the protectors of men (Psalms 34:8 W 91:11). and save them from destruction (Genesis 19:15 ff.) their power is superhuman(2 K 6:17. t cf. Zee 12:8) they report to God what is going on upon the earth (Job 1 2:1). for which purpose they are represented as riding on horseback (Zee l’-‘", cf. Psalms 18:11 u°). Isaiah 19:1 5); their chief duty above is that of praising God (Genesis 28:12. Psalms 103:20). Angelic beings seem to be referred to as’ watchmen’ in Isaiah 62:6 and Daniel 4:14 ("). An early mythological element regarding angels is perhaps re-echoed in such passages as Judges 5:20. Isaiah 40:25, 26. and elsewhere.

(d) In Ezekiel, angels, under this designation, are never mentioned, though the angelology of this book

Cf. the analogous expression ‘sons of the prophets’ (bene nebi’im).

t The word used in this passage is not the usual one for angel, though its sense of messenger’ (mellz) is the same as that of mal’dkh.

X Though not specifically stated, angels are obviously referred to here.

5 Cf . the WalkuTe in Teutonic mythology. shows considerable development; other names are given to them, but their main function, viz. messengers of God, is the same as in the earlier books; for example, in 2:2 it is a ‘spirit,’ instead of an ‘angel,’ who acts as an intermediary being, see, too, 3:12 ff. 11:5 ff.; in 8:1 ff. 40:1 a vision is attributed to ‘the hand of the Lord’; in 40:3 ff. it is a ‘man’ of a supernatural kind who instructs the prophet; and again, in Q**- ‘men,’ though clearly not of human kind (see v. 11). destroy the wicked in Jerusalem. In Ezk., as well as in Zee., angels take up a very definite position of intermediate beings between God and man, one of their chief functions being that of interpreting visions which Divine action creates in the mind of men; in both these books angels are called ‘men,’ and in both the earlier idea of the ‘Angel of the Lord’ has its counterpart in the prominent position taken up by some particular angel who is the interpreter of visions. In Zee. different orders of angels are for the first time mentioned (2:3, 4 3:1–6 4:1). In Daniel there is a further development ; the angels are termed ‘watchers’ (.i"- "), and ‘princes’ (10:13) they have names, e.g. Michael (10:13 12:1)., ^Gabriel (8:16), and there are special angels (‘princes’) who fight for special nations (lO^"- As in Zee. so in Daniel there are different orders among the angels, but in the latter book the different categories are more fully developed.

In the attitude taken up in these later books we may see the link between the earlier belief and its development in post-Biblical Jewish literature. The main factors which contributed to this development were, firstly, Babylon; during the Captivity, Babylonian influence upon the Jews asserted itself in this as well as in other respects; according to Jewish tradition the names of the angels came from Babylon. Secondly, Persian influence was of a marked character in post-exilic times; the Zoroastrian belief that Ormuzd had a host of pure angels of light who surrounded him and fulfilled his commands, was a ready-made development of the Jewish belief, handed down from much earlier times, that angels were the messengers of Jahweh. Later still, a certain amount of Greek influence was also exercised upon Jewish angelology.

2. The Apocrypha. — Some of the characteristics of angels here are identical with some of those found in the OT, viz.: they appear in human form (2 Esdras 1:40). they speak like men (Tobit 5). they guide men (v. 21). they bring destruction upon men (1 Maccabees 7:41, 42) on the other hand, they heal men (Tobit 3:17). their power is superhuman (12:19. Bel Three and they praise God (2 Esdras 8:21. Three "). The angelology of the Apocrypha is, however, far more closely allied to that of Ezk., Zee., and Daniel than the angelology of these to that of the rest of the OT; this will be clearly seen by enumerating briefly the main characteristics of angels as portrayed in the Apocrypha.

In 2 Esdras an angel frequently appears as an instructor of heavenly things; thus in lO^s an angel causes Esdras to fall into a trance in order to receive instruction in spiritual matters; in Z’‘, after an angel has instructed Esdras, the latter is commanded to tell others what he had learned; sometimes an angel is identified with God, e.g. in S^"- " 7:3. but usually there is very distinct differentiation; sometimes the angel seems almost to be the alter ego of Esdras, arguing with himself (cf. S^‘- 12:3 ff.). In Tobit 12:6–15 there are some important details, — here an angel instructs in manner of life, but more striking is the teaching that he brings to remembrance before God the prayers of the faithful, and that he superintends the burial of the dead ; he has a name, Raphael,-^ and is one of the seven holy angels (’ archangels ‘) who present the prayers of the saints, and who go constantly in and out before the presence of God ;

(3f ., in Egyptian belief, the similar functions of Isis and Nephthys.

f Names of angels occur also in 2 Esdras, viz.: Jeremiel (4). PhaUid (5:16). and Urid (lO^s). that there are ranks among the angels is thus taught here more categorically than in the later Biblical books. Further, the idea of guardian-angels is characteristic of the Apocrypha; that individuals have their guardian-angels is clearly implied in Tobit 5:21. that armies have such is taught in 2 Maccabees 11:6 15:23. while in 2 Maccabees 3:25 ff. occurs a Jewish counterpart of the Roman legend of Castor and Pollux; there is possibly, in Sirach 17:17. an indication that nations also have their guardian-angels; if so, it would be the lineal descendant of the early Israelite belief in national gods. The dealings of angels with men are of a very varied character, for besides the details already enumerated, we have these further points: in Baruch 6:3 ff. an angel is to be the means whereby the Israelites in Babylon shall be helped to withstand the temptation to worship the false gods of the land; in Tobit 6 an angel describes a method whereby an evil spirit may be driven away; in v. 8 an angel gives a remedy for healing blindness; in Bel ^s- an angel takes the prophet Habakkuk by the hair and carries him from Judah to Babylonia, in order that he may share his dinner with Daniel in the lion’s den; and, once more, in Three 27 an angel smites the flame of the furnace into which the three heroes had been cast, and makes a cool wind to blow in its place (cf. Daniel 3:23 ff.).

It will thus be seen that the activities of angels are, according to the Apocrypha, of a very varied character. One further important tact remains to be noted: they are almost invariably the benefactors of man, their power far transcends that of man, sometimes an angel is identified with God, yet in spite of this, with one possible exception, 2 Maccabees 4:10–13. no worship is ever offered to them; this is true also of the OT, excepting when an angel is identified with Jahweh ; in the NT there is at least one case of the worship of an angel, Revelation 22:8, 9, cf. Colossians 2:18. The angelology of the Apocrypha is expanded to an almost unlimited extent in later Jewish writings, more especially in the Book of Enoch, in the Targums, and in the Talmud; but with these we are not concerned here.

3. New Testament. — (a) In the Gospeis it is necessary to differentiate between what is said by Christ Himself on the subject and what is narrated by the Evangelists. Christ’s teaching regarding angels may be summed up thus: Their dwelling-place is in heaven (Matthew 18:10, Luke 12:8, 9. John 1:51) they are superior to men, but in the world to come the righteous shall be on an equality with them (Luke 20) they carry away the souls of the righteous to a place of rest (Luke 6:22) they are (as seems to be implied) of neither sex (Matthew 22:30) they are very numerous (Matthew 26:53) they will appear with Christ at His second coming [it is in connexion with this that most of Christ’s references to angels are made Mt: 13:39 16:27 24:31 25:31. Mark 8:38. Luke 9:26. cf. John 1:51) there are bad as well as good angels (Matthew 25:41), though it is usually of the latter that mention is made; they are limited in knowledge (Matthew 24) there are guardian-angels of children (Matthew 18:10) they rejoice at the triumph of good (Luke 15:10). Turning to the Evangelists, we find that the main function of angels is to deliver God’s messages to men {.e.g. Matthew 1:20 2:10 28:5. Luke 1:28 24:23). on only one occasion are angels brought into direct contact with Christ (Matthew 4:11. with ttie parallel passage Mkl"), and it is noteworthy that in the corresponding verse in the Third Gospel (Luke 4:13) there is no mention of angels. Thus the main differences between Christ’s teaching on angels and that which went before are that they are not active among men, their abode and their work are rather in the realms above; they are not the intermediaries between God and men, for it is either Christ Himself, or the Holy Spirit, who speaks directly to men; much emphasis is laid on their presence with Christ at His second coming. On the other hand,

Cf . this idea in the case of the Angel of the Lord (which ""e) the earlier belief is reflected in the Gospel angelophanies, which are a marked characteristic of the Nativity and Resurrection narratives; though here, too, a distinct and significant difference is found in that the angel is always clearly differentiated from God.

(i>) In the Acts there seems to be a return to the earlier beliefs, angelic appearances to men being frequently mentioned (5:19 7:30 l l’» 12:8 etc.); their activity in the affairs of men is in somewhat startling contrast with the silence of Christ on the subject. It is possible that most of the references in the Acts will permit of an explanation in the direction of the angelical appearances being subjective visions (e.g. 8 10:3 27) but such occurrences as are recorded in 5:19, 20 12:7 (both belonging to the Petrine ministry) would require a different explanation; while that mentioned in 12:23 would seem to be the popular explanation of an event which could easily be accounted for now in other ways. The mention, in 12:15. of what is called St. Peter’s ‘angel’ gives some insight into the current popular views concerning angels; it seems clear that a distinction was made between an angel and a spirit (Acts 23:8, 9).

(c) In the Pauline Epistles the origin of angels is stated to be their creation by Christ (Colossians 1:16) ; as in the Acts, they are concerned with the affairs of men (1 Corinthians 4:9 lli», Romans 8:38. 1 Timothy 5:21) at the same time St. Paul emphasizes the teaching of Christ that God speaks to men directly, and not through the intermediacy of angels (Galatians 1:12. cf. Acts 9:5) in Colossians 2:18 a warning against the worshipping of angels is uttered, with which compare the worshipping of demons in 1 Corinthians 10:21; in accordance with Christ’s teaching St. Paul speaks of the presence of angels at the Second Coming (2 Thessalonians 1:7).

(d) In the Ep. to the Hebrews the standpoint, as would be expected, is that of the OT, while in the Apocalypse the angelology is that common to other apocalyptic literature (cf. also the archangel of Jude >).

w/ T? dTPSTPUT PY

Angel of the Lord

Angel of the lord (JAHWEH), called also the ‘Angel of God.’ — He occupies a special and unique position; he is not merely one among the angels, albeit a great one, but one sui generis, in a special way Jahweh’s representative among men. He may be regarded as in some sense the guardian-angel of the nation of Israel, in that he appears to be the nation’s representative at important crises (e.g. Genesis 22:11, 15 ff.: Exodus 3:2 14:19 23:23, Numbers 22:22. Judges 6:11. 2 Kings 1:3. Zee 1:9).

Hebrews 99 in human form, and most of the characteristics of angels generally are his. The main difficulty with regard to him is that while in some passages he is identified with Jahweh Himself (e.g. Genesis 48. Judges 6:11–24). in others there is a distinct differentiation, (e.g. Genesis 16:11 21:17 24:7; in this last he is spoken of as having been sent from Jahweh); this differentiation becomes more and more marked in the later books (e.g. Zee V^). The contradiction here presented can be adequately explained only on the supposition that the evolution of thought on the subject must have run somewhat on the following lines. From the earliest angelology of the Hebrews, itself the offspring of still earlier Animisticconceptions (see Angel), there emerged the figure of Jahweh; originally, i.e. long before the time of Moses, Jahweh must, in the popular mind, have been regarded as belonging to the angelic host, and by degrees He assumed a more and more exalted position; as subjective revelation increased, the more fully did the personality of Jahweh become realized, and His superiority to the angels recognized, though in the process it was inevitable that the differentiation should not always be complete. When ultimately, under the Mosaic dispensation, the holy character and the real nature of Jahweh began to be apprehended, the belief that He personally appeared among men necessarily became more and more untenable; hence, while Jahweh Himself receded further from men. His messenger, or angel, appeared in His stead, and became

C 33 His representative in all His dealings with men. What must have been such a revolution in the time-honoured faith would meet with many retrograde movements before it finally triumphed, as is shown by such passages as Judges 6:19 ff. Some such process must be predicated in order to understand the otherwise unaccountable contradiction referred to above.

The angel of the Lord spoken of in the NT (e.g. Matthew 1:20. Luke 2:9) must not be confounded with the OT ‘Angel of Jahweh’; an OT parallel is to be found rather in such a passage as Zee 3:6, 7, where the angel is one of a kind, not the only one of his kind.

W. O. E. Oestebley.

Angels of the Seven Churches

Angels of the seven churches (Revelation 1:20 2. 3). — 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. Haggai 1:13. Mai 2:7. 2 Corinthians 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 v. 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 (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 — (1) the fact that throughout the rest of the book the Gr. word, which is of very frequent occurrence, is invariably used in this sense; (2) our Lord’s utterance in Matthew 18:10. which suggests a doctrine of angelic guardianship;(3) the fact that in Daniel, to which the Apocalypse is so closely related, the guardianship of angels is extended to nations (12:1). The objections, however, are serious. No definite Scriptural teaching can be adduced in favour of the idea that churches have their guardian-angels. Messages intended for churches would hardly be addressed to celestial beings. Moreover, it is scarcely conceivable that such beings would be identified with particular churches in all their infidelities and shortcomings and transgressions, as these angels are (see, e.g., 3:1, 15 ff.)

3. The most probable view, accordingly, is that the angels are personifications of their churches — not actual persons either on earth or in heaven, but ideal representatives. It is the church, of course, that receives the letter, the ‘Thou’ of address having manifestly a collective force, and it is to the church itself that the letter is sent (cf. 1:11. where there is no mention of the angels). The idea of angels was suggested, no doubt, by the later Jewish beliefs on the subject, but it is used in a figurative manner which suits the whole figurative treatment, where the glorified Jesus walks among the golden candlesticks, and sends to the churches messages that are couched in highly metaphorical language. It might seem to be against this ideal view that the seven churches, as candlesticks, are definitely distinguished from the seven angels, as stars (l’^- "■ ‘i). But it is quite in keeping with the inevitable distinction between an actual and an ideal ^urch that they should be thus contrasted as a lamp and a star. J. C. Lambert.

Anger

In OT ‘anger’ represents about a dozen Heb. roots, which occur as nouns, vbs. (once ‘angered’ is used transitively, Psalms 106:32). and adjs. By tar the most frequent words are anaph (lit. ‘to snort’) and its deriv. noun aph, which is used of the anger both of men (Genesis 27:45 30:2. bx hs 32:19 etc.) and God (Exodus 4:14 32:22. Psalms 6:1 7:6 etc.). In NT ‘anger’ is of much less frequent occurrence, and represents only 2 roots: (1) the noun orgs (wh., however, is usually tr. ‘wrath’), the vb. orgizomai, the adj. orgilos (only in Titus 1:7). and the trans. vb. parorgizd (Romans 10:19. the only case of a trans, use of ‘anger’ in NT); (2) the vb. cholaB (lit. ‘to be full of bile,’ fr. choli, ‘bile’), used only in John 7:23 to express the bitter anger of ‘the Jews’ against Jesus. With regard to the distinction between orge and the synon. thumos, it is to be noted that while orgi is very often tr. ‘wrath,’ thumos is never tr. ‘anger,’ and when the two words occur together, thumos in each case is ‘wrath’ (Romans 2:8. Ephesians 4:31. Colossians 3:8) and orge ‘anger’(Eph 4. Colossians 3:8) or ‘indignation’ (Romans 2:8). Thumos is the more violent word, denoting anger as a strong passion or emotion, while orgB points rather to a settled moral indignation. Thus orge is used of the sorrowful anger of Jesus (Mark 3:5) ; thumos of the rage of His enemies (Luke 4:28; cf. Acts 19:28). And, outside of the Apocalypse, thmnos is applied almost exclusively to the wrath of men (the only exception being Romans 2:8). while orgl in the great majority of cases (Matthew 3:7, John 3:36, Romans 1:18 etc.) denotes the righteous indignation of God. J. C. Lambert.