Angels of the seven churches (Hastings' Dictionary)

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 latest parts of the Pent. (Lv 10=, N-i !«• 18»; cf. Ex 12'» 30'^ Nu 8'"— all from P). The Book of Genesis, remarkably enough, has no men- tion of the wrath of God, though its equivalent is there in repeated manifestations of God s judgment on sin (expulsion from Eden, cursing of the ground, flaming sword, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.)

Ritschl's view of the Biblical development has features of its own.

He rightly conceives of wrath as connected with the divine holiness, but would interpret the latter attribute as expressing originally only the notion of God as the exalted, powerful, unapproachable One, to draw neai to whom would mean instant destruction for the creature ; and sees the peculiar manifestation of wrath, accordingly, under OT conditions, in a sudden, unexpected, and violent destruction of the life of those who had violated the obligations of the covenant (Rccht. und Ver. ii. pp.

93, 125, 135, 136). We can only urge in reply that there is no stage in the OT revelation in which the ideas of transcendence over the world, and of moral per- fection, are not already united in the conception of holiness. The instances which most readily suggest an outburst of destructive energy apart from moral considerations, are those in which indi^•iduals or companies are smitten for what may seem very slight faults, or acts of inadvertence {e.g. 1 S 4'*- ^, 2 § 2').

But even in these instances a careful examination will show that it is the moral sanctity of the divine character which is the ground of the special awfulness with which it is invested. When, finally, we pass from the OT to the NT, we find that the notion of God's wrath is not essentially altered, though the revelation of love and grace which now fills the vision places it comparatively in the background.

The Marcionite view, which would represent the contrast between the God of the OT and the God of the NT as that between a wrathful avenging Deity and a loving Father who is incapable of anger, is, on the face of it, incorrect. The pitying, fatherly character of God is not absent from OT (Ex 34'- ", Ps 103''), but, even there, is rather the primary basis of God's self-revelation, to which the mani- festation of wrath and judgment is subordinate. He is 'slow to a.' (Ps 103' et al.), and 'fury (w.

) is not in' Him (Is 27^). On the other hand, the fatherly love of God in NT does not exclude the aspect of Him as 'Judge' (1 P 1"), and 'a consuming fire' (He 12^), whose wTath is a terrible reality, from which Christ alone can save us (Jn 3", Ro V>-^' 5», 1 Th 11" etc.) In this connexion Ritschl labours hard to show that ' wrath ' in NT has (as in OT prophets) uniformly an eschatological reference, and does not apply to the present con- dition.

He goes even further, and challenges its right to a place in the Christian system at all. ' The notion of the affection of wrath in God,' he says, 'has no religious worth for Christians, but is an unfixed and formless theologoumenon' {Recht. und Ver. ii. p. 154). It is no doubt true that the eschatological asjiect of wrath is prominent in NT .

and that for the reason already given the WTath of God throughout recedes into the background, and becomes, as it were, an attribute in reserve (Ro 2°, 3**) ; but many indications warn us that it is onhj in reserve, and is still there in its unchanged character, and rests with its heavy weight upon the disobedient (.In 3^, Eph 2, '); nay, that in a most real sense its etl'ects are manifest in the terrible retributions for sin exacted from men even here (Mt 23"- '«, Ro P'-", Ac .5'-" etc.)

And if the objec- tion is urued, as it will be by many, that the attri- bution of wrath or anger to God (otherwise than as the reflection of the sinner's distrustful thought* regarding Him) is an unworthy mode of con- ception, and derogates from the divine perfection.

ANGLE ANXAS 99 It may at least with equal justice be repliert that a Ruler of the universe who was incapaole of being moved with an int«nse moral indignation at sin, and of putting forth, when occasion required, a destroying energy against it, would be lacking in an essential element of moral perfection ; nor would either the righteousness or the mercy of sncb a Being have any longer a substantive value. LmRATPRB.— Weber Vom Zamt Gottet, 1862; Ritschl De Ira Dei, 1859, Recht. und Ver. ii. pp.

89-148 ; Oehler Theology V O.T. 1. pp. 151-168 (Eng. tr.); Schultz O.T. Theology, ii. yg- 187-179 ; D. W. Simon The Redemption tff J/otv— ch. v. 'The Anger ot God"; DaJo The AUmemeiU, Lect. VIII. ; Lux Mundi, pp. 285-288. J. QKR. ANGLE occurs only as a subst.. Is 19* 'all they that cast a. into the "brooks' ; Hab 1" 'They take up all of them with the a.' In Job 41', the only other occurrence of the Heb. word (njn), the tr. is ' hook ' (RV ' fish-hook '). See FisHINO. J. Hastings.

ANGLO-SAXON YERSION.-See Versions.