ANGEL OF THE LORD (JAHWEH)

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 fre-quently mentioned (5" 7=° ll'» 12' etc.); their activity in the affairs of men is in somewhat startUng 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 ap-pearances being subjective visions (e.g. 8* 10' 2723- "); but such occurrences as are recorded in 5"- '" 12' (both belonging to the Petrine ministry) would require a different explanation; while that mentioned in 12» would seem to be the popular explanation of an event which could easily be accounted for now in other ways. The mention, in 12'5, of what is called St. Peter's ' angel ' gives some insight into the current popular views con-cerning angels; it seems clear that a distinction was made between an angel and a spirit (Ac 23*- ').

(c) In the Pauline Epistles the origin of angels is stated to be their creation by Christ (Col 1") ; as in the Acts, they are concerned with the affairs of men (1 Co 4« lli», Ro 8'8, 1 Ti 5»); at the same time St. Paul em-phasizes the teaching of Christ that God speaks to men directly, and not through the intermediacy of angels (Gal 1'^, cf. Ac 9*); in Col 2" a warning against the worshipping of angels is uttered, with which compare the worshipping of demons in 1 Co lO^i; in accordance with Christ's teaching St. Paul speaks of the presence of angels at the Second Coming (2 Th 1').

(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 (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. Gn 22"- ««-, Ex 3^ 14" 2Z'^, Nu 22«, Jg 6", 2 K 13, Zee 1»).

He appears in human form, and most of the char-acteristics of angels generally are his. The main diffi-culty with regard to him is that while in some passages he is identified with Jahweh Himself (e.g. Gn 48"- ", Jg 6"-^), in others there is a distinct differentiation, (e.g. Gn 16" 21" 24'; 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

ANGER

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 Jg e""- 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. Mt V, Lk 2°) 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'- ', where the angel is one of a kind, not the only one of his kind.

W. O. E. Oestebley.

ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES (Rev 12° 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. Hag 1", Mai 2', 2 Co 6*"), 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 repre-sentatives, 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.'). But if the responsibility put upon the angels is too great for bishops, it is much too great for any lesser function- aries. Besides, the glory and dignity assigned to them as the stars of the churches (1^°) 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 Mt 18'°, which suggests a doctrine of angelic guardian-ship; (3) the fact that in Daniel, to which the Apocalypse is so closely related, the guardianship of angels is extended to nations (12'). 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'- ""■).

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 repre-sentatives. 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", 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 '