Beacon dictionary of theology

ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL. The name may apply to either the Christian catechetical school which originated with Pantaenus (c. 180) in Alexandria, Egypt, or to a school of Christian thought developed there by such famous teachers as Clement (150-216) and Origen (185-254). The school finally closed because of local theological controversies at the close of the fourth century, but the influence of its teachers on all subsequent Christianity has been unceasing.

The greatest significance of this school lay in bringing Greek philosophy, particularly Plato-nism and Stoicism, to the service of Christian theology, creating what is commonly known as Christian Platonism. The impact of this union upon Christianity as a whole is inestimable. Its mystical theology set the permanent patterns of Eastern Orthodox thought; through Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian Fathers this interpretation of Christianity in Neoplatonic categories passed into the mainstream of the church's life. By the end of the eighth century speculative Alexandrian theology had overcome the opposition of the more historically oriented school at Antioch. Through the growing influence of the teaching of Augustine, the mystical theology of Alexandria soon became dominant in the Western church as well.

Largely rejected by the Reformers, Alexandrian theology nevertheless has left its impact upon Protestantism. In England it became the theological base for the Cambridge Platonism of the 17th century. Its emphases upon (1) all truth being God's truth wherever it may be found; (2) the permeation of all creation with the active presence of the Logos, who is leading all persons to the truth; and (3) wholehearted love of God as the goal and sum of Christian perfection, contributed to the central Wesleyan doctrines of pre-venient grace and perfect love. Wesley's Christian Library drew heavily upon Macarius, the Greek fathers, and the Cambridge Platonists.

The Alexandrian School will always be a source of controversy in Christian theology, not only because of its use of speculative allegory in interpreting Scripture, but because its union of

Greek and biblical thought in the service of Christian theology continually raises two radically contradictory responses. The abiding issue is: Was Greek thought radically altered by being Christianized, or, Was Christian teaching radically altered by being Hellenized?

See antioch (school of), allegorical interpretation, platonism.

For Further Reading: Biggs, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria; Oulton and Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity; Sellers, Two Ancient Theologies.

Melvin Easterday Dieter

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION. This is a method of interpreting the Bible which is based on the assumption that the narratives of Scripture are divinely designed to represent hidden spiritual truths, and that the task of the interpreter is to get behind the literal sense to the intended allegorical meaning. The method was used by Philo of Alexandria, later adopted by Origen and the Alexandrian School. Augustine also was prone to allegorical interpretation. For example, he allegorized the parable of the Good Samaritan by forcing a correspondence between each detail of the parable and the gospel plan of salvation.

There is little allegorical interpretation, as such, in Scripture. One instance is Paul's reference to the "allegory" of Hagar and Sarah as representing two covenants, one of bondage and one of freedom (Gal. 4:21-25). A different type of allegory is found in Eccles. 12:1-7; John 10:1-16; and Eph. 6:1-17.

A parable differs from an allegory, inasmuch as a parable is a true-to-life illustration, or extended metaphor, which is designed primarily to teach one truth. The allegory, in contrast, is an illustration so designed that each detail represents a corresponding spiritual meaning. Often modern Christians mistakenly attempt to treat parables as allegories.

Allegorical interpretation, in which one finds hidden meanings in casual details of events and personages, leads to uncontrolled speculation, resulting in a bewildering variety of theories and fancies.

Although the lessons which can be drawn from historical narratives and events may be apt, and may be edifying, they are not to be understood as a discovery of the true meaning or interpretation of the passage itself. Seeing events as illustrative of truth, and making practical applications to everyday life, is not the same as seeing events as representing a divinely written code language.


34

ALLEGORY—AMBASSADOR

Doctrines may therefore be supported and illustrated by allegorical application but not established or grounded on such, excepting in those few cases where we have clear NT support for such procedure.

See allegory, hermeneutics.

For Further Reading: Baker's Dictionary of Practical
Theology, ed. Turnbull, 99-147; Taylor, Preaching Holi-
ness Today, 99-106. MlLTON S. AGNEW

ALLEGORY. Greek fl//os, "other," and agoreuo, "to speak in a place of assembly" (agora, the marketplace). The term has come to mean a veiled presentation in a figurative story of a meaning metaphorically implied but not expressly stated. It may be called a prolonged metaphor, such as Pilgrim's Progress. Allegory produces a dual interest—in the story and in the ideas or truths being conveyed. The incidents may be historical or fictitious. An allegory always veils its true meaning (its underlying or allegorical sense) by leaving that to be deduced from the story it tells. There may be more than one allegorical meaning.

See allegorical interpretation.

Milton S. Agnew

ALPHA AND OMEGA. These two terms are the names of the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. The compound expression is of great theological significance because in the NT it is used as a title for God and also for Christ.

All three of its occurrences are in the Book of Revelation (1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Neither term is found elsewhere in the NT. (The KJV has the expression in Rev. 1:11, but it is not in the best Greek text.) It is generally held that God is the Speaker in 1:8 and 21:6. Without question Christ applies this title to himself in 22:13. This is one of John's strong affirmations of the full deity of Jesus.

The meaning of the title—literally, "the Alpha and the Omega"—is given in 21:6 as "the Beginning and the End" and in 22:13 as also "the First and the Last" (Niv). Not only is God the Beginning and End of all things, but Christ, as Creator and Redeemer, is in a unique way the Beginning and End of all history. The main thrust of the title is on the eternity of God and of Christ. Swete says: "The phrase is seen to express not eternity only, but infinitude, the boundless life which embraces all while it transcends all" (Apocalypse of St. John, 11).

See christ.

For Further Reading: Baker's DT, 37-38; ZPEB, 1:111.

Ralph Earle

ALTAR. An altar is a structure or place where religious rites are performed and offerings are made to God.

In the OT, the Hebrew word for altar is "slaughter," usually signifying an elevated structure where sacrifices were made. However, incense was burned on the altar of incense (Exod. 30:1-7). An altar could be made from a mound of earth (20:24), an unhewn stone (v. 25), or bronze (2 Kings 16:15). A large rock became the central place of sacrifice on Mount Moriah (2 Sam. 24:15-25) and can now be seen in Jerusalem under the Moslem prayer place, the Dome of the Rock.

The altar reminded Israel that "without shedding of blood is no remission" of sin (Heb. 9:22).

In the NT, thusiasterion, place of sacrifice, refers either to the Temple altar or a pagan altar until Heb. 13:10, when the concept is spiritualized. The Christian's altar is the place where the soul meets God on the basis of faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice. The believer thus erects his own altar in his heart. He may also think of it as a place where he meets God.

However, when the church reverted to a Juda-istic type of formalism, the visible altar in the church again became the center of worship. So it is today not only in Roman Catholicism but in so-called high Protestant churches.

In revivalistic circles another type of altar has come into vogue, a kneeling rail or bench to which penitents or other distressed persons are invited to come for prayer. With some denominations this kind of an altar has virtually become a hallmark. Whether it is a crude bench or one of finished craftsmanship, it becomes a place to meet God, to pray, to receive members, to baptize, to give marriage vows, and to make commitments of life to God.

The term family altar applies to the practice of worshipping God as a family, usually in a semi-structured setting and routine.

See prayer, worship, atonement.

For Further Reading: IDB, 1:96-100; Child and Colles, Christian Symbols; Stafford, Christian Symbolism in the Evangelical Church; Oke, We Have an Altar.

J. Ottis Sayes

AMBASSADOR. An ambassador is an official representative sent by or to a sovereign power. By regulations adopted at the Congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle and accepted by all nations, diplomatic agents are divided into four classes, the highest of which is ambassador (see Webster's New International Dictionary).

In the OT ambassadors were distinguished

AMILLENNIALISM—ANATHEMA

35

messengers, but something less than absolute representatives entitled to the same honors as their sovereigns. The word "ambassador" is the rendering of three different Hebrew words, mal'ak, messenger, sir, envoy, melis, interpreter (2 Chron. 35:21; Josh. 9:4; 2 Chron. 32:31).

Evangelical interest in the word centers around the NT usage where it is rendered from the Greek words presbeuo (2 Cor. 5:20; Eph. 6:20) and presbeia (Luke 14:32). As used by Paul, "ambassador" gives to every Christian witness the dignity of being a representative of the King of Kings.

Careful interpretation of the Scriptures seems to lend authority to the scriptural believer who proclaims the "Thus saith the Lord," but to remind him of his creatureliness, thus restraining him from claiming excessive honors or "diplomatic immunity." He is a "voice," a messenger.

See evangelist, apostle, great commission, testimony.

For Further Reading: Baker's DT; Fallows, Zenos, Wil-
lett, Bible Encyclopedia; Purkiser, The NT Image of the
Ministry, 41 ft. john E. RlLEY

AMILLENNIALISM. This view finds traditional premillennialism impossible and therefore interprets the 1,000-year reign of Christ with His saints (Rev. 20:4) spiritually, not literally. This interpretation usually takes one of two forms: Those who come to life again may refer to those who have been martyred by the Beast, the Antichrist. Contrary to appearances when they were martyred, they really were not dead. Rather, they lived with Christ in heaven throughout the Church age.

The other interpretation is that the "millennial" passage refers to the Church. It is to be understood in light of such passages as Eph. 2:1-6: "And you he made alive, when you were dead through [your] trespasses and sins . . . even when we were dead through our trespasses [he] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him" (rsv). The binding of Satan has an analogy at Matt. 12:26-29, where Jesus speaks of a binding of Satan He has accomplished.

The main reason for interpreting Revelation 20 in an amillennial manner is that this is the only passage in the NT that speaks of such an event.

Two things must be admitted. First, usually the NT sees the resurrection of redemption occurring at the second coming of Christ; and second, a premillennial interpretation is also beset by some theological difficulties. Two other points could be emphasized: Those who hold the amillennial interpretation do so because they are convinced that the NT demands it. However, those who reject the amillennial interpretation argue that if the phrase about coming to life in verse 5 refers to eschatological resurrection, which is generally admitted, then the same word in verse 4 must refer to the same kind of event, viz., bodily resurrection, with the 1,000 years intervening.

See millennium, premillennialism, postmillen-nialism, resurrection of the body.

For Further Reading: Ludwigson, A Survey of Bible Prophecy; Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God; Hughes, A New Heaven and a New Earth.

George Eldon Ladd

ANABAPTISTS. See rebaptism.

ANALOGY. Analogy exists when a term applied to one thing is directed to another in a related, though not identical, thus analogical, sense. For instance, creation reflects the Creator. If parallels can be drawn, analogies exist to some extent.

As Thielicke suggests, there is scant, if any, relation between a man and a star, with only slight similarity between man and dog; but through Christian truth there is an encounter that concerns man's existence, that touches his personal identity, and thus applies to him unconditionally. On that account vital major analogical relevance is presupposed.

Harvey notes that analogy answers two vital theological questions: (1) How can one make significant statements about the infinite in concepts that are derived from the finite? (2) How can one draw inferences about the nature of the Creator from the created, and thus provide the basis for natural theology that requires no special appeal to revelation? Roman Catholic use of analogy of being, analogia entis, was rigorously attacked by Barth, who argued that when theologians embrace it, they create an intolerable division between all general knowledge of God and knowledge of His action as revealed in Jesus Christ.

See natural theology, anthropomorphism.

For Further Reading: Gundry, Tensions in Contemporary Theology; Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms; Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith.

Mel-Thomas Rothwell

ANALYTICISM. See positivism.

ANATHEMA. A thing or person which is under the ban, forbidden, untouchable, polluted, accursed. Some interpret the word to mean "the object of a curse"—that which has been found as taking an unworthy place and, hence, has been


36

ANGEL

cursed or ruled forbidden. The word occurs in 1 Cor. 16:22—"If any one has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed [anathema]" (rsv). Anathema thus signifies a thing or person devoted to destruction. The Jews, in pronouncing any man anathema, were pronouncing a curse upon him.

Another strong use of "anathema" is in Gal. 1:8-9. Here Paul uses the term in reference to anyone, even though an angel, who would dare dilute or distort the gospel. Such is termed "anathema" or accursed.

But to pronounce such a curse on Jesus would be impossible, if the Holy Spirit is in charge (1 Cor. 12:3).

Paul's desire to see his fellow Jews saved was so intense that he went so far as to be willing to be "anathema" himself, if such personal loss would bring about their faith (Rom. 9:3).

These NT renderings would imply the category of the finally lost. At the judgment, those accursed will be banished.

If Paul's imprecations seem unchristian, it should be remembered that the Holy Spirit was prompting him to remind the church (and us) of what was already a solemn, inherent fact. Deu-teronomoy was God's proffer to the Israelites of either blessing or cursing—the option was theirs. In the NT we learn that this option hangs not now on the Mosaic Law but on one's attitude toward Jesus Christ.

See unbelief, apostasy, eternal punishment. For Further Reading: BBC, 8:483; 9:30; Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the NT, ad loc.

C. Neil Strait

ANGEL. The term "angel" is derived from the Greek word angelos. The English word denotes a supernatural being; the Greek word, like its Hebrew counterpart, may additionally mean any kind of messenger.

In the Old Testament. Two distinguishable uses are found. First, there is the "angel of the Lord" who comes to give help or guidance to the individual or nation in need and who is usually recognized as one in whom God himself is present and is treated accordingly (Gen. 16:13; 22:15-16; 31:11-13). Second, there are heavenly beings who are sharply distinguished from God (Gen. 28:12-13; 32:1-2). These are variously called "sons of God" (Job 1:6), "the host of heaven" (1 Kings 22:19)—and are regarded as divine servants or attendants (Isa. 6:2).

Between the Testaments. Already in the OT the doctrine of angels was developing. In the Book of Daniel they are presented as intermediaries between God and men (4:13, 17; 7:10); as rulers and guardians (10:13, 21); and they are individualized by being given personal names (8:16; 10:13). This tendency was greatly increased during the period between the Testaments in the belief that this was the fulfilment of OT teaching. In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha angels are arranged in hierarchies; while in the Dead Sea Scrolls they are ranged on opposing sides, light and darkness, each side under a leading angel or prince. In all of this, however, there is no suggestion that the angels are divine or independent. Always they are seen as subordinate to Yahweh, representing His presence and power; and even though on occasion they are pictured as presenting men's prayers to God (Enoch 99:3), it is not as intercessors so much as conveyors of men's petitions.

In the New Testament. The Greek word angelos is used approximately 175 times in the NT, only 6 of which refer to human messengers. The remainder, referring to supernatural beings, are concentrated in the Synoptic Gospels (51), the Acts of the Apostles (21), and the Book of Revelation (67), with the balance chiefly in the Pauline Epistles. However, Paul uses other terms to refer to evil angels (e.g., "principalities and powers") which increase the incidence considerably. In general, the NT writers take over the views of the OT and of Judaism on the subject; angels are mentioned in a purely incidental way; there is no direct teaching about them.

Aside from Paul the NT teaching is that in nature, angels are part of God's invisible creation, though capable of visiblity when occasion requires (Acts 10:3; 12:15). They are possessed of free will (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6) and knowledge, though of a limited variety (Mark 13:32). Little stress is laid on their individuality, however. Only two are named: Gabriel (Luke 1:19) and Michael (Jude 9). Their qualities of power (Rev. 10:1) and glory (Luke 2:9; 24:4) are stressed more than their personality; and in some contexts there seems to be an intent to reduce the estimation of them as much as possible (Heb. 1:14). Not only is there no suggestion of equality between the angels and Jesus (v. 4); it is repeatedly insisted that the saints themselves are greater (2:16; Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9).

In function, apart from their engagement in the ceaseless praise of God, angels are the media of God's service of men. Accordingly, all creatures and even created things have their angels (Matt. 18:10; Acts 12:15; Rev. 7:1; 9:15; 14:18) through whom God is able to effect His purposes (Matt. 26:53). Their chief role, however, is in furthering the work of redemption, and the vast


ANGER—ANGLO-CATHOLICISM

37

majority of NT references to angels indicate their role in the three great events of redemptive history: the Incarnation (1:20; 2:13; Luke 1:11, 19, 26, etc.); the Death and Resurrection (24:4, 23; Acts 1:10); and the Consummation (Rev. 8:2, etc.).

Paul's basic conception of angels does not differ from that of the rest of the NT. The distinctiveness of his teaching lies more in emphasis, triggered no doubt by the situation he confronted. In response to the Gnostic worship of angels, Paul stressed the uniqueness of Christ and His Lordship over all angelic beings (Eph. 1:20-21; Phil. 2:9-10; Col. 1:15-16; 2:18-19). But inasmuch as such angelic beings were rivalling Christ, they constituted the real enemy in the spiritual realm which lay behind the visible order (Gal. 1:8; Eph. 6:12). Paul's tendency is to depreciate angelology, not because angels are unreal but because the best of them are vastly inferior to Christ and the worst of them have been defeated by Him (Col. 2:15).

Theological Evaluation. In Scripture, angels are expressive of God's active care for His creation, while their evil counterparts are concerned to subvert His loving purposes. The rationalistic mind has consistently scouted such conceptions. However, both the scale and significance of the biblical evidence make it difficult to dissent from the conclusion of J. S. Stewart that "here we are dealing, not with some unessential apocalyptic scaffolding, but with the very substance of the faith" (Scottish Journal of Theology 4 [1951]:300). Brunner argues persuasively that "the truth of Christ, the Victor, implies negatively, the presupposition that there is a supra-human power of darkness" (The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 2:134). The spiritual world is no less real than the visible, both underlying it and at times overflowing on to it like a subterranean sea so that in important respects it is the world of true reality.

See satan, demiurge, gnosticism, demons (demon possession),

For Further Reading: Bietenhard and Budd, "Angel," NIDNTT; Schlier, The Relevance of the New Testament, 172-92; Stewart, The Scottish Journal of Theology, 4:292-301; Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 2:133-47. ALEX R. G. DEASLEY

ANGER. We must deal with two manifestations of anger both in the NT and the OT, the anger of God and the anger of man. The anger of God is always righteous and is ethically motivated. It is the other side of holiness, love, and His justice, so that it is always against sin, and eventually the sinner, if he remains unrepentant. Repentance and petition can stay or reverse the anger of God which is like a consuming fire, and ultimately hell is the result for the unrepentant.

Human anger, on the other hand, is often vicious and self-defensive. The Scriptures remind us that human anger may be righteous or unrighteous. For this reason the Bible gives us about three or four different admonitions to deal with the emotion.

First, we are admonished by the writer of Proverbs (6:34; 15:1; 16:14) not to incite others to anger.

Second, we are not to yield to unholy anger (Ps. 37:7-9; Prov. 14:29; 15:18; 16:32; 19:19; 21:14; 27:4) because as Jesus reminds us, it is the root of murder (Matt. 5:22), it does not produce righteousness (Jas. 1:19-20), and it must be controlled by those in authority (1 Tim. 2:8; Titus 1:7).

Third, it is an essential element of the man of God, whether he be a prophet of the OT or a minister of the NT. Man must be capable of a great love and/or a great anger. He must not only love God with all his soul, mind, and strength, but he must hate sin. Hate and anger are inseparable, as Jesus points out. Therefore it is imperative that we hate sin and love the sinner. God is the consuming Fire to settle the destinies of the sinner (Heb. 4:1-6; 12:18-29).

The fourth admonition is related to the third in that as we are re-created in the image of God, we are to be angry and sin not, and not let "the sun go down" on pur anger (Eph. 4:26; Matt. 5:2).

See hate (hatred), perfect love. For Further Reading: Baker's DCE; Snaith, A Theological Word Book of the Bible.

Robert L. Sawyer, Sr.