Please turn with me in your Bibles to the book of Revelation chapter five. The biblical teaching concerning angels has been largely neglected by reformed thinkers and pastors and people in our day and age it has not always been so although there has always been a de-emphasis upon these things in the reformed tradition first because of the gross idolatry of the pagans with regard to these things Then the idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church and their worshipping of angels. And now in our own day, the extremes that have been reached even in evangelical circles with respect to that, this doctrine have made reform thinkers shy concerning this. But although this has become an issue of some difficulty because of these reasons, still it ought not to be neglected. Our responsibilities as the disciples of Christ, it is our responsibility to receive the whole counsel of God. All of it. That is our inheritance. But in this matter, we are reminded that we must be careful not to exceed or go beyond what has been written. So at this in view, we take up Revelation chapter five, verses 11 and 12. And I beheld and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders. And the number of them was 10,000 times 10,000 and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, worthy is the land that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing. I want to introduce you to a very important book that you have probably never heard of. The book is called The Celestial Hierarchy. It was ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. You might remember Dionysius from Acts chapter 17, convert by the preaching of Paul on Mars Hill. This book certainly was not written by Dionysius. This is one of those fraudulent works of the early era of the church. I say that this couldn't have been written by Dionysius because the author mentions people who were born long after the apostolic era. There is ecclesiastical hierarchical structures that he refers to that weren't in existence at the time as well as worship rites that were unknown although church historians of those early years like Eusebius and Jerome did very careful chronicling of the early writers of the church there's no reference to this work and it's full of neoplatonic philosophy that wouldn't reach its zenith for at least another two centuries after the Apostolic Era. By our best calculation, it was probably written sometime around the year 500, perhaps in the philosophical centers found in Greece, maybe in the northern part of Egypt, Alexandria for example. The imposture, the fraud that was involved in this work was discussed early and then set aside during the Dark Ages and then really revived and decided during the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation. You would think that this work therefore would simply pass into, if not oblivion, the old history books. and be of very little interest to anyone except historians of ecclesiastical history but it is not so Dionysius was esteemed by nearly a millennium of scholars as being a theologian par excellence his admirers included John of Damascus who, I believe it was in the 6th century, composed his systematic theology which is forever, from that time to the present, been normative for Eastern Orthodoxy. John of Damascus believed what Dionysius wrote and propagated it throughout the East. In the West, some names you probably know, Gregory the Great, Peter the Lombard, and the influence of his sentences Albert the Great, and probably more importantly than any other, St. Thomas Aquinas includes this teaching in his Summa. Indeed, Thomas is so impressed with Dionysius that there's nearly 2,000 citations of this work in his Summa Theologica. Dante cites him as well and popularized the work further. And this work was of such authority that when Luther called Dionysius a vain dreamer, this was among the charges leveled against him by the theologians of the Sorbonne. This was one of his heresies that he dared to speak against Dionysius' teaching. I say that he was esteemed as a theologian par excellence. in the sense that he was a mystical theologian and made his contributions, if contributions they be, primarily at that point. He is neoplatonic in his ideas, so he starts with this idea of God being full of being and even so full that he spills over with being. These would be the emanations. The closer the emanation is to God, The more being it has, the further it gets away, the less being it has. So for example, in the neoclatonic philosophy as Christianized, God is at the center and matter would be that which has the least being. And you have almost infinite degrees of being in between God and matter. It's almost like ripples in a pond. The ripples proceed from the striking of the stone and once they hit the edge of the pond they then rebound back. And all of the tendency of being is to try to make its way back to God. Dionysius taught a double hierarchy. So here we have his second important work in view. As a companion piece to the celestial hierarchy, he had another volume called the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which was probably the point of all of it. In your outline, you have a chart there. I'll get to the importance of this for us in just a moment, because it is very important. And remember what I've told you in times past. Even when we don't remember where the ideas came from, Ideas are powerful, some of them have great endurance, even when we don't remember where they came from. And this is one of those books and a set of ideas that have had a remarkable endurance in spite of the evident fraud involved in it. So look here first at Dionysius's ecclesiastical hierarchy, but if you, I'm sort of presenting it here in inverted order, if you would really understand it, he starts with the celestial hierarchy and then argues for the legitimacy of this ecclesiastical hierarchy as a mirror image of the other. In other words, he's defending the hierarchy. We're in the development towards what we will later now as the Roman Papacy, the full development of the hierarchy. This is a defense of that. Closest to God, you have the first order in the church which he calls the Mysteries. We would call them the Sacraments. He gave them three strange words, well at least one's familiar. Illumination, Communion, and Chrism. Baptism, the Eucharist and ordination respectively. So that would be that level that is closest to God and most spiritual. The second level is the level of functionaries, those that administer those mysteries to the people. Interestingly enough, in Dionysius' language it is high priest, priest and liturgist. Bhavik thinks that this is roughly equivalent to Bishop, Priest and Deacon as it was known in the church at that time and he's probably right. So this would be the second level, not as close to God as the Mysteries but closer to God than the laity. And in that third order you have the laity. Monks, the holy laity or full professors in the church and then the catechumens, those that were being taught the rudiments of the Christian faith with the hope that they might be admitted into the church. So you can understand Dionysius being a mystical theologian loves numerical sequences and he loves the harmony, the order, the elegance and symmetry of this sort of thing. Three groups of three. Now we come to the celestial hierarchy, which is really our purpose. You've got three orders of angels, and each one of these orders has three classes of angels. If you just look at the orders briefly, the first order serves God exclusively and deals only in heavenly matters. The second order serves both the invisible and the visible creation. It stands somewhat in the middle. And then the third order serves the earth. So you see here the emanations proceeding out from God. In the first order you have the seraphim. Their function was to behold unceasingly the being of God himself and to worship. That is their function. Next you have the cherubim. They ponder God's decrees and worship. And then finally you get thrones. They look upon the judgments of God and they worship. So you see here they deal almost exclusively with God himself. In the second order there are three terms there that you probably recognize. But you probably have no idea what they are. And that's okay. I don't think anybody else does either. At least not exactly. Dominions, mights, and powers. This level of being deals almost exclusively with the decrees of God that interface between God himself and all of the things that he's made. Dominions order the things that must happen according to God's decree. Mights execute. the things that have been decreed and then the powers make sure that those tasks are brought to their full completion and then finally that third order basically they serve this world of man principalities foster the general welfare of mankind archangels guide particular nations and angels watch over individuals again there's a There's an elegance here, a symmetry. Where Dionysius got these ideas from is not easy to say. You should know that before Dionysius, the Jews had worked out a similar kind of thing, where they had ten orders or ten levels of angels, the highest being close to God, the lowest being close to the earth, and eight degrees in between. the one that we would know would be that level of archangels that was most immediate in their scheme to God the number of which was seven which did come into the Roman Catholic theology somewhat through the book of Tobit that mentions the seven archangels of which one was Raphael Dionysius might have known this old Jewish system he claims that he's working this out largely from Paul as well the words certainly come from scripture and at least some of the ideas but it also seems that a good bit of this comes from his imagination and this has ever been one of the great stumbling blocks in a sober and biblical doctrine of angels is the overactive imagination of overly fascinated people You look at this and no doubt you think, what a strange thing and why would he ever believe that he could know such a thing? But as strange as it might seem to us, and you can be very grateful for the Reformation because that is the reason that it seems strange to you, but this had an enduring influence for a thousand years, heavily influenced, a thousand years worth of theologians and remains the normative doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church through Thomas's Summa. I don't know about you. It's hard to judge these things. I knew at least parts of the system already from my own upbringing. I was born in the Roman Church. They never taught us the whole system, but I have bits of this are very familiar to me. I have seen some evidence that it's familiar to other evangelicals as well. You might think of Frank Peretti's book. Some of these ideas, not the whole, to learn the whole system would require a discipline that most people don't have, but parts of it become popularized and have had quite an enduring influence and have even influenced evangelicals to some extent, even though they don't remember. where the ideas came from or where they originated. Here we are in the midst of our brief history of angels and I do hope from this point to be able to finish up our angelology and maybe just two more sermons. We're not going to look at the continuous series of the history but rather just those most important points. Their creation and the matters attached to that creation, their fall and the implications of that, We can't neglect their participation at Sinai and during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ and then their role at the return of Jesus Christ in the final judgment. So just those greatest and most important moments in their history as far as it's been revealed to us. But these will be rather short and broad strokes. But it does give us an opportunity to gather up a whole host of miscellaneous issues of interest. Last week, we were able to consider something of when they were created. It is hard to say with absolute certainty, but it does appear on balance of biblical evidence that they were created at some time during the six day creation week. The beginning appears to be an absolute beginning in the creation week, and they were present before the end of it to praise God, as we saw in Job chapter 38. Although some have speculated as to their number, we find that the Bible doesn't tell us anything more than that there are a great many of them. And that brings us to this morning to their organization. There do appear to be. I don't know if you would say various kinds of angels, I can't even say that there are different kinds, but it does appear that they have different roles and that they do have ordered relationships one to another. Although it is very difficult to say with any sort of precision what the nature of those relationships might be. Let's just get the terms in front of us first. Let's look at the familiar ones that appear both at the beginning and at the end of Dionysius' system. You will remember the Seraphim as they appear in Isaiah chapter 6. They have become very famous, but they only appear in Isaiah chapter 6. Dionysius appears to be part right in that they do contemplate the divine being and that leads them to worship. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. The earth is full of his glory. But already he appears to be part wrong because the next thing we find one of those great beings doing is taking a tong and taking a coal from the altar and touching the prophet's lips and speaking to him. This is part of his angelic or messenger function. While Dionysius had said that the Seraphim only deal with heavenly matters and God himself But here we find one dealing with a prophet and right away the difficulties in the system start. Earlier in our sermons on revelation, we had an opportunity to consider the cherry beam in some depth. Do you remember their first appearance at the fall of mankind? And again, another problem in Dionysius system that they serve on the earth. as guardians to the way to paradise and the tree of life. The cherubs make another symbolic appearance in their inclusion in the tabernacle and temple on the mercy seat and woven into the fabric of the curtains. In Ezekiel chapters 1, 2 and 10, they appear as a living chariot. upon which God is seated? Something you've probably assumed, but you might want to consider. Could you come up with a conclusive proof that they are different than the Seraphim? The words are different, but are they different beings? The reason I say that is remember one of our earlier doctrines which was that angels don't have bodies, they're spirits. And largely they are revealed by means of visions symbolically. They are presented in symbols to teach truths concerning them. So when they're said to have wings, for example, it's not to teach us that they have literal wings that we have already denied theologically, but rather they are ready and swift in doing the will of God. Depending upon your purposes of communication, one and the same being could be presented in a diversity of symbols. and even with the diversity of titles depending upon what you're trying to communicate. Seraph probably means something like a burning one. This would be a very common description of any angel. They frequently make their appearance as bright and shining and these obviously are very much inflamed with the love of God and the adoration of God. The chariots probably or the chariot beam highlight the chariot function and their doing of the will of God. But this doesn't necessarily prove conclusively that these are even different beings that are involved. And if there is any way to prove that they are different beings, any conclusive way, I do not know what it is. And having done some fair measure of reading, I don't know of anyone who knows how to make a conclusive proof one way or another. You will be even more familiar with the language of Archangel and Angel Although you are so familiar with the term Archangel, not so much from the Bible, where it only appears two times if memory serves, but more from the Roman Catholic theology and emphasis. We'll come back to them in just a moment because the title itself does have some significance. And of course, you know, the term angel that appears all over the scriptures. Although once again, Dionysius is structure seems strange to me because the archangels are on that lower rung, they are the 8th order but archi in Greek implies superiority as if they were among the greater sort and that's where the Jews place them as immediately attending upon the throne of God, those seven that are closest to God what would you do if you had to try to decide between Dionysius and the Jews? These questions appear impossible to answer biblically, and that's part of the point. Well, where do these other words come from? Turn with me in your Bibles to Colossians 1, verse 16. Thrones, dominions, mights, powers, principalities, where do these words come from? We get four of the terms from Colossians chapter one, verse 16, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers. Speaking of the creative work of Christ or Christ's agency in creation. For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created by him and for him. You don't need to turn there, but you get a similar, although not exactly the same list in Ephesians, that he's exalted far above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. Ephesians 1.21. So there you get some of the same names, but the addition of what are called mites. Looking at these things, let me just put the question to you. What order could you derive? What order could you prove conclusively? I think here we must be sober and modest. I think we can say this. that there does appear to be variety and order. We don't know if there's a variety of being or kind, but it does appear as if they are structured in a society of some kind, and this ought not to seem strange to us. You remember in the 14th of 1 Corinthians, Paul says that God is a God of order, and so let all things be done decently and in order in the church. So we ought not to be surprised that they are set in some sort of order. Some of the names all by themselves imply this. Archangel implies some sort of superiority to other angels. Also the calling of them dominions. Superiority over something and some variety in that what is a dominion and what is a principality? that appears to be some sort of variety of activity. But again, these are relatively limited and modest conclusions compared to what Dionysius thought that he could prove. Indeed, we could even say that it does appear that some amount of order has been maintained among the demonic powers. in that Satan himself is called the prince of devils or demons. Matthew chapter 12 verse 24 and other places. So although it does appear from the very names themselves and the nature of God and his creation that there is some variety and order and in this God is to be greatly glorified. we look at this visible realm of creation and we do see variety and order and in it God's glory is displayed and now we must see with the eye of faith the other half of the creation set in an order and with great variety indeed we don't see all of it but we do see enough that ought to open our mouths in praise to our great God However, I do not believe that we can claim any knowledge of, any particular knowledge of the structure of their relationships and their order. First, the negative argument. I look at it and I don't think that there's enough information to go very far. It seems to be purposefully cryptic. revealing a little but concealing most from our eyes. And so it is the good pleasure of our God that it be so. And as John Calvin said, it's a holy wisdom to leave off asking when God leaves off speaking. Augustine, not too long before Dionysius wrote, said that he had been criticized by some other ministers and theologians for admitting ignorance concerning the ordering of angels. But he said, if it's an ignorance, it is a pious ignorance indeed, because I do not believe that any more than this has been revealed to us. But I do think we might be able to say a little bit more than just there's not very much information. I do think that we can some level some positive arguments against the structure that Dionysius has sought to establish. First of all, Dionysius' three-by-three system is disturbed by other titles that are ascribed to angels that he simply doesn't account for, which makes his system appear arbitrary. For example, in the book of Job, as we saw, they are called the sons of God. Is this one class or all of them? Should he have added a tenth? How do you know? In Daniel they are called the watchmen. In many other places they are called the hosts or the army of God. Are the armies of God different than the cherubim and the seraphs? How do you know? So this shows that the system is arbitrary if these titles remain unaccounted for. As we have already mentioned, a second argument is that his first tier, he said that they minister to God exclusively, and yet we have found them described as ministering to men, both in Isaiah and Ezekiel. So he doesn't account for the biblical evidence. And also, and we're going to come back to this maybe as early as next week. But to claim to know the diversity of their activities and duties is a claim that cannot be maintained, because some of these activities are common to all of the angels. For example, beholding God is not something that just belongs to the first tier, but it's something that is said about angels indifferently in the Gospel, that they're always beholding the face of God. all of the angels burn with love for God, do they not? Would we say that some of them burn more and others less? If so, how do you prove it? How do you make out the argument? It appears that all of the angels are sent by God. If you're going to call them angels altogether, it seems implied in the very title, which is in Hebrew, to send. They're sent ones, they're messengers. And they seem to be sent on errands. In the scriptures, they are also all described as ministering spirits. So they might have a variety of ministries, but that they are all ministering spirits is certain. Turn with me in your Bibles to the book of Hebrews chapter one. I want to present to you an argument from Turretin that is subtle, but if you understand it, it's actually decisive on this point that you might say that they minister to God's people in a variety of ways. Perhaps they don't all minister in the same way, but that they all minister to God's people is something that the scriptures do assert. So in that sense, there isn't variety, but they all engage together in that same function. You remember in Hebrews chapter one, Paul is introducing a larger argument, Christ greater than all. And he's going to go on to talk about Christ as being greater than Aaron and greater than Melchizedek and so on. But first he wants to assert that Christ is greater than the angels. And one of the reasons given for his superiority to the angels is that while he rules over all and rules over the church, they are ministering spirits to that church. And that's his superiority to the angels as a class is thus proven. Look at verses 13 and 14. But to which of the angels said he at any time sit on my right hand until I make my enemies by footstool. Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Are they not all ministering spirits? So Christ rules over the house and they are ministers or servants in the house all. But you understand, you have to understand how Paul's and this is why St. Turretin is subtle here, but decisive if you understand his argument. He says that If this really only pertains to the last tier, then he's not drawn any conclusive proof against Christ's superiority over most of the classes of angels. But here, Christ is proven as superior over all because he rules and they all minister. He rules and they all minister. If you said that, say, only the last tier ministers to men or the church or something like that, then you still have not made any sort of proof that Christ is superior over the other six classes. And so the apostles argument would fail and fall to the ground. In other words, if Dionysius is right, Paul is wrong. If Paul is right, Dionysius is wrong. They all are ministering spirits to Christ's church and all servants of him who rules over all. You might be thinking to yourself, what is the payoff here? There's a couple of things. As I mentioned at the very beginning, this is an area of theology that once upon a time, Reformed theologians, although modest and reserved and desiring to de-emphasize, did treat with fullness and intelligence. I recently have worked my way through Old Andrew Willett's commentary on Daniel, where angels play large and significant roles in the course of the book, and he spends many, many folio pages discussing angels and what the Bible teaches about them. And his commentary on Exodus and the The miracles that the Egyptian magicians are able to do. He spends many, many pages discussing demons and what they can and can't do. These sorts of things. So reformed theologians did used to take these things up in a biblical proportion. We have forgot. If these things seem a little less interesting to us, that's part of the point. And we need to come back into a balance. A second use, I hope we have before us an evident reminder of the folly of going beyond what is written, as Paul says, intruding into those things which we have not seen vainly puffed up in our fleshly minds. If we are going to be mature in the work of theology, we have to strike that very careful balance between grasping All that God has given to us in the Scriptures, for it is our inheritance. The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us. They are our inheritance. They belong to us and to our children forever. Don't we want to possess all that God has given to us, and yet we must be careful not to transcend the limits, or to pretend that we know things. that we don't know. So in some ways, because so many mistakes historically have been made in angelology in this very way, I'm hoping that this will be a very good exercise for us, teaching us lessons that we should apply in every branch and division of theology. A third use, and I hope that you never tire of me saying it, and I never tire of saying it, give glory to God. Every time you think upon the angels, it ought not to be to lift your heart up to an angel, but to the great creator who made these beings, these great and majestic beings, and who also governs them. He set them in an order, although not fully disclosed to us, and he rules over them. indeed give glory to the mediator Christ who has ascended upon high and these powers also have been placed under his mediatorial dominion and they do all that they do for the good of the church that is both a very comforting thought and a very humbling one to think that these beings are exercised as they are by King Jesus for our good and for our welfare. And a humbling thing, because even these great beings are happy to have it so. And they respond to the Lord Jesus even so, because it has seemed good in thy sight that we thus serve. And finally, we are getting ready for the Lord's Supper. And so some meditation in this regard is useful. This is an additional motivational help to maintain a holy carriage, holy conduct, both in general and at the supper itself. First in general, it ought to be motive enough for us to know that God sees us and he knows what we're doing. He knows our activities and he also knows our hearts. That ought to be motive enough for us to maintain a holy carriage. But God in his mercy does provide other helps, does he not? Think about how many times you have been in the midst of temptation only to have the help of another human being. Even sometimes just his presence prevents you from stumbling and actually falling into the temptation. Simply having another human person around ended up being a great help. It is true. that knowing that God sees ought to have been enough. But God does provide other helps during those season of temptations. Meditation upon the angels is another one of these helps. But we need to be very careful that we use it rightly. It does reveal something. If you are liable to fall into a temptation in spite of the eye of God upon you, but are held back because of the eyes of the angels that may be privy to your conduct. This is practical atheism. God has been kind to us in that he's given us another help, but it reveals to us a problem of heart and a problem in the way that we think. Again, the analogy holds. When temptation comes, it ought to be enough for you to know that God sees. But having other people around helps. Why? As a habit of mind, we frequently think of God as somehow being less real. Or we forget his vision upon us when it's very easy for us to remember the vision of other human beings upon us. But I say it's a practical atheism. It's a forgetfulness of God. And so when we find that we are helped in these ways, we do two things. We give thanks to God for providing for us a fullness of help and manifold helps. But we also ought to take shame to ourselves that we are not more helped by the doctrine of his omniscience and omnipresence. We should be more helped by these things than we are. This is a general truth but we bring it to bear upon the supper as well because I do hope it is our desire both in preparation and in participation and then even afterwards to maintain a holy carriage and to be improved by the whole thing in holiness. Interestingly enough, the apostle argues in this way with respect to our worshipping assemblies in general. that we ought to observe a decent and God-ordained order and reverence, being mindful that the angels, although we don't know when they're present, they do take a particular delight in being present at Christian worship assemblies. And so Paul says, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. They observe an order And they expect us to observe the creation order as well. And as we do so, it no doubt fills them with delight. They also fear God and delight to see a worshiping assembly fearing God. Again, it ought to be enough for us that God sees and that God knows, but he has provided more helps. And we give him thanks for doing so, even while we are humbled to the dust. That what ought to be sufficient for us with respect to motive is frequently not sufficient. And one final thing. It does appear as we look at the scriptures that the reason that the angels so much delight in attending upon the worship of the church is they have a peculiar delight in the application of Christ's salvation to his people. They are portrayed in the scripture as longing to look into these things and to understand them better. They are portrayed by the Lord himself as delighting in the application of salvation. You remember our Lord taught that at the repentance of one there is great rejoicing in heaven. This is not just something that we would think with respect to the beginnings of salvation. Do we assume that they delight more, say, in justification than in sanctification or progress in holiness? It seems that they very much delight in redemption, both accomplished as they attended upon the Lord Jesus' ministry and applied in all of its various facets. This ought to stir us up. to come in faith so that that redemption is being applied and advanced indeed. And we will take our benefits in the supper, not by a mere carnal eating and drinking of bread and wine, but by a feeding upon Christ by faith, the application of His salvation. Let us pray together.