NOT A PROPHET, BUT AN ANGEL.
By Editor
In a Spiritualist contemporary we find the following:— "Did not the angel that appeared to Saul declare that he was one of his brethren the prophets?" We once heard of a hackman who attempted to pass himself off for a Quaker, at the time of a convention of Friends, in order that he might secure their patronage. He succeeded so far as to get his carriage filled with the visiting Friends, but when he came and asked, "Where's thou baggage?" they saw that he was unfamiliar with the language of Quakers, and, disgusted with the attempted deception, at once sought another conveyance. In like manner the question above quoted shows that the writer, in attempting to prove Spiritualism from the Bible, has no knowledge of the book. We don't remember that we ever saw in an infidel or Spiritualist paper a correct reference to any Biblical event. But the substitution of Saul for John is not so bad as is the statement that the angel declared himself to be one of the prophet's brethren; and in this version of Rev. 22:9 he finds himself in company with a great many professed Bible Christians. And just because there are hundreds of professed Bible Christians who actually take the Spiritualist ground that the angel who talked with John was one of his fellow-prophets, we will tell just what the angel did declare himself to be. The following is a literal translation of the Greek of Rev. 22:9:— "And he said to me: See (thou do it) not; for I am a fellow-servant of thee and of thy brethren the prophets," etc. The revised version has it: "For I am a fellow-servant with thee, and with thy brethren the prophets." The simple meaning is that he was not one to be worshiped, but was a fellow-servant not only of John, but of all the prophets, and of those also who should keep the sayings of the book. We cannot accuse the Spiritualist editor of knowing better than to quote the text the way he did, for he did not know where the passage is, nor to whom the words were spoken. But we are sometimes forced to question the honesty of ministers of the gospel, whose title of "D. D." ought to signify that they have at least read the Bible through, and that they know how to translate easy Greek, who will refer to the angel of Rev. 22:9 as one of the old prophets. Our Spiritualist editor will no doubt say, "Well, the text doesn't amount to anything anyway, because we are not dependent on the Bible for our knowledge." Then why try to make it appear that it teaches Spiritualism? The reason is, that by so doing some professed Christians may be led to wholly accept that delusion, thinking that the Bible favors it. As a matter of fact, there is not a text in the Bible which gives the slightest countenance to Spiritualism; noonday sunlight and midnight darkness are not more opposite than are the Bible and that doctrine.