3:2). Contrast this divine omnipresence then existing, now existing and its continuous existence to the end of the world, with the question, "What shall be the sign of thy omnipresence, [for that, if Dr. W. is correct, is its meaning] and of the end of the age?" and Christ's answer; and it will be clearly manifest that that was not what either party had in mind. If that was it, did Christ give any answer to the question? If so, where "What shall be the sign of thy parousia?" if that be the sense, remains to be answered. But Christ did give the sign of his erchomenon-coming, in answer to the question proposed. is it? Jesus was "the man Christ Jesus" when he said on earth that he was in heaven; he was a man of flesh and bones when he went up from Olivet into heaven; and as late as the time when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, he was the "one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus."-1 Tim. 2 : 5. He was a man possessed of the divine attribute of omnipresence. He was on earth a divine being as well as human; he came and went as we come and go; he was seen and handled as we are seen and handled; and this as well after his resurrection as before. He went away into heaven in a sense in which he did not remain with his disciples on earth. He is in heaven bodily, as he is not on earth. Christ as divine was in heaven and on earth at the same time; but as to his human body he was only on earth. There is no record that he was ever seen in more than one place at the same time. If his body was in heaven before he went up from Olivet, why did he ascend from there? If his body is there it is not on earth. To be here literally is to be here in his body as he was before he ascended from Olivet. That he was not in heaven bodily, even after his resurrection, himself declared: "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father." But that he was about to do so he also declared: "Go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God." He was there literally, "persona propria," a man who had not, but would ascend to God. That ascension was motion upward to a cloud, and then to heaven. Dr. Warren continues: "It is also a personal presence. The same unwarranted restriction of meaning is often given to this phrase, as if Christ could not be personally present unless subject to the senses of sight and touch. How often after his resurrection did he render himself invisible to his disciples while he was with them. By a personal presence, I mean that Christ is here himself in propria persona, not merely by the official work of the Spirit, nor by any representative whatever."-Parousia, p. 21. How does Dr. Warren know that Christ was personally present with his disciples after his resurrection, but concealed from their view? He did hide himself from his enemies before his death, and passed through the midst of them; but that he ever hid himself from his disciples after his resurrection it will be difficult to prove. Mary, at the sepulchre, "turned herself" and saw Jesus standing. The same day at evening "JESUS came and stood in the midst." Was he there before he came ? "The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord." Eight days after "came JESUS, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst."-John 20: 14, 19, 26. To the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, while con versing, "Jesus drew near and went with them." Was he with them unperceived? Does "drew near mean that he was with them before, but unperceived? True, when they knew him "he vanished," but like themselves he went to Jerusalem, where they found him. Another testimony is: "To whom he showed [not concealed] himself alive after his passion, being SEEN of them forty days.”—Acts 1: 3. He showed, and they saw him. No evidence exists here that he "hid himself from them." That he could be present and concealed if he desired to do so, I do not doubt; but that he did, except when he vanished and went to Jerusalem, is not provable by Scripture. That Christ CAME when they saw him is evidence of preceding absence in his propria persona; but that his omnipresent presence was there invisible there is no room for doubting. In his human presence "he came." That Jesus who came was in propria persona the Jesus who in propria persona spake to them "of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God"; and who in the same literal propria persona entered heaven where he now is, on the right hand of God. You did well, dear sir, to say, "I understand," for it is not susceptible of proof. Dr. Warren again says: 66 The only conceivable sense, then, in which Christ, in his divine offices of King, Life-giver, and Judge, can come to men, is that of manifestation."-Parousia, p. 23. Of all the strange positions stated in the Doctor's book, this is the strangest. What does he mean by it? He answers that he means "that the word coming can only be used of a divine being in the sense of manifestation" (p. 106). Was Jesus a divine being when he was here on earth and asserted his omnipresence? Is he any more divine now than he was then? "Much people, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees and went forth to meet him" (John 12; 12, 13). Was that coming simply manifes tation, or was it an actual movement from Olivet to Jerusalem? Did Christ actually move from Olivet to heaven in presence of his disciples, or was it only mani festation? Or was he not then a divine being? Christ in answering the question, "What shall be the sign of thy parousia?" after telling them the sign, said: "And they shall SEE the Son of man COMING in the clouds of heaven," etc. Does not optomai mean actually to behold the person with the eye? But enough of this; let us proceed to the next point, "the time of the parousia." CHAPTER II. "THE TIME OF THE PAROUSIA." "The first of the inquiries addressed by the disciples to our Lord on the Mount of Olives, respecting his promised parousia, was, as to the time of its occurrence. 'Tell us, When shall these things be?' His answer is very full and explicit. Indeed, it may be said that on no subject whatever is the language of the New Testament more abundant, or more decisive."Parousia, p. 25. Are you not mistaken, dear sir, in saying that the question, "When shall these things be?" related to the parousia? If grammar is of any force in determining meaning, it was in reference to the destruction of the temple they asked, "When shall these things be?" What they asked about his parousia is quite another thing. "What shall be the sign of thy parousia?” Should a critical scholar thus confound things so different? Dr. Warren says of "CHRIST'S TESTIMONY: 99 "The very first public utterance that he made after entering upon his ministry of preaching, was to repeat the announcement of his forerunner, John, in the wilderness, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'-Matt. 4: 17. The coming of that kingdom was the same as the coming of its king. So when giving his apostles their commission, he says, As ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Matt. 10: 7). He adds (verse 23), 'Verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel until the Son of man be come. 999 |