The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-11-13

:
about his royal presence and helpful
activity in the kingdom of God. Our
inquiry is therefore into the nature of
this presence. What kind OF pres
ence was this to be9 The promise
of Jesus to the disciples was, 'Lo |
am with you always, even unto the
end of the world" How would he be
with bis disciples? What was to be
the nature of this promised presence?
If what we have already found
concerning the kingdom of God be
true, we are greatly helped in an
swering this question. We have found
that this kingdom is spiritual king
dom; therefore his presence in this
kingdom must be spiritual. 1t can
not be formal, it cannot be bodily
presence, because such presence is
impossible in a spiritual kingdom.
The king must be like his kingdom.
An external earthly kingdom must
have an external earthly king, but
an internal spiritual kingdom must
have an internal, spiritual king. All
notion of an external bodily presence
or coming of Christ is excluded by
the very nature of his kingdom. His
kingdom is within you, therefore his
coming presence must be within.
His kingdom is spiritual, therefore
his coming in his kingdom must be.
spiritual.
But we have found further that he
was to come or manifest his presence
in that generation. But he did not
come in a visible or bodily form in
that generation; therefore such could
not have been the nature of his COM
ing. He promised to come or be
present in that generation, in his
kingdom, not in the flesh, but in
the spirit, for he did not come in the
flesh, therefore he could not have so
promised to come, but must have
promised to come in the spirit, for his
kingdom is spiritual.
The next question is what has the
record to say about this? Do the
Gospels represent his coming as out
ward in the flesh or inward in the
spirit? Is it bodily or spiritual
presence they set forth7
DR.. Cone in his Gospel Criticism"
has these remarkable words: Most
modern interpreters of note agree
that in the synoptic archaeological
discourees the Pdrousia is repre-
sented as personal, visible reap
pearance of the Son of Man in the
lifetime of the generation then living
for the establishment of his kingdom
and for judgment, and also that this
return is often, particularly in the
great discourses concerning the last
things in the 18th chapter of Mark
and it's parallels connected with the
abomination of desolation and the
judgment on Jerusalem"
The particular affirmation here is
that most modern interpreters of
note agree" that the first three
Gospels represent the Parousio or
presence of Christ as personal, WIS.,
ible Temperance" Of him in that
generation. We will venture to say
that the facts do not warrant this
statement.
As everyone knows, most if not all
the orthodox interpreters whether an
cient or modern, agree that these
Gospels represent the coming of
Christ, as personal visible reap
pearance" not in that generation but
at the end of time, while most if not all
Universalist and Unitarian interpre-
tiers agree that these gospels teach
not personal, visible Temperance,
but spiritual presence in that gen.
Grafton. About what is true, we sup
pose, is that some modern interpre.
ters of note and perhaps all of ration
alistic tendencies agree to this notion
of personal, visible temperance"
in that generation. Having assumed
this Interpretation to be true, DR..
Cone proceeds to discuss the grave
critical problem it presents"
By misinterpreting Scripture you
can make a grave critical problem
almost anywhere. The truth is that
the Gospels do not teach personal,
visible temperance" of Jesus at any
time. In no words ascribed to Jesus
is this taught. Take that great dis
course in the oath of Matthew and its
parallels in Mark and Luke, and
where will you find anything that
will bear this construction when
properly Interpreted Indeed, if any
thing seems clear it is that Jesus is
guarding his disciples against just
this notion of visible or bodily COM
ing. How otherwise can we under
| stand these words for instance: