The Prescott daily news., 1918-04-26

stone, but anything upon which the af- fections have been set. The order here Is worthy of noting. It Is not from idols to God, but to God from idols. This is significant, because it Is when one turns to God that he gets the power from God to turn from idols. The third step was the one of serv- Such should be the step taken by ev- cry child of God, for while not saved by works, we are saved to work. The last and fourth step in their experience was ito wait for his Son from heaven. And should not this be our attitude too, if we are following in the steps of these Thessalonica Christians2
 Expecting Jesus.
 Evidently from their attitude, these early Christians believed that Jesus was to return from heaven. The back ground of their belief was the fact that God had raised his Son, even Jesus from the dead. To them the resurrec- ton meant more than the continued existence of the personality of Jesus after his death; 1t meant his bodily resurrection, and coupled with this was their belief in his bodily ascension into heaven. It Is not difficult to see how with such faith. 1t was easy for them to believe in the return to this earth of their risen and ascended Lord.
 Were they in their faith mistaken? There Is only one place for us to go to find out and that Is to the Bible. Those who have taken the pains to count, tell us that there are in the New Testament alone, SIS references to the second coming of Christ. This shows the large place that this subject holds in these Scriptures, not to say anything about the reference to it in the Old Testament.
 Not Death.
 But are we not to understand by of Christ, the death of the believer? Many have so taught, but that such teaching is incorrect is evident, if we take the passages in which these ref erences occur and substitute the word death for the word or words which refer to Christ, as. for example, in our text, which would then read, ito wait for death from heaven, even death whom he raised from the dead" This Is so absurd that we see at once that by the second coming of Christ is not meant the death of the believer.
 But does 1t not mean the coming of the Holy Spirit? This teaching is far more plausible. for as some one has said, and his saying Is true in sense, "the Holy Spirit is Christ's other self"
 Not Destruction of Jerusalem.
 But may 1t not mean the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A. D. TO? By no means for in the Revelation, chap ter 22, verse 20 is the last promise of our risen Lord given long after the de- struction of Jerusalem to John, the aged. on the island of Patmos: Sure ly, l come quickly" And in response. the old apostle lifts his voice and cries, Amen, even so, come Lord Jesus" This makes 1t very evident that by the second coming of Christ Is not meant the destruction of Jeru- salem.
 We'll, what Is meant7 Just precisely what the Scriptures teach: that Jesus Christ, the risen. ascended. glorified son of man Is to return second time to this earth.
 He himself so taught by direct word and by parable and so taught his dis ciples. and so in expectation of his re- turn they waited.
 To try to make the second coming of Christ mean anything else than the literal personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ to this earth is to twist and pervert the Scriptures from their plain and simple meaning. "This same Jesus.' said the two men In white ap- parel at his ascension, "which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come n like manner as ye have seen him go ato heaven"
 "Amen. Even so. come Lord Jesus"