Nor is Christ’s coming local, that is, in a certain place, for if it were, Jesus was mistaken in telling his disciples not to believe those who said, “Lo, here!” or “Lo, there!” not to go into the desert when men say, “Behold, he is there,” and not to believe those who declare that he is hidden somewhere in the city, for that the coming of the Son of man should be like that of the lightning, which shines all round the sky, and seems to be everywhere at once. (Matt. 24:26.) And if not local, neither can it be a bodily coming; for all bodily coming must be in some one place. Since, therefore, Jesus distinctly denies that his coming is to be “here” or “there,”—that is, local,—it must be a spiritual coming, a coming in spirit and in power. All the material images connected with it—the clouds, the trumpet, &c.—are to be considered symbolical. The “clouds of heaven” may symbolize spiritual movements and influences; the “trumpet,” the awakening power of new truth.(40) § 2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture. It is also a remarkable fact that only one coming of Christ is mentioned in the New Testament. Orthodoxy speaks continually of Christ’s _second_ coming, but without any warrant. It assumes that the manifestation of Jesus in the flesh was his first coming as the Christ, and that consequently the predictions (in Matt. ch. 24, and the parallels) _must_ refer to a second coming. Hence the phrase “second coming” has been introduced, and naturalized in theology. But, in truth, the life of Jesus on earth was not regarded as his coming as the Messiah.(41) What the disciples expected was his manifestation or investiture as the Messiah, which evidently had not taken place at the time of their conversation. And this was to be, not “at the end of the world,” but _at the end of the age_. They, like other Jews, divided time into two periods, “the present age,” or times previous to the Messiah, and “the coming age,” or times of the Messiah’s reign. When, therefore, Jesus was with them, only teaching and healing, they did not at all consider him _to have come_ as the Messiah. But when he spoke of the destruction of the Temple, as _that_ indicated the end of the existing economy, they understood it to be synchronous with his coming as the Christ. So they said, “What shall be the sign of thy COMING, and of the END OF THE AGE?” And so through the Epistles, when the “coming of Christ” is spoken of, is meant his manifestation in the world as the Messiah. This was a single event, to take place once, not to be repeated. Such a thing as “Christ’s _second_ coming” is unknown to the Scriptures.(42) § 3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Coming of Christ?