Claims and Teachings - Ahmad The Promised Messiah and Mahdi — Page 32
32 stood to mean the advent of one in his spirit and pbweri for they knew well that it was against the -Divine Lawj that a prophet should come down from heaven, nor was there a single instence of it in the history of the Jewish religion. Every prophet was born of mortal parents. Even Moses, the Law-giver, was no exception. These and similar other considerations could have easily led them to the conclusion that the advent of Elijah. only meant the advent of one in his spirit and power, and that; therefore, Jesus was right in thus interpreting the prophecy relating to his advent before the commencement of the Messianic era. ; It should however be borne in mind that in thus condemning the Jews for the rejection of Jesus, we assume it as a Divine Law that a personal and literal second advent of a person who has left the world never takes place, and that such a promise is to be construed spiritually. If the second advent of a person were permissible in Divine Law, the Jews who rejected Jesus will have to be declared free from the least blame. But the Jews are not free, nor is such an advent possible. Any one who holds the contrary in the latter proposition, must hold the same in the former. If second advent was permissible, why were the Jews condemned without any fault on their part. They found it written in what had been given to them as the word- of God that Elijah" the prophet would come a second time. They were not told that the like of Elijah would come,. Nor did Jesus inform them of any error in their belief respecting the second advent of Elias. He did not deny that the prophecy plainly spoke of the advent of Elijah himself, but he told them that his second advent had taken place in the person of John who came in his spirit and power. The second advent was, therefore, to be under- stood only as the second advent of the spiritual part of the man