rael, and set me upon a very Inj;!) momitain," etc. ; and that John savs, " he carried me away in tlie spirit to a great and high mountain, and s/ivired mc that great city, tlie holy .leriisakm" (Kev. xxi, 10). But certain direct aryuiiu-iits are also urged on the same side. 'I'hus, is it consistent with the sagacity and policy of the evil spirit to suppose that he appeared in his own proper person to our Lord uttering solicitations to evil? Was not this the readiest mode to frustrate his own inten- tions? Archbishop Seeker s.ays, "certainly he did not appear what he was. for that would have entirely frus- trated his intent" (6V?v«oh,v, ii, ]14). Chandler says, " The devil appeared not as himself, for that would liave frustrated the effect of his temptation" {Se?-m. iii, 178). Seeker supposes that "Satan transformed himself into an angel of light;" but was it likely that he Avould put on this form in order to tempt our Lord to id<ilatry ? (]\Litt. iv. it). Chandler thinks he appeared as " a good man;" but would it have served his purpose to appear as a good man promising universal dominion? The supposition that the devil disguised himself in any form might indeed constitute the temptation a trial of our Lord's understanding, but not of his heart. Besides, Christ is represented as addressing him as " Satan" (ver. 10). It is further urged that the literal interpretation does but little honor to the Saviour, whom it represents as carried or conducted "by the devil at his will," and therefore as accessory to his own temptation and dan- ger; nor does it promote the consolation of his follow- ers, none of whom could ever be similarly tempted. Our Lord indeed submitted to all the liabilities of the liuman condition; but do these involve the dominion of Satan over the body to the extent thus represent- ed? The literal interpretation also attributes miracu- lous powers to the devil, who, though a spiritual being, is represented as becoming visible at pleasure, speaking in an audible voice, and convoying mankind where he pleases — miracles not inferior to what our Lord's preser- vation would have been had he cast himself headlong from the Temple. Suppose we even give up the old no- tion iliat "the devil hurried Christ through the air, and carried him from the wilderness to the Temple"' (Benson, IJ/e of Christ, p. 35), and say, with Doddridge and oth- ers, that "the devil took our Lord about with him as one person takes another to different places," yet how without a miracle shall we account for our Saviour's admission to the exterior of the Temple, unless he first, indeed, obtained permission of the authorities, which is not recorded (comp. Josephus, Ant. xv, 11 ; iii, .5; War, V, 5). The difficulty is solved by the supposition sim- ply of a change in our Lord's perceptions. How can we further understand, except by the aid of a vision or a miracle, that the devil "showed our Lord all the king- doms of the world and the glory of them in a moment of time" {Iv ciTijfiy ■)(pi>vmf), a phrase referring to the mathematical point, and meaning the most minute and indivisible portion of duration, that is, instantaneously; yet in this space of time, according to the literal inter- pretation, " tlie devil showed our Lord all the kingdoms of the world and all the glory of them," i. e. whatever relates to their magnificence, as imperial robes, crowns, thrones, palaces, courts, guards, armies, etc. Scott anil Doddridge resort to the supposition of an "illusory show;" but it may be asked, if (me of the temptations was conducted by such means, why not the other two? Macknight endeavors to explain "all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them" as relating oidy to the land of promise {Harmony of the Gospels [Lond. 182"2]. p. 3.')0, note). Farmer conceives that no moun- tain in Palestine commands so extensive a prospect. It is a further difficulty attending the literal interpre- tation that Satan represents all the kingdoms of the world and their glory to be at hisdisi)osal; an assertion not denied by our Lord, who simply rejects the offer. It may readily be conceived that it would answer all purposes that Jesus should seer» to have the proposal in question made to him. It is next observed that
many things are spoken of in Scripture as being done which were only done in vision. See the numerous in- stances collected by bisho]) Law {Considerations of the Theory uf Religion [Lond. 1820 ], p. 85, 8G). The read- er may refer to Gen. xxxii, .30; Hos. i, iii; Jer. xiii, XXV, xxvii; Ezek. iii. iv, v. Paul calls his being "caught up into the third heaven and into Para<lise" a vision and revelation of the Lord (2 Cor. xii, 1-4). It is plain from this instance in the case of Paul, and from that of Peter (Acts xii, 7-i)), who had already exjieri- enced visions (x, 10, etc.), that neither of the apostles could at first distinguish visions from impressions made on the senses. In further illustration it is urged that the prophets are often said to be carried about in vis- ions (Ezek. viii, 1-10; xi, 24, 25; xxxvii, 1: xl, 1, 2). The ])hrase " by the spirit," etc., is said to be equivalent to " the hand of (iod,"etc.. among the prophets (1 Kings xviii, 40; 2 Kings iii, 15; Kzek. i, 3). A comparison of the parallel phrases in the Sept. of Ezekiel and in the evangelists, in regard to Christ's temptation, is thought to cast much light upon the subject ; the phrase "the devil leaveth him" being equivalent to the phrase " the vision I had seen went up from me" (xi, 24).— Kitto.