Satan. Besides, throughout the Gospels there is not only allusion to this first great conflict
(so that it does not belong only to the early history of Christ's Life), but constant
reference to the power of Satan in the world, as a kingdom opposed to that of God, and of
which the Devil is the King.14 And the reality of such a kingdom of evil no earnest mind
would call in question, nor would it pronounce à priori against the personality of its king.
Reasoning à priori, its credibility rests on the same kind of, only, perhaps, on more
generally patent, evidence as that of the beneficent Author of all Good, so that - with
reverence be it said - we have, apart from Holy Scripture, and, as regards one branch of
the argument, as much evidence for believing in a personal Satan, as in a Personal God.
Holding, therefore, by the reality of this transaction, and finding it equally impossible to
trace it to Jewish legend, or to explain it by the coarse hypothesis of misunderstanding,
exaggeration, and the like, this one question arises: Might it not have been a purely
inward transaction, - or does the narrative present an account of what was objectively
real?
13. We refrain from naming the individ ual writers who have broached these and other
equally untenable hypotheses.
14. The former notably in St. Matt. xii. 25-28; St. Luke xi. 17 &c. The import of this, as
looking back upon the history of the Temptation, has not always been sufficiently
recognised. In regard to Satan and his power many passages will occur to the reader, such
as St. Matt. vi. 13; xii. 22; xiii. 19, 25, 39; xxvi. 41; St. Luke x. 18; xxii. 3, 28, 31; St.
John viii. 44; xii. 31; xiii. 27; xiv. 30; xvi. 11.
At the outset, it is only truthful to state, that the distinction does not seem of quite so vital
importance as it has appeared to some, who have used in regard to it the strongest
language.15 On the other hand it must be admitted that the narrative, if naturally
interpreted, suggests an outward and real event, not an inward transaction;16 that there is
no other instance of ecstatic state or of vision recorded in the life of Jesus, and that (as
Bishop Ellicott has shown),17 the special expressions used are all in accordance with the
natural view. To this we add, that some of the objections raised - notably that of the
impossibility of showing from one spot all the kingdoms of the world - cannot bear close
investigation. For no rational interpretation would insist on the absolute literality of this
statement, any more than on that of the survey of the whole extent of the land of Israel by
Moses from Pisgah. 18 19 All the requirements of the narrative would be met by supposing
Jesus to have been placed on a very high mountain, whence south, the land of Judæa and
far-off Edom; east, the swelling plains towards Euphrates; north, snow-capped Lebanon;
and west, the cities of Herod, the coast of the Gentiles, and beyond, the wide sea dotted
with sails, gave far-off prospect of the kingdoms o f this world. To His piercing gaze all
their grandeur would seem to unroll, and pass before Him like a moving scene, in which
the sparkle of beauty and wealth dazzled the eye, the sheen of arms glittered in the far
distance, the tramp of armed men, the hum of busy cities, and the sound of many voices
fell on the ear like the far-off rush of the sea, while the restful harmony of thought, or the
music of art, held and bewitched the senses - and all seemed to pour forth its fullness in
tribute of homage at His feet in Whom all is perfect, and to Whom all belongs.
15. So Bishop Ellicott, Histor. Lectures, p. 111.