There could be no other possible ground of controversy about the body of Moses except whether or not Christ should give it life before the general resurrection. But Christ rebuked the Devil. Christ was not thwarted in this contest, but gave his servant life; and thus Moses could appear personally upon the mount. This makes the scene complete as a representation of the kingdom of God, as Peter says it was (2 Peter 1:16-18); namely, Christ the glorified King, Elias representing those who will be translated without seeing death, and Moses representing those who will be raised from the dead. These two classes embrace all the happy subjects of that kingdom. This view of the matter is not peculiar to this book. Dr. Adam Clarke, on Matt. 17:3, says: “The body of Moses was probably raised again, as a pledge of the resurrection.”(2) And Olshausen says: “For if we assume the reality of the _resurrection of the body_, and its glorification,—truths which assuredly belong to the system of Christian doctrine,—the whole occurrence presents no essential difficulties. The appearance of Moses and Elias, which is usually held to be the most unintelligible point in it, is as easily conceived of as possible, if we admit their bodily glorification.” Those passages which speak of Christ as the “first-fruits,” the “first-born from the dead,” the “first-born among many brethren,” “of every creature,” etc., refer only to the chief and pivotal importance of his own resurrection, as related to all others; and Acts 26:23 does not declare that Christ should be the first one to be raised from the dead, but that he first, by a resurrection from the dead, should show light to the Gentiles. (See the Greek of this passage.) These scriptures therefore prove no objection to the idea that Moses had been raised from the dead, and as a victor over the grave, appeared with Christ upon the mount. Thus another supposed stronghold affords no refuge for the conscious-state theory, or for Spiritualism. 9. _The Rich Man and Lazarus._—With the features of this parable, as found in Luke 16, which is supposed to prove the dead conscious, and Spiritualism possible, the reader is doubtless familiar. It should ever be borne in mind that this is a parable; and in a parable, neither the parties nor the scenes are to be taken literally, and hence no doctrines can be built upon such symbolic representations. But not only is it a parable, but it is a parable based upon traditions largely entertained by the Jews themselves in the time of Christ. Thus T. J. Hudson (“Law of Psychic Phenomena,” p. 385) says:—