THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE.
1. When the psalmist says: "The Lord God is a sun and shield" (Psa.
84:11), he means that God is to all his creatures the source of life and
blessedness, and their almighty protector; but this meaning he conveys
_under the figure_ of a sun and a shield. When, again, the apostle James
says that Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day (Acts
15:21), he signifies the writings of Moses under the figure of his name.
In these examples the figure lies in particular words. But it may be
embodied in a sentence, thus: "It is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks" (Acts 26:14), where Saul's conduct in persecuting Christ's
disciples is represented under the form of an ox kicking against the
ploughman's goad only to make the wounds it inflicts deeper. Figurative
language, then, is that in which _one thing is said under the form or
figure of another thing_. In the case of allegories and parables, it may
take the form, as we shall hereafter see, of continuous discourse.
A large proportion of the words in all languages, in truth all that
express intellectual and moral ideas, were originally figurative, the
universal law being to represent immaterial by material objects.
Examples are the words _exist_, _existence_, _emotion_, _affliction_,
_anguish_, etc. But in these, and innumerable other words, the primitive
physical meaning has become obsolete, and thus the secondary spiritual
meaning is to us literal. Or, what often happens, while the original
physical signification is retained, a secondary figurative meaning of
the word has become so common that its use hardly recalls the physical
meaning, and it may therefore be regarded as literal; as in the words
_hard_, _harsh_, _rough_, when applied to character. In the first of the
above examples: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," the
transfer of the word _hard_ from what is physically hard to what is
painful or difficult, is so common that it can hardly be regarded as
figurative. But the expression that follows is figurative in the fullest
sense of the word.
Rhetoricians divide figures into two general classes, figures of
_words_, and figures of _thought_, and they give elaborate definitions,
classifications, and rules for their use. The interpreter of Scripture,
however, need not encumber himself with any rhetorical system. The
general rules of interpretation already considered will be, for the most
part, a sufficient guide to the meaning of the rich variety of figures
contained in the Bible, especially in its poetical parts. It is only
necessary to add a few words in reference to the ascertaining of
figurative language; the most prominent classes of figures; and some
principles to be observed in their interpretation.
2. The question may arise whether a writer is to be understood literally
or figuratively. For the _ascertaining_ of figurative language, a few
simple rules will be, in general, sufficient.
(1.) Multitudes of cases can be decided at once by considering _the
nature of the subject_.
Thus, when the apostle calls Jesus Christ a "foundation," and speaks of
building upon this foundation "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay,
stubble," adding that "every man's work shall be revealed by fire; and
the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;" and, further,
that "if any man's work abide" this fire, "he shall receive a reward,"
but "if any man's work be burned he shall suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:11-15),
we know at once, from the nature of the subject, that he speaks
figuratively. He compares the church of God to a temple, of which Jesus
Christ is the foundation, while her teachers and preachers are the
builders. The "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble,"
represent primarily the materials with which they build; that is, the
character of their doctrines and precepts, and secondarily, the
character of those whom they bring into the Christian fold. The "fire,"
again, is the trial and judgment of the last day.
The apostle says of the ancient Israelites that "they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor.
10:4. So also Christ is called to believers "a chief corner-stone,
elect, precious;" but to unbelievers "a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offence" (1 Pet. 2:6-8); "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of
David" (Rev. 5:5); "the Lamb of God" and simply "the Lamb" (John 1:29,
36; Rev. 5:12; 6:1; etc.); "the door of the sheep" (John 10:7, 9); "the
true vine" (John 15:1); and "the living bread which came down from
heaven" (John 6:51). He himself says: "Whoso eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last
day." John 6:54. There is no more ground for understanding the last of
these passages literally than the preceding, that is, there is no ground
whatever. The dogma of the Romish church, which teaches that the
consecrated bread and wine are literally converted into the body and
blood of Jesus, violates alike sound reason and every sound principle of
interpretation. "As the words, 'This is my body,' and 'This is my
blood,' were spoken BEFORE Christ's body was broken upon the cross, and
BEFORE his blood was shed, he could not pronounce them with the
intention that they should be taken and interpreted literally by his
disciples. He could not take his body in his hands, nor offer them his
blood in the cup; for it had not yet been shed." Horne, vol. 2, p. 319.
(2.) In ascertaining figurative language, the interpreter will naturally
take into account _the scope_, _the context_, and the _general analogy
of scriptural teaching_. If the literal sense, though possible in the
nature of things, is inept or contrary to the general tenor of
Scripture, it must be rejected.
The prophet Isaiah tells us that, under the future reign of the Messiah,
the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard lie down with the kid,
the lion eat straw like the ox, and the child play with impunity on the
hole of the asp. Isa. 11:6-8. It is possible to conceive of this state
of things as effected by a change in the physical nature of all noxious
animals. But the writer immediately adds: "They shall not hurt nor
destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (ver. 9). Since then
the change is effected by the universal diffusion of "the knowledge of
the Lord," it must be a _moral_ change--a transformation of the
character of wicked men figuratively described as wolves, leopards,
bears, lions, and vipers. The general analogy of prophetic language,
which, as will be hereafter shown, abounds in figurative forms of
representation, strengthens this conclusion.
By the prophet Haggai, again, God says: "Yet once, it is a little while,
and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry
land." Chap. 2:6. The key to the meaning of these words is given in the
following verse: "And I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all
nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the
Lord of hosts." In such a connection, and with such a result, nothing
could be more vapid than to understand this shaking of heaven and earth,
sea and land, in a physical sense. It is the mighty overturnings among
the nations, social, moral, and political, that are here predicted, as
Jehovah says by Ezekiel: "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it
shall be no more, until he come whose right it is, and I will give it to
him." Chap. 21:27. Compare Isa. 13:13; Jer. 4:24; Ezek. 38:20; Joel
3:16. So when God announces that he "will cause the sun to go down at
noon, and darken the earth in the clear day" (Amos 8:9), we understand
at once that under this figure he forewarns the covenant people of the
sudden approach of great calamity. Compare Deut. 28:29; Job 5:14; Isa.
13:10; Jer. 4:23-28; Ezek. 32:7, 8; Joel 2:31; 3:15; etc. This subject
will be further discussed under the head of the interpretation of
prophecy.
In the sermon on the mount, the Saviour says: "Whosoever shall smite
thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39); but
the preceding context gives the _scope_ of this and the other particular
precepts that follow, which is that Christ's followers should "resist
not evil," that is, by rendering evil for evil. It is the spirit of
meekness and forbearance that he inculcates, not a slavish regard to
this and that particular form of manifesting it. So when he says: "Give
to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn
not thou away" (ver. 42), he cannot mean, consistently with the scope of
the passage and his teachings elsewhere, that we should stultify
ourselves by literally giving to every asker and borrower, without
regard to his necessities, real or alleged. He means rather to inculcate
that liberal spirit which never withholds such help as it is able to
give from those who need it.
When the Saviour says again: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out
and cast it from thee," etc., both the preceding context and the general
tenor of the Scriptures teach us that he means what is expressed by the
apostle in another form: "Mortify, therefore, your members which are
upon the earth." Col. 3:5. To _mortify_ is to _deprive of life_, _make
dead_. We mortify our members which would seduce us into sin, not by
destroying them, but by keeping them in subjection to "the law of the
spirit of life in Christ Jesus."
(3.) If the interpreter is liable to err by taking figurative language
in a literal sense, so is he also by regarding as figurative what should
be understood literally. A favorite expedient with those who deny the
supernatural character of revelation is to explain the miraculous
transactions recorded in the Bible as _figurative_ or _mythical_. When
David says that in answer to his prayer "the earth shook and trembled,
the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was
wroth;" that God "bowed the heavens also and came down, and darkness was
under his feet;" that "the Lord thundered in the heavens, and the
Highest gave his voice, hailstones and coals of fire;" that "he sent out
his arrows and scattered them, and he shot out lightnings and
discomfited them," all acknowledge that the language is to be
figuratively taken. Why then, an objector might ask, not understand the
account of the giving of the law on Sinai amid thunderings and
lightnings as figurative also? The answer of every plain reader would
be--and it is the answer of unsophisticated common sense--that the
former passage occurs in a lyric poem, where such figurative
descriptions are entirely in place; the latter in a plain narrative,
which professes to give throughout historic facts with names and dates;
that no reader, who had not a preconceived opinion to maintain, ever did
or could think of interpreting the passage in Exodus in any other than a
literal way, while every reader understands at once that the poetic
description in the eighteenth psalm is to be taken figuratively. The
attempt has been made to interpret the gospel history as a _myth_--the
embodiment of a system of pure ideas in the garb of history. It is
difficult to refute an assumption which has no foundation to rest upon.
This mythical theory may, nevertheless, be disposed of in a very short
and simple way. The great central truth of the gospel history is the
death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If any one would know how
the apostle Paul regarded this, let him read the fifteenth chapter of
the first epistle to the Corinthians, where he pledges his veracity as a
witness on its historic reality (ver. 15). If, now, Paul so regarded it,
Luke, his companion in travel and labor, cannot have taken a different
view of it, nor any other of the evangelists. But if the death and
resurrection of Jesus are recorded as true historic events, the whole
mythical theory vanishes at once into thin air.
(4.) In regard to those prophecies which relate to the distant future,
it may sometimes be difficult to determine whether we are to look for a
literal or a figurative fulfilment of them. But this subject will come
up for consideration in another place.
3. In regard to the _different kinds of figures_ a few words may be in
place.
(1.) The term _trope_ (Greek, _tropos_, _a turn_) is applied, in a
general sense, to figures of words and speech of every variety; but, in
stricter usage, to a word or sentence _turned_ from its literal
signification to a figurative sense. Quintilian adds (Inst. Orator. 8.
6. 1) that this must be _with good effect_ (_cum virtute_); that is, it
must add clearness, force, or beauty to the thought.
The principal varieties of the trope are the _metonymy_ and the
_metaphor_. The _metonymy_ is founded on the _relation_ of one thing to
another. Thus when Abraham says to the rich man: "They have Moses and
the prophets, let them hear them" (Luke 16:29), Moses and the prophets
are put for their writings; that is, the _authors_ for their _works_. "A
soft tongue," says the wise man, "breaketh the bone." Prov. 25:15. Here
the word tongue is put for speech, the _instrument_ for the _thing
effected_, and this metonymy is joined with a metaphor. (See below.) The
_synecdoche_, in which a _part_ is put for the _whole_, as the _sword_
for _war_, is in its nature essentially a metonymy. Rhetoricians give
elaborate classifications of metonymies, but they are of little value to
the scriptural student, since all are interpreted according to the few
simple principles given in the preceding chapter.
The _metaphor_ is founded on the _resemblance_ of one thing to another;
as in the examples already given: "The Lord God is a sun and shield"
(Psa. 84:11); "I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman." John
15:1. It may lie not in a single word, but in an entire expression,
thus: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (Acts 26:14); "I
counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be
rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame
of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve,
that thou mayest see." Rev. 3:18. The metaphor and metonymy may be
joined, as in the words already quoted: "A soft tongue breaketh the
bone;" or they may blend themselves with each other, as when Nahum says
of the princes of Nineveh: "The sword shall devour thy young lions."
Chap. 2:13. In this last example, as often elsewhere, _personification_,
which is properly a figure of thought, is added, the sword being
represented as a beast of prey. The grand and gorgeous personifications
of Scripture naturally clothe themselves in tropical language of
inimitable beauty and exhaustless variety. "O thou sword of the Lord,"
says Jeremiah, "how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyself
into thy scabbard, rest, and be still. How can it be quiet, seeing the
Lord hath given it a charge against Ashkelon, and against the sea-shore?
There hath he appointed it." Chap. 47:6, 7. The prophet Habakkuk
represents God as coming forth in his glory for the salvation of his
people: "The mountains saw thee," says he, "and they trembled: the
overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and
lifted up his hands on high: the sun and moon stood still in their
habitation." Chap. 3:10, 11. God's promise to his redeemed is: "Ye shall
go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the
hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of
the field shall clap their hands." Isa. 55:12. Metonymies, metaphors,
and sometimes personifications--the books of the New Testament sparkle
with these figures, and they are used always for effect, not empty show.
They are like the flaming bolts of heaven, which rend and burn as well
as shine. "Beware of false prophets," says the Saviour, "which come to
you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall
know them by their fruits: do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of
thistles?" Matt. 7:15, 16. How effectually does he by these metaphors
strip off the mask from false teachers! "If the foot shall say, Because
I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the
body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of
the body; is it therefore not of the body?" 1 Cor. 12:15, 16. Here is
personification without a trope. "O death, where is thy sting? O grave,
where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. 15:55), here is a majestic
personification in metaphorical form.
As resemblance lies at the foundation of the metaphor, it may be called
an _abbreviated form of comparison_, the thing with which the comparison
is made being directly predicated of that which is compared. Thus, when
we say: A sluggard is vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes of
those who send him, we have a metaphor, the sluggard being directly
called vinegar and smoke. But if we say: "As vinegar to the teeth, and
as smoke to the eyes, _so is_ the sluggard to them that send him" (Prov.
10:26), we have a comparison, and the language ceases to be tropical.
The metaphor is thus a more vivid form of expression than the
comparison.
A common mode of comparison in the book of Proverbs is simply to put
together the object compared and the thing or things with which it is
compared, thus: "A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod
for the fool's back" (chap. 26:3); that is, _As_ a whip is appropriate
for, the horse, and a bridle for the ass, _so_ is a rod for the fool's
back. Again, "Where there is no wood the fire goeth out, and where there
is no tale-bearer the strife ceaseth" (Prov. 26:20); "Charcoal to live
coals, and wood to fire; and a man of strife to kindle strife" (Prov.
26: 21); "Silver dross spread over an earthen sherd--burning lips [lips
glowing with professions of love] and a wicked heart" (Prov. 26: 23); in
all which cases our version has supplied particles of comparison.
(2.) An _allegory_ is the _narrative of a spiritual transaction under
the figure of something lower and earthly_, the lower transaction
representing directly the higher. We have in the eightieth Psalm an
exquisite example of the allegory: "Thou hast brought a vine out of
Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it. Thou preparedst
room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the
land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it," etc. (ver. 8-16);
where the transfer of the Israelitish people from Egypt to the land of
Canaan, with their subsequent history, is described under the figure of
a vine.
The metaphor and allegory have this in common, that the foundation of
both is _resemblance_, and in both the lower object is _put directly_
for the higher. Yet the metaphor cannot be properly called a condensed
allegory, nor the allegory an extended metaphor; for it is essential to
the allegory that it have the form of a narrative, and that it contain
real history--in the case of _prophecy_ it may be _future_
history--under a figure. Hence it admits of indefinite extension, as in
the "_Pilgrim's Progress_;" and we may add the _Canticles_, which the
Christian church from the earliest times has regarded as an allegory of
which the subject is, in Old Testament language, God and his covenant
people, but, according to the representation of the New Testament,
Christ and his church.
We must carefully distinguish between _true allegory_ and the
_allegorical_ or _mystical application_ of real history. In the former
case it is not the literal meaning, but the higher sense represented by
it, which constitutes the historic truth. God, for example, never
transferred a vine from Egypt to Palestine, but he did the covenant
people. The story of Sarai and Hagar, on the contrary (Gen., chap. 16),
is true history. The apostle Paul makes an allegorical application of it
to the two covenants, that on Sinai and that in Christ, which is very
beautiful and appropriate; yet the story itself is not allegory, but
plain history. See further, in Chap. 37, No. 4.
(3.) A _parable_ is the _narrative_ of a supposed event for the purpose
of illustrating a _spiritual truth_ or principle. The office of the
narrative is to embody the principle. It should, therefore, be natural
and probable; but its literal truth is of no consequence. In our Lord's
parable of the unjust steward, for example (Luke 16:1-9), the incidents
of the narrative may or may not have been historically true; but either
way the great principle which it illustrates (ver. 10) remains the same.
Allegories and parables pass into each other by insensible degrees. Some
of our Lord's so-called parables are rather allegories; as that of the
vineyard let out to husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-41), which is founded on the
beautiful allegory of Isaiah (chap. 5:1-7); so also that of the good
shepherd (John 10:1-18). In their pure form, however, the allegory and
the parable are easily distinguished from each other. In the allegory,
the figure represents directly the higher transaction. Hence the
incidents introduced in the figure--at least all the _main_
incidents--must have something corresponding to them in the spiritual
transaction which the figure represents. The case of the parable is
different. Here the spiritual truth is not directly described in terms
of the figure, but simply _illustrated_ from it. The incidents and
characters of the story are separable from the general principle which
it inculcates, and are sometimes formally separated by the speaker
himself; as when our Lord says: "The kingdom of heaven _is likened_ unto
a man which sowed good seed in his field," etc. Matt. 13:24. For this
reason they may belong more or less to the mere drapery of the parable,
so that to press them in its interpretation would lead to error instead
of truth. See further below, No. 7.
(4.) _The fable_ is related to the parable, but it differs from it in
two respects. _First_, it moves in a _worldly sphere_, having to do with
prudential maxims rather than spiritual truth. _Secondly_, it allows, in
harmony with this its lower nature, irrational objects as speakers and
actors, which would be contrary to the dignity of the parable. Our Lord
never employed fables as vehicles of instruction. There are two examples
of them in the Old Testament; neither of them, however, coming from the
lips of prophetical men. The first is that of Jotham: "The trees went
forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the
olive-tree, Reign thou over us," etc. Judg. 9:8-15. The second is that
of Jehoash: "The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was
in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there
passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle."
2 Kings 14:9.
(5.) A _symbol_ is a _material object_, a _transaction in the material
world_, or sometimes a _number_, to represent some _higher spiritual
truth_. Ritual symbols, like the ark of the covenant, the high-priest's
dress, the sacrifices, and, in general, the whole tabernacle and temple
service, will be considered hereafter under the head of _types_. We
speak of symbols now, only so far as they belong to the human side of
interpretation. We have a beautiful example of a symbolic transaction in
the seventeenth chapter of the book of Numbers, where the princes of
Israel, by God's direction, take twelve rods, write each man his name
upon his rod, and lay them up in the tabernacle before the Lord,
whereupon Aaron's rod "budded, and brought forth buds, and blossomed
blossoms, and yielded almonds;" a symbol that God would make the
priesthood to flourish in his family.
Scriptural symbols exhibit a wonderful variety. Sometimes they
are seen in _dreams_, as in Jacob's dream of a ladder reaching
to heaven (Gen. 28:12-15); Pharaoh's two dreams of the fat and
lean kine, and the good and thin ears (Gen. 41:1-7); or in
_prophetic vision_, like Jeremiah's vision of a seething pot
with the face towards the north (Jer. 1:13); Ezekiel's vision of
the cherubim (chap. 1); and Amos' vision of a basket of summer
fruit (chap. 8:2). At other times they are actual transactions.
So the false prophet Zedekiah "made him horns of iron: and he
said, Thus saith the Lord, with these shalt thou push the
Syrians till thou have consumed them" (1 Kings 22:11); the true
prophet Jeremiah wore a yoke upon his neck as a sign that God
would subject the nations to Nebuchadnezzar's power, and the
false prophet Hananiah broke it, that he might thus signify the
deliverance of the people from Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Jer.
27:1-8, compared with 28:10, 11.
(6.) A _proverb_ is a _short maxim_ relating to practical life. It may
be expressed literally or figuratively, but in either case it must
contain a _general truth_. "A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him;
neither will he go unto the wise" (Prov. 15:12), is a proverb expressed
in plain language. "The name of the Lord is a strong tower: the
righteous runneth into it, and is safe" (Prov. 18:10), is a proverb
under a beautiful figure. The foolish young men counselled Rehoboam to
say to the Israelites: "My little finger shall be thicker than my
father's loins." 1 Kings 12:10. This is not a proverb, because it
contains only the figurative statement of a particular fact. But if we
change the form, and say: The little finger of a foolish ruler is
thicker than the loins of a wise king, we make it general, and thus it
becomes a proverb.
The Hebrew word for a proverb (_mashal_) denotes a _similitude_, this
being one of its most common forms. Examples occur in abundance in the
book of Proverbs. We have them in the form of _direct comparison_: "As
in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man" (chap.
27:19); "A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious
woman are alike" (chap. 27:15); "Better is a dinner of herbs where love
is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith" (chap. 15:17). We have them
also in the form of _metaphor_: "The contentions of a wife are a
continual dropping" (chap. 19:13); "The lips of knowledge are a precious
jewel" (chap. 20:15). But most frequently the comparison appears in the
form of _contrast_, thus: "A wise son heareth his father's instruction;
but a scorner heareth not rebuke" (chap. 13:1); "A faithful witness will
not lie; but a false witness will utter lies" (chap. 14:5). The
signification of the word _proverb_ is then extended to short
sententious maxims of every form, even where comparison is excluded,
thus: "A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways
of judgment" (chap. 17:23).
(7.) The word _myth_ (Greek _muthos_) was applied by the Greeks to a
legend or story of early times, then to a _fable_, like those of Æsop.
In modern usage it is defined to be a story in which "there is an
unconscious blending of the deeper meaning with the outward symbol, the
two being separate and separable in the parable." "The mythic narrative
presents itself not merely as the vehicle of the truth, but as itself
being the truth; while in the parable there is a perfect consciousness
in all minds of the distinctness between form and essence, shell and
kernel, the precious vessel and yet more precious wine that it
contains." Trench, Notes on the Parables, chap. 1. A good illustration
of this we have in the tales of Grecian mythology, once received by the
masses of the people as literally true; but which "a later and more
reflective age than that in which the mythus had birth" learned to
regard as only the vehicle of certain ideas respecting deity. The myth,
as thus defined, does not come within the sphere of biblical
interpretation. The historic events recorded in the Old Testament may,
and often do, shadow forth something higher. In that case they are not
myths, but _typical history_. Chap. 37, No. 4. All the scriptural
narratives, on the contrary, which are true, not in their literal
meaning, but in a higher sense, come under the head of allegories,
parables, or symbolic representations.
4. In the _interpretation_ of figurative language we must be guided, in
general, by the principles considered in the preceding chapter. To lay
down special rules for the interpretation of the rich and endlessly
varied figures which adorn the pages of Holy Writ would be as
impracticable as useless. The history of Biblical exegesis, however,
shows that some general cautions are much needed.
5. The youthful student of Scripture should be reminded, first of all,
that its figurative language is no less _certain and truthful_ than its
plain and literal declarations. The figures of the Bible are employed
not simply to please the imagination and excite the feelings, but to
teach _eternal verities_. The Lord Jesus, "the faithful and true
Witness," said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall
not pass away." Mark 13:31. Yet there is a class of interpreters who
seem to think that if they can show in any given case that his language
is figurative, its meaning is well nigh divested of all certainty and
reality. Thrice in immediate succession did he solemnly warn his hearers
to cut off an offending hand or foot, and to pluck out an offending eye,
rather than be cast with the whole body into hell, "into the fire that
never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched." Mark 9:43-48. But, says one of this class of expositors, the
maiming of the body is figurative language, and so is the representation
of the worm that never dies. Undoubtedly the maiming of the body is so;
and how far the unquenchable fire may also be a figure for the dread
reality that awaits the incorrigibly impenitent in the world to come we
pretend not to know. But in the lips of Jesus figures teach truth, not
fiction. The unhappy sinner who despises the grace of the gospel will
find the reality not less terrible than the figures by which Christ has
represented it. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable; but
we cannot on this ground set aside the solemn lessons which it
inculcates. What these lessons are, it requires only candor and faith to
receive. They teach us that God's suffering children go immediately,
upon death, to a state of conscious blessedness; and "the men of the
world, which have their portion in this life," to a place of unmitigated
suffering. Whatever be the comprehension of the word _Hades_ (rendered
in our version by the word _hell_), there is an impassable gulf between
Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and the rich man in torment. The "great gulf
fixed" may be a figure; but it represents an awful reality; and that
reality is, that there is no transition from the one state to the other.
6. In the _allegory_ the higher spiritual transaction is, as we have
seen, directly represented by the lower. When we know, therefore, what
the allegory represents, we have the key to its interpretation, and all
its incidents fall naturally into place. If the sphere of the allegory
be the outward history of God's people, all its incidents--at least all
its _main_ incidents--ought to have a significance. If its sphere be
that of inward spiritual experience, as in the Song of Solomon, more
latitude must be allowed for the drapery of the story; yet here also the
essential parts will each correspond to something in the higher object
represented.
An example of pure historic allegory is that of the vine transplanted
from Egypt (Psa. 80), where the higher object, which gives the key to
the meaning, is _God's covenant people_. The casting out of the heathen
(ver. 8), is literally expressed, but in the verses following, the
figure is beautifully carried out. This vine takes deep root and fills
the land; the hills are covered with its shadow, and its boughs are like
the goodly cedar; it sends out its boughs to the sea, and its branches
to the river (ver. 9-11). Here we have one main incident, the _increase_
of the people in the land of Canaan. Then God breaks down its hedges, so
that every passer-by plucks it; the boar out of the wood wastes it, and
the wild beast of the field devours it (ver. 12, 13). This is another
main incident, the _withdrawal of God's protection_ from his people, and
their oppression by their heathen neighbors. The prayer that follows in
behalf of this vine (ver. 14-16) represents the _love_ which God's
people bear to his church. All these parts of the allegory have their
proper significance. The rest of the imagery--the hills overshadowed by
it, the boughs like the goodly cedar, the wild boar wasting it, etc.--is
but the drapery of the allegory; and an attempt to find a spiritual
meaning for each of these particulars--the boar out of the wood, for
example, and the beast of the field--would but mar its beauty and force.
We give from Ezekiel (chap. 17:3-10) another example of historic
allegory, in which the essential parts can be readily distinguished from
the luxuriant imagery of the prophet: "A great eagle with great wings,
long-winged, full of feathers, which had divers colors [Nebuchadnezzar],
came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar [Jehoiachin,
whom Nebuchadnezzar dethroned and carried to Babylon. The cedar of
Lebanon represents the royal family, and Jehoiachin, as the reigning
monarch, its highest branch]: he cropped off the top of his young twigs
[the same as: he took the highest branch of the cedar], and carried it
into a land of traffic [Chaldea]; he set it in a city of merchants
[Babylon]. He took also of the seed of the land [the king's seed,
meaning Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar made king in the place of
Jehoiachin], and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great
waters, and set it as a willow-tree [established Zedekiah on the throne,
and gave him the means of prosperity as his vassal]. And it grew, and
became a spreading vine of low stature [not a lofty cedar, but a low
vine; that is, a tributary king], whose branches turned towards him
[towards Nebuchadnezzar, as dependent upon him], and the roots thereof
were under him [under Nebuchadnezzar, as subject to his power]: so it
became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth twigs. There
was also another great eagle with great wings and many feathers
[Pharaoh, king of Egypt]: and behold this vine did bend her roots
towards him [Zedekiah turned away his confidence from Nebuchadnezzar to
Pharaoh], and shot forth her branches towards him, that he might water
it by the furrows of her plantation. It was planted [had been planted by
Nebuchadnezzar] in a good soil by great waters, that it might bring
forth branches, and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly
vine [fidelity to Nebuchadnezzar would have made Zedekiah prosperous].
Say thou, Thus saith the Lord God: Shall it prosper? [now that it bends
towards the second eagle] shall he [Nebuchadnezzar] not pull up the
roots thereof, that it wither? It shall wither in all the leaves of her
spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the
roots thereof [the work of plucking it up will be easy, not requiring a
numerous force]. Yea, behold, being planted shall it prosper? shall it
not utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it? [a new figure to
represent its destruction] it shall wither in the furrows where it
grew."
There is a class of allegories in the Old Testament which represent the
relation of God to his people under the figure of husband and wife. Such
are the Song of Solomon, and the two remarkable allegories in Ezekiel
(chapters 16 and 23). The luxuriant fulness of imagery in these
allegories does not admit of interpretation in detail. The general scope
only of the images is to be taken into account, since this contains the
essential idea.
In the free style of the scriptural writers the allegory admits of the
introduction of _literal_ clauses ("_Thou hast cast out the heathen_,
and planted it," Psa. 80:8), and also of _explanatory_ clauses, though
not so readily as the parable. See examples in Isa. 5:7; John 10:9, 11,
14.
7. The scriptural _parables_ have a rich variety of form, sometimes
approaching to that of the allegory, when the interpretation must be
upon the same general principle. In its pure form, however, the parable
does not, like the allegory, represent directly the higher spiritual
truth, but is simply a narrative to illustrate it. It may be introduced
in the absolute form, like the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke
13:6-9); or, more commonly, in the shape of a similitude, thus: "The
kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his
field" (Matt. 13:24); "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or
with what comparison shall we compare it?" Mark 4:30. It may be left
without explanation, but more commonly an explanatory remark is added.
So to the parable of the two sons whom the father asked to work in his
vineyard is added the application: "Verily I say unto you, that the
publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" (Matt.
21:28-31); and the parable of the Pharisee and publican is both
introduced and followed by an explanatory clause (Luke 18:9-14). All
such clauses are of the highest importance for the interpretation of the
parables to which they are annexed. In the interpretation of a parable,
the first and most important thing is to ascertain the spiritual truth
which it is intended to inculcate. How far a spiritual significance is
to be sought for the particular incidents of parables is a question to
be determined separately for each, according to its nature.
In the parable of the sower, which our Lord himself interpreted (Matt.
13:3-8, 19-23), all the parts are essential, since the four different
kinds of soil represent four different classes of hearers. So in the
parable of the tares in the field (Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43), the good seed
sown by the owner of the field, the tares sown by his enemy, the
separation, at the time of harvest, of the tares from the wheat, the
burning of the tares, and the gathering of the wheat into the barn, are
all main incidents in its spiritual application. Not so in the parable
of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), of which our Lord himself has given
the scope, and, so far as we can see the only scope: "Watch, therefore,
for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh."
If we go farther, and inquire what is the spiritual meaning of the lamps
and oil-vessels, of the equal division of the virgins into five wise and
five foolish, of the request of the foolish virgins that the wise would
give them oil, and the answer of the wise virgins, we run into useless
speculations. All these particulars belong to the drapery of the
parable, and are intended to make the story natural and probable.
In the pure form of the parable, the personages introduced to illustrate
God's ways of providence and grace do not, as in the allegory, directly
represent God himself. It is not necessary, therefore, that there be in
all cases a correspondence between their character and that of the holy
God. It is sufficient if the words and deeds ascribed to them truly
illustrate the spiritual principle in question. In the parable of the
unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-35), his lord "commanded him to be
sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be
made" (ver. 25); and afterwards he "was wroth, and delivered him to the
tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" (ver. 34). We
need not trouble ourselves about the reasonableness of these acts _on
the part of an earthly lord_. It is sufficient for the end of the
parable that they were in accordance with the usages of the age, and
thus illustrated the great truth which the parable was intended to
enforce: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye
from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses"
(ver. 35). We have still more forcible illustrations of this principle
in such parables as those of the importunate friend (Luke 11:5-8), the
unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8), and the unfaithful steward (Luke 16:1-9).
The Saviour does not compare God to an indolent friend, who will not
arise to accommodate his neighbor with bread till he is forced to do so
by his importunity; nor to an unjust judge, who fears not God nor
regards men. But he _draws illustrations_ from their conduct of the
efficacy of importunate prayer; adding, at the conclusion of each
parable, its scope: "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you;
seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Luke
11:9); "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night
unto him, though he bear long with them?" Luke 18:7. In the parable of
the unfaithful steward, our Lord introduces a fraudulent transaction--a
transaction so manifestly fraudulent that there is no danger of our
thinking that it could have his approbation--that he may thus illustrate
the importance of _prudent provision_ for the future. By allowing each
of his lord's debtors to diminish the amount due from him, he gains
their favor, that in time of need he may be received into their houses.
For the right apprehension of the parable, the words of the eighth verse
are of primary importance: "And the lord [the master of the steward]
commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely" [_prudently_,
as the Greek word means]. Unjust as the steward's conduct was, he could
not but commend it as a prudent transaction for the end which he had in
view. Our Saviour adds: "For the children of this world are in their
generation [more exactly, _towards_ or _in respect to_ their own
generation; that is, in dealing with men of their own sort] wiser than
the children of light." The steward and his lord's debtors were all
"children of this world," and the transaction between them was conducted
upon worldly principles. Our Saviour would have "the children of
light"--God's holy children, who live and act in the sphere of heavenly
light--provident of their everlasting welfare in the use which they make
of this world's goods, as this steward was of his earthly welfare when
he should be put out of his stewardship. He accordingly adds, as the
scope of the parable (ver. 9): "Make to yourselves friends of [by the
right use of] the mammon of unrighteousness [so called as being with
unrighteous men the great object of pursuit, and too commonly sought,
moreover, by unrighteous means]; that when ye fail [are discharged from
your stewardship by death], they may receive you [that is, the friends
whom ye have made by bestowing your earthly riches in deeds of love and
mercy] into everlasting habitations." Our Lord uses the words, "they may
receive you," in allusion to the steward's language: "they may receive
me into their houses." They do not receive us by any right or authority
of their own, for this belongs to Christ alone; but they receive us in
the sense that they bear witness before the throne of Christ to our
deeds of love and mercy, by which is manifested the reality of our
faith, and thus our title, through grace, to everlasting habitations.
Compare the remarkable passage in Matt. 25:34-46, which furnishes a true
key to the present parable.
8. To determine whether a _symbol_ is a _real transaction or seen only
in vision_, we must consider both its _nature_ and the _context_. When
Ezekiel, at God's command, visits the temple-court, digs in its wall,
and sees the abominations practised there (chap. 8), we know from his
own words (ver. 3) that the whole transaction was "in the visions of
God." So also the remarkable vision of dry bones. Chap. 37:1-14. But the
symbolical action that follows--the joining of two sticks into
one--seems to be represented as real; for the people ask concerning it:
"Wilt thou not tell us what thou meanest by these?" (ver. 18), and the
two sticks are in the prophet's hand "before their eyes" (ver. 20). The
nature of the symbolical transaction recorded in Jer. 32:6-12--the
purchase of Hanameel's field--with the accompanying historical
circumstances, shows that it was real. From the nature of the vision of
the chariot of God, on the contrary, which Ezekiel saw (chap. 1:10), as
well as from the accompanying notices (chaps. 1:1; 8:1-4), we know that
it was represented to the prophet's inner sense, not seen with his
outward eyes. The moral character of the transactions recorded by Hosea
(chaps. 1-3) has led commentators to decide against their literal
occurrence.
In some cases we must remain in doubt whether the symbolical
transactions are real or seen in vision. How are we to understand, for
example, the transactions recorded in Isa. chap. 20; in Jer. chap.
13:1-11; in Ezek. chap. 4? Concerning such examples expositors will
judge differently; but in either way of understanding them, their
meaning and the instructions which they furnish are the same.
The subject of symbols will come up again in connection with that of
prophecy. At present we consider simply the general principles upon
which they are to be _interpreted_. Here we are to be guided first of
all by the writer's own explanations. Where these are wanting we must
carefully study the nature of the figures used, and the connections in
which they occur.
The sacred writers very commonly indicate the meaning of the symbols
which they employ. Thus the prophet Isaiah is directed to loose the
sackcloth from his loins, and put off his shoe from his foot, walking
naked and barefoot. Chap. 20:2. Then follows the explanation of this
symbolical transaction: "Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and
barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia; so
shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the
Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot," etc. (ver. 3,
4). For other examples see the symbol of the girdle (Jer. 13:1-7
compared with ver. 8-11); of the purchase of Hanameel's field (Jer.
32:6-12 compared with ver. 13-15); of the removal of household stuff
(Ezek. 12:3-7 compared with ver. 8-12); of the plumb-line (Amos 7:7, 8);
of the four horns and four smiths (Zech. 1:18-21); and many other
symbolical transactions which will readily occur to the student of
Scripture.
But sometimes the symbol is given without an explanation, or with only
an obscure intimation of its meaning. The prophet Amos has a vision of
grasshoppers, and afterwards of a devouring fire, with only a general
intimation that they denote heavy calamities, which the Lord in his pity
will avert in answer to prayer. Amos 7:1-6. Here the nature of the
symbols, in connection with the known situation of the Israelitish
people, shows that they represent the general desolation of the land by
foreign enemies. The prophet Ezekiel adds no interpretation to his
vision of the Lord enthroned in glory upon the firmament above the
chariot with four cherubim and four living wheels full of eyes, in the
midst of which a bright fire glows and lightnings blaze. Chaps. 1, 10.
From a careful study of the nature of this magnificent imagery we may
infer with probability that the cherubim with their wheels, moving every
way with the rapidity of a flash of lightning, denote all the agencies
and instrumentalities by which God administers his government over the
world, which are absolutely at his command, and execute with unerring
certainty all his high purposes. The four faces of the cherubim,
moreover, which answer to the four principal divisions of living beings
among the Hebrews, seem to represent the fulness of their endowments.
The meaning of Ezekiel's vision of a New Jerusalem, with its temple and
altar, comes more properly under the head of prophecy. Some of the
symbols in the book of Zechariah are expounded with beautiful clearness,
as that of the two olive-trees. Chap. 4:1-10. Of others the meaning is
only hinted at in an enigmatical way; so that their interpretation is a
matter of great difficulty and uncertainty. As examples we may refer to
the symbol of the ephah (chap. 5:5-11); of the four chariots coming out
from between two mountains of brass with horses of different colors
(chap. 6:1-9); of the two staves, Beauty and Bands, with which the
prophet in vision is commanded to feed "the flock of the slaughter," and
which he is afterwards to break (chap. 11:4-14). For the details in the
interpretation of these and other difficult symbols the reader must be
referred to the commentaries. Our limits will only allow us to indicate
the general principles upon which the expositor must proceed.
9. There is a class of scriptural symbols which may be called
_numerical_. Thus _seven_ is the well-known symbol of completeness,
_four_ of universality, _twelve_ of God's people. See Chap. 32, No. 5.
Under this head fall also those passages in which a day is put for a
year, or for an indefinitely long period of time. One of the most
certain examples is Daniel's prophecy of the _seventy weeks_ that were
to precede the death of the Messiah (chap. 9:24-27), for the details of
which the reader is referred to the commentators. Upon the same
principle we must, in all probability, interpret the "time and times and
dividing of time," that is, three and a half years (Dan. 7:25); the
"forty and two months" (Rev. 11:2; 13:5); and the "thousand two hundred
and threescore days" (Rev. 11:3; 12:6). Compare Ezekiel 4:4-8, in which
symbolical transaction a day is expressly put as the symbol of a year.
On the symbolical interpretation of the six days of creation, see in
Chap. 19, No. 6.
SECOND DIVISION.
INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE DIVINE SIDE
* * * * *