|
|
|
|
|
Trinity College of Biblical Studies
Trinity College of Biblical Studies Library Trinity College of Biblical Studies Chapel
|
Trinity College of Biblical Studies-Free Online Bible College HERMENEUTICS UNIT THREE CHAPTER VIII. FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. We have already seen that much of the Scriptures was written in language that was highly figurative; that its poetry and prophecy, and very much of its prose, contain the loftiest of Oriental hyperbole. It becomes, us, then, to acquaint ourselves with the rules governing this kind of speech. We know that if we shall interpret literal language as if it were figurative, or figurative as if it were literal, we will certainly miss the meaning. SEC. 51. HOW CAN WE KNOW FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE? Rule 1. The sense of the context will indicate it.--As before said, nothing should be regarded as figurative unless such a demand is made by the meaning of the immediate context, or by the evident meaning of the passage as a whole. Rule 2. A word or sentence is figurative when the literal meaning involves an impossibility.--In Jer. i. 18 it is said:
Literally we know that such was not the fact. God had made this man to resemble these things in some respects: he should be strong and immovable like them, hence the comparison. [195]
Literally it is impossible for God to be a rock, a tower, or a horn. It is evident to every one, at sight, that the author did not expect to be understood as indicating such a thing as that God was a literal rock, etc.
Those who were literally dead could not have buried any one. Hence we are bound to regard the dead in this phrase as not literally dead.
Of course John did not see the literal stars fall to the earth. There are millions of these bodies, most of which are many times the size of the earth.
It was a literal impossibility. Metaphorically it was true, but literally it was not true. Great caution must be used in the application of this rule; otherwise we will have all the ignorance of self-constituted critics arrayed against the statements of the word of God. We must pause long enough to know that impossibilities are really confronting us before we make the demand that the passage shall be regarded as figurative. Rule 3. The language of Scripture may be regarded as figurative, if the literal interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another.--That is, if we have two [196] passages, and the literal interpretation of both makes the one to contradict the other, we are at liberty to regard the language of one, at least, as figurative. There is one possible exception. We have some words that are used in more than one meaning. Hence the word in one place may have one meaning, and in another it may depart from that thought.
Not only do the wicked perish, but the righteous also.
But it is easy to have all this contradicted by using a literal interpretation in each case.
Not only will God reserve the wicked as well as the righteous in the intermediate state, but He will send the one away into everlasting life and the other into everlasting punishment. See Matt. xxv. 46.
Take all these passages in a literal sense, and contradiction is inevitable. It would be easy to prove, in this way, that the dead are unconscious, that they know not anything, and just as easy to show that living men were in the same condition. Indeed, we can find that the two hundred men who followed Absalom, who were the statesmen and counselors of David, "knew not any thing." In this way we can make the word of God contradict itself, and say what we all know to be false. Let no one say that this is the fault of the Bible, for the same thing can be done with any other book. The trouble that is usually experienced in these contradictions is to decide which text is to be understood figuratively. This, however, will be explained when we come to give the rules for the interpretation of figurative language. Rule 4. When the Scriptures are made to demand actions that are wrong or forbid those that are good, they are supposed to be figurative.
Perhaps a few have understood this to be intended to direct the actual physical pruning, but it is sufficient to say that ninety-nine out of every hundred, at least, have understood it to be figurative. Indeed, it is not right for a man to dissect himself in any such a manner. Hence the language is figurative.
Except those who have wished to find something in the Bible that is repugnant to all our knowledge of right and wrong, none have regarded this as literal speech. The command to honor father and mother would be violated directly, by the authority of the Saviour, in demanding a literal interpretation.
We can not think of anything being commanded by the devil that would be worse than a literal interpretation would make Jehovah require of His own people. But when we come to know that God was using their own conduct as a symbol of the destruction that was coming upon them because of these very crimes, and that He is presenting their faults before their minds by the strongest use of irony, the case becomes very different. Rule 5. When it is said to be figurative.--The author is supposed to know whether the language was figurative or not: and hence, if he says it is, we have nothing to add. John ii. 18-22 gives the statement of the Master that if they should destroy this temple He would raise it up again in three days. They thought, or, at least, they pretended to think, that He referred to the temple in the city of Jerusalem; but the writer says He spoke concerning the temple of His body.
In John x. 6 it is stated that Jesus spoke a parable to them. In Luke xviii. 1; xix. 1, it is expressly stated that He was speaking in parables. In Gal. iv. 24 Paul says, "which things contain an allegory." Rule 6. When the definite is put for the indefinite.--This is many times the case in the Scriptures. Day, hour, year; ten, one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand, and ten thousand times ten thousand. Such expressions occur frequently. They are rarely supposed to refer to just that number or period.
We leave the other numbers for the present, as they [200] will be called up in the rules that shall be found necessary for such figures of speech. Rule 7. When said in mockery.--Men have always had the habit of using words so as to convey a thought quite different from that which a literal interpretation would indicate.
No one has ever supposed that Elijah meant to say that Baal was a god, for he said it mockingly.
New wine, or sweet wine, would not make any one drunk, and all knew it, and they meant to say just what we do when we say of a man that he has taken too much tea. We do not mean to assert that tea would make him drunk, but in mockery we use one word for another.
They do not mean to concede that he saved others; but that he had claimed to save them, and that his hypocrisy was at last revealed in the fact that He could not save Himself, assuming that, if He could not save Himself, He had not saved others. In Acts xxiii. 5, Paul seems to deny that he knew that Ananias was high priest. But that is impossible. It is easier understood as sarcasm, as if he had said: "Pardon me, friends; I should not have known that [201] he was high priest if you had not informed me; he has acted more like a leader of a mob than a high priest." Rule 8. Common sense.--Figures of speech sometimes occur when we have to depend on the things we know, in order to decide if the language is figurative or literal. We have many statements in the Scriptures that are in excess of the facts. We do not need to be told that they are figurative; we know it. And yet no untruth is told if we keep the hyperbole in view. It is used for the purpose of intensification, and, with the purpose in mind, there is no danger of being misled. When God says that He will make His "arrows drunk with blood," or Paul declares that he is less than the least of all saints, there is nothing deceptive to those who will employ their common sense in the interpretation.
We are safe in saying that this was a low-minded woman. Her mistake in interpreting the language of the Saviour was because she was not competent to lift her mind into the realm of spiritual thought. Even after the Master had given her a view of His blessing, she was [202] thinking of the water she had come to carry home in her pitcher. In Matt. xx. 22, 23, the Saviour tells the disciples that He had a cup to drink, and a baptism to be baptized with, and asks the ambitious James and John if they were able to endure these things; and they said they were able. Now, we have no direct rule that will reach the case, except that of common sense. By that rule we know that the language was figurative.
We might continue till we should weary the reader, with those Scriptures that all know to be figurative; and yet we have scarcely a rule for determining that fact, nor do we need any. We do not conduct the investigation of such passages by tardy rules; through common sense all readers know them to be figurative. SEC. 51. RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.--We shall find that many of the rules which applied to didactic speech will be applicable here, and we shall depend upon the reader to keep those rules in mind. But some of them we shall feel obliged [203] to mention, because of their peculiar use and value in the interpretation of figurative language. We also find that there are additional rules necessary to a full understanding of this kind of speech. Hence the section now introduced. Rule 1. Let the author give his own interpretation. This, of course, applies as well to literal as to figurative language. But it is very seldom that an author has thought it necessary to interpret language that was strictly literal. Generally he would not be able to do better by the second effort. But many times, when the language is highly tropical, the writer feels that some explanation is needed. It is always safe to take his definition of the speech he has made. He certainly knows more than any one else could know respecting his meaning. As simple as this rule is, and as certainly correct as it is, still it is greatly neglected. Many have proceeded as if their calling was to correct the blunders of the author. They show their ability as exegetes in making out of the figures employed a great many things that the writers never thought of. When Ezekiel saw his vision of the valley of dry bones (xxxvii.), he gave the world of interpreters a vast field for the employment of genius. Men have made many things out of that vision; in fact, there are not many things they have not found in that chapter. And yet, in the eleventh verse, the prophet says it referred to the house of Israel-that as they were away from home, and seemingly neglected, they were ready to give up all hope of returning, But in this vision it was made known that they should return to their land again. Scattered as they were, God could bring them together, [204] and bring them out and plant them again in their own land. In Jer. xviii. 1-10, we have another abused passage. When the prophet went down to the potter's to see a work wrought on the wheel, a vessel of honor was made, but it became marred in the hand of the potter, and he made it into another and less honorable vessel; and then the man of God has the application, "So are ye in my hand, O house of Israel." God had done well enough by them, but they became marred in His hand; and as the potter had power over the clay to make of the "same lump" a vessel unto honor, and then one to dishonor, so He could and would do with Israel--if they would not be the people that they ought to be, He would give them a place of less importance and glory. John ii. 14-22 has an explanation by the writer. Jesus would raise up His body in three days--not the temple in Jerusalem. In Matt. xiii. 18-23, the Master explains the meaning of the parable of the sower. We have several explanations of the Master by which His parables are made clear to the mind of all disciples. Rule 2. The interpretation should be according to the general and special scope.--As this is one of the rules for the interpretation of literal language, but little now needs to be said. If the rule is necessary to a right understanding of that which was meant to be plain, certainly it is of great importance in the exegesis of that which is confessedly difficult.
In the interpretation of this passage we must not [205] lose sight of the topic under consideration. God's ways are not as our ways; He employs silent forces for mighty ends. In His handiwork can be seen the evidence of His wisdom and goodness, and in His law is that power by which the souls of men are turned around from the wrong to the right. This does not mean to say that God had nothing to add to this law; it was perfect for the purpose for which it had been given. We learn afterwards, from Paul, that it was a school-master to bring men to Christ. But David does not teach differently when he is studied in the light of the purpose before his mind. Ezek. xxxvi. 23-29: In this passage we have some splendid figures, but when studied in the light of the purpose of the writer, they are very easy of interpretation. He presents the children of Israel, in returning from their long captivity in Babylon, as being cleansed from their filthiness and their idolatry; as a man in the camp of Israel would have to go out of the camp, and have a clean person sprinkle on him the water of purifying, on the third day, and on the seventh day (Num. xix.), and on the seventh day at even wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, God represents Himself as undertaking their cleansing by sprinkling this clean--or cleansing--water on them, that they may be clean. Matt. v. 13-15 is regarded as an easy figure, and yet it can be removed from its purpose by a failure to keep in mind the topic before the mind of the Saviour. Ye are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Let your light so shine, etc. Christ's disciples are to guide the world into truth and duty, and exercise a saving power in behalf of the race. Rule 3. Compare the figurative with literal accounts [206] or statements of the same things.--In doing this, it will be seen that you can not make the figurative contradict the literal. It may add beauty and strength to the literal statement, but it can not teach differently.
When we have carefully read the Scriptures respecting the Holy Spirit, we are sure that God is meant. Whether we shall adopt the language of the Nicene Creed, and speak of God the Holy Ghost, or not, when we speak of the Spirit of the Lord we speak of God. But how shall we think of God being poured out as if He were water? His gifts may be given without limit, in such abundance as to justify the figure in the mouth of a poet, but no one expects to find anything that will seem like a literal pouring out of God on men and women. The Saviour tells of the same occurrence, but in very different style. His words are prophetic, but they are plain.
In the account of the fulfillment of this prophecy we have all the facts brought out.
By these literal statements, then, we have the figure of the Spirit of God being poured out. He came to the earth to make His residence with the disciples of the Master; He came with splendid gifts, and assumed the work which had been assigned Him--that of comforting all disciples, and guiding the apostles into all truth. The Saviour says (John vii. 37, 38) that out of believers should flow rivers of living water. And this figure He used to indicate what the Holy Spirit would do when He should come. But to know just what was meant by such a figure, we have no more to do than to read the accounts of the work accomplished by the disciples, for in this way we certainly know what was referred to by;he Lord. This promise was fulfilled. What did the-disciples do when they fulfilled it? Learning that, we have a full answer to the query, and the correct exegesis. No one expects any literal flowing, and nothing like that is seen in the history of the men who are the fulfillment of the prediction. Being full of the Spirit, they went and preached everywhere. Rule 4. By the resemblance of things compared.--Christ is represented as a lamb slain from the foundation of the earth; and in His trial and crucifixion is presented to us as a sheep before her shearer and a lamb taken to the slaughter. When we have considered the characteristics of a lamb, we are not at any loss to see the force and beauty of the figure. But in the Revelation He is [208] also called the Lion of the tribe of Judah. How is He, then, both a lion and a lamb? This last figure sends us back to look for other qualities in the Saviour than those of gentleness and innocence. He is mighty as well as meek. In Gen. xlix. we have the patriarch Jacob telling his sons what should come to pass in the latter times. Beginning with the eldest, he continues till he has told their characteristics. But the figurative language in which this is done makes it necessary for us to study each one of the tribes, that we may have the true interpretation of this prophetic blessing. Reuben is the excellence of dignity, and yet as unstable as water; Simeon and Levi were instruments of cruelty, and should be divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel. Judah was a lion's whelp, and his hand should be on the neck of his enemies, and should hold the sceptre till the Shiloh should come. He should wash his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes. His eyes should be red with wine and his teeth white with milk. Here is Judah's character as a tribe, and the history of the people. In this way continue, making a diligent search for the features of likeness between the symbols and the facts, and there will be but little difficulty in the interpretation.
It is not difficult to add a little to this statement, and make out the idea that because they had not been foreordained from the foundation of the world to be saved, they were unable to believe. The Saviour did not have that subject before Him at the time. Still the language can be pressed into that thought. If "sheep" here stands [209] for the disciples, then they had to believe in order to become His disciples; and the language would be, in substance, "ye believe not, because ye believe not." This would be so perfectly meaningless that it can not be admitted for a moment. In ver. 16, He says, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold." All admit that this reference is to the Gentiles. But certainly they were not believers then, for they never heard of Him. By reading vers. 3 and 4, we have the peculiarities that made the metaphor appropriate. They heard Him, they followed Him; they were therefore of that willing mind that made them ready to hear and receive the truth. It was this unsuspecting quality in them that marked the difference between them and those Jews who refused to consider the evidence of His divinity, and therefore remained in unbelief. In Matt. xxiii. we have some of the strongest metaphors in any language. In vers. 27 and 28 we have a simile and its interpretation, which makes it valuable:
But if the Saviour had not interpreted this figure for us, its meaning would have been clear by using the rule just laid down. But in the use of this rule, we must be careful not to compare accidental qualities, those for which the figure was not employed. A very ingenious interpretation of Psalm i. 3, draws all attention to the fact that the tree was planted by the streams of water. It did not grow there of its own accord; and reaches a conclusion that was never in the mind of the author. Whether the [210] doctrine of foreordination, that gives being to the exegesis, be true or not, certain it is that David was not discussing any such fine theology. His contrast was simply between righteousness and ungodliness-righteousness prospered and iniquity cursed. The righteous man was like a tree planted by the rivers of water, getting moisture in the time of drouth, and therefore bringing forth his fruit in his season. Rule 5. The facts of history and biography may be made to assist in the interpretation of figurative language.--If we can know certainly to what the man of God has referred, then, by an acquaintance with that person or thing, we can certainly find the point and power of the trope. In Jer. i. the enemies that were to come against the land of Judah were pictured, in the evil that they should work for that people, by a boiling caldron, with its mouth from the north. Hence it was about to overflow them, and scald them to death, The coming and destruction of the Babylonians, related in the history of the nations, enables us to see the meaning and force of the figure employed by the man of God.
Now, to get the meaning that the prophet put into this figure, one needs to study the character and condition of the two kings who had made a league against Judah. Pekah, king of the ten tribes, had formed an [211] alliance with Rezin, the king of Damascus, in which they had agreed to combine against Judah, and place a vassal king on that throne, the son of Tabeel. But the force of these two men was nearly spent, and hence the prophet represents them as two smoking firebrands hence in no way to be feared. When Jesus was on the east side of the river Jordan, they came and told Him that it would be better for Him to depart out of the coasts, lest Herod should kill Him. He said: "Go and tell that fox," etc. We should study the character of Herod Antipas, in order to see the pith of the metaphor. When we have a people drunk, but not with wine, staggering, but not from strong drink, it is important to learn of their condition to assure ourselves of the exact purpose of the figure. It is valuable, in the exegesis of any speech, to have before the mind just what was under contemplation when the speech was made. If we could be in Jerusalem in the winter, and see the shepherds of that region bring their sheep to the cotes at night, and give them shelter, and then lead them out in the morning to some place of grazing, and guard them during the day, we would better understand the two allegories of the Saviour in John x., which were designed to teach the same lesson--that He was a sufficient protection by day and night, in life or in death. But without this knowledge or attention to these facts, we are liable to abuse the passage, as has been generally done. Christ is not the door of the church, but of the sheep; He had no church at that time. He is the way, or the through--the aperture that leads to protection and repose--for all the disciples. And in the study of the allegory of John xv., we must understand the vineyard, the trimming, burning [212] dead branches, fruit bearing, etc. Indeed, if we could go with the Saviour and the disciples across the Kidron, and sit down with them on the side of the Mount of Olives, and look at the vineyards on the other hillside, by the lights made by the burning of the piles of dead branches, then the allegory would be all the more impressive. In the interpretation of prophecy especially, it is of great importance to be well acquainted with the facts of history. They tell of the destruction of many cities and countries in language that is highly figurative; and, without any knowledge of the historic facts in the case, we may form an incorrect view of the teaching. Many prophecies will never be understood till trey shall have been fulfil led, and then they will be grand evidences of the inspiration of the prophets. The destruction of Babylon, as foretold by Jeremiah and Isaiah, can be easily understood in the light of the events that have occurred. We can now go and stand with Isaiah on the walls of Babylon, in the vision, and see the two lines of smoke, or dust, rising from the East, and listen to the wail from within the city, and see well enough the two lines of the approaching army of Medes and Persians. The many statements of the prophet Isaiah concerning the destruction to be wrought by the hands of Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, are all clear after the events. The language that was dark to us before reading the account of their fulfillment, because of the highly wrought imagery, is very plain in view of the history. Rule 6. Any inspired interpretation, or use of the figure, in an argument, or teaching, will decide its meaning.--In Rule 1 we have the author's interpretation, which, of course, must be admitted by every one. But this is [213] based upon the same principle. If we concede that the writers of the New Testament were inspired of God, then we must accept any application of Scripture that they have made. To deny their exegesis of any passage, is to deny the authority by which they spoke. Isa. vi. 9, 10 is applied by the Saviour in Matt. xiii. 14, 15. And though we may say that this had been the condition of that people for many centuries, certainly the Master's use of the language was correct. In I. Cor. x. 1-8, we have an application of some Old Testament typology that is very instructive--Israel fleeing from bondage; being baptized into Moses; and that rock following them representing Christ. So in the fourth chapter of the Hebrew letter, there is a typology of the Sabbath given that would not have been understood but for the teaching of the apostle Paul or the instruction of some other inspired man. Also his use of Sarah and Hagar and their sons, found in Gal. iv. 21-32. "These are an allegory." And he not only announces that they are an allegory, but he tells what they mean. The one stands for the Old Institution, and the other for the New. We belong to the New, and not to the Old. The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free. The one Institution gendereth to bondage, while the other brings freedom. Isa. xxix. 14 is employed by Paul in Acts xiii. 40, 41. By this use of the passage we learn of its Messianic import. In this way Psa. xli. 9 has been shown to refer typically to Judas, who was guide to them who took Jesus: "My own familiar friend . . . hath lifted up his heel against me." In Acts i. 15-18, Peter quotes several Scriptures, the meaning of which, would not have appeared to us but [214] for the use he makes of them; after this it is clear enough that they refer to Judas, and that another should take his place as a witness for the Saviour. I think we might have read these texts a great many times without ever once suspecting their meaning, but for the assistance thus rendered. There seems to be a lurking suspicion that the apostles used the Old Testament Scriptures with too great freedom, and quoted them rather for the sound than for their evident sense. But this criticism is not begotten by faith in the inspiration of these men. Rule 7. We must be careful not to demand too many points of analogy.--Many have proceeded in the interpretation of figurative language as if it was their privilege, or rather their calling, to invent as many features of similarity as their genius could originate, and then demand a corresponding thought and purpose for each. If they could know certainly that the man who is used as a type had a wart on his nose, or a mole on his ear, the wart or mole would have to come in for a hearing--they would see some typical intention in the whole affair. You see, it would have been just as easy for the Lord to select one without these features as with them, and therefore He must have had some divine reason for such a selection. By these interpreters, every occurrence of Old Testament times is supposed to have some feature of typology. And in the interpretation of these types and symbols, every peculiarity in the type must have some antitypical thought. Perhaps the very purpose for which the type was employed, is lost sight of in the haste to identify small and unimportant features, that act no part in the revelation of God to men. Sometimes the apostles have taken up some portion of Old Testament [215] history and used it for the purpose of illustrating some truth in hand; but it does not follow that it was intended as a feature of typology. Paul says, "harden not your hearts as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers tempted me, and proved me, and saw my works forty years." It does not follow, from this, that all this stubbornness was intended as a type of anything in the New Testament time. A colored man is said to have found:n the sheep being placed on the right hand of the Master in the day of judgment, evidence that all the colored people would be saved, as they had wool. But while we are disposed to smile at the quaint interpretation, it is no more ludicrous than many that are given at the present time. Very much harm is done to the word of God by over-interpretation. Men sometimes bombard the Bible--they plant their batteries on some eminence, and see how many bombs they can shoot into it. Rule 8. It must be remembered that figures are not always used with the same meaning.--A lion may not always symbolize the same thought, nor need a sheep, water, or fire always be employed for the purpose of expressing the same calamity or blessing. There is a very grave error among an untaught class of exegetes in compelling every word that has, at any time, been used figuratively, to always represent the same thought as in that passage. To follow out this plan, we would have nothing left in the Scriptures of a literal character. It is about impossible to find any word that has not, at some time, been employed in a figurative sense; and nearly every animate and inanimate object has been used to represent some thought other than that which would simply state its being or action. [216] This comes from a wrong method of interpretation, or from not having any method. Many seem disposed to regard themselves as at liberty to make anything out of the Bible which their theology may demand or their whims require. And if, at any time, they find a passage that will not harmonize with that view, then the next thing is to find one or more words in the text used elsewhere in a figurative sense, and then demand that such use be the Biblical dictionary on the meaning of that word, and hence that it must be the meaning in that place. Because the term Logos is employed in speaking of the Christ, therefore it must always have that meaning; and it is even carried so far as to say that the Word, either in the Old or New Testament, must always refer to the Saviour. And yet ten minutes' use of a good concordance and the Bible would convince any thinking person that it is a fearful blunder. Oil and water have been employed to represent the Holy Spirit; therefore they always have that meaning! Because metaphors have been used in the Scriptures, therefore everything is a metaphor! It is a kind of standing rule with a certain class of prophets, who are prophesying now, and trying to get the old prophets to agree with them, that if, at any time, a figure has been employed under circumstances in which it is doubtful as to the import of the figure, if some other prophet has used that symbol, in a manner that removes doubt as to its meaning in that place, then take that use as a dictionary for the purpose of the figure in the doubtful passage. If this should be adopted as a rule, the exceptions will be found to be so numerous that the rule will be found of no value. If, at any time, it is found that two prophets are describing the same thing and employing the same figure for that [217] purpose, it is possible that one of them has been clearer in the use of the figure than the other; and, in that way, there can be found a definition of the text that would otherwise have remained in doubt. But under almost any other circumstances the rule will not do. Because Jesus said He was the bread from heaven, it does not follow that the word bread must always refer to Him. He used the word leaven to represent teaching and influence both, and yet these are the figurative uses. It does not mean that the leaven that the Israelites were to put out of their camps before the feast of the Passover, was influence or doctrine. Nor because the word leaven, when used as a symbol, must always mean something bad, because it usually has that signification, for Jesus says that the "kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a women took and hid in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened"--surely the kingdom of heaven is not something that is to be shunned. Fermentation is not the only quality of leaven: its ability to gradually and quietly extend its power is one of its features, and is that one for which the Master employs it in the passage quoted (Matt. xiii. 33). Water is many times used as the symbol of blessing among the ancients: it stands many times for almost any kind of refreshment. In Deut. xxiii. 4, Moses remembers the Moabites and the Ammonites in their unkindness in not meeting Israel with bread and water. In I. Sam. xxv. 11, we have the churlish Nabal refusing to give bread and flesh and water to the servants of David. In I. Cor. iii. 6, Paul uses it as a symbol of Christian culture. In John vii. 38, 39, the Saviour symbolizes the Holy Spirit by its use; And in iv. 10, He uses it in a more extended sense of spiritual blessings, including [218] eternal life. But water has not only the power to bless, but the power to injure; hence it has been employed for that purpose, or to symbolize that thought. In Psa. lxix. 1, David says; "Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul." Isa. xxx. 20 speaks of the water of affliction. This power of water to deluge and drown, gives signification to Matt. xx. 22: "I have a baptism to be baptized with." The word sheep is many times used as the symbol of innocence, because a sheep is less offensive and defensive than any other of the domestic animals. In metaphor, therefore, they represent the people of God, while the goat is the symbol for the children of the wicked one, (Matt. xxv.). And yet a ram is a sheep. He is the symbol of a kingdom, and is offensive. Many times sheep go astray. Isa. liii. 6: "All we like sheep have gone astray." Jer. l. 6-17: Israel was scattered and lost. Ezek. xxxiv. 6-11: Israel had fled to the mountains, and were scattered abroad, and needed to be hunted up. Fire has more nearly always the same metaphorical import than any other word I know of in the Scriptures. It is a good servant and a cruel master. But its only Scriptural use is in view of its burning. It is never the symbol of blessing, only as trials and pains result in reformation and purity. Our faith may have to be tried in the fire, and we may be said to be salted with fire, and all this may work for us the peaceable fruits of righteousness; but at the time of this purification it did not seem to be very joyous. If we are made to pass through the furnace of affliction or persecution, it may do us good; but fire has all the time been employed as the figure of that which causes pain. Though it remove our dross, [219] yet it does so by burning, and not by any soothing process. God's word is as a refiner's fire, in that it separates a man's sins from him, or the man from his wickedness. It is true that some writers have favorite illustrations, and when we have become familiar with their use, we have a dictionary that will fairly define them. It is also true that one inspired man copies from another. Finding that another has said the same things that the Lord wishes him to say, it is right and proper that the same things should be said again; and he is right in saying them again. If, at any time, we can be sure that one is a copy in whole or in part of the other, and the ore is clearer than the other, it is proper that the clearer language should aid us in the exegesis of that which is doubtful. But beyond this we may be very chary of compelling figures to mean the same thing. Rule 9. Parables may explain parables.--We have seen that any figure of speech may be explained by the writer, or any other inspired writer, by literal language. We have also seen that a figure may be adopted by another writer in whole or in part, and, in such cases, that which is free from doubt as to its import, may be employed to make known that which is not clear. This rule only carries that thought a little farther, and shows that a parable, or other figure of speech, may be legitimately made to assist in the interpretation of another figure of speech. In the first verse of the tenth chapter of John, the Saviour begins an allegory that closes in the sixth verse. In this He introduces the thought of a shepherd, faithful in all his work, to illustrate His relation to them. "But [220] they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them." He therefore began another allegory, to give them this thought. This time he takes the door, or the open space into the sheepcote, to assure them that His help and protection would be sufficient (vers. 7-18). One of these illustrates the same thought that the other does, and therefore the one assists us in comprehending the meaning of the other. In Matt. xiii., we have seven parables for the purpose of causing the disciples to understand the nature of Christ's kingdom. This is a large number on one topic, and yet to this list Luke and Mark add three more. They do not all of them cover exactly the same point, and yet they were all employed to assist in understanding the things concerning the kingdom of God. And many of the same points were covered several times. Christ was intent on removing a fundamental mistake. They supposed that when the kingdom of the Messiah should come, it would be like the other great kingdoms of the world--it would be temporal, and therefore it would come in much the same way. But He wished them to know that such was not the nature of His kingdom, and that it would not come by an army, but by the power of truth--the truth being sown into the hearts of men would cause them to be subject to Him. I have no doubt that a number of the sayings of Jesus were repeated in many places. Even the prayer which He taught His disciples, was repeated. In Luke xv. there are three parables for the same purpose. He had been eating with publicans and sinners, and the Pharisees blamed Him for it. He showed them, by the parable of the lost sheep, and the lost piece of money and [221] the lost boy, that they were the last persons in the world who should find any fault with it. Indeed, they should rejoice that these then were returning home. The Master gave several parables on the subject of the use and abuse of riches. One of these can be rightfully employed in the interpretation of another. That rich fool that said, "I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my corn and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease," etc., gives us the stupidity of the silly man who will plan as if this life was all that is for him. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we have not only the foolishness of thus giving one's mind to the accumulation of wealth, but the corrupting influence on the mind and heart of him who possesses it. While they have something of different ends in view, in several features they are quite the same, and may render much assistance each in the interpretation of the other. Rule 10. The type and the antitype are frequently both in view at the same time.--It is common to say that a type is made of material things, and the antitype is always a spiritual thought or fact. The anointing with oil prefigured the anointing of the Holy Spirit; the anointing of the prophet, priest, and king of the patriarchal and Jewish times, told of Him who should be our Prophet, Priest and King; that the washing under the law symbolized the spiritual purity that should be in all the people of God. The wilderness of wandering represented the journey of life, With its many dangers, toils and trials; the Jordan told them of the death that was to be before the land of promise; and passing it prefigured the resurrection of the dead; and then, [222] when they should enter the promised land, they had a type of heaven itself. All this we can admit. Indeed, I think it is quite true. And yet several figures and types have been employed to represent the same antitype and several of these may be seen at the same time; and even the mind of the prophet may be fixed not only on several types, but on the antitype as well. We may say that the bondage of Israel, in Egypt, symbolized our bondage in sin--that when they left Pharaoh we have a figure of the necessity of repenting and turning away from sin;--but just there we come up to what seems to be the introduction of another thought, for the apostle Paul uses the passage of the sea as a type of our baptism into Christ. Their sabbath was a type of Christian rest in Christ (Heb. iv. 1-10); but it had also in view that which the Christian is looking for--the eternal rest that remains for the people of God. Here, then, we have one spiritual thought symbolizing another of greater extent and duration. I. Pet. iii. 16-21 uses the flood of Noah and the salvation of the righteous family as typical of our baptism. This is not strange, when we know that there are two symbols for the same safety in God. Many of the prophecies of Isaiah are inexplicable on any other hypothesis. In nearly all the latter part of his vision, he is carried away to Babylon, and is looking into the future from the time of the captivity. Hence he frequently sees the children of Judah and Benjamin returning home. And the joy of the man of God becomes so great that everything seems to him to be ecstatic--the very land of Canaan itself is glad: its hills are frisking about like lambs, and its mountains are skipping [223] like rams; and the cedars of Lebanon are clapping their hands for joy But in that ecstasy of mind the prophet is sure to see the still greater redemption in Christ. Here are the type and the antitype both in prophecy. Nor is this all: this type and antitype are like two hills in a line, the smaller one being the nearer. There may be a long distance between the two, but they look as it they were one hill only. Hence, after one line of prophetic history is described, which runs through the type and antitype, it is in order for the prophet to return and bring forward another. But this makes him refer to the type immediately after mentioning the antitype. Many commentators have lost their star here. Having seen one prophecy relating to the return from Babylon, and then the clear and certain reference to the coming of the Christ and the work of redemption which He should accomplish, and then another mention of return to the Holy Land, they take it for granted that it must now relate to some final return of the Jews to that country. But let us remember that these men were telling what they saw, and that in the range of their mental vision there are both type and antitype, and the trouble is removed. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding of Matt. xxiv. on this account. Some have seen in it nothing but the destruction of Jerusalem. Beyond any question, the Saviour did refer to the destruction of that city. But others find in it language that must refer to the final judgment of the world, and then hasten to the conclusion that it can not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem at all, but that it must all relate to the coming of the Lord and the end of the world. [224] But when we find that both of these things were before the mind of the Master at the same time, the trouble is taken out of the passage, for we have in these two events all that the language demands. [225] CHAPTER IX. THE VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE. We, have done more in the separation of all figurative language into families of figurative speech than any other people. Among the ancients there were but few designations. In the Scriptures we have the parable, the proverb, the type, and the allegory named. We also have the fable used, but not named. Into these figures they crowded all we know of tropical language. They were free in the use of figures, but not in definitions of them. We must, therefore, be permitted to bring to the task everything we can get by which to understand the kinds of figurative language they employed, and the laws that govern each of these classes. The parable then contained all we put into the parable and the simile and the similitude, and sometimes the parable and the proverb were used interchangeably. At other times it means a type. This seems strange to us, for they are so unlike, as we speak of them. But we will give the reasons for this further along in the work. We do not stop to blame the Orientals for not distinguishing between one figure and another, for modern writers, with all the advantages of our schools; do not always succeed. Our works of rhetoric are not well agreed as to the exact office of the several figures that are now in common use; and there are many writers on types, and metaphors, and parables, and allegories, who do not seem to have taken any advantage of our [226] works of rhetoric. But when we have exhausted the list of figures found in our modern books on interpretation, we have not yet found all the figures that are used in the Scriptures. It has seemed necessary to either enlarge some of the figures we have now, or invent terms by which to indicate the character and power of other forms of speech found in the Bible. SEC. 53. THE PARABLE.--This is from the two Greek words, para, beside, and ballein, to throw; hence a placing beside or together, a comparing, comparison: a story by which something real in life is used as a means of presenting a moral thought. The actors in a parable are real--human beings are the actors, and they do nothing which they could not do; things were not related which could not be accomplished by the agencies employed. The parable is the oldest and most common of all the figures of speech. The Old Testament contains many of them, and the Saviour taught almost constantly by that medium of illustration. There seem to have been several reasons for its use in the teaching of the Master.
Now, in this declaration of purpose the Saviour seems to have in view the teaching of one part of the crowd, and preventing the other part of it from [227] understanding what was being said. His reason for not giving them the truth, was that they would not receive it nor follow it. And yet when we have read the Scriptures through, the parables seem to have been employed, for the most part at least, for the purpose of making clear that which would not otherwise have been understood. That purpose of the parable is so patent that it is the only view that the people generally have of it. The allegories which the Saviour employed in John vi., seem to have been to hide the truth from those who would abuse the light if it were furnished. And yet at the same time the teaching became more powerful to those who came to Him afterwards, and had it explained to them. And I think there is every reason to believe that the parable was used for the same purpose--that of embalming the truth, that it might never be forgotten. These story illustrations of the Saviour were not only a means of making truth to be understood, but to cause it to be remembered. Those who heard His stories of illustration never forgot them. Again, we find a purpose in the use of this figure that is quite in addition to any others yet mentioned: it was to present a truth to the mind, and yet keep the person for whom it was intended from seeing the point till the mind had assented to the truth that was taught thereby. To proceed by the use of statement and argument would cause the person to array himself against the force of the truth being presented. Nathan came to David with a very pitiful story about some man who went and took the ewe lamb, the only one his poor neighbor had, and killed it for the friend who stopped with him, while he had plenty of flocks of his own [228] (II. Sam. xii. 1-6). David could easily see the meanness of such conduct, and he became so enraged that he determined to have the man put to death--he was too mean to live. Nathan had not made the application. But when he said, "Thou art the man," David was soon made to see the force of the truth. He could not have been made to understand his sin in any other way--at least, not so clearly. In II. Sam. xiv. 1-24, we have the account of a parable arranged by Joab, and told to David by the woman of Tekoah, to have the king send for Absalom from the land of Geshur. She came looking very heartbroken, and told the king of her two sons who strove, and one having killed the other; the people were trying to kill him, and that would quench her coal, or extinguish her family. This so wrought upon the feelings of David that he said he would protect her son. Then she asked why he did not cause his own son to return home. The point was gained, and Absalom came home to his own possessions. An illustration of this use of the parable will be found in the teaching of the Saviour on the fourth day of the week of crucifixion. It is commonly called the parable of the vineyard, and will be read in full in Matt. xxi. 33-46; Mark xii. 1-12; and Luke xx. 9-19. To get this lesson properly before the mind of the reader, I will make a condensed reading from the three records:
This is the form of the parable, and its results that I get by reading the account in all of the evangelists. If we have not read amiss, then Jesus did for them what Nathan did for David--He came up on the blind side of those men, and presented them truth so that they assented to it, before they saw that it meant them. I think, then, we are at liberty to say that parables were used for the following purposes--(1), To reveal truth: making the people to understand the unknown by a comparison with the known. (2) For the purpose [230] of concealing truth from the minds of those who had no right to it, or who would abuse it if it were given to them. (3) They were made the means of embalming truth. (4) And in the fourth place, for the purpose of causing men to assent to truth before they could know it certainly meant them. While we are ready to regard the parable as the most apt mode of instruction, and the easiest and safest manner of enforcing conviction, yet it is the most difficult of all figures to construct. It is easy to rehearse a story for illustration, but to construct a parable is not so easy. In I. Ki. xx. 35-43, we have a parable in which Ahab is condemned for permitting Benhadad to go free, when it was his duty to destroy him:
The purpose of this parable is clear to every one. The king was to be condemned by himself. David had been led to do that; and the Master had caused the Jews to pass judgment against themselves by the use of a parable. The parables of the New Testament are quite clear. A few of them were explained by the Saviour, but most of them were so clear that no one would miss the meaning who wanted to know the truth. And yet some of these have been very strangely interpreted. The three parables in Luke xv., are so plain that it would seem impossible for any one to miss their import. And yet many things have been deduced from them that were not in the Saviour's mind. The first and second verses give the key to all of them:
Then, to show them the unreasonableness of such a complaint, He gave them the three parables that followed--the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and the lost boy. By these He taught them that they ought to forget the better class, for the time, in their earnest endeavor to save sinners. The parable of the sower (Matt. xiii. 1-9) is explained in vers. 10-23; and the parable of the good seed and the tares (Matt. xiii. 24-30) is explained in vers. 36-43. Although these are exceedingly plain in themselves, and the explanation is as clear as language could [232] be, still they have been made to teach almost everything that genius could imagine. Quite a common interpretation of the good seed and the tares is that there can be no withdrawal of fellowship, for the wicked and the righteous shall grow together till the end of the world. It is nothing to these exegetes that the Scriptures teach in several places that they must withdraw from all that walk disorderly, and that the man that will not hear his brethren nor the church should be to them as heathen and a publican. Nor does it change the matter for them that the Master says the field is the world, and the harvest is the end of the world. Some way they have fixed it in their minds that the kingdom and the church are the same, and therefore the field is not the world, but the church. It is strange that they do not see that Christ is Ruler of the kings of the earth, and that all authority in heaven and earth was given into His hands. The rest of the parables spoken at the time that Jesus was in the boat at Capernaum, are easily explained as similes or similitudes. They differ from what we now denominate a parable, in that they are not stories, but statements of truth or fact, with which statement the unknown truth is compared. But of this in its own place. The parable of the great supper (Luke xiv. 16-24) has several points to present to the mind: (1) The greatness of the feast being prepared. (2) The unreasonableness of apologies that were made for not attending it. (3) The ease with which all could attend. (4) The sin of slighting honor and favor, and the punishment that would come to such persons. (5) And that the places that had been reserved for those first bidden would be given to others who would accept. Of course [233] it is easy to see that the Jews had been favored with this first invitation, and that, refusing it, they would be cast aside, to make room for those who would receive an invitation as a great honor. The parable in Luke xvi. 19-31, of the rich man and the poor man, has been made to mean almost everything within the range of theological speculation. And yet, if one will turn and read ver. 14, it will be easily seen that it was for the purpose of showing them the results of wealth on the mind that would yield to its influence and control. The Master had said that it was impossible to serve God and Mammon both; but there were wealthy Pharisees present who derided Him. To show the result of the course they preferred, the parable is recited:
No one asked that this parable should be explained. Its meaning was clear to those to whom it was spoken. But modern theology is opposed to its teaching, and it is doubtful, if the Saviour had explained it, if the interpretation would be any better received. Some have been heard to say, "It is nothing but a parable." Well, what of that? It is not said to be a parable, and yet there is much evidence that it was. But does that fact lessen the importance of its teaching? Another way of removing the offensive truth is to say it refers to the Jews and the Gentiles. But why say that? There has been no reference to any such a topic in the connection--no evidence that the Master had these nationalities before Him. Here are a few reasons why it can have no such meaning: 1. It was not stated, nor even hinted, as being any purpose in giving the parable. There is neither statement before nor afterwards, that would lead to such a conclusion; nor is there the slightest hint in the presentation of the parable that it had that thought for them. 2. The purpose is clearly indicated, as before shown, to be to show the dangers of wealth. 3. The Jews have never seen the Gentiles in a condition such that they regarded them as in Abraham's bosom and themselves shut out. 4. They have never believed themselves delivered over to torment. 5. They have never asked that the Gentiles should [235] come to their relief by administering comforts that were beyond their reach. 6. There has never been any impassable gulf fixed between these peoples, so that one may not pass over to the other. 7. The Gentiles were never laid at the gate of the Jewish nation, asking crumbs that were falling from their table. 8. Neither nation has gone into another state of being, or into non-existence, as some critics would have death to signify. 9. If the Jewish nation had died, it would not have five brothers remaining yet in the world, who might be warned against its fate. 10. To try this interpretation of the parable by removing the word and inserting the definition, we would have nothing but nonsense made of the whole figure. If rich man means Jewish nation, then remove rich man and insert Jewish nation; and so for the beggar insert Gentile nation. Now read the parable, inserting these definitions, and nothing but nonsense is left in it. Then there is no reason for the interpretation, and every reason why it can not be correct. The real import of the figure may be easily gathered by any one at all interested in knowing the teaching of the Master: 1. It is not possible to serve two masters (13, 14). 2. After death, the conditions can not be changed. If men are not in a safe condition then, it will be impossible for them to be prayed out of that purgatorial condition, or for any relief to come to them. 3. Praying to saints is of no value. [236] 4. Men are expected to prepare to meet God by the light of the revelation which He has furnished. 5. There are no warnings to come back to us from the Spirit land. 6. There is consciousness between death and the resurrection from the dead. 7. There is an intermediate state between death and the resurrection. This scene is laid on a condition that comes after death. It was before the resurrection, for there will be none on the earth to warn after the resurrection shall have taken place. But someone will say that the eternal state of these men being fixed, the judgment is passed with them, and therefore the resurrection, in their cases, has been accomplished. This is not true. Lazarus going back would be regarded as one going to them from the dead; and this could not be said of any one in the resurrection state. We have chosen to give this much space to this one parable, first, because of its own worth; and second, because of the many wrong views that have been taken of it. Many of the things to be gained from it have been taken for granted by the Saviour. He uses the words of the Pharisees, and evidently in the same sense in which they employed them. In Luke xviii. 1-74, we have two parables on the subject of prayer. In that of the importunate widow we have perseverance in prayer taught, and in the second, relating to the Pharisee and publican, the humility necessary to acceptance before God. These are the only lessons contained in them. The quality of the unjust judge in no way represents anything that is true with God; and the parable was not instituted for that [237] purpose, but simply to show that men ought always to pray, and not to faint. Jesus taught a young lawyer how to be neighbor by the use of the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke x. 25-37). We are not able to say if this case ever occurred, nor do we care: the lesson is perfect. Having agreed that to love God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself, were the duties of men, he wished to excuse himself with a pretense of ignorance about who his neighbor was. So the Master has a Jew, who was hated by all Samaritans, to fall among robbers and to be left in need of help; and while the priest and the Levite passed without noticing him, looking on the other side, the Samaritan took him to an inn and paid his expenses. And, having presented the case, He said: "Go and do likewise." There could be no question asked respecting the meaning of this parable, for but one was possible--that the Samaritan was made to know that the Jew was his neighbor, and that he must do him good. Hence, if this man will love his neighbor as himself, he must do as that man did. It would seem impossible for any one to misunderstand the parable of the good Samaritan. And yet Bishop Heber has a sermonic exegesis of it in which the traveller represents the human race; his leaving Jerusalem is made to symbolize man's departure from God; Jericho is the symbol for temptations; the robbers are the devil and his angels; the priest signifies the sacrifices of the Old Testament; the Levite represents the law of Moses, and the Samaritan typifies the Saviour. And yet it is candidly asserted that the Bishop was a man of good sense! I think he might have gone further, and made the inn represent the church of Christ; [238] the oil and the wine the blood of the atonement and the gift of the Holy Spirit; the two pieces of money the two ordinances left till the Saviour shall come again; and the promised return of this man, to stand for the second coming of the Saviour to the world. Then it would be too bad to leave out the ass on which the man had ridden. The beast. might symbolize the feeling of self-sufficiency on which the world rides away from God. But the time is coming when such vagaries and conceits will not form any part of the culture or genius necessary to the ministry. It is high time that we were done with such foolishness. And yet almost every figure of the whole Bible has been rendered about as ludicrous as this, by some one who was regarded as brilliant. The parable of the Saviour concerning the feature of rewards in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xx. 1-16), has suffered more from interpretation than did the woman with an issue of blood from the physicians during a period of twelve years. There was never any reason for all this, except that men have wished to find some apology for delinquency, or to exhibit skill in exegesis possessed by no one else. This householder went out in the first, hour, and in the third hour; also the sixth, ninth, and the eleventh. Each time he found men waiting for some one to employ them. In the evening he had his steward to pay them all alike--a penny. Many have seen in this parable that the Lord is holding out encouragement for those who come late in life to begin in the service of the Lord. They have lived, perhaps, in the light and blaze of Christian truth, and now, when the dying hour has come, and they have no further [239] strength with which to serve the devil, they repent, and are to be preached into the highest heavens, because there were some contortions when they came face to face with death. Others have shown skill in the work of interpretation by supposing that the Lord referred to different ages of the world by the several hours at which servants were employed. For instance, the Lord employed men in the Adamic period; then in the time of Noah, Abraham, Moses, John, Jesus. If this arrangement does not suit the particular fancy, then some other can be fixed upon that will show an equal amount of dexterity. It is not interpretation, however, but injection. Nothing like either of these was in the mind of the Master. The chapter begins with: "For the kingdom of heaven is like." Its beginning word is the sign of a logical conclusion, and hence the parable that follows is to illustrate a statement already made. Turning to the last verse of the previous chapter, and the remark that needs to be carried out is: "But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last." And then, when the parable has been recited, that point is supposed to have been gained, for He says: "So the last shall be first, and the first last" (xx. 16). By reference to the previous chapter, and the twenty-seventh verse, the reason for the remark appears to be the danger of Peter, and, perhaps, others of His early disciples, taking too much glory to themselves. He said, "We have left all, to follow thee." The Master says that all who had left houses, etc., to follow Him, should be rewarded; but it is not a question of having had first opportunities to know Him, for all those who would unite their fortunes with Him should receive the same reward. [240] There is no thought about any being acceptable to God who had wasted their lives in the service of the enemy, when they had a chance to know the will of the Saviour; nor is there the slightest reference to the different ages of the world. The parable is beautiful, when employed as the Master gave it. The parable of the ten virgins is one of the clearest in all the New Testament. Its one point--the need of watchfulness, in view of the coming of the Lord--is apparent to every reader. And yet this parable has suffered much from over-interpretation. Men have seen that the Lord will come when the world will be indifferent, or sound asleep--it is midnight; that He will come with a crowd of attendants--or with all His holy angels; that the supply of the Holy Spirit will be wanting with those who do not renew frequently. Some have found that all the virgins slept before the Lord's coming, and therefore He must refer them to the time of the resurrection of the dead. But all of this is a work of supererogation. The whole thought of the figure is that they should always be ready; for the Lord will come at a time when men do not expect Him, and they must be ready to enter with Him, or they will not be able to enter at all. There will be no opportunity to prepare then for entering into the wedding. The parable of the unjust steward (Luke xvi. 1-13), has, perhaps, given more difficulty to critics and commentators than any other. Many strange translations have been proposed, to get rid of the imaginary troubles of the figure. It is maintained by some that the rendering generally given makes the Saviour recommend the dishonesty and theft of this man; whereas, instead of being held up as a model, he ought to be regarded as the [241] most arrant of knaves. Hence, instead of the common translation of vers. 9, "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," it should read, "Make to yourselves friends without the mammon of unrighteousness." They think that it was the Saviour's purpose to direct them to do just the opposite of what this wicked steward did: he made friends with money, or wealth, and they should make friends without it. And this thought is supposed to be enforced by the fact that He said this to His disciples, who were without this mammon. I shall not stop to criticise the translation proposed, but suppose that the language may be so rendered. The way to settle the question is not, however, by the possibilities of translation. The Lord never presented a figure that He made to depend upon any renditional gymnastics. The truth is much easier than that. When we learn that there may be many things in a parable that are merely incidental, and are no part of the lesson to be learned, we will be ready to search, first of all, for the purpose for which the figure was employed. Learning this, the interpretation will be easy. No one can suppose, for a moment, that the Saviour had in His mind any sanction for the robbery perpetrated by this man (11-13). Several questions need to be settled, in order to assure ourselves that we know exactly the purpose of the parable: Who constituted His hearers?--It will be answered, "His disciples." But who are meant by that term? From the word "also" (1), we suppose it to be the crowd that He had addressed in the previous chapter. And we know that they are a mixed assembly--publicans and sinners, Pharisees and scribes. We learn from [242] xvi. 14, that these Pharisees were lovers of money, and that they heard this parable, and scoffed at Him for speaking it. Hence, if the word disciple must be limited to the apostles, yet it remains a fact that, as the sermon on the mount was delivered in the hearing of the multitude, and much of it for the multitude, so it was in this case. And yet it is more probable that Luke uses the term to indicate no more than those who were learning of Him at that time. These publicans were very much in need of something on the money question that would check their avarice and theft. It is seen that the Pharisees were in no better condition. What did He intend to accomplish by the parable?--They understood Him to condemn them for giving their hearts and lives in the acquisition of wealth. The closing of this parable and the institution of the next (19-31), show that such was His purpose. Where, then, is the lesson?--The wisdom of using the things of this life that we may have a home provided in the life that is to come. The Saviour does not commend the wrong that the steward did, but the wisdom of looking ahead far enough to secure a home when he should be cast out of this one. Hence they were not to be so wedded to their money that they would fail to make a good use of it; and to give their hearts to its acquisition would prevent that service of God which would be necessary to secure for them a home beyond this life. The seven parables of Balaam are difficult, because they are not what we call parables. There are in them similes, similitudes, and clear prophetic statements. See Num. xxiii. 7-10, 18-24; xxiv. 3-9, 15-19; xx. 21, 22, 23-25. Each time it is said in the beginning that Balaam "took up his parable." I understand this to [243] mean, he spoke by inspiration in figurative language. Some of these are beautiful similes, but there is not what we now denominate a parable. There are a number of parables in the New Testament that will be treated under the head of similes, because they belong in that line of figure. As we said before, they had but few figures, or but few names for figures of speech in Bible terms. We have now separated these, and given to them names by which we can understand definitely just what we have to deal with. There are also many parables which we have not mentioned; they are in the order in which parables are presented, but we have not the space to devote to them. Besides, there will not be found any difficulty in their interpretation. SEC. 54. THE FABLE.--This is often confounded with the parable. Yet there is a clear distinction. Webster says of a fable:
If we take the fables of Ęsop as a guide, a fable is an illustration made by attributing human qualities to animate and inanimate beings. The truth or moral to be enforced may be of a very high order, but the actors [244] are selected from those beings which are incompetent to do such things. Like a parable, it is put into a form of a story; but unlike the parable, its actors are unreal, while the parable is made from the actual occurrences of life, and no one is made to act a fictitious part. The fable is better suited to indicate some blunder made by men, and to serve the purpose of amusing criticism, than to illustrate any high moral truth. Hence it is little used in the Scriptures.
The criticism of this fable was not only good for that time, but it is yet a fine illustration of the way of the world. Those least competent and worthy are most ready to assume responsibilities and take command. We have a fairly well constructed fable in II. Kings xiv. 8-10:
The criticism intended by this fable is easily reached. Amaziah had hired an army of Israelites to assist him against Edom, but the Lord refused to let them go with the Jews. So he paid them, and sent them home. But they were angry, and injured the people of the Jews on their return. Amaziah was successful against the Edomites, and then adopted their idolatry. When he returned, he asked that the matter of bad faith be settled between the armies of the Jews and the Israelites. This brought the reply from Jehoash in the form of a fable. SEC. 55. SIMILE.--Webster defines it. [246]
A few examples will suffice for this figure of speech:
Nothing need be said about this simile respecting its import. The prophet explains it. The nations that will come against mount Zion, while they will dream of getting spoil, will be mistaken, This has particular reference to the coming of Sennacherib, of Assyria, who should gather much spoil from the land of the Jews, and then, the night before he should expect to have Jerusalem in his power, would have nearly all his men destroyed in the night by the angel of the Lord.
It should be noticed that this is said concerning the promises of Jehovah. What He has offered to those who love to do His will, He will give them. To show His faithfulness in this respect, He presents them with His work for the good of the race in the sowing and gathering of grain. God fulfills His part; and yet if [247] man does not fulfill his part, there will be no harvest. To those who will trust the Lord according to His word, there shall be no disappointment.
This simile is a very strong one, as the comparison is vivid. A booth in a vineyard or a lodge in a garden of cucumbers would not be expected to be very enduring; a besieged city would certainly be in great danger of destruction; indeed, if it had not been that there was a seed of those who did good and followed God, they would have been ruined before that time, and that as utterly as Sodom and Gomorrah.
The simile always furnishes the means of a comparison by a statement, not a story. It also contains the [248] sign of that comparison. It is plainer than the metaphor, on that account; the metaphor makes the comparison by mentioning the one when you know the other is meant, because of some feature or features in the thing referred to that are like the thing that is mentioned. In many popular works these figures are used interchangeably. But they are more easily explained when properly defined. SEC. 56. THE SIMILITUDE.--This is a drawn-out or prolonged simile. It differs from an allegory, in that it is constituted of similes, and not of metaphors. It differs from the parable, in that it is made from statements, but is not woven into a story. The similitude frequently contains its own explanation. An allegory is frequently followed by an exposition. So are parables. We have a number of parables in the New Testament which, in the form we have them, are properly denominated similitudes. They may have been presented in the parable form, but, if so, they have been reduced to the form of statement, and are not parables as we have them. This should not excite any wonder, as they did not define figures of speech as we do. In Luke iv. 23, we have the word parable, where, in our custom, it should be proverb. Indeed it is so rendered in the Common Version. Jesus says: "Doubtless ye will say unto me this parable: Physician, heal thyself." Of course that is not a parable, in the sense in which we use the term. It also occurs in Heb. ix. 9; xi. 19, and in the Common Version is rendered "figure." In many other places we have been so long accustomed to calling them parables, that it is like sacrilege to us to have them called anything else. And yet there is no name given to them in the Scriptures. [249]
Here the comparison is clear, by means of this double simile or similitude. It would have been a parable if the same thought had been put into the form of a story, and exhibited in that way.
This, again, is called a parable; but if our definitions are correct, it is a similitude. What is usually called the parable of the lamp (Mark iv. 21, 22), is properly a metaphor. This, however, will be seen under that figure of speech.
Part of this has the exact form of the metaphor, but [250] it contains the likeness or sign of comparison, and therefore must be catalogued as a similitude. Many of the Psalms are in the form of similitude. It was a favorite form of expression with the writer. We are sorely tempted to give a number of these, but we must desist for lack of space.
|