The ordinary division of parallelisms is into _verbal_ and _real_: verbal, where the same word or phrase occurs; real, where the same thought is expressed or the same subject discussed. Verbal parallelisms often shed much light on the meaning of particular words or phrases, because what is obscure in one pa.s.sage is made plain in another by some explanatory addition.

An example is the use of the expression _my glory_ (English version, _my honor_), in Gen. 49:6: "O my soul, come not thou into their secret"

(their secret conclave); "unto their a.s.sembly, my glory, be not thou united." A comparison of the parallel pa.s.sages, Psa. 7:5; 16:9; 30:12; 57:8; 108:1, leads to the conclusion that in such a connection the expression is substantially equivalent to _my soul_, the soul being made in the image of G.o.d, and thus the seat of man's glory. By a like process of comparison, we arrive at the true signification of the phrase, "_the righteousness of G.o.d_," or more fully, "_the righteousness which is of G.o.d by faith_" when used with reference to the way of salvation through Christ; at the meaning of the Greek terms translated "_propitiation_,"

etc. In the same way, as already remarked (No. 1, above), the interpreter ascertains the different significations in which words are employed, and determines which of these is appropriate to any given pa.s.sage.

_Real_ parallelisms are subdivided, again, into _doctrinal_ and _historic_; doctrinal, where the same truth is inculcated; historic, where the same event or series of events is recorded. The supreme importance of doctrinal parallelisms will appear most fully when we come to look at revelation on the divine side, as const.i.tuting a grand system of truth harmonious in all its parts. At present we regard them simply as among the means of ascertaining the sense of a given pa.s.sage.

Presuming that every author means to be self-consistent, it is our custom to place side by side his different statements which relate to the same subject, that they may mutually explain each other. The same reasonable method should be pursued with the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah in the Old Testament, and of Paul and John in the New. What is obscure is to be interpreted by what is clear; what is briefly hinted, by what is more fully expressed. Different writers, moreover, belonging to the same age, animated by the same spirit, and confessedly governed by the same general rules of faith and practice, mutually explain each other. Thus the prophets Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Micah, who belong to the same century, and in a less degree Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets of a later age, shed each a light on the pages of all the rest. The same is true of all the epistolary writers of the New Testament, notwithstanding their marked differences of style, and the different aspects also in which they respectively contemplate Christian doctrine and duty.

Our Saviour says of those who claimed to be, before his advent, the shepherds and leaders of G.o.d's spiritual fold: "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not hear them."

John 10:8. Yet according to this same evangelist he honored Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, as true leaders and teachers of G.o.d's people.

Chaps. 8:39, 40, 56; 5:45-47; 12:38-41. We know, then, that the Saviour's words must be restricted to such spiritual thieves and robbers as the scribes and Pharisees of his day, who under the leadership of Satan (chap. 8:41, 44) climbed up some other way into the fold.

The apostle Paul says (Rom. 2:7) that G.o.d shall render "to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life." We know at once, without reference to the context, that he does not mean, in opposition to the whole tenor of his epistles, to affirm that men can obtain eternal life by their own well-doing, without respect to "the righteousness of G.o.d, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe." But if we examine the context, this shows that here the apostle is not speaking of the meritorious ground of justification, but of G.o.d's impartial regard to a righteous character in both Jews and Gentiles.

_Historical_ parallelisms hold of necessity a prominent place in the interpretation of both the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament we have the two parallel histories of the Hebrew commonwealth, first in the books of Samuel and the Kings, then in the books of Chronicles. In the New, the four gospels are four parallel accounts of our Lord's life and teachings. Then there are several parallelisms of less extent; as, for example, Isaiah's account of Sennacherib's war upon Hezekiah, and Hezekiah's sickness (Isa. chaps. 36-39, compared with 2 Kings 18:13-20:21, and the briefer notice of 2 Chron. chap. 32); the three accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-22; 22:1-21; 26:1-20); and other pa.s.sages which will readily occur to the reader. To the work of comparing and harmonizing these parallel histories biblical students have with reason devoted much labor, since they mutually supplement and ill.u.s.trate each other in many ways. We understand the books of Samuel and Kings more fully by comparison with the books of Chronicles, and the reverse. Each of the four gospels sheds light on the other three. It is by placing the three accounts of Paul's conversion side by side that we gain the most perfect knowledge of this event. The numerous coincidences between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles, give us a fuller idea of the apostle's inward life and outward labors than we could otherwise gain. Without the epistles the biographical notices of the Acts would be very incomplete; without the narrative of the Acts many references in the epistles would remain obscure.

Yet these same historic parallelisms, which are the source of so much light, are the occasion of difficulties also, which require for their adjustment a comprehensive view of the spirit of inspiration. In respect to all essential matters of faith and practice, a divine unity pervades the Holy Scriptures. But this essential unity does not exclude diversity of conception and representation. Though all the "holy men of G.o.d spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," it pleased the divine Spirit to leave them free to speak each in accordance with his individual peculiarities of thought and language. A page from the writings of the apostle John, taken anywhere at random, can be at once distinguished from a page of Paul or Luke. In relating the same transaction, two inspired writers often select different materials, or handle them in a different way. The narrative of each is truthful, but not exhaustive. It gives a correct view of the thing related, but not all the particulars connected with it. The omission from two or more parallel narratives of concomitant circ.u.mstances, or the neglect of exact chronological order, sometimes makes the work of harmonizing them a very difficult matter. We feel confident that each separate narrative is correct, and that, had we all the accompanying circ.u.mstances in the true order of time, we could see _how_ they are consistent with each other; but for want of this light the exact mode of reconciliation remains doubtful. Such difficulties are incident to all parallel histories. Had the Holy Spirit seen good, he could have excluded them from the pages of inspiration; but herein he chose to deal with us not as children, but rather as men "of full age, even those who, by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." It is worthy of special notice, that where two or more evangelists record the same words of our Saviour, they are solicitous only about their substance.

In the three parallel accounts of the storm on the sea of Galilee, the disciples say according to Matthew (8:25): "Lord save us, we perish;"

according to Mark (4:38): "Master, carest thou not that we perish?"

according to Luke (8:24): "Master, master, we perish." And the Lord answers according to Matthew (v. 26): "Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?" according to Mark (v. 40): "Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?" according to Luke (v. 25): "Where is your faith?" On the variations in the words of the disciples Augustine well remarks (and the same remarks hold good of our Lord's answer): "The disciples have one and the same meaning in thus awaking the Lord and desiring salvation. Nor is it necessary to inquire which of these addresses, rather than the others, contains the exact words spoken to him. For whether they uttered one of the three, or other words which no one of the evangelists has mentioned, which yet have the same force in respect to the truth of the thought, what matters it?" Harmony of the Gospels 2.24, quoted by Alford on Matth. 8:25.

On the relation of the books of Chronicles to those of Kings and the difficulties connected with them, see Chap. 20, Nos. 21, 22. On the relation of the four gospels to each other, see Chap. 29, Nos. 4-10. We cannot here go into particulars. It must suffice to indicate the general principle by which the harmonist must be guided.

6. The _external acquirements_ necessary to const.i.tute the well-furnished expositor of G.o.d's word--the "scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven"--have been already briefly noticed. Chap.

33, No. 6. Not only are the Scriptures in their original form locked up in dead languages which the interpreter must thoroughly master, but they are, so to speak, embedded in ancient history, chronology, and archaeology.

Ill.u.s.trations of this point are so numerous that the only difficulty is in the selection. The servitude of the Israelites under the Egyptians, their captivity in Babylon, their deliverance under Cyrus, and their subsequent history till the time of our Lord's advent, connect themselves immediately, as all know, with the general history of the ancient heathen world. But there are many ill.u.s.trations of a more special character. The difficulty of the position in which our Lord was placed by the ensnaring question of the Pharisees and Herodians respecting the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar, and the divine wisdom of his answer (Matt. 22:15-22: Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) cannot be perfectly understood without a knowledge, on the one hand, of the political condition and feeling of the Jews as subjected to the dominion of the Romans, which they thoroughly detested, and of which dominion the tribute money daily reminded them; and, on the other, of the hatred which both Pharisees and Herodians bore towards Christ, and their anxiety to find a pretext for accusing him to the people or before this same Roman government.

To apprehend the force of our Lord's argument from the Pentateuch against the error of the Pharisees: "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by G.o.d, saying, I am the G.o.d of Abraham, and the G.o.d of Isaac, and the G.o.d of Jacob? G.o.d is not the G.o.d of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22:31, 32), we must understand the _form_ in which the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection. They denied, namely, the existence of spirits separated from bodies. Acts 23:8. To them, consequently, the death of the body was the _annihilation_ of the whole man, which made the very idea of a future resurrection an absurdity. Our Saviour showed from the writings of Moses, whose authority they acknowledged, the error of their a.s.sumption that the spirit dies with the body. Thus he demolished the ground on which their denial of a future resurrection rested.

The psalmist says of those who hate Zion: "Let them be as the gra.s.s upon the house-tops, which withereth before one plucketh it" (Eng. version, "before it groweth up"): "wherewith the mower filleth not his hand, nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom." Psa. 129:6, 7. For the ill.u.s.tration of these words we need a double reference, (1) to the oriental custom of constructing flat roofs covered with earth, on which gra.s.s readily springs up; (2) to the division of the year into two seasons, the rainy and the dry, upon the commencement of which latter such gra.s.s speedily withers. Another reference to the same oriental roofs we have in the words of Solomon: "The contentions of a wife are a continual dropping;"

"a continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike" (chaps. 19:13; 27:15), where we are to understand a continual _dropping through_ of water from the roof, which makes every thing within uncomfortable.

Our Lord's parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13) requires for its ill.u.s.tration a knowledge of the oriental customs connected with marriage: the transaction recorded by Luke, where a woman came behind Jesus as he reclined at the table, washed his feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair (Luke 7:37, 38), and the position of John when at the last supper he leaned on Jesus' bosom (John 13:23, 25), cannot be made intelligible without a knowledge of the reclining posture in which meals were then taken: one familiar only with the use of gla.s.s or earthen bottles cannot comprehend the force of our Lord's maxim respecting the necessity of putting new wine into new bottles (Matt.

9:17), till he is informed that oriental bottles are made of leather. We might go on multiplying ill.u.s.trations indefinitely, but the above must suffice. We may affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the study of the Holy Scriptures has contributed more than all other causes to the diffusion among the ma.s.ses of the community of a knowledge of ancient history and antiquities. To say that a congregation has a thorough knowledge of the Bible is equivalent to affirming that it has an enlarged acquaintance with the ancient world in its spirit as well as in its outward inst.i.tutions and forms.

7. That the interpreter may make a wise and effective use of all the helps that have been enumerated, he needs especially that sound and practical judgment which is called in ordinary discourse _good sense_.

Investigations respecting the meaning of terms, inquiries concerning the scope, reasonings from the context, the comparison of parallel pa.s.sages, the use of ancient history, chronology, and archaeology--that any one or all of these processes combined may lead to valuable results they must be under the guidance of that sound judgment and practical tact by which the interpreter is enabled to seize the true meaning of his author and unfold it with accuracy, or is at least kept from far-fetched and fanciful expositions where the author's real sense is involved in obscurity.

(1.) This quality of sound judgment will preserve the interpreter from _inept_ expositions for which a plausible reason many be a.s.signed.

Thus, when the Saviour says to Martha, who "was c.u.mbered about much serving:" "One thing is needful," these words have been interpreted to mean _one dish_--not many and elaborate preparations, but a single dish.

A sound judgment rejects at once this interpretation as below the dignity of the occasion, and not in agreement with what immediately follows: "Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her." The one thing needful is such a devotion of the soul to Christ as Mary manifested. So the words: "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15), have been explained to mean: more than these _fish_, or the employment and furniture of a fisherman--an ingenious subst.i.tution, one must say, of a low and trivial meaning for the common interpretation: more than these thy fellow-disciples love me, which accords so perfectly with Peter's former profession: "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." Matt. 26:33; Mark 14:29.

Interpreters who ordinarily manifest sound judgment and skill are sometimes betrayed into inept expositions through the influence of some preconceived opinion. The psalmist says, for example (Psa. 17:15): "As for me, in righteousness shall I behold thy face: I shall be satisfied upon awaking with thy likeness;" that is, with the contemplation of thy likeness, with apparent reference to Numb. 12:8: "The likeness of the Lord shall he behold." This pa.s.sage is ordinarily interpreted correctly of the vision of G.o.d upon awaking in the world to come. And this view is sustained by other like pa.s.sages: "In thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (Psa. 16:11); "Truly G.o.d shall redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; for he shall take me,"

(Psa. 49:15), where Tholuck well says: "He who took an Enoch and a Moses to himself, the G.o.d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will also take me to himself;" "Thou shalt guide me by thy counsel, and afterwards take me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: G.o.d is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever" (Psa. 73:24-26)--words that are inexplicable except as containing the antic.i.p.ation of a blessed immortality with G.o.d in heaven; "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness; but the righteous hath hope in his death" (Prov. 14:32); etc. But there is a cla.s.s of interpreters who, having adopted the maxim that the Old Testament, at least in its earlier writings, contains no antic.i.p.ations of a blessed life with G.o.d after death, are constrained to give to the pa.s.sage in question the frigid meaning: I shall be satisfied with thy likeness when I awake to-morrow, as if the psalm were intended to be an evening song or prayer; or, whenever I awake, that is, from natural sleep.

(2.) A sound judgment will also keep the biblical scholar from interpretations that are _contrary to the known nature of the subject_.

A familiar example is the declaration made by Moses of G.o.d's view of man's wickedness: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Gen. 6:6. The robust common sense of any plain reader will at once adjust the interpretation of these words to G.o.d's known omniscience and immutability; just as he will the prayer of the psalmist: "Search me, O G.o.d, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Psa. 139:23, 24. The immutable G.o.d does nothing which is not in accordance with his eternal counsels. The omniscient G.o.d, to whom all truth is ever present, does not literally inst.i.tute a process of searching that he may know what is in man. But in these and numberless other pa.s.sages, he condescends to speak according to human modes of thought and action.

When it is said, again, that "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh;"

that "G.o.d sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem"

(Judg. 9:23); that he sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab through his prophets (1 Kings 22:21-23); that he sent Isaiah with the command: "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes" (Isa. 6:10); that he made the covenant people to err from his ways, and hardened their heart from his fear (Isa. 63:17), we instinctively interpret these and other like pa.s.sages in harmony with the fundamental principle announced by the apostle: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of G.o.d; for G.o.d cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own l.u.s.t, and enticed." Jas. 1:13, 14. The Scriptures ascribe every actual event to G.o.d in such a sense that it comes into the plan of his universal providence; but they reject with abhorrence the idea that he can excite wicked thoughts in men, or prompt them to wicked deeds.

When it is said, once more, that men are _drawn_ to Christ (John 6:44), or _driven_ to worship the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19), we understand at once a drawing and a driving that are in accordance with their free intelligent and responsible nature. Other ill.u.s.trations of this principle will be given in the following chapter, which treats of the figurative language of Scripture.

(3.) The same quality of good sense will enable the interpreter to make those _limitations_ in the language of the sacred writers which are common in popular discourse. In the language of daily life many statements are made in general terms that require for their exact truthfulness various qualifications which the readers or hearers can readily supply for themselves. Honest men, addressing honest men, are not in the habit of guarding their words against every possible misconstruction. It is enough if they speak so that all who will can understand them.

It is said, for example (Gen. 41:57), that "all countries (literally, _all the earth_) came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because the famine was sore in all the earth." It would be only trifling to ask whether "all the earth" included the people of Europe and India. The reader naturally understands all the lands around Egypt, since they only could come thither for corn. So when it is said in the account of the deluge that "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered" (Gen. 7:19), it is straining the sacred writer's words to give them a rigid geographical application, as if they must needs include the mountains about the North pole. "All the high hills under the whole heaven" were those where man dwelt, and which were consequently known to man. "The Holy Ghost," says John, "was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." John 7:39. Yet David prayed ages before: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Psa. 51:11); Isaiah says of ancient Israel that "they rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit" (Isa. 63:10); the Saviour, long before his glorification, promised the Holy Spirit to all that should ask for him (Luke 11:13); and it is a fundamental article of our faith that from Abel to the archangel's trump all holiness is the fruit of the Spirit. But John's readers, who lived after the plenary gift of the Holy Spirit from the day of Pentecost and onward, could not fail to understand him as referring to the gift of the Spirit in that special sense. The apostle Paul says (1 Tim. 2:4) that G.o.d "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Yet the same apostle teaches that some will remain in ignorance of the truth, and thus perish. 2 Thess. 1: 8, 9; 2:11, 12. The reader's good sense readily reconciles the former with the latter pa.s.sages. He understands G.o.d's will to have all men saved as the will of _benevolent desire_; just as G.o.d says of ancient Israel (Psa. 81:13). "Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!" but because they would not do this, he "gave them up to their own heart's l.u.s.t, and they walked in their own counsels" (ver. 12). Many like ill.u.s.trations might be added.

(4.) Hence we readily infer the office of a sound judgment in _reconciling apparent contradictions_, since these arise mainly from the neglect, in one or both of the pa.s.sages between which the contradiction is said to exist, of reasonable qualifications and limitations.

A striking ill.u.s.tration of this is found in the two accounts of the creation. Gen. chaps. 1-2:3 and chap. 2:4-25. In the former narrative the order of time is an essential element. Not so in the latter, where man is the central object, and the different parts of creation are mentioned only as the writer has occasion to speak of them in connection with him. Hence we have in this latter pa.s.sage the creation of the man (ver. 7), the planting of the garden for his use with its trees and rivers (ver. 8-14), the placing of the man in the garden and the law imposed upon him (ver. 15-17), the defective condition of the man (ver.

18), the notice in connection with this of the creation of beasts and fowls and their being brought to the man to receive names (ver. 19, 20), the creation of the woman and the primitive condition of the pair (ver.

21-25). This simple statement of the course of narration sufficiently refutes the allegation that the second account is inconsistent with the first.

In the first account of Paul's conversion it is said that "the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man."

Acts 9:7. In the second Paul says: "They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." Acts 22:9. There is no valid ground for doubting that the first narrative, as well as the other two, came from the lips of the apostle himself, and the a.s.sumption of any essential contradiction is unreasonable and unnecessary. In regard to the _light_, it is certain that Paul saw the _person_ of the Saviour, and was made blind by the glory of the vision (Acts 9:17, 27; 22:14; 1 Cor. 9:1), while his companions saw only the light that shone around them, which did not make them blind. In regard to the _voice_, it is a fair interpretation that they heard a voice only, but no intelligible words. _How_ this difference of perception between Paul and his companions in regard to both the light and the voice was effected we do not know, nor is it necessary that we should. The first account, again, represents Paul's companions as having "stood speechless," while in the third the apostle says: "When we were all fallen to the earth," Acts 26:14. The most natural explanation here is that the third narrative gives the posture with accuracy, while the first lays stress only upon the amazement which fixed them in a motionless att.i.tude. The apparent discrepancies in these three parallel histories are peculiarly instructive, because they all proceed from the pen of the same author, and must all have been derived from the same source. Such circ.u.mstantial differences have the stamp of reality. Instead of throwing any discredit upon the transaction, they only establish its truth upon a firmer basis. Many like ill.u.s.trations might be added.

(5.) Finally, where the means of reconciling discrepancies are not apparent, the same quality of a sound judgment will keep us from the two extremes of _seeking_, on the one hand, _forced and unnatural explanations_, and, on the other, of _discrediting well-attested transactions_ on account of these discrepancies. In the scriptural narratives there are some difficulties (relating mostly to numbers, dates, and the chronological order of events) which we find ourselves unable, with our present means of knowledge, to solve in a satisfactory way. It is the part of sober reason to reserve these difficulties for further light, not to set aside, in view of them, facts attested by irrefragable proof.

Nothing in the evangelic record is more certain, for example, than the fact of our Lord's resurrection. Yet to harmonize the four accounts which we have of it in all their details is a work of extreme difficulty. "Supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said and done, in its order and exactness, we should doubtless be able to reconcile, or account for, the present forms of the narratives; but not having this key to the harmonizing of them, attempts to do so in minute particulars carry no certainty with them." Alford on Matt. 28:1-10. The same general principle applies to other difficulties--in the Old Testament, that respecting the duration of the sojourn in Egypt, and other chronological questions; in the New, that of the two genealogies given of our Lord by Matthew and Luke, that of the day when our Lord ate the pa.s.sover with his disciples, etc. See further in Chaps. 19, Nos. 6 and 8; 20, No. 22; 29, Nos. 8-10.

8. In bringing this chapter to a conclusion, we add a few words on _the office of reason_ in the interpretation of Scripture. It is admitted by all that we have certain primitive intuitions which lie at the foundation of all knowledge. That an immutable obligation, for example, rests on all men to be truthful, just, benevolent, and grateful, is a truth which we see by the direct light of conscience. There are certain moral axioms, also, outside of the direct sphere of conscience, which shine by their own light. Such is that fundamental truth of theology thus announced by the apostle John: "G.o.d is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5); where light and darkness are both taken in a moral sense, as the context shows; and thus by the apostle James: "G.o.d cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" (Jas.

1:13); and thus, ages before, by Moses: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a G.o.d of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he" (Deut. 32:4); and still earlier by Abraham: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).

We are sure that no declaration of G.o.d's word, properly interpreted, will contradict these necessary and universal convictions. But there are many weighty truths that lie wholly above the sphere of our direct intuitions on which the infinite understanding of G.o.d is alone competent to pa.s.s an infallible judgment. Such are the following: If it be G.o.d's will to create a race of intelligent beings, what shall be the compa.s.s of their faculties, moral, intellectual, and physical? In what circ.u.mstances and relations shall he place them, to what probation shall he subject them, and what scope shall he allow to their finite freedom?

If they sin, what plan shall he devise for their redemption, and by what processes shall he reveal and execute this plan? These, and many other questions involving man's highest interests, lie above the sphere of simple intuition. G.o.d alone, who looks through eternity at a glance, can fully comprehend them, for they are all const.i.tuent parts of his eternal plan. That human reason, which cannot see the whole of truth, should affect to sit in judgment upon them, and to p.r.o.nounce authoritatively what G.o.d may, and what he may not do, is the height of presumption and folly.

CHAPTER x.x.xV.

THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

1. When the psalmist says: "The Lord G.o.d is a sun and shield" (Psa.

84:11), he means that G.o.d 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 p.r.i.c.ks" (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 p.r.i.c.ks," 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 cla.s.ses, figures of _words_, and figures of _thought_, and they give elaborate definitions, cla.s.sifications, and rules for their use. The interpreter of Scripture, however, need not enc.u.mber 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 cla.s.ses 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.