(1.) Mult.i.tudes of cases can be decided at once by considering _the nature of the subject_.

Thus, when the apostle calls Jesus Christ a "foundation," and speaks of building upon this foundation "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble," adding that "every man's work shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;" and, further, that "if any man's work abide" this fire, "he shall receive a reward,"

but "if any man's work be burned he shall suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:11-15), we know at once, from the nature of the subject, that he speaks figuratively. He compares the church of G.o.d to a temple, of which Jesus Christ is the foundation, while her teachers and preachers are the builders. The "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble,"

represent primarily the materials with which they build; that is, the character of their doctrines and precepts, and secondarily, the character of those whom they bring into the Christian fold. The "fire,"

again, is the trial and judgment of the last day.

The apostle says of the ancient Israelites that "they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor.

10:4. So also Christ is called to believers "a chief corner-stone, elect, precious;" but to unbelievers "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence" (1 Pet. 2:6-8); "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David" (Rev. 5:5); "the Lamb of G.o.d" and simply "the Lamb" (John 1:29, 36; Rev. 5:12; 6:1; etc.); "the door of the sheep" (John 10:7, 9); "the true vine" (John 15:1); and "the living bread which came down from heaven" (John 6:51). He himself says: "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:54. There is no more ground for understanding the last of these pa.s.sages literally than the preceding, that is, there is no ground whatever. The dogma of the Romish church, which teaches that the consecrated bread and wine are literally converted into the body and blood of Jesus, violates alike sound reason and every sound principle of interpretation. "As the words, 'This is my body,' and 'This is my blood,' were spoken BEFORE Christ's body was broken upon the cross, and BEFORE his blood was shed, he could not p.r.o.nounce them with the intention that they should be taken and interpreted literally by his disciples. He could not take his body in his hands, nor offer them his blood in the cup; for it had not yet been shed." Horne, vol. 2, p. 319.

(2.) In ascertaining figurative language, the interpreter will naturally take into account _the scope_, _the context_, and the _general a.n.a.logy of scriptural teaching_. If the literal sense, though possible in the nature of things, is inept or contrary to the general tenor of Scripture, it must be rejected.

The prophet Isaiah tells us that, under the future reign of the Messiah, the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard lie down with the kid, the lion eat straw like the ox, and the child play with impunity on the hole of the asp. Isa. 11:6-8. It is possible to conceive of this state of things as effected by a change in the physical nature of all noxious animals. But the writer immediately adds: "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (ver. 9). Since then the change is effected by the universal diffusion of "the knowledge of the Lord," it must be a _moral_ change--a transformation of the character of wicked men figuratively described as wolves, leopards, bears, lions, and vipers. The general a.n.a.logy of prophetic language, which, as will be hereafter shown, abounds in figurative forms of representation, strengthens this conclusion.

By the prophet Haggai, again, G.o.d says: "Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land." Chap. 2:6. The key to the meaning of these words is given in the following verse: "And I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts." In such a connection, and with such a result, nothing could be more vapid than to understand this shaking of heaven and earth, sea and land, in a physical sense. It is the mighty overturnings among the nations, social, moral, and political, that are here predicted, as Jehovah says by Ezekiel: "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is, and I will give it to him." Chap. 21:27. Compare Isa. 13:13; Jer. 4:24; Ezek. 38:20; Joel 3:16. So when G.o.d announces that he "will cause the sun to go down at noon, and darken the earth in the clear day" (Amos 8:9), we understand at once that under this figure he forewarns the covenant people of the sudden approach of great calamity. Compare Deut. 28:29; Job 5:14; Isa.

13:10; Jer. 4:23-28; Ezek. 32:7, 8; Joel 2:31; 3:15; etc. This subject will be further discussed under the head of the interpretation of prophecy.

In the sermon on the mount, the Saviour says: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39); but the preceding context gives the _scope_ of this and the other particular precepts that follow, which is that Christ's followers should "resist not evil," that is, by rendering evil for evil. It is the spirit of meekness and forbearance that he inculcates, not a slavish regard to this and that particular form of manifesting it. So when he says: "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (ver. 42), he cannot mean, consistently with the scope of the pa.s.sage and his teachings elsewhere, that we should stultify ourselves by literally giving to every asker and borrower, without regard to his necessities, real or alleged. He means rather to inculcate that liberal spirit which never withholds such help as it is able to give from those who need it.

When the Saviour says again: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee," etc., both the preceding context and the general tenor of the Scriptures teach us that he means what is expressed by the apostle in another form: "Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth." Col. 3:5. To _mortify_ is to _deprive of life_, _make dead_. We mortify our members which would seduce us into sin, not by destroying them, but by keeping them in subjection to "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus."

(3.) If the interpreter is liable to err by taking figurative language in a literal sense, so is he also by regarding as figurative what should be understood literally. A favorite expedient with those who deny the supernatural character of revelation is to explain the miraculous transactions recorded in the Bible as _figurative_ or _mythical_. When David says that in answer to his prayer "the earth shook and trembled, the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth;" that G.o.d "bowed the heavens also and came down, and darkness was under his feet;" that "the Lord thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice, hailstones and coals of fire;" that "he sent out his arrows and scattered them, and he shot out lightnings and discomfited them," all acknowledge that the language is to be figuratively taken. Why then, an objector might ask, not understand the account of the giving of the law on Sinai amid thunderings and lightnings as figurative also? The answer of every plain reader would be--and it is the answer of unsophisticated common sense--that the former pa.s.sage occurs in a lyric poem, where such figurative descriptions are entirely in place; the latter in a plain narrative, which professes to give throughout historic facts with names and dates; that no reader, who had not a preconceived opinion to maintain, ever did or could think of interpreting the pa.s.sage in Exodus in any other than a literal way, while every reader understands at once that the poetic description in the eighteenth psalm is to be taken figuratively. The attempt has been made to interpret the gospel history as a _myth_--the embodiment of a system of pure ideas in the garb of history. It is difficult to refute an a.s.sumption which has no foundation to rest upon.

This mythical theory may, nevertheless, be disposed of in a very short and simple way. The great central truth of the gospel history is the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If any one would know how the apostle Paul regarded this, let him read the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, where he pledges his veracity as a witness on its historic reality (ver. 15). If, now, Paul so regarded it, Luke, his companion in travel and labor, cannot have taken a different view of it, nor any other of the evangelists. But if the death and resurrection of Jesus are recorded as true historic events, the whole mythical theory vanishes at once into thin air.

(4.) In regard to those prophecies which relate to the distant future, it may sometimes be difficult to determine whether we are to look for a literal or a figurative fulfilment of them. But this subject will come up for consideration in another place.

3. In regard to the _different kinds of figures_ a few words may be in place.

(1.) The term _trope_ (Greek, _tropos_, _a turn_) is applied, in a general sense, to figures of words and speech of every variety; but, in stricter usage, to a word or sentence _turned_ from its literal signification to a figurative sense. Quintilian adds (Inst. Orator. 8.

6. 1) that this must be _with good effect_ (_c.u.m virtute_); that is, it must add clearness, force, or beauty to the thought.

The princ.i.p.al varieties of the trope are the _metonymy_ and the _metaphor_. The _metonymy_ is founded on the _relation_ of one thing to another. Thus when Abraham says to the rich man: "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them" (Luke 16:29), Moses and the prophets are put for their writings; that is, the _authors_ for their _works_. "A soft tongue," says the wise man, "breaketh the bone." Prov. 25:15. Here the word tongue is put for speech, the _instrument_ for the _thing effected_, and this metonymy is joined with a metaphor. (See below.) The _synecdoche_, in which a _part_ is put for the _whole_, as the _sword_ for _war_, is in its nature essentially a metonymy. Rhetoricians give elaborate cla.s.sifications of metonymies, but they are of little value to the scriptural student, since all are interpreted according to the few simple principles given in the preceding chapter.

The _metaphor_ is founded on the _resemblance_ of one thing to another; as in the examples already given: "The Lord G.o.d is a sun and shield"

(Psa. 84:11); "I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman." John 15:1. It may lie not in a single word, but in an entire expression, thus: "It is hard for thee to kick against the p.r.i.c.ks" (Acts 26:14); "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest see." Rev. 3:18. The metaphor and metonymy may be joined, as in the words already quoted: "A soft tongue breaketh the bone;" or they may blend themselves with each other, as when Nahum says of the princes of Nineveh: "The sword shall devour thy young lions."

Chap. 2:13. In this last example, as often elsewhere, _personification_, which is properly a figure of thought, is added, the sword being represented as a beast of prey. The grand and gorgeous personifications of Scripture naturally clothe themselves in tropical language of inimitable beauty and exhaustless variety. "O thou sword of the Lord,"

says Jeremiah, "how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyself into thy scabbard, rest, and be still. How can it be quiet, seeing the Lord hath given it a charge against Ashkelon, and against the sea-sh.o.r.e?

There hath he appointed it." Chap. 47:6, 7. The prophet Habakkuk represents G.o.d as coming forth in his glory for the salvation of his people: "The mountains saw thee," says he, "and they trembled: the overflowing of the water pa.s.sed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted up his hands on high: the sun and moon stood still in their habitation." Chap. 3:10, 11. G.o.d's promise to his redeemed is: "Ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands." Isa. 55:12. Metonymies, metaphors, and sometimes personifications--the books of the New Testament sparkle with these figures, and they are used always for effect, not empty show.

They are like the flaming bolts of heaven, which rend and burn as well as shine. "Beware of false prophets," says the Saviour, "which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits: do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?" Matt. 7:15, 16. How effectually does he by these metaphors strip off the mask from false teachers! "If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?" 1 Cor. 12:15, 16. Here is personification without a trope. "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. 15:55), here is a majestic personification in metaphorical form.

As resemblance lies at the foundation of the metaphor, it may be called an _abbreviated form of comparison_, the thing with which the comparison is made being directly predicated of that which is compared. Thus, when we say: A sluggard is vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes of those who send him, we have a metaphor, the sluggard being directly called vinegar and smoke. But if we say: "As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, _so is_ the sluggard to them that send him" (Prov.

10:26), we have a comparison, and the language ceases to be tropical.

The metaphor is thus a more vivid form of expression than the comparison.

A common mode of comparison in the book of Proverbs is simply to put together the object compared and the thing or things with which it is compared, thus: "A whip for the horse, a bridle for the a.s.s, and a rod for the fool's back" (chap. 26:3); that is, _As_ a whip is appropriate for, the horse, and a bridle for the a.s.s, _so_ is a rod for the fool's back. Again, "Where there is no wood the fire goeth out, and where there is no tale-bearer the strife ceaseth" (Prov. 26:20); "Charcoal to live coals, and wood to fire; and a man of strife to kindle strife" (Prov.

26: 21); "Silver dross spread over an earthen sherd--burning lips [lips glowing with professions of love] and a wicked heart" (Prov. 26: 23); in all which cases our version has supplied particles of comparison.

(2.) An _allegory_ is the _narrative of a spiritual transaction under the figure of something lower and earthly_, the lower transaction representing directly the higher. We have in the eightieth Psalm an exquisite example of the allegory: "Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it," etc. (ver. 8-16); where the transfer of the Israelitish people from Egypt to the land of Canaan, with their subsequent history, is described under the figure of a vine.

The metaphor and allegory have this in common, that the foundation of both is _resemblance_, and in both the lower object is _put directly_ for the higher. Yet the metaphor cannot be properly called a condensed allegory, nor the allegory an extended metaphor; for it is essential to the allegory that it have the form of a narrative, and that it contain real history--in the case of _prophecy_ it may be _future_ history--under a figure. Hence it admits of indefinite extension, as in the "_Pilgrim's Progress_;" and we may add the _Canticles_, which the Christian church from the earliest times has regarded as an allegory of which the subject is, in Old Testament language, G.o.d and his covenant people, but, according to the representation of the New Testament, Christ and his church.

We must carefully distinguish between _true allegory_ and the _allegorical_ or _mystical application_ of real history. In the former case it is not the literal meaning, but the higher sense represented by it, which const.i.tutes the historic truth. G.o.d, for example, never transferred a vine from Egypt to Palestine, but he did the covenant people. The story of Sarai and Hagar, on the contrary (Gen., chap. 16), is true history. The apostle Paul makes an allegorical application of it to the two covenants, that on Sinai and that in Christ, which is very beautiful and appropriate; yet the story itself is not allegory, but plain history. See further, in Chap. 37, No. 4.

(3.) A _parable_ is the _narrative_ of a supposed event for the purpose of ill.u.s.trating a _spiritual truth_ or principle. The office of the narrative is to embody the principle. It should, therefore, be natural and probable; but its literal truth is of no consequence. In our Lord's parable of the unjust steward, for example (Luke 16:1-9), the incidents of the narrative may or may not have been historically true; but either way the great principle which it ill.u.s.trates (ver. 10) remains the same.

Allegories and parables pa.s.s into each other by insensible degrees. Some of our Lord's so-called parables are rather allegories; as that of the vineyard let out to husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-41), which is founded on the beautiful allegory of Isaiah (chap. 5:1-7); so also that of the good shepherd (John 10:1-18). In their pure form, however, the allegory and the parable are easily distinguished from each other. In the allegory, the figure represents directly the higher transaction. Hence the incidents introduced in the figure--at least all the _main_ incidents--must have something corresponding to them in the spiritual transaction which the figure represents. The case of the parable is different. Here the spiritual truth is not directly described in terms of the figure, but simply _ill.u.s.trated_ from it. The incidents and characters of the story are separable from the general principle which it inculcates, and are sometimes formally separated by the speaker himself; as when our Lord says: "The kingdom of heaven _is likened_ unto a man which sowed good seed in his field," etc. Matt. 13:24. For this reason they may belong more or less to the mere drapery of the parable, so that to press them in its interpretation would lead to error instead of truth. See further below, No. 7.

(4.) _The fable_ is related to the parable, but it differs from it in two respects. _First_, it moves in a _worldly sphere_, having to do with prudential maxims rather than spiritual truth. _Secondly_, it allows, in harmony with this its lower nature, irrational objects as speakers and actors, which would be contrary to the dignity of the parable. Our Lord never employed fables as vehicles of instruction. There are two examples of them in the Old Testament; neither of them, however, coming from the lips of prophetical men. The first is that of Jotham: "The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign thou over us," etc. Judg. 9:8-15. The second is that of Jehoash: "The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there pa.s.sed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle."

2 Kings 14:9.

(5.) A _symbol_ is a _material object_, a _transaction in the material world_, or sometimes a _number_, to represent some _higher spiritual truth_. Ritual symbols, like the ark of the covenant, the high-priest's dress, the sacrifices, and, in general, the whole tabernacle and temple service, will be considered hereafter under the head of _types_. We speak of symbols now, only so far as they belong to the human side of interpretation. We have a beautiful example of a symbolic transaction in the seventeenth chapter of the book of Numbers, where the princes of Israel, by G.o.d's direction, take twelve rods, write each man his name upon his rod, and lay them up in the tabernacle before the Lord, whereupon Aaron's rod "budded, and brought forth buds, and blossomed blossoms, and yielded almonds;" a symbol that G.o.d would make the priesthood to flourish in his family.

Scriptural symbols exhibit a wonderful variety. Sometimes they are seen in _dreams_, as in Jacob's dream of a ladder reaching to heaven (Gen. 28:12-15); Pharaoh's two dreams of the fat and lean kine, and the good and thin ears (Gen. 41:1-7); or in _prophetic vision_, like Jeremiah's vision of a seething pot with the face towards the north (Jer. 1:13); Ezekiel's vision of the cherubim (chap. 1); and Amos' vision of a basket of summer fruit (chap. 8:2). At other times they are actual transactions.

So the false prophet Zedekiah "made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the Lord, with these shalt thou push the Syrians till thou have consumed them" (1 Kings 22:11); the true prophet Jeremiah wore a yoke upon his neck as a sign that G.o.d would subject the nations to Nebuchadnezzar's power, and the false prophet Hananiah broke it, that he might thus signify the deliverance of the people from Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Jer.

27:1-8, compared with 28:10, 11.

(6.) A _proverb_ is a _short maxim_ relating to practical life. It may be expressed literally or figuratively, but in either case it must contain a _general truth_. "A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him; neither will he go unto the wise" (Prov. 15:12), is a proverb expressed in plain language. "The name of the Lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe" (Prov. 18:10), is a proverb under a beautiful figure. The foolish young men counselled Rehoboam to say to the Israelites: "My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins." 1 Kings 12:10. This is not a proverb, because it contains only the figurative statement of a particular fact. But if we change the form, and say: The little finger of a foolish ruler is thicker than the loins of a wise king, we make it general, and thus it becomes a proverb.

The Hebrew word for a proverb (_mashal_) denotes a _similitude_, this being one of its most common forms. Examples occur in abundance in the book of Proverbs. We have them in the form of _direct comparison_: "As in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man" (chap.

27:19); "A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike" (chap. 27:15); "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith" (chap. 15:17). We have them also in the form of _metaphor_: "The contentions of a wife are a continual dropping" (chap. 19:13); "The lips of knowledge are a precious jewel" (chap. 20:15). But most frequently the comparison appears in the form of _contrast_, thus: "A wise son heareth his father's instruction; but a scorner heareth not rebuke" (chap. 13:1); "A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness will utter lies" (chap. 14:5). The signification of the word _proverb_ is then extended to short sententious maxims of every form, even where comparison is excluded, thus: "A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways of judgment" (chap. 17:23).

(7.) The word _myth_ (Greek _muthos_) was applied by the Greeks to a legend or story of early times, then to a _fable_, like those of aesop.

In modern usage it is defined to be a story in which "there is an unconscious blending of the deeper meaning with the outward symbol, the two being separate and separable in the parable." "The mythic narrative presents itself not merely as the vehicle of the truth, but as itself being the truth; while in the parable there is a perfect consciousness in all minds of the distinctness between form and essence, sh.e.l.l and kernel, the precious vessel and yet more precious wine that it contains." Trench, Notes on the Parables, chap. 1. A good ill.u.s.tration of this we have in the tales of Grecian mythology, once received by the ma.s.ses of the people as literally true; but which "a later and more reflective age than that in which the mythus had birth" learned to regard as only the vehicle of certain ideas respecting deity. The myth, as thus defined, does not come within the sphere of biblical interpretation. The historic events recorded in the Old Testament may, and often do, shadow forth something higher. In that case they are not myths, but _typical history_. Chap. 37, No. 4. All the scriptural narratives, on the contrary, which are true, not in their literal meaning, but in a higher sense, come under the head of allegories, parables, or symbolic representations.

4. In the _interpretation_ of figurative language we must be guided, in general, by the principles considered in the preceding chapter. To lay down special rules for the interpretation of the rich and endlessly varied figures which adorn the pages of Holy Writ would be as impracticable as useless. The history of Biblical exegesis, however, shows that some general cautions are much needed.

5. The youthful student of Scripture should be reminded, first of all, that its figurative language is no less _certain and truthful_ than its plain and literal declarations. The figures of the Bible are employed not simply to please the imagination and excite the feelings, but to teach _eternal verities_. The Lord Jesus, "the faithful and true Witness," said: "Heaven and earth shall pa.s.s away: but my words shall not pa.s.s away." Mark 13:31. Yet there is a cla.s.s of interpreters who seem to think that if they can show in any given case that his language is figurative, its meaning is well nigh divested of all certainty and reality. Thrice in immediate succession did he solemnly warn his hearers to cut off an offending hand or foot, and to pluck out an offending eye, rather than be cast with the whole body into h.e.l.l, "into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:43-48. But, says one of this cla.s.s of expositors, the maiming of the body is figurative language, and so is the representation of the worm that never dies. Undoubtedly the maiming of the body is so; and how far the unquenchable fire may also be a figure for the dread reality that awaits the incorrigibly impenitent in the world to come we pretend not to know. But in the lips of Jesus figures teach truth, not fiction. The unhappy sinner who despises the grace of the gospel will find the reality not less terrible than the figures by which Christ has represented it. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable; but we cannot on this ground set aside the solemn lessons which it inculcates. What these lessons are, it requires only candor and faith to receive. They teach us that G.o.d's suffering children go immediately, upon death, to a state of conscious blessedness; and "the men of the world, which have their portion in this life," to a place of unmitigated suffering. Whatever be the comprehension of the word _Hades_ (rendered in our version by the word _h.e.l.l_), there is an impa.s.sable gulf between Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and the rich man in torment. The "great gulf fixed" may be a figure; but it represents an awful reality; and that reality is, that there is no transition from the one state to the other.

6. In the _allegory_ the higher spiritual transaction is, as we have seen, directly represented by the lower. When we know, therefore, what the allegory represents, we have the key to its interpretation, and all its incidents fall naturally into place. If the sphere of the allegory be the outward history of G.o.d's people, all its incidents--at least all its _main_ incidents--ought to have a significance. If its sphere be that of inward spiritual experience, as in the Song of Solomon, more lat.i.tude must be allowed for the drapery of the story; yet here also the essential parts will each correspond to something in the higher object represented.

An example of pure historic allegory is that of the vine transplanted from Egypt (Psa. 80), where the higher object, which gives the key to the meaning, is _G.o.d's covenant people_. The casting out of the heathen (ver. 8), is literally expressed, but in the verses following, the figure is beautifully carried out. This vine takes deep root and fills the land; the hills are covered with its shadow, and its boughs are like the goodly cedar; it sends out its boughs to the sea, and its branches to the river (ver. 9-11). Here we have one main incident, the _increase_ of the people in the land of Canaan. Then G.o.d breaks down its hedges, so that every pa.s.ser-by plucks it; the boar out of the wood wastes it, and the wild beast of the field devours it (ver. 12, 13). This is another main incident, the _withdrawal of G.o.d's protection_ from his people, and their oppression by their heathen neighbors. The prayer that follows in behalf of this vine (ver. 14-16) represents the _love_ which G.o.d's people bear to his church. All these parts of the allegory have their proper significance. The rest of the imagery--the hills overshadowed by it, the boughs like the goodly cedar, the wild boar wasting it, etc.--is but the drapery of the allegory; and an attempt to find a spiritual meaning for each of these particulars--the boar out of the wood, for example, and the beast of the field--would but mar its beauty and force.

We give from Ezekiel (chap. 17:3-10) another example of historic allegory, in which the essential parts can be readily distinguished from the luxuriant imagery of the prophet: "A great eagle with great wings, long-winged, full of feathers, which had divers colors [Nebuchadnezzar], came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar [Jehoiachin, whom Nebuchadnezzar dethroned and carried to Babylon. The cedar of Lebanon represents the royal family, and Jehoiachin, as the reigning monarch, its highest branch]: he cropped off the top of his young twigs [the same as: he took the highest branch of the cedar], and carried it into a land of traffic [Chaldea]; he set it in a city of merchants [Babylon]. He took also of the seed of the land [the king's seed, meaning Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar made king in the place of Jehoiachin], and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters, and set it as a willow-tree [established Zedekiah on the throne, and gave him the means of prosperity as his va.s.sal]. And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature [not a lofty cedar, but a low vine; that is, a tributary king], whose branches turned towards him [towards Nebuchadnezzar, as dependent upon him], and the roots thereof were under him [under Nebuchadnezzar, as subject to his power]: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth twigs. There was also another great eagle with great wings and many feathers [Pharaoh, king of Egypt]: and behold this vine did bend her roots towards him [Zedekiah turned away his confidence from Nebuchadnezzar to Pharaoh], and shot forth her branches towards him, that he might water it by the furrows of her plantation. It was planted [had been planted by Nebuchadnezzar] in a good soil by great waters, that it might bring forth branches, and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine [fidelity to Nebuchadnezzar would have made Zedekiah prosperous].

Say thou, Thus saith the Lord G.o.d: Shall it prosper? [now that it bends towards the second eagle] shall he [Nebuchadnezzar] not pull up the roots thereof, that it wither? It shall wither in all the leaves of her spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof [the work of plucking it up will be easy, not requiring a numerous force]. Yea, behold, being planted shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it? [a new figure to represent its destruction] it shall wither in the furrows where it grew."

There is a cla.s.s of allegories in the Old Testament which represent the relation of G.o.d to his people under the figure of husband and wife. Such are the Song of Solomon, and the two remarkable allegories in Ezekiel (chapters 16 and 23). The luxuriant fulness of imagery in these allegories does not admit of interpretation in detail. The general scope only of the images is to be taken into account, since this contains the essential idea.

In the free style of the scriptural writers the allegory admits of the introduction of _literal_ clauses ("_Thou hast cast out the heathen_, and planted it," Psa. 80:8), and also of _explanatory_ clauses, though not so readily as the parable. See examples in Isa. 5:7; John 10:9, 11, 14.

7. The scriptural _parables_ have a rich variety of form, sometimes approaching to that of the allegory, when the interpretation must be upon the same general principle. In its pure form, however, the parable does not, like the allegory, represent directly the higher spiritual truth, but is simply a narrative to ill.u.s.trate it. It may be introduced in the absolute form, like the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke 13:6-9); or, more commonly, in the shape of a similitude, thus: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field" (Matt. 13:24); "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of G.o.d? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" Mark 4:30. It may be left without explanation, but more commonly an explanatory remark is added.

So to the parable of the two sons whom the father asked to work in his vineyard is added the application: "Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of G.o.d before you" (Matt.

21:28-31); and the parable of the Pharisee and publican is both introduced and followed by an explanatory clause (Luke 18:9-14). All such clauses are of the highest importance for the interpretation of the parables to which they are annexed. In the interpretation of a parable, the first and most important thing is to ascertain the spiritual truth which it is intended to inculcate. How far a spiritual significance is to be sought for the particular incidents of parables is a question to be determined separately for each, according to its nature.

In the parable of the sower, which our Lord himself interpreted (Matt.

13:3-8, 19-23), all the parts are essential, since the four different kinds of soil represent four different cla.s.ses of hearers. So in the parable of the tares in the field (Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43), the good seed sown by the owner of the field, the tares sown by his enemy, the separation, at the time of harvest, of the tares from the wheat, the burning of the tares, and the gathering of the wheat into the barn, are all main incidents in its spiritual application. Not so in the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), of which our Lord himself has given the scope, and, so far as we can see the only scope: "Watch, therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh."

If we go farther, and inquire what is the spiritual meaning of the lamps and oil-vessels, of the equal division of the virgins into five wise and five foolish, of the request of the foolish virgins that the wise would give them oil, and the answer of the wise virgins, we run into useless speculations. All these particulars belong to the drapery of the parable, and are intended to make the story natural and probable.

In the pure form of the parable, the personages introduced to ill.u.s.trate G.o.d's ways of providence and grace do not, as in the allegory, directly represent G.o.d himself. It is not necessary, therefore, that there be in all cases a correspondence between their character and that of the holy G.o.d. It is sufficient if the words and deeds ascribed to them truly ill.u.s.trate the spiritual principle in question. In the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-35), his lord "commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made" (ver. 25); and afterwards he "was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" (ver. 34). We need not trouble ourselves about the reasonableness of these acts _on the part of an earthly lord_. It is sufficient for the end of the parable that they were in accordance with the usages of the age, and thus ill.u.s.trated the great truth which the parable was intended to enforce: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespa.s.ses"

(ver. 35). We have still more forcible ill.u.s.trations of this principle in such parables as those of the importunate friend (Luke 11:5-8), the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8), and the unfaithful steward (Luke 16:1-9).

The Saviour does not compare G.o.d to an indolent friend, who will not arise to accommodate his neighbor with bread till he is forced to do so by his importunity; nor to an unjust judge, who fears not G.o.d nor regards men. But he _draws ill.u.s.trations_ from their conduct of the efficacy of importunate prayer; adding, at the conclusion of each parable, its scope: "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Luke 11:9); "And shall not G.o.d avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?" Luke 18:7. In the parable of the unfaithful steward, our Lord introduces a fraudulent transaction--a transaction so manifestly fraudulent that there is no danger of our thinking that it could have his approbation--that he may thus ill.u.s.trate the importance of _prudent provision_ for the future. By allowing each of his lord's debtors to diminish the amount due from him, he gains their favor, that in time of need he may be received into their houses.