I. INTRODICTION.
This is in response to a request from a respected
preacher brother of many years, to "many a paper
defining distinctly the variations [of] terms found on
page, Contents, [which] seem
to be all from the same family yet meaning something
different in each word shown," in a book he owns. It
is a massive volume of 1,007 pages plus xxviii preliminary
and prefix pages, entitled Preaching from the Types and
Metaphors of the Bible, by Benjamin Keach
(1640-1704) of London, England.
He described on the inside back flap of the dust
cover of the book as a "self-taught man" who
"gained fame as a powerful preacher and defender of
Baptist doctrine," who according to the Foreword (page vii),
began preaching at 18 years of age and during his ministry
of 46 years over 40 works came from his prolific pen.
Conspicuous among those works was the tome
mentioned above, first published in London, but not till
1855, more than 150 years after the author’s death, and
under the title,
Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors, together
with Types of the Old Testament, prefixed by
"Articles to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy
Bible." But under its present title it was
copyrighted and republished by Kregel Publishing of Grand
Rapids, Michigan, U.S.A., in 1972 and reprinted in 1975,
1976, 1978, and 1980, whether more times since then I do
not know.
On the "Contents" pages
(v. and vi.) of the latter, two parts are listed: Part I,
DEFINING AND INTERPRETING TYPES AND METAPHORS AS USED IN
THE BIBLE, 240 pages, referred to in the above-mentioned
request; and in Part II, SOURCE MATERIALS FOR PREACHING
FROM THE TYPES AND METAPHORS OF THE BIBLE, the remaining
767 pages.
1. TROPHES AND FIGURES: Metonymy, Irony, Metaphor,
Synecdoche, Catachresis, Hyperbole, Allegory, Proverb,
Enigma.
2. SHEMES AND FIGURES: Figures, Schemes
3. TYPES AND PARABLES: Types, Parables.
II. DISCUSSION.
1. General
Observations.
On Pages 1 and 2 of the text proper, is a
duplication of the above table of contents, beginning under
the heading of TROPHIES AND FIGURES, with the addition of
occasional explanations before taking up individual types
and metaphors. The first explanation is a by-line below the
heading, as follows: "SCRIPTURE RHETORIC, or SACRED
ELOCUTION, may be reduced to two principle heads or
chapters" – "Trophies," and
"Figures."
a. Of "tropes" it is stated that
"they concern the sense of the words, viz. "when
they are drawn from their proper and genuine signification
to that which is different or contrary; Which the etymology
of the word shows; for tropos is derived from
trepo signifying verto, muto, to turn
of change."
In the foregoing, the nouns trope,
trophe, and tropos seem to be used
interchangeably though they do not mean the same
notwithstanding having a common derivation, namely, from
the verb terpo to turn or change.
The word "trope" as a figure of
speech is an anglicised form of the Greek word
trope, occurring one time in the New Testament, in
James 1:17, where it speaks of a "shadow of
turning," referring to the shadow of night being cast
by the turning or rotation of
the earth on its axis. It is not there used as a figure of
speech, but the figure of speech named from it does
indicate a turn or change, that is, of
language from its literal meaning to a figurative meaning,
as the literal turning of the earth changes day to night in
any given area of our globe.
Trophe, however, is not a synonym of
trope, as represented above, but instead is used of
nourishment or food, and of such it is used 16 times as
follows (in the King James Version): "MEAT" 13
times (Matthew 3:4; 6:25;
10:10; 24:25; Luke 12:23;
John 4:8;
Acts 2:46;
9:19; 27:33,34; Hebrews 5:12,14; "FOOD" 3 times
(Acts 14:17; 27:38(occurring in the phrase,
koresthentes trophe, meaning having been satisfied of [or,
with] food, but rendered in English idiom as
"had eaten enough"); James 2:15).
b. Of "figures," it is likewise stated
that "the Greeks call [them] {S}chemata,
signifying the habit or ornament of speech, do not alter or
very the sense of the words, but embellish, beautify, or
adorn them." For two reasons I have added the
"S" at the beginning and not perceived as such by
proofreaders.
One is that without it I could not find such a
word in lexicons of either New Testament or secular Greek,
leading me to believe it to be a typographical error,
likely made by the typesetter and not perceived as such by
proofreaders.
The other is that when later the subject of
"Schemes and Figures" begins to be dealt with in
the text (p.199), it is said: "The word Schema,
principally and properly signifies a garb, habit, or
ornament of the body; and by a metaphor is translated to
signify the beauty or ornament of speech, as Aristotle and
Cicero say [one a Greek, the other a Latin]. The Latins
render it figure (as some say) because stage-players, by
the variation of shifting of their habit, represented
divers figures of men: these figures are called rhetorical
lights and ornaments, and do not change the sense of the
words, as tropes do, but give embellishment or
beauty to speech."
It is likely that Aristotle used the Greek word
schema, and that Cicero used the Latin word
fifura, a form, shape, figure, from fingere,
to form, shape, as per Webster’s New Twentieth
Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1959).
The latter also says of the Latin figura,
that in rhetoric it is "a figure of speech: that in
grammar it is a deviation from rules of analogy or syntax:
an unusual construction"; and that the phrase
"figure of speech," is "an expression using
words in an unusual or nonliteral sense to give beauty of
vividness of style: metaphor, personification, simile,
litotes, hyperbole, metonymy, synechdoche, etc.;
trope."
The
upshot seems to be that in general usage,
"Tropes" (or tropical language) and
"Figures" ("figures of speech," or
figurative language) are in our day practically one and the
same thing, whereas at an earlier time "figure"
was considered as a species of "trope," confined
largely (yet not
exclusively) to tropical language that adorns but
does not change the meaning.
c. The third category on the contents page, namely,
"Types and Parables," is not mentioned again on
pages 1 and 2 with the above, but is treated on pages
225-240. We shall, however, include in our effort at
"defining distinctly the variation [of] terms found on
page, "Contents."
Moreover, a subhead on page 228, reads: "Prophetical
Types, and Typical, and Symbolical Actions."
Consequently, we shall include "Symbols" in our
definition of terms.
Our "definitions" will aim at being as
simple and summary in form as we can reasonably make them,
with enough examples to be aptly illustrative and of
practical value without beginning to be exhaustive.
2.
Definitions of Terms.
Dictionary definitions will be used as seems
appropriate. And so will any other source material readily
available. But the one best source I have is a 400-page
text book entitled Hermeneutics (1888), by
D. R. Dungan, with three chapters on "Figurative
Language." And by the aforementioned brother I have
also been sent a copy of Types and Metaphors of the
Bible, by J. W. Monser, with an
"Introduction" by "Chas. Louis Loos,
President of Kentucky University" (a late if not the
last president before it ceased to exist in 1908).
Mosner, in his "Preface," not dated,
starts out by saying, "After the Lapse of a few years
this work is put into the hands of the public." And,
in May 1936, F. L. Rowe, on his "Preface to the
Present Edition," stated: "To give this book to
the brotherhood has involved much sacrifice on the part of
the present publisher who has gone through with it because
of the great blessing it will prove to the present and
coming generations. No other book has ever been published
quite like this." The edition published by Rowe was
also reprinted by the Gospel Advocate Company, 1995,
without any comment of its own, from which printing came
the copy lent to me.
This book is mentioned because Monser, in his
"Preface," credits Keach with being one of
the four authors to whom he himself was most indebted; also
that both Monser and Keach speak of "Types and
Metaphors" as if umbrella terms under
which all figurative language is covered – metaphors relating to
words, and types to sentences
(which is confusing without this intended distinction being
understood).
And Monser, in some ways more logical than Keach,
arranges his book on that pattern. Our assignment however,
is not to deal with Monser, but with terms found on Keach’s
Contents" page. This we now begin to attempt, and will
call attention to when finishing with his metaphors
("a" through "j" below) and beginning
with his types ("k" through "n"), as
umbrella terms.
a. Metonomy. It is from the Greek words
meta, indicating a change, and onoma, name,
hence a change of name; the employment of one name or word
for another which have some relation to each other,
"as when we say a man keeps a good table, instead of
good provisions; we read Virgil – that is, his poems or
writings; they have ‘Moses and the prophets’ – that is
their books, or writings; a man has a clear head – that is,
an understanding, or intellect; a warm heart, that is,
affection." (Webster.)
Many times this figure bears a close resemblance
to the metaphor and the allegory. In fact, all figures of
speech are indeed related to each other, as mentioned in
the request for this paper as seeming to be the case, which
is because all are employed for the purpose of comparing one thing with
another in some particular sense. Metonomy is
one of the most definite, yet of different sorts itself, as
follows:
(1.) Of
Cause, with cause stated while effect is intended, as
"whensoever Moses is read" (2
Corinthians 3:15), meaning his writings, as in similar
examples already mentioned without reference to different
sorts of metaphors themselves:
(2.) Of
Effect, with the effect put for the cause; the cause
meant, but the effect named -- as in Matthew 13:37-38,
where it is said that the "son of man" sowed
"good seed" in the world, namely, "the sons
of the kingdom," and the "devil" sowed
"tares," "the sons of the evil one."
Christ did not literally sow "sons of the
kingdom," but the word of God by which they were
produced. Likewise, the devil did not literally sow
"sons of the evil one," but the falsehood by
which they are produced.
(3.)
Of Subject,
with the subject named but as an adjunct – something
pertaining or belonging to it be intended, as (a) Jesus
saying to Saul, "Why persecutes thou me?" (Acts 9:4),
referring to the persecution of his disciples; also (b)
Jesus saying to his disciples of the "cup,"
"Drink ye all of it" (Matthew 26:27), the
container being put for the contents;
(4.) Of
Adjunct, with the adjunct put for the subject, as
(a) "then shall ye bring down my gray hairs to the grave
(Genesis 42:38), the language of Jacob to his sons. His
gray hairs relating only to his age, but spoken of in place
of himself; or as (b) "circumcision" and
"uncircumcision" for Jews and Gentiles, since
those characteristics distinguish each of them from the
other.
b. Irony. This term is
used from the Greek eironeia, from eiro, a
dissembler in speech – who says one thing while meaning
another. When used as a figure of speech, not
intended to deceive, "dissemble implies an assumed of
artfully feigned semblance or pretense." So,
irony is
"a sort of humor, ridicule, or light sarcasm, which
adopts a mode of speech the intended implication of which
is the opposite of the literal sense of the words, as when
expressions of praise are used where blame is meant."
(Webster).
Dungan (pages 316-318) says: "Irony can be
detected (1) by a statement made by the author: he
sometimes says that certain things were said in mockery.
(2) It is sometimes apparent from the tone or accent, or
the manner of the speaker. (3) Sometimes it will be
recognized by the character of the address: if the speaker
has been dealing in that kind of dissimulation for the
purpose of ridicule, it will be the easier detected. (4)
The extravagance of praise, when we both know the subject
and the author, will enable us to note the intent. (5) When
the language was used orally, and has been printed, there
may be nothing in the form of words to denote that it was
an ironical speech; but if we can get the opinion of those
who were present, it will assist us; for they would be able
to discover in the tone of the accent what has been lost to
us by distance and time.
"The scriptures contain many examples of
irony, but with the rules we have given already for its
detection, we will cite but a few, for the real meaning in
[most] any case is not difficult." Avers Dungan.
Then he cites and quotes, and in some instances
briefly comments upon, the following passages, which we
cite only: 1 Kings 18:27; 1 Kings 22:15-18; Job 12:2;
Judges 10:14; 1 Corinthians 4:8-13; except for Acts 2:13,
upon which he comments as follows: "Of course they
meant to be understood as saying that they were drunk; but
being full of sweet wine would not make them drunk. They
meant what we would mean when we say of a man that
‘he is
happy’ or that "he is full of milk.’
They say one thing, but mean another."
(It may be supposed that for want of any other
more suitably named category, Keach (P.33) includes some
things spoken feignedly, by way of trial of testing, as
when God said unto Abraham: "Take now thy son, thine
only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee unto the
land of Moriah, and offer him there a burnt offering upon
one of the mountains, which I will show thee" (Genesis
22:2). Similarly, when Lot invited angels, whom he then
thought to be men, and they said, "Nay, but we will
abide in the street all night," whereas they actually
intended to stay with him, and deliver him and his family
from the destruction of Sodom the next morning
(Genesis19:1-16). Also included by him was the incident in
the ministry of our Lord in which he used insulting
demeanor and language to test the sincerity and faith of a
foreign mother beseeching him to heal her grievously
afflicted daughter, and finally said to her, "O woman,
great is thy faith; be it unto thee even as thou
wilt," and her daughter was made whole from that hour
[Matthew 15:21-28].)
c. Metaphor. This is from
two Greek words, meta, beyond, or over and
pherin, to bring, or bear in the sense of carry. In
rhetoric it is used of a word or phrase literally denoting
one kind of object or idea in place of another by way of
suggesting a likeness or analogy between them (the ship
plows the
sea; a volley of oaths). A
metaphor may be regarded as a compressed simile, the
comparison implied in the former (a marble brow) being
explicit in the latter (a brow white like marble).
(Webster).
(A further word needs to be stated about
meta, since under "Metonomy" it was
used as representing change, and now as
beyond, or
over. That
is because it is a highly flexible term, with a variety of
related meanings according to context. Webster, represented
in the foregoing paragraph, states that it means
between,
with,
after; and
as a prefix means in general along with, after, denoting (a)
posteriority,
succession,
and (b) change, transportation,
transfer,
beyond,
transcending,
higher.
Dungan observes: "the metaphor is briefer and far
more pungent than a simile. On that account it was more
frequently used by the ancients. It represents
characteristics by means of a representative of the thought
that is intended to be conveyed, by calling one thing by
the name of another term which denotes the characteristics
which is to be made prominent. The simile gently says that
it is like it; the metaphor says it is it. ‘I will devour
them like a lion’ (Hosea 13:8), is simile; ‘Judah is a
lion’s whelp’ (Genesis 40:9), is a metaphor."
d. Synechdoche. According to Webster, this
word is from the Greek synekdoche, from
synekdechesthai, meaning to receive jointly – from
syn, with, and ekdeschestai, from ek,
out and dechesthai, to receive.
(In Greek, the first syllable is spelled with the letter
upsilon (u), as given in the Greek-English lexicons. But in
Latin and oftentimes in English it is translated as
"Y," as above by Webster. Had I not been quoting
Webster, however, I would have employed "u". This
is being mentioned in case I may be found doing so
elsewhere.)
In rhetoric, Webster states that the above word is
a figure of speech in which the whole is out for a part or
a part for the whole. "but," explains Dungan,
"while this is the main feature of this trope, it by
no means exhaust it." So he extends its application to
six more related items that we shall include, giving
samples of
his examples of all eight,
as follows.
(1.) The
whole is put for the part. In Luke 2:1, it is
affirmed that from Augustus there went out a decree that
"all the world should be enrolled." This could
not have embraced more than the Roman provinces, which were
indeed extensive and expansive.
By this figure the kingdom of heaven is spoken of
many times, when but a single feature of that kingdom is
meant. The parables in Matthew 13 are inexplicable on any
other hypothesis – the word "kingdom" being
employed when only one aspect of it is meant in each
instance – as "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a
man that sowed seed in the field" (v.24); "The
kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard
seed" (v.31); "The kingdom of heaven is like unto
leaven,
which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till
it was all leavened"; and so on.
Under this figure, Lazarus (Luke 16:23) is put for
the spirit
of Lazarus carried by angels to Abraham’s bosom. And, in
John 19:42 and 20:2, we have this figure used of Jesus and
Lord for his body, laid in the tomb
and later was absent from the tomb.
(2.) A
part put for the whole. In Genesis 46:27, "all
the souls
of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt, were
threescore and ten." The word "soul" here,
as in many places in the Bible, stands for persons – one
entity named, but the whole person is intended. This is
also many times the case with the salvation of sinners –
the whole of conditions being intended by the use of
one.
Most often it is "faith." Because
without it nothing else could follow. So, the Philippian
jailor was told, "Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
(Acts 16:31); but then the word of the Lord was preached to
him and his household, and they were all baptized,
believing
in God (vs.32-34).
When the apostle Peter, criticized by some of his
Jewish brethren in Jerusalem for having gone "in to
men uncircumcised" and eaten with them, had recounted
the events leading up to and associated with the conversion
of the household of Cornelius in Caeserea, his brethren in
Jerusalem "held their peace, and glorified God,
saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted
repentance
unto life" (Acts 11:18), mentioning that alone –
notwithstanding, according to Acts 10:48, they had been
commanded to "be baptized in the name of
the Lord" – but without the text of Acts 10 saying
anything explicit about repentance, though it
does imply it.
(It implies it because of stating that what was
commanded was "water" baptism (10:47), "in
the name of the Lord" (v.48) – "the Lord Jesus
Christ" 11:17 – and both repentance and
baptism in the
name of Jesus Christ were for the remissions of
sins, according to Peter’s previous preaching (Acts 2:38).
But in some context each of these commands
alone is mentioned without intending to
exclude the other, or others.)
In the case of Saul of Tarsus, who was to go into
the city of Damascus where he would be told what he
"must do" (Acts 9:6), he was told to "be
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of
the Lord" (Acts 22:16). But years later, as the
apostle Paul, he wrote that "whosoever shall call upon
the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13) –
without mentioning baptism.
Also, similarly except in reverse, on Pentecost,
that apostle Peter had explained that the coming of the
Holy Spirit that day marked the time when "it shall
come to pass, that whoever shall call upon the name of the
Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2"21) – mentioning
nothing else. Yet, when his sermon had pricked the hearts
of many who had either engineered or approved the
crucifixion of Christ, and wanted to know of Peter and the
other apostles what to do, Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) –
saying nothing about calling on the name of the Lord.
In each of the instances, one command or condition
of salvation is made to stand for all that are associated
with it.
(3.) Time
is put for a part of time. All the way through the
scriptures this Oriental form of expression is found.
For example, in Leviticus 25:46, "Of them
shall ye take your bondmen for ever," was
spoken to Israel in regard to the nations round about and
to strangers sojourning among them, in contrast with their own
brethren who might sell themselves to them due to poverty,
whom they were to treat as hired servants (not
slaves) until the year of jubilee, when they
would have to be released, and not serve "for
ever" – that is, throughout their lifetime – not
meaning all time to come.
Also, in Jonah’s prayer to God from the belly of
the fish that had swallowed him (Jonah 2:1-9), he seemed to
consider that being thus swallowed must be God’s method of
rescuing and preserving him, as indeed it was, for in v.6
the prophet described his experience after being cast
overboard in the Mediterranean Sea, saying, "I went
down to the bottoms of the mountains: the earth with her
bars was about me for ever: Yet hast thou
brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God"
(evidently said by way of grateful and confident
anticipation while in the fish’s belly).
Dungan. Although not using Jonah as an example,
observes that forever exhaust the
period to which it belongs," and continues thus:
"If it was said to a king ‘live forever,’ it means a
long life, and yet the life of a man. If it referred to a
nation, it would extend till that nation would be scattered
and the nationality be destroyed. If we could know it
related to time [not eternity], we could be sure that it
would exhaust the period. But if it reach beyond the
precincts if time, there then being no limit, it must have
all the meaning that can attach to the word. Hence, because
the word is sometimes used in a figurative sense [of a
limited duration], it does not follow that it is always to
be so understood."
(4.) The
plural is put for the singular. Dungan again:
"The ark that carried Noah across the flood rested on
mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). It could not have rested
on more than one. To one accustomed to this style of
speech, there would be nothing strange in the expression.
here were three ranges of hills, or mountains, and in one
of these ranges the ark rested."
Again: "And it came to pass, when God
destroyed the cities of the Plain, … he overthrew the
cities in which Lot dwelt" (Genesis 19:29) – yet Lot
dwelt in only one city, Sodom" (19:1).
Also: "Who would have said unto Abraham, that
Sarah should give children suck"
(Genesis 46:7) – whereas she never had but one child,
Isaac, and was never promised another.
Again: "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the
ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, wherein is
the good
way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for
your souls" (Jeremiah 6:16).
Dungan: "This may account for the singular
being used by one apostle and the plural by another, when
describing the same thing. Matthew and Mark usually differ
in this respect. Matthew has two men possessed of demons in
Gadara; Mark has but one. Mark tells of one blind beggar in
Jericho that wished to be healed; Matthew has two. Mark
describes the ride into Jerusalem to be on a colt whereon
man never sat; Matthew has an ass and a colt. Mark
and Matthew both say that they who were crucified with
Jesus reproached him; while Luke declares that one defended
his claims by rebuking the other (Luke 23:39-43). To say
that they reproached Him when only one did it, would not
have been out of harmony with general custom at that
time."
(5.) The
singular put for the plural. (a) "Therefore
shall a man
leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24) –
meant for all men generally, marriage being instituted for
the race. (b) "Let the waters bring forth abundantly
the living creature that hath
life, Which the waters brought forth abundantly, and
fowl that
they may fly above the earth in the open firmament of
heaven (Genesis 1:21).
(6.) A
definite is put for an indefinite number. (a)
"Howbeit in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that I might instruct others also, than
ten
thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians
14:19) – meaning a very few words that would instruct
versus a great number that would not, rather than the
precise numbers stated in either category, (b) "For
every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a
thousand
hills" – obviously meaning on all the hills, however
many. (c) The words hour, day, year, are often used
with the same latitude. Jesus said to his disciples the
night of his crucifixion, "could ye not watch with me
one
hour?" (Matthew 26:40) – meaning just a little while.
Dungan also remarks: "All the antediluvian patriarchs
seem to have died on their birthdays, for they were so many
years old. The same is true of the men who lived this side
of the flood. And yet we do not think but that they lived
months and days, more or less, [in addition to or less than
precisely so many years] just as people do now."
Similarly, the ordinals, first, second, third, and
so on were used among the ancients in ways we would not.
Jesus said he was to be in the heart of the earth
"three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40);
"and the third day be raised up" (16:21);
"and the third day rise again" Luke 24:7,46).
"He was risen early on the first day of the week"
(Mark 16:8), which was "the third day since these
things came to pass" (Luke 24:21) – that is, since he
had been "condemned to death, and crucified"
(v.20).
Counting back from the first day of the week
(Sunday), which was the third day, the
second day
would be Saturday (the Sabbath), and the day before
Saturday (namely Friday) would have been the first day – the day of
crucifixion itself. For, from the Gospels we learn that the
burial was late on Friday ("Preparation" day).
Before the beginning of the Sabbath after sunset. (See
Matthew 27:57 - 28:6; Mark 15:42 - 16:11; Luke 23:50 -
24:7; John 19:31 - 20:18.) That made him in the grave a
short part of the first "day and night" (the
first 24-hour period), all of the second, and a few hours
of the third – references to the beginning and ending
periods being examples of putting the whole for a part, as
mentioned above in (1.). Hence, "after three
days" in the above has to mean after the arrival of
the third day, not after it was over.
(See 1 Kings 12:5, 12; Esther 4:16; 5:1, for
"three days" and the "third day" before
the end of it, being used as equivalents – the whole for
the part – a long way back in Old Testament history.)
(7) A general name is put for a particular name.
(a) "all
flesh" referring to all of human beings, as
follows: "And let all flesh bless his holy name for
ever and ever" (Psalm 145:1). "Therefore by the
deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified
in his sight" (Romans 3:29). Animal "flesh"
is not intended in either instance. (b) Again, "preach
the gospel to
every creature" (Mark 16:15), does not mean
every created thing, but the human race only.
(8) Sometimes a special name or
word is put for a general one. (a) "Bread"
is often used for "food" in general, as
"Command that these stones become bread" (Matthew
4:3); "Give us this day our daily bread" (Matthew
6:11). (b) In Mark 16:16, "He that believeth"
stands for all who believe, etc. And in Psalm 1:1,
"Blessed is the man" means blessed are
all who
walk as being described.
e. Catachresis. This is from
the Greek word katcahresis, misuse, from
kata, against, and chresthai, to use. In
rhetoric,
it is the wrong use of one word for another (mutual for common); also, a
wresting of a word from its true signification, as in a
forced trope, or mixed metaphor ("To take arms against
a sea of troubles." Shak.). In philosophy, it is the
use of a word in an improper form through mistake as to its
origin, as calcariferous [having the form of a spur]
for calciferous [bearing, producing, or having
calcite, or carbonate of lime]. (Webster.)
Catachresis, Hyperbole, and Allegory, are
spoken of by Keach as "affection" he seems to
mean closely related and seemingly with heightened
intensity, as usage I have not found in any of our current
dictionaries of word study books. With him,
Catachresis is especially an "affection"
of the "metaphor" and
"metonomy." That leads me to suspect that
our current word-study books treat his
"catachrestical" categories simply as a
part of the category of which they are
"affections."
He states that "by a catachreatical,
metonomny" in 1 Corinthians 11:10, "the
covering of a woman’s head, is called exousia,
‘power,’ (because it is passively a sign of her being under
command of the man)."
Also, "With respect to the acceptation and
signification of words, Lev. 26:30, the fragments of idols
are called carcases, by a hard metaphor
[emphasis added], alluding to the carcases of men before
mentioned, Deut.16:7."
(NOTE: I can see no relation of Deut.16:7 to
"the carcases of men afore mentioned," for they
are "afore mentioned" in Leviticus 26:30 itself,
whereas Deuteronomy 16:7 has reference to preparation of
the lamb sacrificed in connection with observance of the
Passover feast, which Keach mentions next, and should have
been placed at the beginning of that new sentence. The
error may have been due to inadvertence either by the
author, or those who prepared his work for the printer, or
by the printer himself, and not known by the proofreaders
to be such.)
Keach, in his introductory paragraph, states of
Catachresis, that it "is called in Latin
abusio, an abuse, not as if the sacred scriptures
had abused any words, but because the things that are
catachrestical, differ in some things from the
custom of speaking tropically, and have a harder utterance
and coherence. The style of scripture is most holy, and
pure from blemish, or indecency, of which we take a few
examples of a threefold kind."
That nearly has to mean that the scriptures did
not use tropical or figurative language out of harmony with
the language of the readers immediately addressed, but if
literally translated into another language not having the
same custom of speaking tropically, it would be more
difficult to understand and therefore might lead to
erroneous interpretations. This I shall later attempt to
illustrate. But now we notice the three kinds of
Catachresis as presented by Keach.
"1. With respect to the acceptation and
signification of words." The examples of 1 Corinthians
11:10 ("power" on the woman’s head) and Leviticus
26:30 ("carcases" of idols), already mentioned
above, are of this kind:
"catachresical metonomy" and
"hare metaphor." Another example by Keach is in
Deuteronomy 16:7, already mentioned, where he says:
"To boil bashal is put for roasting the paschal
lamb, which was not to be boiled, but roasted, by command
of God, Exodus 12:9, etc."
Both the King James Version of 1611 and the
American Standard Version of 1901, read "roast."
But in the margin, the latter reads, "or boil." And
Young’s Analytical
Concordance gives its meaning as "boil, ripen,
cook," and lists its translations in the Old Testament
as "be ripe," 1 time; seethe, 1; bake, 2; boil,
6; roast, 2; seethe (sod), 11; be sodden, 4; bring forth
ripe, 1. Also, Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible, says that bashal,
pronounced bawshal’ is a primitive root; properly to boil
up; hence, to be done in cooking; figuratively, to ripen:
-- bake, boil, bring forth, roast, seethe, sod (be
sodden).
"2. With respect to the joining of the words
when some words (in a metaphor especially) are joined
together, which seem not well to correspond, as Exod. 5:21,
where it is said to stink in the eyes, which better agrees
with the nostrils, which denote great
adverseness."
(NOTE" The foregoing Hebrew idiom is rendered
into the English idiom by the King James Version as
"to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the
eyes of his servants," which we English readers are
comfortable with, though the abhorring is done with the
psyche rather then the eyes.)
Also, "Exod. 20:18, ‘And all the people saw
the thunder and lightnings, and the noise of the
trumpet," of which only lightning, is seen, the others
are heard. So to see a voice, Rev. 1:12. See Matt.7:21,22,
and 10:15, 1 Tim. 6:19, 2 Cor. 5:7, 2 Tim. 2:19&c, for
more examples.)
3. "With respect to the change of words. This
belongs to the writings of the New Testament, and the Greek
tongue, in which certain words are used to signify
different things, because one and the same Hebrew word,
(whence that speech was taken), may so signify.
Thus
Aiones, (aiones) secula ages,
are put for the world, Hab.1:6, because the Hebrew
olam signifies both ages and the world, Ecclesiastes
3:11."
(NOTE: The King James Version reads: "he hath
set the world in their
heart," whereas the American Standard Version renders
it in the text as "he hath set eternity in their
heart," but states in a marginal note,
"or, the
world.")
Continuing, Dorean, gratis ‘freely’
is put for maten, frustra, ‘in vain,’
Gal.2:21, from the Hebrew word chinnam, which
signifies (in vain) as it is contradistinguished, from the
hoped effect, or event, Psalm. 109:2,3."
(COMMENT: Examples of the Greek adverb
maten, vainly, or in vain, are indeed found in
Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7. On the other hand, the Hebrew
word chinnam does not occur in Psalm 109:2-3, as one
would think from the above; but according to Young’s Analytical
Concordance to the Bible, it occurs 32 times in the
Old Testament, translated "causeless," 1 time;
"free,"1; "freely" 1;
"innocent," 2; "for nothing," 1;
"in vain," 2 (Proverbs 1:17; Ezekiel 6:10);
"without cause," 15; "without cost," 1;
and "without wages," 1. But according to Keach it
is used in Psalm 109:2-3 in the sense of "in
vain" inasmuch as what is there described as having
been done and said against the writer was
"countradistinguished, from the hoped effect, or
event" – evidently by being contrary to what he had
hoped for and believed to be deserved – not by the word
chinnam itself being in the passage!)
Keach says further: "See more examples, Rev
14:8, and 18:3, compared with Job 6:4, Matt, 6:34. A word
that signifies malice, is put for affliction because the
Hebrew word ra’ah signifies both. See Amos 3:6, 1
Cor. 15:54, with Amos 1:11, Heb. 11:31, James 2:25, 1 Cor.
2:6, and 14:20, Col. 3:14, and 4:12, 1 John 4:18-20, with
Judges 9:16, and Prov. 11:3, &c."
COMMENT: All the foregoing paragraphs are given by
Keach as more examples of where the Greek New Testament
uses a word in a sense not usual to the Greek language, but
because the Old Testament Hebrew word which represents
either directly or indirectly has that as one of its senses
– with New Testament writers having to
assume a familiarity with such fact on the part of their
immediate readers, in order for its use to be "pure
from any blemish." As stated, and I believe correctly
by Keach. But I have to confess to utter inability to see
any such connection between the old and New Testament
passages cited above as "more examples." To me,
they are more like what the writer of Ecclesiastes says in
2:21 of his works; "Then I looked on all the works my
hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to
do; and, behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind;
and there was no profit under the sun" American
Standard Version).
The last two sentences of mine, however, are in no
wise to be interpreted as meaning that the scriptures may
not be wrongly interpreted because of not properly
distinguishing between various uses of certain key
words. With my own ears I once heard a quite good man and
sincere preacher, but with limited education, confidently
use Matthew 7:13-14 as a proof text of the necessity of
water baptism as a condition to salvation. Properly calling
attention to the fact that the passage reads
"strait is the gate, and
narrow is
the way, which leadeth unto life," and that strait is
spelled s-t-r-a-i-t not "s-t-r-a-i-g-h-t," he
gleefully added that if you consult a good dictionary you
will find that "s-t-r-a-i-t" means a narrow neck
of water
connecting two larger bodies of water, and that this makes
it refer to water
baptism. That was notwithstanding the word
"strait" in that text is next used as a synonym
of "narrow," and does not have any reference to
water than "narrow" does. Moreover, the reason
that a narrow neck of water
connecting two larger bodies of water is called a
"strait" is that it is narrow – rather than
because it is water! The good brother’s use of
"strait" was obviously a Catcshresis.
But nobody knows everything, and being highly skilled in
one area is no guarantee of competence in another. An older
preacher once told me of another older preacher highly
skilled and masterful as a defender of the faith in regard
to first principles, who, in preaching a sermon on the
conversion of Cornelius, eloquently discoursed in his
introduction about what a great musician he must have
been – "a centurion of the band called the Italian
band" (Acts 10:1)! But the word "band" in
that translation had reference to a band of soldiers
(speira, cohort), not of musicians, and is so
indicated in the margin of the American Standard Version
and incorporated into the text of later translations – or
"Regiment," as in the New King James Version. So,
another Catachresis.
But a much more serious Catachresis than either of
the above, which had their humorous aspects and were
strictly local, was involved in the historical
Christological controversy of early Christian centuries
that shook and even split the church world -wide, causing
the Roman emperor Constantine to call the first ecumenical
council at Nicea in Asia Minor, in A.D. 321, and resulting
in lingering aspects of translation controversy even to our
day over whether Christ as God’s monogenes Son is to
be described in translation as God’s "only begotten Son"
or "only Son," and
with even Isaac being called Abraham’s "only begotten
son" in Hebrews 11:17 of the King James Version of
1611 and retained in the English Revised Version of 1881
and the American Standard Version of 1901, although he was
neither his
"only" nor his "only begotten" son –
for Abraham had another son, Ishmael by Hagar, and six more
by Katurah. That suggest that there is an aspect of the
Greek adjective monogenes that neither of the above
carry, which is "only one of a kind," and which
both Jesus and Isaac were. It is also used of an only son
or relative of the kind of his or her parent. Hugo McCord’s
New Testament Translation (1988), in recognition of that,
accurately renders it of Christ and Isaac as
"unique," each being the only example of his
category.
(Clement of Rome, writing of the fabled Phoenix,
called it a monogenes bird, there supposedly being
only one of its species living at a given time. See Arndt
& Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature;
also 1 Clement 25:2).
f. Hyperbole. This word is
from the Greek word huper, above, over, beyond, and
bole, from bolein, to throw. Webster says:
"A figure of speech in which the expression is an
exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, of or
by which things are represented as much greater or less,
better or worse, than they really are; a statement which
exaggerates through passion or intense
excitement."
Dungan states: "There need be no rule for the
interpretation of hyperbole, except to
keep before the mind the purpose of the author, and the
language will interpret itself. It is simply an
intensification, and not used with any intent to
misrepresent the facts in the case. Of course, to make
these statements literal will find the Bible guilty of many
falsehoods; but when we treat such figures in the
Scriptures as we treat them elsewhere, there is no danger
of failing to comprehend them."
A few examples: (a) Ten spies sent by Moses to
view the Promised Land reporting: "the cities are
great and fenced up to heaven" (Deuteronomy 1:28);
conversely, of their inhabitants, "and were in our
sight as grasshoppers. And so
were we in their sight" (Numbers 13:33). (b) "God
gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and
largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on
the seashore." (1 Kings 5:29). (c) The apostle
Paul saying, "Unto me, who am less than the least of
all saints, is this grace given" (Ephesians
3:8). (d) Also John writing: "And there are so many
other things that Jesus did, the which if they should be
written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would
not contain the books that should be written"
(John 21:21).
g. Allegory. The word
comes from the Greek allos, other, and
agoreuo, to speak, "and so means speaking
something else than what the language actually means, what
Philo, the past-master in use of allegory, calls the deeper
spiritual sense." (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New
Testament, in regard to Paul’s allegory of the two
women [Sarah and Hagar] in Galatians 4:21-31).
(According to The New Columbia
Encyclopedia, 1975, Philo was born about 20 B.C. and
died about A.D. 50. A noted Jewish philosopher and mystic
of Alexandria, Egypt, he had enormous influence on Jewish
and Christian thought, particularly among the Alexandrian
theologians Clement (born about A.D. 150) and Origin (born
about A.D. 185). He was the first to attempt to reconcile
Biblical religion with Greek philosophy, hoping to impress
favorably the Hellenistic philosophical world. In so doing
he developed an allegorical method of interpreting the
scripture, which enabled him to find many of the doctrines
of Greek philosophy in the Pentateuch.)
Paul, speaking by divine inspiration and not under the
influence of Philo, did not say what he was recounting was
originally written as an allegory, but, literally,
according to the Greek text, it was "being
allegorized," that is, by himself – (a) making the two
women, a bondmaid (Hagar, he mentions by name) and a
freewoman (Sarah, he does not mention by name), by whom
Abraham had two sons, to stand for two
"covenants," the Old from Sinai in Arabia, and
the New from Jerusalem which is from above and free: (b)
making their sons to represent the "children" of
the respective covenants: (1) Christians, free-born
under Christ, and (2) earthly Israel, in
bondage under the law of Moses; and (c) the scripture saying,
"cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of
the bondwoman shall not be heir with the
son of the freewoman."
Dungan’s discussion of allegory extends almost to
12 pages, dealing with definition first and then giving a
number of important examples: (a) A vine brought out of
Egypt (Psalm 80:8-16); (b) Fasting inappropriate as mere
ritual (Matthew 9:14-17); (c) Putting on the whole armor of
God (Ephesians 6:11-18); (d) Good and wild olive trees
(Romans 11:15-24) – the latter being given
special attention over three pages because of having
given more trouble to exegetes than any other in the Bible,
with "many more things put into it than Paul ever
thought of"; (e) The two covenants (2 Corinthians
3:6-16) – also given special attention in just over three
pages, because next to the olive trees in respect to
difficulty of interpretation, and having much the same
object in view, so that Dungan does some recapitulating for
comparison. He calls the last two "double
allegories" – this sort having two lines of thought,
one put over the other, making them more difficult of
interpretation because of having twice as much in
themselves for the mind of the interpreter to deal with,
and then find the purpose of the comparison – except that
in the allegories of Paul he lets us in on what he wishes
to accomplish by them, and we need to guard against putting
more into them than he intended.
Robertson, quoted earlier for definition, states
that Paul was also familiar with allegory as a rabbinical
method of exegesis (but which was not always without abuse,
Rabbi Akiba, for instance, finding a mystical sense in
every hook and crook of the Hebrew alphabet) – that Paul,
however, makes skillful use of his knowledge of allegory in
that of the two women in Galatians 4:21-31.
On the other hand, Robertson states:
"Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims
of Philo’s allegorical method and carried it to excess with
regard to the plain sense of the narrative [which Paul had
not done]. That startling style of preaching survives yet
to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that
Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary
interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul
intended his readers to believe that this allegory was
designed by the narrative. He [simply] illustrates his
point of it."
h. Proverb. This word is from the Latin
proverbium, from pro, before, and
verbu,, word – hence, etymologically, a sentence
condensed into a word, or its smallest form, whereas a
"parable" (yet to be considered) is usually a
somewhat lengthy utterance, and so with
"allegory" (discussed immediately above).
Webster’s first definition of "proverb"
is as follows: "A profound or oracular maxim; a sage
sentence; often, in Scriptural use, an enigma; a parable; a
truth couched obscurely. Chiefly Bib[lical].
Now speakest thou
plainly, and speakest no proverb. John 16:29."
But in Old Testament usage it is also frequently
used in a context expressive of astonishment, contempt, and
taunt, though the etymology of the word does not mean, as
in Deuteronomy 28:37: "Thou shalt become an
astonishment, a proverb, and a byword,
among all the peoples whither Jehovah shall lead thee
away" American Standard Version; "You will become
a thing of horror and an object of scorn and
ridicule to all the nations where the Lord will drive
you" (New International Version). (See also all the
passages cited below.)
In both the Old and New Testaments it occurs no
less than 29 times, as a translation of at least four
Hebrew and Greek words, as follows:
Heb. chidah, a cute saying, hidden thing
(Habakkuk
2:6); Heb. Mashal. As a noun, a ruling saying,
proverb, similitude (Deuteronomy 28:37);
1 Samuel
10:12; 24:13; 1
Kings 4:32; 9:17; 2 Chronicles 7"10;
Psalm
69:11; Proverbs 1:1-6; 25:1*;
Ecclesiastes 12:9;
Isaiah
14:4; Jeremiah 24:9;
Ezekiel
12:22,23; 14:8; 18:2,3; and as a verb, to use as a
similitude or ruling saying, Numbers 21:27;
Ezekiel
12:23; 16:44; Gr. Parabole, parable, comparison,
similitude, Luke 4:23; Gr. Paroimia, proverb,
obscure saying, John 10:6; 16:25, 29;
2 Peter
2:22.
* The Book of Proverbs is an example of Webster’s
first definition of a proverb "in
scriptural sense," as cited above at the outset.
** Dungan calls attention to the fact that Matthew
24:32 the word "parable" is in reality a
"proverb" in our mode of speaking, as it is
translated above in Luke 4:23, which we shall also note
under "Parables".
i. Enigma. This word is
from the Greek ainigma, literally riddle, then indistinct
image. (Arndt & Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament).
In the Old Testament, "riddle"
translates the Hebrew word chidah nine times: in
Judges
14:12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19; and in Ezekiel 17:2, where it
is also used as a synonym of "parable".
As used in the Septuagint (LXX), the earliest
translation of the Old Testament Hebrew into Greek
(approximately 250 B.C.), it occurs where the King James
Version reads "dark speeches" (Numbers 12:8,
"astonishment" (Deuteronomy 28:37), "hard
questions" (1 Kings 10:1; 2 Chronicles 9:1), and
"dark sayings" (Proverbs 1:6) – all from the Heb.
chidah.
In the New Testament it occurs only once, in 1
Corinthians 11:12, "now we see through a
glass darkly [‘en
ainiymati’] but then face to face" – contracting
the difference before and after the Christian revelation in
its totality had been given – before and after "the
faith … was once for all delivered unto the saints"
(Jude 3), and inscripturated for preservation and intensive
over-all study (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17) – after scriptural
gifts had "ceased," or been "done away"
(1 Corinthians 13:8-19) – after the childhood state of the
church had ended and adulthood had been reached (v.11).
Keach concludes that not every parable or allegory
is an enigma, but that every
enigma is a parable or allegory. Dungan does
not bother to treat "inigma" as a separate figure
of speech.
j. Figures. The word
"figures" is from the Latin figura, as
already learned (see page 3 above) and in earlier times
more than now was confined to graciousness in rhetoric, to
language that gives embellishment or beauty to speech
without changing the sense of the words employed. It
applies to both words and
sentences.
But when it applies to words, it is mostly to
words within a sentence, as
in Exodus 34:6, "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful
and gracious," etc., or in Isaiah 6:3 "Holy,
holy, holy is the Lord God of Host." Keach also cites
the following passages as examples of similar structure,
that is, "when the same word or sound is continued or
repeated in the next sentence" (which is by no means
exhaustive, Keach distinguishing seven more, though not all
said structures are as obvious as the first one). The other
passages are Jeremiah 22:29; Ezekiel 21:27; Matthew 23:37;
Luke 28:10; 23:21; Acts 9:4; Revelation 18:2 2 Samuel
18:33; Isaiah 28:10; Hosea 2:21-23; Ezekiel 34:17.
(With reference to Isaiah 6:3, quoted above, Keach
makes a comment that I have to challenge the certainty of,
when he says that "this triple repetition denotes the
mystery of the Trinity" (p. 200). Does, then the
passage in Exodus 34:6, uttered by God, with only double
repetition, mean that at that time there were only two
members in the Godhead, including the Holy Spirit? Surely
not! For under Keach’s third type of
structure, which he calls "climax," or climbing
by steps, he has the following: "John 1:1, ‘In the
beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and God
was the word’ – this word, was in the beginning with
God." He explains that "in the third proposition
there was an inversion of terms, viz. A God was the word,
for the word was God." Accordingly, reading from the
King James Version, we have: "In the beginning
was the
word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was
God" [with emphasis added to make the
graduation or progression of thought all the more obvious]
– the Word was, was with God, and
was God –
all this "in the beginning," so that the Trinity
has existed from the beginning.)
In addition to "repetition" of
words within a sentence, Keach adds five more, the first of
which is "paranomasia," of which Webster
says in rhetoric: "A play on words in which that same
word is used in different senses or words similar in sound
are set in opposition so as to give antithetical force;
punning, a pun." A select few of the more obvious ones
in scripture, either quoted or cited by Keach as examples
are: Exodus
32:18, "And he said it is not the voice of them
that shout
for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that
cry for
being overcome: but the noise of them that
sing do I
hear"; Isaiah
5:7, "he looked for judgment, but behold
oppression;
for righteousness, but
behold a cry; Matthew 16:18.
"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter
[petros, masculine gender, stone, a fragment of
rock], and upon this rock [petra, feminine gender,
rock, but
bed rock or a ledge of rock] I will build my church";
2 Corinthians
10:3, "Though we walk in the flesh, yet we do
not war after the flesh";
2 Corinthians
6:9, "As unknown and yet
known."
The second addition to repetition of words
within a sentence that Keach makes is antanaclais, a
Greek word that, when used in rhetoric, is defined by
Webster as: a. Repetition of a word in a contrary or
different sense (Learn some craft, that you may
live without craft). b. Repetition
of a previous word or phrase in resuming the thread of the
discourse.)"
A few examples of the former cited by Keach are:
1 Samuel
1:24, "and the child was young (King James
Version), where the same Hebrew word, naar, is used
for both "child" and "young," so that
Keach represents the Hebrew text as saying, "and the
boy was a boy," but using the word "boy" in
two different senses – that category, the third, of the
word itself occurring in the Old Testament 233 times, and
in the King James Version rendered "babe" (1
time), "boy" (1 time), "child" (51
times), "lad" (32), "servant" (54).
"young man" (90), "youth (4); Matthew8:22,
"follow me ; and let the dead bury the
dead"
– the spiritual dead bury the physical dead; John 1:10. "The
world was
made by him, and the world knew him
not" – the former "world" meaning the
universe; the latter, the unbelieving majority of persons
in it; Romans 9:6, They are
not all Israel which are of
Israel" – that is,
not all are Israel spiritually, who are of Israel according
to the flesh.
The other three classes Keach calls:
(a) "Figures of a Sentence in Logism,"
by which he means what is said in conversation, or is
addressed to others as if in conservation.
(b) "Interrogation, " the use of
questions, (1) by way of denoting absurdity (real or
supposed) and exploding it (John 3:4; 6:52); (2) by way of
wonder and/or admiration (Genesis 17:17; Matthew 21:20);
(3) by way of affirmation (1 Corinthians 9:1; 12:20-30;
Hebrews 2:14; Job 11:7, which I took from Dungan); (4) by
way of demonstration of a certain subject, of which
something affirmed or predicted (Ezekiel 8:6; Matthew
11:7-9); (5) by was of expressing doubt (Genesis 18:12;
Romans 10:6-7); (6) by way of exaltation and extenuation
(Psalm 31:19; 8:4); an so on through nine more.
(c) "Figures of a Sentence in
Dialogism." Which Keach list as five in number,
expressive of (1) doubt or deliberation; (2) communication
of information; (3) anticipating or avoiding or answering
an objection; (4) seriously granting the profession of
another to be correct but inconsistent with his practice,
or ironically granting or permitting a thing verbally when
indeed prohibiting it; (5) conceding a statement or
professed belief to be correct, yet of no profit or
advantage to be one making it, as, "Thou belivest that
there is one God, thou doest well; the devils also believe
and tremble" (James 2:19).
(THE END OF KEACH SOCALLED "TYPES," WITH
HIS REMAINING FIGURES OF SPEECH BEING UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF
"SCHEMES."
k. Schemes. This word,
derived from the Greek Schema, has been used in
contrast with Figures, derived from
the Latin Futura, when using them as umbrella words to cover
and distinguish two species of figurative language. All the
foregoing figures of speech have been under the category of
"Figures," and confined to the use of
words
within sentences, whereas now reference will be to the
structures
of sentences themselves.
It will be noted above that under the topic of
"figures" there is a subtopic "Figures of a
Word," which includes the sub-subtopics "Figures
of a sentence in Logism" and "Figures of speech
in Dialogism." Since "dialogism" obviously
refers to conversation or communication on the part of two
or more persons, whether formal or informal, "Figures
of a Sentence in Logism" must refer to communication
of one person only ("Monologism") – though I have
no dictionary that gives the word "Logism." But
that distinction does not apply except within sentences
themselves in the category of "Schemes".
He latter word is derived from the Greek
schema, plural schemata, to which we have
been introduced on pages 2 and 3. There we learned that
what the Greeks called Schema, the Latins’ called
Futura. But Webster says of the English word Scheme,
that it is from the Latin schema, a rhetorical
figure, a shape, figure, manner, from the Greek
schema, form, outline plan (which means the Latins
also adopted the word along side their futura). And
it has been adopted into English as it was in Latin, as
schema, defined by Webster as "Scheme, plan,
outline, or diagram; specifi[cally]. In logic, a
syllogistic figure." (Webster also states that in
rhetoric it
has been used as "a figure of speech," but
"obsolete" – not so used now in English.)
The topic of "Themes" (the internal plan and
structure of sentences) occupies almost ten pages in
Keach’s book. So all we can do is to list his subtopic
headings: I. Schemes taken from Causes; II. Schemes taken
from Adjuncts and circumstances; III. Schemes taken from
Disparates or different Things; IV. Schemes taken from
Opposites, or contraries; V. Schemes taken from Comparates;
VI. Schemes taken from Division; VII. Schemes taken from
definition; VIII. Schemes taken from Testimony (occupying
five full pages). One example of the latter:
"Titus
1:12, ‘The Cretans are always liars, evil beast,
slow bellies,’ verse 13, ‘This witness is true.’"
Keach says of this: "There is a most elegant Oxymoron,
in these words of Paul; the Cretans are always liars; but
the that said this is a Cretan, therefore (it may be
concluded) he is a liar; yet Paul says his testimony is
true: and hence perhaps he calls him a prophet; … Hence
Paul calls him a prophet, whether by way of irony, or
because of the subject he treated on we will not
determine."
It seems to me that "Parallelism" is an
outstanding and highly important example of internal plan
and structure of sentences, though from an approach
different from the above. Yet if Keach includes it anywhere
I have searched for it in vain. The word is from the Greek
parallelismos, from para, beside, and
allelo, each. As a figure of speech it is a placing
beside each other two or more lines having the same or
similar import, or else opposite import, and is
characteristic especially of Hebrew poetry, found
abundantly in the Psalms and in book of Proverbs, but not
limited to them. See Exodus 15:1-18,21; 1 Samuel 18:7;
Judges 5:1-31; Luke 1:41-55; etc.
Dungan makes the following classifications: (1)
"Synonymous Parallelism" – when the lines contain
the same thought, or nearly the same; (2) "Antithetic
Parallelism" – in which lines or sentences are made to
oppose each other; (3) "Synthetic Parallelism" –
where words and sentences do not answer to each other, yet
run parallel for the sake of greater strength, and may even
run to several lines in cumulative fashion, either on the
ascendent scale. (See Psalm 9:1-6 for an example ascendent
scale, and again in vs.7-11; also Proverbs 9:13-17 for
descendent scale).
1. Types. The word
"type" is from the Greek typos, the mark
of a blow, impression, form of character. And a correlative
term is antityous, or antitype, corresponding in
some way to the type – the type being the original, and the
antitype a copy in the sense we
are considering.
Dungan gives this simple illustration: "We
say we have seen a horse’s foot in the clay, when we have
seen only an impression of his foot, which would be the
type. But when we take the track of the foot for the foot ,
we have just the opposite of the foot. So if a man should
strike his fist into a ball of putty, he would leave there,
not his fist, but the type of it. Though this is not the
meaning it generally has in the Bible, yet to remember this
original import will be of service in the interpretation of
types."
Then he makes the following further observations,
which we present in condensed form:
(a) We must not expect the type and the antitype
to be the same, which would identity, not type and
antitype. So they will not be the analogous in every
respect, but in some particular one or ones. (b) Finding
the purpose of a given type, its application in antitype
will usually be easy. (c) It must foretell something, for
if it is representative of a present truth or duty, it is a
symbol (yet to be discussed), not a type. (d) It must not
simply happen to represent something in the future, and
therefore do as an illustration, but must have been
intended to
represent that thought or fact when it was given. Hence, it
must be as old in design as its antitype. (e) The
scriptures should be made to interpret types as far as
possible, and with their definition we must be content. (f)
Yet there may be analogies not demonstrated as types in the
Bible, that are close enough to be type and antitype,
whether so intended or not, and may therefore serve
excellently as illustrations. (g) As in the interpretation
of symbols (yet to be discussed), the similarities between
type and antitype, will lead in most cases to the true
meaning. (h) Anything, to be a type, must have been a
real
person, thing, event, or office (not true of symbols). (I)
The antitype is always superior to the type in at least
some respect, else there would be no reason in the type –
which is always visible at the time it is given, because it
is material; but the antitype contains divine or spiritual
thought. And occasionally there may be more than one
antitype, or fulfillment, the first antitype also being a
type for a second antitype (as in the case of Moses,
Joshua, and Christ (the fulfillment of both the proceeding)
– this anticipating Dungan further along). (j) Sometimes
figurative language is employed in giving a typical event,
and should be treated as it would be in any other
circumstances. (k) The rules for interpreting symbols (yet
to be given) apply as well to types, as they have several
things in common. And insofar as the type becomes a
prophecy, history should also be carefully examined, that
we may have all the facts on both sides.
Finally, Dungan presents "THE SEVERAL KINDS
OF TYPES," as to sources from which they are drawn, as
follows:
(1.) Typical persons. – (a)
Types of Christ: Adam (Romans 5:12-19; 1
Corinthians 15:22,45); Moses (Acts 3:22-24;
cf. Deuteronomy 18:15-19); Joshua (see Hebrews 4:8-9, and
the fact Joshua was the immediate successor of Moses
(Numbers 27:18-20; Deuteronomy 1:37-38; 31:1-3,22-23; 34:9
Joshua 1:1-7; Deut.34:8-9); Melchisedek (Hebrews
5:5-10; 6:20; 7:1-17; cf. Genesis 14:18-20; Psalm 110:4);
David (Acts
13:32-34; cf. Isaiah 9:6-7); Solomon, but more
feebly (Romans 1:1-4; cf. 1 Samuel 7:13-15; 1 Kings
8:18-20); Zarubbalel (Haggai
1:1-12; Zechariah 4:1-10; 6;12-13;Cyrus, king of Persia
(Isaiah 44:28; 45:1-4). (b) A type of Judas: Ahithophel (Acts
1:16-20; Psalm 109:1; cf. 2 Samuel 15:30-34; 17:23; Psalm
41:9;55:12-13,20). (c) A type of John the Baptist:
Elijah
(Isaiah 40:3-4; Malachi 3:1; 4:5-6; cf. Matthew 3:1-3;
11:14; 17:10-12; Luke 1:17).
(2.) Typical things. –
(a) The serpent in
the wilderness (Numbers 21:9), a type of Christ
lifted up on the cross (John 3:14). (b) Lambs slain from the
foundation of the world (Genesis 4:4, etc., etc.) A
type of Christ; "the Lamb of God that taketh away the
sin of the world" (John 1:29; cf. Hebrews 10:3).
(3.)
Typical institutions. – (a) The Sabbath, a type of the
Christian’s rest in Christ (Matthew 11:28-29), especially
the eternal rest in heaven (Hebrews 10:1-4); (b)
The Passover
lamb (Exodus 12), a type of Christ, "our
passover" (1 Corinthians 5:7); (c) The year of
Jubilee, a
year of great deliverance from debt and bondage (Leviticus
25) was a type of savior’s work (Luke 4:16-21); (d) The
Tabernacle and all of its services and ritual, a type of
the church and its functions and blessings on earth and
ultimately in heaven (Hebrews 8:8-10, 12:18-29).
(4.) Typical offices. – (a)
Of Prophet,
to supply divinely communicated knowledge to other men; (b)
Of Priest,
to make offerings to God for removal of human sin; and (c)
Of King, to
exercise divinely authorized governmental rule and
protection for his subjects. In the theocracy of ancient
Israel, each of these came to his office by first being
anointed by God – in Hebrew, messiah: in Greek,
christos; in English anointed. All the
foregoing were types of Jesus Christ, who combines all
these offices in himself, and is preeminently "the
Christ"; and citizens of his kingdom are
"Christians." Christ is our great High Priest,
and under him we are all priest (1 Peter 2:5; cf.
Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6), but make all our approaches to
God through him (see John 16:23-24,27).*{at the end of this
paper}.
We are omitting (5.) Typical conduct; (6.)
Typical
events; and (7.) Typical places, for
want of time and space. The foregoing have been condensed
and somewhat otherwise adapted. And the remaining figures
of speech will also have to be merely sketched.
m. Symbols. The word is
from the Greek sumbolon, from the sun, with and
ballein, to throw, to throw with, or
throw
together. Dungan quotes a definition from Webster as
fairly exhausting its meaning: as being "the sign of
representation of something moral or intellectual, by the
images or properties of natural things; an emblem, a
representation; as the lion is a symbol of courage; the
lamb is the symbol of meekness or
patience." Dungan explains that, while a
"type" always represents something yet to be, a
"symbol" may represent the conditions existing at
the time, or it may relate to something to occur in the
future and thus become a typological prophecy.
Dungan classifies symbols as being (1)
Miraculous,
as the burning bush Moses saw at Horeb that did not
consume, which made something of the dignity and glory of
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to appear prior to his
being commissioned for his tremendously important task
ahead of leading Israel from Egypt to Canaan (Exodus 3:2);
(2) Material, as bread and
fruit of the vine in the Lord’s supper are symbols of the
body and blood of Christ (Matthew 26:26-28); (3)
Visional,
as the apostle Peter’s vision on the housetop in Joppa to
prepare him for going to Caesarea to preach the gospel to
Gentiles for the first time (Acts 10). The greater part of
the book of Revelation is also descriptive of visional
symbols seen by the apostle John while banished on the
Island of Patmos.
n. Parables. The word in
the singular is from the Greek para, beside and
ballein, to throw; hence a placing beside or
together, a comparing, comparison: a story by which
something in harmony with reality is used as a means of
presenting a moral thought. The actors in a parable are
real – in the sense of being human, and doing
nothing which by nature they could not do or experience. In
this respect it is the opposite of a "fable," as
we use that term today, in which human qualities are
attributed to animate and inanimate beings, as in Judges
9:6-21 and 2 Kings 14:8-10.
Among the ancients, however there were but few
designations for figurative language. And in the scriptures
we have only the parables, proverb, type, and allegory
named, and the fable used but not named – with parable
containing all we put into parable, simile, similitude
(prolonged simile) – and with parable and proverb sometimes
used interchangeably, as noted above under
"Parable," beginning on page 16.
The parable is said to be the oldest and most
common of all figures of speech. The Old Testament contains
many examples. And, coming to the New Testament, we find
our Lord making almost constant use of it in teaching – to
reveal truth about the unknown by a comparison with the
known, and at the same time make it easily remembered. But
it served other purposes also at times.
For example, according to Matthew 13:10-13, when
asked by his disciples why he had preached his great sermon
of the kingdom of heaven to the multitude in parables, he
gave two reasons: in effect saying (a) that in addition to
illustrating and embalming truth as it would do for his
disciples who would ask for explanation if the meaning was
not evident to them, it was (b) to conceal said truth from
those not worthy of it – not interested in it enough to
receive and follow it, if not hostile and listening for
something to criticize and use against him, as was true of
different ones by that time.
Also, in the parable of the vineyard (Matthew
21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19), spoken on Tuesday of
crucifixion week against the chief priest and Pharisees who
would be responsible for his death, he so framed it that he
presented truth that they assented to before they saw it
was meant for themselves – much as the prophet Nathan had
done centuries earlier in regard to King David’s so in with
Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12) also as our Lord had already done
in his account of the "Good Samaritan" to answer
a lawyer (Luke 10:25-37).
III. CONCLUSION.
It has been said that the Old Testament is the New
Testament concealed, and that the New Testament is the Old
Testament revealed, which becomes evident as both are
carefully examined. That makes a study of Old Testament
types and New Testament Antitypes especially important to
an understanding of what the apostle Paul calls "the
eternal purpose which [God] purposed in Jesus Christ our
Lord" (Ephesians 3:11), and who speaks of himself as
"declaring the end from the beginning" (Isaiah
46:10).
And, if we let the word "metaphors"
stand for all related figures of speech as well, they
greatly enrich and ornament it. and no other literature
excels the Bible in this regard.
If this paper, for the most part sketchy of
necessity, should contribute to a clearer insight of any
reader into the matters covered, the writer will have been
amply rewarded for his effort, besides having greatly
enjoyed and benefited from the equivalent of a refresher
course for himself. I am glad to have been introduced to
Benjamin Keach and his monumental work of three centuries
earlier.
*By the same token, we are also "kings" (see 2
Timothy 2:12; Revelation 1:5-6; 5:10; 20:4-6; 22:5), under
him who is "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS"
(Revelation 19:11-16). And the apostles, "in the
regeneration when the
Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory [the
present Christian dispensation]," were told by Christ,
"ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of [spiritual] Israel" (Matthew 19:28).