01.09. Various Figures of the Bible (1)

CHAPTER IX. THE VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE.

We, have done more in the separation of all figurative language into families of figurative speech than any other people. Among the ancients there were but few designations. In the Scriptures we have the parable, the proverb, the type, and the allegory named. We also have the fable used, but not named. Into these figures they crowded all we know of tropical language. They were free in the use of figures, but not in definitions of them. We must, therefore, be permitted to bring to the task everything we can get by which to understand the kinds of figurative language they employed, and the laws that govern each of these classes. The parable then contained all we put into the parable and the simile and the similitude, and sometimes the parable and the proverb were used interchangeably. At other times it means a type. This seems strange to us, for they are so unlike, as we speak of them. But we will give the reasons for this further along in the work. We do not stop to blame the Orientals for not distinguishing between one figure and another, for modern writers, with all the advantages of our schools; do not always succeed. Our works of rhetoric are not well agreed as to the exact office of the several figures that are now in common use; and there are many writers on types, and metaphors, and parables, and allegories, who do not seem to have taken any advantage of our works of rhetoric. But when we have exhausted the list of figures found in our modern books on interpretation, we have not yet found all the figures that are used in the Scriptures. It has seemed necessary to either enlarge some of the figures we have now, or invent terms by which to indicate the character and power of other forms of speech found in the Bible.

SEC. 53. THE PARABLE.--This is from the two Greek words, para, beside, and ballein, to throw; hence a placing beside or together, a comparing, comparison: a story by which something real in life is used as a means of presenting a moral thought. The actors in a parable are real--human beings are the actors, and they do nothing which they could not do; things were not related which could not be accomplished by the agencies employed. The parable is the oldest and most common of all the figures of speech. The Old Testament contains many of them, and the Saviour taught almost constantly by that medium of illustration.

There seem to have been several reasons for its use in the teaching of the Master.

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? And he answered unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Mat 13:10-13).

Now, in this declaration of purpose the Saviour seems to have in view the teaching of one part of the crowd, and preventing the other part of it from understanding what was being said. His reason for not giving them the truth, was that they would not receive it nor follow it. And yet when we have read the Scriptures through, the parables seem to have been employed, for the most part at least, for the purpose of making clear that which would not otherwise have been understood. That purpose of the parable is so patent that it is the only view that the people generally have of it. The allegories which the Saviour employed in John 6:1-71, seem to have been to hide the truth from those who would abuse the light if it were furnished. And yet at the same time the teaching became more powerful to those who came to Him afterwards, and had it explained to them. And I think there is every reason to believe that the parable was used for the same purpose--that of embalming the truth, that it might never be forgotten. These story illustrations of the Saviour were not only a means of making truth to be understood, but to cause it to be remembered. Those who heard His stories of illustration never forgot them. Again, we find a purpose in the use of this figure that is quite in addition to any others yet mentioned: it was to present a truth to the mind, and yet keep the person for whom it was intended from seeing the point till the mind had assented to the truth that was taught thereby. To proceed by the use of statement and argument would cause the person to array himself against the force of the truth being presented. Nathan came to David with a very pitiful story about some man who went and took the ewe lamb, the only one his poor neighbor had, and killed it for the friend who stopped with him, while he had plenty of flocks of his own (2Sa 12:1-6). David could easily see the meanness of such conduct, and he became so enraged that he determined to have the man put to death--he was too mean to live. Nathan had not made the application. But when he said, "Thou art the man," David was soon made to see the force of the truth. He could not have been made to understand his sin in any other way--at least, not so clearly. In 2Sa 14:1-24, we have the account of a parable arranged by Joab, and told to David by the woman of Tekoah, to have the king send for Absalom from the land of Geshur. She came looking very heartbroken, and told the king of her two sons who strove, and one having killed the other; the people were trying to kill him, and that would quench her coal, or extinguish her family. This so wrought upon the feelings of David that he said he would protect her son. Then she asked why he did not cause his own son to return home. The point was gained, and Absalom came home to his own possessions. An illustration of this use of the parable will be found in the teaching of the Saviour on the fourth day of the week of crucifixion. It is commonly called the parable of the vineyard, and will be read in full in Mat 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; and Luk 20:9-19. To get this lesson properly before the mind of the reader, I will make a condensed reading from the three records: And he began to speak this parable to the people. There was a master of a house that planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and digged in it a winepress, and built a tower, and let it out to vine-dressers, and went into another country, and was absent from home a long time. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the vine-dressers to receive the fruits of it. And the vine-dressers took his servants and scourged one, and killed another, and stoned another, wounding him in the head. Again he sent other servants more than the first: and they treated them in like manner. And the owner of the vineyard said: What shall I do? Having one son, my beloved, I will send him; perhaps when they see him, they will reverence him. But when the vine-dressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying: This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours. And they took him and drove him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those wicked vine-dressers? They said to him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and let his vineyard to other vine-dressers, who will give him the fruits in their seasons. Yea, said Jesus, He will come and destroy those vine-dressers, and will give his vineyard to others. And when they heard it (perceiving how that he had spoken the parable against them), they said, Let it not be! And Jesus looked on them, and said to them: Did you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner? This was from the Lord, and it is wondrous in our eyes. For this reason, I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation that will bring forth the fruits of it. And he that falls upon this stone shall be dashed to pieces: but him on whom it shall fall, it will make him like chaff for the wind. And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables, they sought to lay hold on him, but they feared the multitude, because they regarded him as a prophet. This is the form of the parable, and its results that I get by reading the account in all of the evangelists. If we have not read amiss, then Jesus did for them what Nathan did for David--He came up on the blind side of those men, and presented them truth so that they assented to it, before they saw that it meant them.

I think, then, we are at liberty to say that parables were used for the following purposes--(1), To reveal truth: making the people to understand the unknown by a comparison with the known. (2) For the purpose of concealing truth from the minds of those who had no right to it, or who would abuse it if it were given to them. (3) They were made the means of embalming truth. (4) And in the fourth place, for the purpose of causing men to assent to truth before they could know it certainly meant them.

While we are ready to regard the parable as the most apt mode of instruction, and the easiest and safest manner of enforcing conviction, yet it is the most difficult of all figures to construct. It is easy to rehearse a story for illustration, but to construct a parable is not so easy. In 1Ki 20:35-43, we have a parable in which Ahab is condemned for permitting Benhadad to go free, when it was his duty to destroy him:

"And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his fellow by the word of the Lord, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him. Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him. Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, smiting and wounding him. So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with his head-band over his eyes. And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and said, Thy servant went into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgement be; thyself hast decided it. And he hasted, and took the head-band away from his eyes; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria." The purpose of this parable is clear to every one. The king was to be condemned by himself. David had been led to do that; and the Master had caused the Jews to pass judgment against themselves by the use of a parable. The parables of the New Testament are quite clear. A few of them were explained by the Saviour, but most of them were so clear that no one would miss the meaning who wanted to know the truth. And yet some of these have been very strangely interpreted. The three parables in Luk 15:1-32, are so plain that it would seem impossible for any one to miss their import. And yet many things have been deduced from them that were not in the Saviour’s mind. The first and second verses give the key to all of them:

"Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near to him for to hear him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Then, to show them the unreasonableness of such a complaint, He gave them the three parables that followed--the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and the lost boy. By these He taught them that they ought to forget the better class, for the time, in their earnest endeavor to save sinners. The parable of the sower (Mat 13:1-9) is explained in Mat 13:10-23; and the parable of the good seed and the tares (Mat 13:24-30) is explained in Mat 13:36-43. Although these are exceedingly plain in themselves, and the explanation is as clear as language could be, still they have been made to teach almost everything that genius could imagine. Quite a common interpretation of the good seed and the tares is that there can be no withdrawal of fellowship, for the wicked and the righteous shall grow together till the end of the world.

It is nothing to these exegetes that the Scriptures teach in several places that they must withdraw from all that walk disorderly, and that the man that will not hear his brethren nor the church should be to them as heathen and a publican. Nor does it change the matter for them that the Master says the field is the world, and the harvest is the end of the world. Some way they have fixed it in their minds that the kingdom and the church are the same, and therefore the field is not the world, but the church. It is strange that they do not see that Christ is Ruler of the kings of the earth, and that all authority in heaven and earth was given into His hands. The rest of the parables spoken at the time that Jesus was in the boat at Capernaum, are easily explained as similes or similitudes. They differ from what we now denominate a parable, in that they are not stories, but statements of truth or fact, with which statement the unknown truth is compared. But of this in its own place. The parable of the great supper (Luk 14:16-24) has several points to present to the mind: (1) The greatness of the feast being prepared. (2) The unreasonableness of apologies that were made for not attending it. (3) The ease with which all could attend. (4) The sin of slighting honor and favor, and the punishment that would come to such persons. (5) And that the places that had been reserved for those first bidden would be given to others who would accept. Of course it is easy to see that the Jews had been favored with this first invitation, and that, refusing it, they would be cast aside, to make room for those who would receive an invitation as a great honor. The parable in Luk 16:19-31, of the rich man and the poor man, has been made to mean almost everything within the range of theological speculation. And yet, if one will turn and read Luk 16:14, it will be easily seen that it was for the purpose of showing them the results of wealth on the mind that would yield to its influence and control. The Master had said that it was impossible to serve God and Mammon both; but there were wealthy Pharisees present who derided Him. To show the result of the course they preferred, the parable is recited:

Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day: and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table; yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried. And in hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things: but now here he is comforted, and thou art in anguish. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that they which would pass from hence to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us. And he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house; for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. But Abraham with, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead." No one asked that this parable should be explained. Its meaning was clear to those to whom it was spoken. But modern theology is opposed to its teaching, and it is doubtful, if the Saviour had explained it, if the interpretation would be any better received.

Some have been heard to say, "It is nothing but a parable." Well, what of that? It is not said to be a parable, and yet there is much evidence that it was. But does that fact lessen the importance of its teaching?

Another way of removing the offensive truth is to say it refers to the Jews and the Gentiles. But why say that? There has been no reference to any such a topic in the connection--no evidence that the Master had these nationalities before Him. Here are a few reasons why it can have no such meaning:

1. It was not stated, nor even hinted, as being any purpose in giving the parable. There is neither statement before nor afterwards, that would lead to such a conclusion; nor is there the slightest hint in the presentation of the parable that it had that thought for them.

2. The purpose is clearly indicated, as before shown, to be to show the dangers of wealth.

3. The Jews have never seen the Gentiles in a condition such that they regarded them as in Abraham’s bosom and themselves shut out.

4. They have never believed themselves delivered over to torment.

5. They have never asked that the Gentiles should come to their relief by administering comforts that were beyond their reach.

6. There has never been any impassable gulf fixed between these peoples, so that one may not pass over to the other.

7. The Gentiles were never laid at the gate of the Jewish nation, asking crumbs that were falling from their table.

8. Neither nation has gone into another state of being, or into non-existence, as some critics would have death to signify.

9. If the Jewish nation had died, it would not have five brothers remaining yet in the world, who might be warned against its fate.

10. To try this interpretation of the parable by removing the word and inserting the definition, we would have nothing but nonsense made of the whole figure. If rich man means Jewish nation, then remove rich man and insert Jewish nation; and so for the beggar insert Gentile nation. Now read the parable, inserting these definitions, and nothing but nonsense is left in it.

Then there is no reason for the interpretation, and every reason why it can not be correct. The real import of the figure may be easily gathered by any one at all interested in knowing the teaching of the Master:

1. It is not possible to serve two masters (Luk 16:13-14).

2. After death, the conditions can not be changed. If men are not in a safe condition then, it will be impossible for them to be prayed out of that purgatorial condition, or for any relief to come to them.

3. Praying to saints is of no value.

4. Men are expected to prepare to meet God by the light of the revelation which He has furnished.

5. There are no warnings to come back to us from the Spirit land.

6. There is consciousness between death and the resurrection from the dead.

7. There is an intermediate state between death and the resurrection. This scene is laid on a condition that comes after death. It was before the resurrection, for there will be none on the earth to warn after the resurrection shall have taken place. But someone will say that the eternal state of these men being fixed, the judgment is passed with them, and therefore the resurrection, in their cases, has been accomplished. This is not true. Lazarus going back would be regarded as one going to them from the dead; and this could not be said of any one in the resurrection state.

We have chosen to give this much space to this one parable, first, because of its own worth; and second, because of the many wrong views that have been taken of it. Many of the things to be gained from it have been taken for granted by the Saviour. He uses the words of the Pharisees, and evidently in the same sense in which they employed them. In Luk 18:1-74, we have two parables on the subject of prayer. In that of the importunate widow we have perseverance in prayer taught, and in the second, relating to the Pharisee and publican, the humility necessary to acceptance before God. These are the only lessons contained in them. The quality of the unjust judge in no way represents anything that is true with God; and the parable was not instituted for that purpose, but simply to show that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.

Jesus taught a young lawyer how to be neighbor by the use of the parable of the good Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37). We are not able to say if this case ever occurred, nor do we care: the lesson is perfect. Having agreed that to love God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself, were the duties of men, he wished to excuse himself with a pretense of ignorance about who his neighbor was. So the Master has a Jew, who was hated by all Samaritans, to fall among robbers and to be left in need of help; and while the priest and the Levite passed without noticing him, looking on the other side, the Samaritan took him to an inn and paid his expenses. And, having presented the case, He said: "Go and do likewise." There could be no question asked respecting the meaning of this parable, for but one was possible--that the Samaritan was made to know that the Jew was his neighbor, and that he must do him good. Hence, if this man will love his neighbor as himself, he must do as that man did.

It would seem impossible for any one to misunderstand the parable of the good Samaritan. And yet Bishop Heber has a sermonic exegesis of it in which the traveller represents the human race; his leaving Jerusalem is made to symbolize man’s departure from God; Jericho is the symbol for temptations; the robbers are the devil and his angels; the priest signifies the sacrifices of the Old Testament; the Levite represents the law of Moses, and the Samaritan typifies the Saviour. And yet it is candidly asserted that the Bishop was a man of good sense! I think he might have gone further, and made the inn represent the church of Christ; the oil and the wine the blood of the atonement and the gift of the Holy Spirit; the two pieces of money the two ordinances left till the Saviour shall come again; and the promised return of this man, to stand for the second coming of the Saviour to the world. Then it would be too bad to leave out the ass on which the man had ridden. The beast. might symbolize the feeling of self-sufficiency on which the world rides away from God. But the time is coming when such vagaries and conceits will not form any part of the culture or genius necessary to the ministry. It is high time that we were done with such foolishness. And yet almost every figure of the whole Bible has been rendered about as ludicrous as this, by some one who was regarded as brilliant. The parable of the Saviour concerning the feature of rewards in the kingdom of heaven (Mat 20:1-16), has suffered more from interpretation than did the woman with an issue of blood from the physicians during a period of twelve years. There was never any reason for all this, except that men have wished to find some apology for delinquency, or to exhibit skill in exegesis possessed by no one else. This householder went out in the first, hour, and in the third hour; also the sixth, ninth, and the eleventh. Each time he found men waiting for some one to employ them. In the evening he had his steward to pay them all alike--a penny.

Many have seen in this parable that the Lord is holding out encouragement for those who come late in life to begin in the service of the Lord. They have lived, perhaps, in the light and blaze of Christian truth, and now, when the dying hour has come, and they have no further strength with which to serve the devil, they repent, and are to be preached into the highest heavens, because there were some contortions when they came face to face with death.

Others have shown skill in the work of interpretation by supposing that the Lord referred to different ages of the world by the several hours at which servants were employed. For instance, the Lord employed men in the Adamic period; then in the time of Noah, Abraham, Moses, John, Jesus. If this arrangement does not suit the particular fancy, then some other can be fixed upon that will show an equal amount of dexterity. It is not interpretation, however, but injection. Nothing like either of these was in the mind of the Master. The chapter begins with: "For the kingdom of heaven is like." Its beginning word is the sign of a logical conclusion, and hence the parable that follows is to illustrate a statement already made. Turning to the last verse of the previous chapter, and the remark that needs to be carried out is: "But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last." And then, when the parable has been recited, that point is supposed to have been gained, for He says: "So the last shall be first, and the first last" (Mat 20:16). By reference to the previous chapter, and the twenty-seventh verse, the reason for the remark appears to be the danger of Peter, and, perhaps, others of His early disciples, taking too much glory to themselves. He said, "We have left all, to follow thee." The Master says that all who had left houses, etc., to follow Him, should be rewarded; but it is not a question of having had first opportunities to know Him, for all those who would unite their fortunes with Him should receive the same reward. There is no thought about any being acceptable to God who had wasted their lives in the service of the enemy, when they had a chance to know the will of the Saviour; nor is there the slightest reference to the different ages of the world. The parable is beautiful, when employed as the Master gave it. The parable of the ten virgins is one of the clearest in all the New Testament. Its one point--the need of watchfulness, in view of the coming of the Lord--is apparent to every reader. And yet this parable has suffered much from over-interpretation. Men have seen that the Lord will come when the world will be indifferent, or sound asleep--it is midnight; that He will come with a crowd of attendants--or with all His holy angels; that the supply of the Holy Spirit will be wanting with those who do not renew frequently. Some have found that all the virgins slept before the Lord’s coming, and therefore He must refer them to the time of the resurrection of the dead. But all of this is a work of supererogation. The whole thought of the figure is that they should always be ready; for the Lord will come at a time when men do not expect Him, and they must be ready to enter with Him, or they will not be able to enter at all. There will be no opportunity to prepare then for entering into the wedding. The parable of the unjust steward (Luk 16:1-13), has, perhaps, given more difficulty to critics and commentators than any other. Many strange translations have been proposed, to get rid of the imaginary troubles of the figure. It is maintained by some that the rendering generally given makes the Saviour recommend the dishonesty and theft of this man; whereas, instead of being held up as a model, he ought to be regarded as the most arrant of knaves. Hence, instead of the common translation of Luk 16:9, "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," it should read, "Make to yourselves friends without the mammon of unrighteousness." They think that it was the Saviour’s purpose to direct them to do just the opposite of what this wicked steward did: he made friends with money, or wealth, and they should make friends without it. And this thought is supposed to be enforced by the fact that He said this to His disciples, who were without this mammon.

I shall not stop to criticise the translation proposed, but suppose that the language may be so rendered. The way to settle the question is not, however, by the possibilities of translation. The Lord never presented a figure that He made to depend upon any renditional gymnastics. The truth is much easier than that. When we learn that there may be many things in a parable that are merely incidental, and are no part of the lesson to be learned, we will be ready to search, first of all, for the purpose for which the figure was employed. Learning this, the interpretation will be easy. No one can suppose, for a moment, that the Saviour had in His mind any sanction for the robbery perpetrated by this man (Luk 16:11-13). Several questions need to be settled, in order to assure ourselves that we know exactly the purpose of the parable: Who constituted His hearers?--It will be answered, "His disciples." But who are meant by that term? From the word "also" (1), we suppose it to be the crowd that He had addressed in the previous chapter. And we know that they are a mixed assembly--publicans and sinners, Pharisees and scribes. We learn from Luk 16:14, that these Pharisees were lovers of money, and that they heard this parable, and scoffed at Him for speaking it. Hence, if the word disciple must be limited to the apostles, yet it remains a fact that, as the sermon on the mount was delivered in the hearing of the multitude, and much of it for the multitude, so it was in this case. And yet it is more probable that Luke uses the term to indicate no more than those who were learning of Him at that time. These publicans were very much in need of something on the money question that would check their avarice and theft. It is seen that the Pharisees were in no better condition.

What did He intend to accomplish by the parable?--They understood Him to condemn them for giving their hearts and lives in the acquisition of wealth. The closing of this parable and the institution of the next (Luk 16:19-31), show that such was His purpose.

Where, then, is the lesson?--The wisdom of using the things of this life that we may have a home provided in the life that is to come. The Saviour does not commend the wrong that the steward did, but the wisdom of looking ahead far enough to secure a home when he should be cast out of this one. Hence they were not to be so wedded to their money that they would fail to make a good use of it; and to give their hearts to its acquisition would prevent that service of God which would be necessary to secure for them a home beyond this life. The seven parables of Balaam are difficult, because they are not what we call parables. There are in them similes, similitudes, and clear prophetic statements. See Num 23:7-10, Num 23:18-24; Num 24:3-9, Num 24:15-19; Num 20:21-25. Each time it is said in the beginning that Balaam "took up his parable." I understand this to mean, he spoke by inspiration in figurative language. Some of these are beautiful similes, but there is not what we now denominate a parable.

There are a number of parables in the New Testament that will be treated under the head of similes, because they belong in that line of figure. As we said before, they had but few figures, or but few names for figures of speech in Bible terms. We have now separated these, and given to them names by which we can understand definitely just what we have to deal with. There are also many parables which we have not mentioned; they are in the order in which parables are presented, but we have not the space to devote to them. Besides, there will not be found any difficulty in their interpretation.

SEC. 54. THE FABLE.--This is often confounded with the parable. Yet there is a clear distinction. Webster says of a fable:

"1. A feigned story or tale; a fictitious narration, intended to enforce some useful truth or precept; an apologue.

"’Jotham’s fable of the trees is the oldest extant, and as beautiful as any made since.’--ADDISON.

"2. The plot, or connected series of events, forming the subject of an epic or dramatic poem.

"’The moral is the first business of the poet: this being formed, he contrives such a design or fable as may be most suitable to the moral.’--DRYDEN.

"3. Fiction; untruth; falsehood.

"’It would look like a fable to report that this gentleman gives away a great fortune by secret methods.’"--ADDISON.

If we take the fables of Æsop as a guide, a fable is an illustration made by attributing human qualities to animate and inanimate beings. The truth or moral to be enforced may be of a very high order, but the actors are selected from those beings which are incompetent to do such things. Like a parable, it is put into a form of a story; but unlike the parable, its actors are unreal, while the parable is made from the actual occurrences of life, and no one is made to act a fictitious part. The fable is better suited to indicate some blunder made by men, and to serve the purpose of amusing criticism, than to illustrate any high moral truth. Hence it is little used in the Scriptures.

"And all the men of Shechem assembled themselves together, and all the house of Millo, and went and made Abimelech king by the oak of the pillar that was in Shechem. And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you. The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou and reign over us. But the fig tree said unto them, Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? And the trees said unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon. Now therefore, if ye have dealt truly and uprightly, in that ye have made Abimelech king, and if ye have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have done unto him according to the deserving of his hands: (for my father fought for you, and adventured his life, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian: and ye are risen up against my father’s house this day, and have slain his sons, threescore and ten persons, upon one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his maidservant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother:) if ye then have dealt truly and uprightly with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you: but if not, let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech. And Jotham ran away, and fled, and went to Beer, and dwelt there, for fear of Abimelech his brother" (Jdg 9:6-21). The criticism of this fable was not only good for that time, but it is yet a fine illustration of the way of the world. Those least competent and worthy are most ready to assume responsibilities and take command.

We have a fairly well constructed fable in 2Ki 14:8-10 :

"Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face. And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Ammazíah king of Judah, saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted thee up: glory thereof, and abide at home; for why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?" The criticism intended by this fable is easily reached. Amaziah had hired an army of Israelites to assist him against Edom, but the Lord refused to let them go with the Jews. So he paid them, and sent them home. But they were angry, and injured the people of the Jews on their return. Amaziah was successful against the Edomites, and then adopted their idolatry. When he returned, he asked that the matter of bad faith be settled between the armies of the Jews and the Israelites. This brought the reply from Jehoash in the form of a fable.

SEC. 55. SIMILE.--Webster defines it.

"A word or phrase by which anything is likened in one of its aspects to another; a similitude; a poetical or imaginative comparison.

"’A good swift simile, but something currish.’"--SHAKESPEARE. A few examples will suffice for this figure of speech:

"And it shall be as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold he is faint, and his soul hath appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion" (Isa 29:8).

Nothing need be said about this simile respecting its import. The prophet explains it. The nations that will come against mount Zion, while they will dream of getting spoil, will be mistaken, This has particular reference to the coming of Sennacherib, of Assyria, who should gather much spoil from the land of the Jews, and then, the night before he should expect to have Jerusalem in his power, would have nearly all his men destroyed in the night by the angel of the Lord.

"For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isa 55:10-11).

It should be noticed that this is said concerning the promises of Jehovah. What He has offered to those who love to do His will, He will give them. To show His faithfulness in this respect, He presents them with His work for the good of the race in the sowing and gathering of grain. God fulfills His part; and yet if man does not fulfill his part, there will be no harvest. To those who will trust the Lord according to His word, there shall be no disappointment.

"And the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the Lord of Hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah" (Isa 1:8-9). This simile is a very strong one, as the comparison is vivid. A booth in a vineyard or a lodge in a garden of cucumbers would not be expected to be very enduring; a besieged city would certainly be in great danger of destruction; indeed, if it had not been that there was a seed of those who did good and followed God, they would have been ruined before that time, and that as utterly as Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings" (Jer 4:4).

"And the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods" (Dan 3:25).

"And he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him" (Mat 3:16).

"They are like unto children that sit in the market place, and call one to another; which say, We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye did not weep" (Luk 7:32).

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness" (Mat 23:27).

"All we like sheep have gone astray; . . . as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb: yea, he opened not his mouth" (Isa 53:6-7).

"And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites" (Mat 6:5). The simile always furnishes the means of a comparison by a statement, not a story. It also contains the sign of that comparison. It is plainer than the metaphor, on that account; the metaphor makes the comparison by mentioning the one when you know the other is meant, because of some feature or features in the thing referred to that are like the thing that is mentioned. In many popular works these figures are used interchangeably. But they are more easily explained when properly defined.

SEC. 56. THE SIMILITUDE.--This is a drawn-out or prolonged simile. It differs from an allegory, in that it is constituted of similes, and not of metaphors. It differs from the parable, in that it is made from statements, but is not woven into a story. The similitude frequently contains its own explanation. An allegory is frequently followed by an exposition. So are parables. We have a number of parables in the New Testament which, in the form we have them, are properly denominated similitudes. They may have been presented in the parable form, but, if so, they have been reduced to the form of statement, and are not parables as we have them. This should not excite any wonder, as they did not define figures of speech as we do. In Luk 4:23, we have the word parable, where, in our custom, it should be proverb. Indeed it is so rendered in the Common Version. Jesus says: "Doubtless ye will say unto me this parable: Physician, heal thyself." Of course that is not a parable, in the sense in which we use the term. It also occurs in Heb 9:9; Heb 11:19, and in the Common Version is rendered "figure." In many other places we have been so long accustomed to calling them parables, that it is like sacrilege to us to have them called anything else. And yet there is no name given to them in the Scriptures.

"Every one therefore which heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon the rock. And everyone that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rains descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof" (Mat 7:24-27).

Here the comparison is clear, by means of this double simile or similitude. It would have been a parable if the same thought had been put into the form of a story, and exhibited in that way.

"And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth; and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how. The earth beareth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is ripe, straightway he putteth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come" (Mark 4:26-29).

This, again, is called a parable; but if our definitions are correct, it is a similitude.

What is usually called the parable of the lamp (Mat 4:21-22), is properly a metaphor. This, however, will be seen under that figure of speech.

"Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life; that he may please him who enrolled him as a soldier. And if also a man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have contended lawfully. The husbandman that laboreth must be the first to partake of the fruits. Consider what I say; for the Lord shall give thee understanding in all things" (2Ti 2:3-7).

Part of this has the exact form of the metaphor, but it contains the likeness or sign of comparison, and therefore must be catalogued as a similitude.

Many of the Psalms are in the form of similitude. It was a favorite form of expression with the writer. We are sorely tempted to give a number of these, but we must desist for lack of space.

"Hide not thy face from me in the day of my distress
Incline thine ear unto me;
In the day when I call answer me speedily.
For my days consume away like smoke,
And my bones are burned as a firebrand,
My heart is smitten like grass, and withered;
For I forget to eat my bread.
By reason of the voice of my groaning
My bones cleave to my flesh.
I am like a pelican of the wilderness;
I am become as an owl of the waste places.
I watch, and am become
Like a sparrow that is alone upon the housetop.
Mine enemies reproach me all the day;
They that are mad against me do curse by me
For I have eaten ashes like bread,
And mingled my drink with weeping,
Because of thine indignation and thy wrath
For thou hast taken me up, and cast me away.
My days are like a shadow that declineth;
And I am withered like grass" (Psa 102:2-11).

Here we have a goodly number of similes for the purpose of expressing the condition of the writer. He was weak, short-lived, hated by many, and under the wrath of God. But to put it in that form would not do for an Oriental. He must have something stronger and more vivid. A beautiful similitude is found in Psa 90:4-6 :

"For a thousand years in thy sight
Are but as yesterday when it is past,
And as a watch in the night.
Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep
In the morning they are like grass which groweth up.
In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up;
In the evening it is cut down, and withereth." This song is supposed to have been composed by Moses, and gives forth his thought respecting the shortness of human life. God’s years shall not fail, but the time allotted to man is but "as a watch in the night."

SEC. 57. THE METAPHOR.--This is from the two Greek words, meta, beyond, over, and pherein, to bring, to carry. Webster says of it: "A short similitude; a similitude reduced to a single word; or a word expressing similitude without the signs of comparison. Thus, ’that man is a fox,’ is a metaphor; but ’that man is like a fox,’ is a simile, similitude, or comparison." The metaphor is briefer and more pungent than the simile. On that account it was more frequently used by the ancients. It presents characteristics by the means of a representative of the thought that is intended to be conveyed, by calling one thing by another term which denotes the characteristic which is to be made prominent. The simile gently says that is like it; the metaphor says it is it. "I will devour them like a lion" (Hos 13:8), is a simile; "Judah is a lion’s whelp" (Gen 40:9), is a metaphor. The Bible is full of metaphors, and yet we must not now offer many. But we must have enough, that we may understand the allegory.

"In that very hour there came certain Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee out, and go hence: for Herod would fain kill thee. And he said unto them, Go and say to that fox, Behold I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected" (Luk 13:31-32).

If He had said, "Go tell that man that is like a fox," it would have been a simile, but it would have lacked its force. In Jer 2:13, we have two metaphors, one by which God would be understood in His providential and benevolent character, and the other to indicate the condition into which Israel had come by forsaking His service:

"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." In the song that Moses taught to the children of Israel, God presents His willingness to destroy the wicked, by the use of the metaphor (Deu 32:42):

"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood,
And my sword shall devour flesh;
With the blood of the slain and the captives,
From the head of the leaders of the enemy." When the Saviour gave the institution of the supper, He did it in the most beautiful of metaphorical language (Mat 26:26-28):

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto the remission of sins."

Paul presents this thought without the use of the metaphor (1Co 10:16):

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" But in 1Co 10:23-25 he employs the same figure that the Lord did in instituting it. This shows that they regarded the one form of expression as containing the same as the other. To say this is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, is metonymy of the agent; to say that these are like the body and blood, would be a simile, but the beauty and strength would have been removed in that way; hence the Master chose the form of the metaphor as the most expressive. In John 6:32-65 is the finest collection of metaphors to be found anywhere. Some deal with this chapter as they do with the institution of the supper, in a spirit of legalism, as if the Master had been delivering a lecture on chemistry--and in that way rob themselves of the thought and sweetness of the teaching. There were those present on that occasion that did the same thing, and hence thought He had given them some very hard sayings. They were about as low-minded as the Samaritan woman, reported in John iv. Whosoever would drink of the water he would give, would never thirst, made her wish for that water, so that she would not have to come there and draw. And when the Saviour told the disciples that He had bread to eat they knew not of, they said, "Hath any man brought him aught to eat?" So they failed, about as signally as did the woman, to catch the meaning of His words. They did this again when they were on their way to Cæsarea Philippi (Mat 16:1-28). They had forgotten to take bread, and in His teaching He said to them, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees;" and they regarded it as a rebuke, for not having provided bread. John seemed to understand this style of speech better than any of the other disciples, and therefore has made more frequent use of the Saviour’s metaphors. John 2:19, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," had a meaning which the Jews pretended not to understand. John 7:37-38, is so full of beauty and strength that John explains it, lest some would not be able to understand it:

"Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

It would be as reasonable to interpret this literally as Mat 26:26-28, or the many figures of John 6:1-71.

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill can not be hid. Neither do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. Even so let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Mat 5:13-16).

They were not said to be like salt, nor to have the qualities of light, or be in view of the world as a city on a hill, but they were all these.

"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore, let us keep the feast, not with old, leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1Co 5:6-8). In a church like that at Corinth, a man living with his father’s wife would have a bad influence--so corrupting that ruin would be almost sure to follow. Start a social disorder of that nature, and the church will come to nothing unless the evil is removed very soon. It works like leaven, till it overcomes the entire body. In Eph 3:18, the love of Christ is presented by breadth and length, and height and depth, as if ii were something that might be weighed--measured with a yard-stick. This metaphor is difficult to explain, and yet it is understood by every one. All know that Paul meant to say that it is more profound than man can comprehend.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born anew, he can not see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:3-5).

If Jesus had said that a man must pass through a process that is like a birth, it would have been a simile; but the form of expression here used is that of the metaphor--a man must be born again. The metaphor employed by Paul twice (Rom 6:3-4, and Col 2:12):

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." "We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." In one respect, the latter of these quotations has the feature of a simile, but on the whole it is better explained by the use of the metaphor. The burial was not literal--they could not have been entombed with the Saviour. It was therefore only in the likeness of that occurrence. If the sign of that likeness had been used, it would have been a simile; but the burial stated, it has the form of the metaphor.

Metaphors are frequently taken from the characteristics of animals.

"Issachar is a strong ass,
Couching down between the sheepfolds:
And he saw a resting place that it was good,
And the land that it was pleasant;
And he bowed his shoulder to bear,
And became a servant under taskwork" (Gen 49:14-15).

Here the characteristics of the ass are ascribed to Issachar. If it had been said that he should be like an ass, in that he would be satisfied with plenty to eat and be willing to bear the burden placed upon him, then it would have been a simile; but the metaphor presents the thought in a more rugged way--"Issachar is a strong ass."

Gen 49:16-17, is a beautiful metaphor:

"Dan shall judge his people,
As one of the tribes of Israel.
Dan shall be a serpent in the way,
An adder in the path,
That biteth the horses’ heels,
So that his rider falleth backward." A play is first made on the word Dan, which means a judge; and then the character of the man and the tribe is given by the serpent which he is said to be.

"Gad, a troop shall press upon him:
But he shall press upon their heel" (Gen 49:19).

Here, again, a play is made upon the word Gad, which means a troop; and then the characteristics of the Gileadites come to view in this metaphor.

"Naphtali is a hind let loose" (Gen 49:21). This is very expressive. In his history, or that of his descendants, he has more running to do than any other of the tribes. Stationed at the northeast of their territory, and most of the attacks on the land coming from that direction, they affected the tribe of Naphtali. He is first to be carried away, on that account.

"Benjamin is a wolf that ravineth
In the morning he shall devour the prey,
And at even he shall divide the spoil" (Gen 49:27). In this way Christ is called a husband (2Co 11:2). He is the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, and also the lion of the tribe of Judah.

All animate and inanimate creation has been put under tribute by this figure to represent God and his people, and also the enemies of the race. Christ is a vine, a shepherd, a door, a rock, a fountain, a servant, and the Captain of our salvation. God is spoken of as having ears and eyes, and hands and feet, and hinder parts; as hating, being jealous, divorcing Israel, and permitting his wife to return again, after she had played the harlot. Thus by the use of the metaphor vivid description is given, that all may understand.