01.09a. Various Figures of the Bible (2)

SEC. 58. THE ALLEGORY.--This word comes from allos, other, and agoreuein, to speak in the assembly, to harangue. Webster says:

"A figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances. The principal subject is thus kept out of view, and we are left to collect the intentions of the writer or speaker by the resemblance of the secondary to the primary subject."

"The distinction in Scripture between a parable and an allegory is said to be, that a parable is a supposed history, and an allegory a figurative application of real facts. An allegory is called a continued metaphor. Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, and Spenser’s Faery Queen are celebrated examples of the allegory." In Hart’s Rhetoric, page 167, the figures mentioned are shown in their relation to each other:

"Difference between Allegory and Metaphor.--Allegory differs from Metaphor in two respects. First, it is carried out into a greater variety of particulars, making usually a complete and connected story. Secondly, it suppresses all mention of the principal subject, leaving us to infer the writer’s intention from the resemblance of the narrative, or of the description to the principal subject.

"Points in common.--Allegory, Metaphor, and Simile have this in common, that they are all founded in resemblance, there being in each case two subjects, a primary and secondary, having certain points of likeness. In Simile, this resemblance is expressed in form, as when it is said, ’Israel is like a vine brought from Egypt, and planted in Palestine.’ In Metaphor the formal comparison is dropped, as when it is said, ’Israel is a vine brought from Egypt,’ etc. In Allegory, both the formal comparison and the principal subject are dropped, and the secondary subject is described by itself, leaving the application entirely to the imagination of the reader, as when it is said, ’God brought a vine out of Egypt and planted it in Palestine.’ The reader knows that by vine is meant God’s people, Israel. Yet Israel is not once mentioned, and there is neither metaphor nor simile, though there is likeness.

"This Allegory occurs in Psa 80:1-19, and is as follows:

"’Thou broughtest a vine out of Egypt: Thou didst drive out the nations, and plantedst it. Thou preparedst room before it. And it took deep root, and filled the land. The mountains were covered with the shadows of it, And the boughs thereof were like cedars of God. She sent out her branches unto the sea, And her shoots unto the River. Why hast thou broken down her fences, So that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, And the wild beasts of the field feed on it."

I do not agree with this author in the supposition that an allegory can be constructed and yet no metaphor be employed. In the illustration from the Psalm, there are a number of metaphors. Indeed the allegory stands to the metaphor as the similitude or the parable does to the simile. It is made by arranging metaphors into a story, or statement of fact, or secondary subject, by which the primary is to be understood. In a work on Composition and Rhetoric, by Quackenbos, page 248, is found a very direct statement:

"It will be seen that an allegory is a combination of kindred metaphors so connected in sense as to form a kind of story. The parables of Scripture, as well as fables that point a moral, are varieties of this figure. Sometimes an allegory is so extended as to fill a volume; as in the case of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress." This statement is satisfactory, except that it is not quite correct to say that a parable is constructed of kindred metaphors. The truth is, metaphors are not used in the construction of parables. The remark, however, comes from a want of clear views as to the difference between a parable and a fable.

Mr. Terry, in his work on Biblical Hermeneutics, says:

"An allegory is usually defined as an extended metaphor. It bears the same relation to the parable which the metaphor does to the simile. In a parable there is either some formal comparison introduced, as ’the kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed,’ or else the imagery is so presented as to be kept distinct from the thing signified, and to require an explanation outside of itself, as in the case of the parable of the sower. . . . The allegory contains its interpretation within itself, and the thing signified is identified with the image, as, ’I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman’ (John 15:1); ’Ye are the salt of the earth’ (Mat 5:13). The allegory is a figurative use and application of some supposable fact of history. The parable uses words in their sense, and its narrative never transgresses the limits of what might have been an actual fact. The allegory is continually using words in a metaphorical sense and its narrative, however supposable in itself, is manifestly fictitious."

Most allegories are simple, that is, they are for a single purpose and have but one line of metaphorical representation in order to the presentation of the thought. But some of them are double, or, they are in the form of antithesis; there are two lines of metaphors, for the purpose of presenting two lines of thought, and these two lines of thought are put in the form of antithesis, one is set over against the other. Paul is more given to this kind of allegorical illustration than any other writer in the Scriptures.

"Or ever the sun, and the light, and the moon, and the stars, be darkened, and the clouds return after the rain: in the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened, and the doors shall be shut in the street; when the sound of the grinding is low, and one shall rise up at the voice of a bird, and all the daughters of music shall be brought low; yea, they shall be afraid of that which is high, and terrors shall be in the way; and the almond tree shall blossom, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and the caper-berry shall fail" (Ecc 12:2-6). In this way Solomon would exhort young men to seek after the Lord before the time of age comes on, when the weaknesses and fears of old age shall be realized. Here is a splendid list of metaphors, in which the light stands for the hope of youth; and the clouds returning after the rain, the dubiety of age. The keepers of the house are the arms as they are the defenders of a man, and the strong men are the legs, which are not now competent to bear him around as before. The grinders (teeth) are few and the doors (lips) close because there are no teeth now to hold the jaws apart. These grinders make but a feeble impression on their work, and the eyes are looking as if through a glass darkly. Every noise now startles him, and the slightest weight is a burden. He finds no pleasure in the sense of taste as he once did, and even the caper-berry fails to give him appetite. The hair is white, giving the old man the appearance of the almond tree, for soon shall the silver thread of life be snapped, and all the vitality of life poured out as the golden bowl, broken at the cistern. When Jesus was at the house of Matthew, they came to Him with the question as to why His disciples did not fast, and insinuated that they were somewhat disorderly in that they did not keep the customs of the people. The Master responds by the use of an allegory. See Mat 9:16,

"And no man putteth a piece of undressed cloth upon an old garment; for that which should fill it up, taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made. Neither do men, put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved." In this, Jesus recognizes the propriety of clothing religious thoughts and convictions with appropriate forms. But fasting was a symbol of grief, and as they could not be sorry while He was with them, it was impossible for them to fast without acting a lie. And as to their paying any attention to the forms and customs which they kept, it would not be appropriate for them to do so. His teaching was new and the old forms in which their convictions might find protection, would not be sufficient to retain the new wine of truth that He was furnishing to the world. Hence He would have to give to them such forms and rites as would be appropriate to the truth He was then giving them.

"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take up the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; withal taking up the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph 6:11-17). This is Paul’s description of the defensive armor, of the Christian’s means of defense. It is one of the easiest allegories in the Scriptures to interpret. The foes are clearly announced and their manner of warfare was well understood. Only one set of foes were out of sight; the spiritual hosts. Still with the needed preparation, they should not fear. Let them be righteous, think, and speak, and live the truth, filling their hearts and their minds with the hope of salvation in Christ, and walking in the commandments of the Lord, and the darts of the enemy and missiles from ambush would do them no harm. The false teaching and the influences of wicked men would not harm them.

I will cite a few double allegories--those in which there are two lines of thought., one put over against the other. These are difficult of interpretation, from the fact that they have twice as much in themselves for the mind of the interpreter to deal with, and also when we have the two lines of thought, we have yet to find the purpose of the comparison. Fortunately, however, for us in the allegories of the apostle Paul, he has let us into the secret, and told us what he wished to accomplish by the figures:

"For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root and the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree" (Rom 11:15-24)? This allegory has given more trouble to exegetes than any other in the Bible, and it should certainly be managed with care. A number of the rules for the interpretation of figurative language will be demanded, that all possibilities for mistake shall be avoided:

1. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:1).

2. But he was a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1).

3. God had not cast off His people whom he foreknew (Rom 11:2).

4. For many of them remained faithful to God (Rom 11:2-5).

5. But for Israel to be saved, the dependence must be upon grace, not the deeds of the law (Rom 11:6-7).

6. Those who had depended upon this scheme of salvation by grace had found it (Rom 11:7).

7. Those who refused that grace, had been blinded and hardened by that refusal (Rom 11:7-10).

8. But the whole nation had not been cast away, nor had they stumbled so as to fall, and not rise again.

9. By the temporary fall of Israel, salvation had been secured for the Gentiles.

10. If their fall had been the enriching of the world, their rising would be much more fruitful of good results (Rom 11:11-12).

11. Paul hoped to stimulate them to thought and action by presenting to his people the glory conferred on the Gentiles through the acceptance of the Messiah (Rom 11:13-14).

12. Those who had failed to retain the favor of God, had failed through unbelief.

13. The Gentiles had succeeded by faith.

14. Hence, if the Gentiles did not continue in faith, they would be cast off.

15. If the Jews should not abide in unbelief, they would be returned to the favor of God.

16. It was much more reasonable, then, to suppose that the great mass of the Jews would, in the future, turn and accept the Saviour, their own Messiah, than to have expected that the Gentiles would do.

17. Then (Rom 11:25-32) Paul argues that the Jews will finally accept the Messiah. Hence we now see that his allegory was a part of his argument to show that the Jews will finally turn to the Lord and be saved; and that when they do turn and accept of their Messiah, it will be like a resurrection from the dead.

18. The tame olive tree represents the Jews in a state of favor.

19. The wild olive tree certainly stands for the Gentiles, at a time when they did not know God.

20. The only difference, therefore, between the wild and the tame olive trees is a difference in culture and favor.

21. Hence, when the Jews were broken off, they were separated from their former condition of culture and favor.

22. The first fruit, and the root, are figures of the same thought, and were presented to show that God had not cast off Israel as a people. The only thing in their history that would prove that, was not what Abraham had done, or what he had been, but the fact that some of the Jews had accepted of Christ, and were saved. Hence these were the first fruit, or the wave loaf that was offered on the Pentecost, which, being accepted, the whole harvest might be eaten.

23. The Gentiles were then to know that the Jews had not been sundered by an act of the Almighty, but those who had failed had done so for the want of personally accepting of the Messiah, and that they were all, therefore, on an equality: any Jew might be saved, and any Gentile be lost; on both sides, it would depend upon personal faith and obedience to the will of the Saviour. In the interpretation of this allegory, many more things are put into it than Paul ever thought of. They go to work to find a full grown tree, trunk and bark, and root, and then to demand something to answer in the place of every feature of a tree. This is the way that parables and types are interpreted to death. Nothing is said about Abraham, nothing about the trunk of the tree, nothing about the tree being a church. Every bit of it has to be injected into the passage. Indeed, if the tame olive tree meant church, the wild olive tree would mean church, and then we would have a tame church and a wild church! But if we keep before the mind the purpose of the figure, and the rules of interpretation, there is no trouble.

Paul’s allegory of the two covenants, found in 2Co 3:6-16 is next to the two olive trees in respect of difficulty in interpretation. It reads:

"But our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation is glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory. Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness of speech, and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing away: but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth unlifted; which veil is done away in Christ. But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart. But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away." The change in the terms in which Paul presents the metaphors of this allegory, has been a source of darkness. When we come to know the versatility of the man, we will not expect him to continue the same form of expression. He is rich in language, and changes the forms of expression more for the beauty of the composition than for any other apparent reason. That there should ever have been any trouble in the passage, seems strange to one that is familiar with it. It is plain at the first sight, that the two legs of the antithesis are the New Covenant in contrast with the Old Covenant; and that to make that contrast as bold as it ought to be, he selects its very heart--the ten commandments. This fact has frightened many commentators from making any clear and definite statement as to the teaching of this Scripture. Some way it has gotten into theology that the Decalogue is an essential part of the New Institution; hence Paul must not be permitted to say anything to the contrary.

We may get the exact thought of this allegory by placing these legs of the antithesis over against each other. So we arrange two columns--the one headed Old Covenant, or Law, and the other headed New Covenant, or Gospel:

There should not remain any trouble in the mind of any one as to the teaching of this allegory. Suppose that it does say that even the Decalogue was passing away! It was no more than he said elsewhere in didactic speech (Col 2:14-18). Whatever Christ has given us remains, for it can not pass away. He has condemned every sin and maintained every virtue. He is the one mediator between God and men, and it belongs to Him to say, in all respects, what shall, and what shall not, be law. Hence His apostles must be heard.

Paul’s allegory of the two women (Gal 4:21-31, Gal 5:1), has the same object in view as the one just noticed. It is clearer, however, in that the apostle himself interprets it for us:

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise. Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. For it is written,

Rejoice thou barren, that bearest not;
Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not;
For more are the children of the desolate than of her which hath the husband.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman. With freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage."

One who has read what the apostle has had to say in all his epistles, has no trouble with this passage. Indeed, if we had read nothing from any other writing of his, this would seem to be very plain. Here are two sets of metaphors: Hagar (bondage), Sinai (law, or the law that was given on Sinai); Jerusalem that then was. On the other hand we have Sarah, (freedom); Jerusalem that is above; children of promise; made free in Christ. So far the antithesis is complete. But now, having these two institutions, or covenants, what about them? Can they be blended? "Cast out the bondmaid and her son, for the son of the bondmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman." Cast out the Old Covenant, that was given at Mount Sinai, for it shall not have possession along with the covenant of Christ by which we are made free.

SEC. 59. METONYMY.--The etymology of the word indicates its meaning. It is from the Greek words meta, change, and onoma, name, hence a change of name; the employment of one name or word for another. Webster says of this figure:

"A trope in which one word is put for another; a change of names which have some relation for 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, affections."

Many times this figure bears a close resemblance to the metaphor and the allegory. All figures of speech are related to each other, in that they are employed for the purpose of comparing one thing with another. The metonymy is one of the most definite of tropes. It is capable of such divisions and subdivisions as will enable us to apply definite rules in the exegesis of the passage containing it. Hence, for the sake of perspicuity, we will consider it under its several heads.

SEC. 60. METONYMY OF THE CAUSE.--By this figure the cause is stated while the effect is intended.

(1.) God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are frequently mentioned, whereas the result of their efforts in the redemption of the race is intended.

"But ye did not so learn Christ" (Eph 4:20). That is, ye did not so learn the teaching of Christ respecting the manner of living.

"When Christ, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory, (Col 3:4).

Christ is our life, in that we have life through Him: He is the cause of life; He is named, but the effect of His work is intended.

"Which veil is done away in Christ" (2Co 3:14).

Here the word Christ stands for the New Covenant of which He is the author.

"And he came by the Spirit into the temple" (Luk 2:27).

Simeon has received a communication before that, assuring him that he should not die till he had seen the Christ. And now that Joseph and Mary were there, be is informed by the Spirit that the promise of the Lord is being fulfilled, and if he will go into the temple he can see the Saviour. So in 2Co 3:6, it is said that the "letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." The word Spirit is here employed for the New Institution which had been given by His inspiration. In the same way, Jesus says (John 6:36), "The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are life."

"He that doeth good is of God" (3Jn 1:11). That is, he is living according to the truth which God has taught.

(2.) Parents are put for their children.

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. And he said,
Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
And he said.
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem
And let Canaan be his servant.
God enlarge Japheth,
And let him dwell in the tents of Shem:
And let Canaan be his servant" (Gen 9:25-27).

It is clear to every one, at sight, that the curse has respect to the posterity of these men. Enlarging Japheth was not increasing the bulk of the man, but making his descendants numerous.

"I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel" (Gen 49:7). Of course this refers to the descendants of Jacob--the tribes when they should be located in the land of promise. And so it was Simeon obtained a little corner of the country down toward Egypt, and Levi had no tribal possession. They received forty-eight cities, and were distributed among the other tribes. In Num 23:7, Balaam said that Balak had sent for him to come and curse Jacob and defy Israel. Jacob had been dead many years. It was the people of Israel or Jacob. So it is in the following chapter of the parables of this prophet. All the way through the Scriptures the word Jacob, or Israel, represents the people that had descended from him. So it is with the tribes--the name of the head of the tribe passes upon the tribe, so that the people of the tribe of Reuben are named from the oldest son of Jacob, and so on to the close. Even Ephraim and Manasseh come to be terms by which we are to understand the people that sprang from them.

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom 9:13), was not said concerning those twin boys, but their children, some twelve hundred years after their progenitors were dead. See Mal 1:2-3 :

"I have loved you, with the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness."

"Shall I not in that day, with the Lord, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau? And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one may be cut off from the mount of Esau by slaughter. For the violence done to thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off forever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that strangers carried away his substance, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them" (Obadiah 1:8-11).

These Scriptures show that the language was not concerning Jacob and Esau when they were children, or before they were born, but was used concerning their descendants, many centuries after these patriarchs were dead. And the good and sufficient reasons that are given for loving Jacob and hating Esau are based upon national character.

(3.) Authors are put for the works which they have produced.--This is one of the most common forms of metonymy at the present time. We inquire of the student if he has read Virgil, Homer, Xenophon, etc., etc., by which we mean to ask if he has read the writings of these men. In Luk 16:20-31, the Saviour makes Abraham say to the rich man in hades, that his five brethren back in the world had Moses and the Prophets, and if they would not hear them, they would not give heed to one though he should go to them from the dead. The meaning is easy: they had what Moses had said in the law, and what the prophets had written by way of warning the people against iniquity, and the truth there taught was the same that anyone else would have taught them if it should please the Lord to send them such warning. Hence, if they would not listen to the instruction already furnished, it would be unreasonable to expect them to attend to the same things if re-furnished by some inferior agent.

"And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luk 24:27). No one is in doubt, for a single moment, as to the meaning of this language. It can have but one meaning. These disciples had misunderstood the prophecies respecting their Messiah; they held the common view that when He should come, He would remain forever, and reign as an earthly king. And when the Saviour was crucified, their hopes were destroyed at the same time. Now they had been astonished at what the women said to them that morning, when they reported that they had seen a vision of angels declaring that their Lord was not in the grave, but that he had risen from the dead. But the teaching of the Scriptures on that subject was not known to them. Hence the Master makes them understand that the word of the Lord teaches that He must die and rise again. And again, that evening, as the ten were met together in the city, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and opened their minds to the word of the Lord on that subject, and showed them that they taught that the Christ should die and rise again (Luk 24:44-47). So it was with the apostles when they went to preach the gospel--they had to begin with the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, and show to the Jews everywhere that they had foretold that the Messiah should die for men (Acts 17:1-3). This is the meaning of Acts 15:21 : "For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath." Not Moses, but the law that was given through Moses. The same figure is found in 2Co 3:15 : "Wheresoever Moses is read" that is, the law given by him.

(4.) Instruments are put for their effects.--These instruments, being supposed to be the immediate cause, are spoken of, whereas the result of their use is intended.

"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death" (Deu 17:6).

Here the mouth is put for the testimony to be spoken by it. So in Mat 18:16 :

"That at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established." From Acts 15:7-11, we learn that the Gentiles were converted by Peter’s mouth--that is, it was by the mouth of Peter that they first heard the word of the gospel and believed. In this way Christ is said to be our peace (Eph 2:14-16), our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1Co 1:30). He is the means, the cause, the instrument in the hands of the Father, by which we have all these.

"Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Mat 10:34).

Christ was not intending to send a sword on the earth in any literal sense. The sword is the instrument of war, and stands for that disturbance which would follow the introduction of the truth of redemption.

"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money" (Exo 21:21). This is the case of a man smiting his servant. Had it been another man, he would have been compelled to make good the time lost, and to cause the man to be healed. But in case of smiting his servant, he does not make good the time; but simply loses it. His servant was his money--that is, he was the means or the instrument of money. Very many times the sword, the bow and spear are spoken of, instead of the work which they were expected to accomplish, in which we have plain cases of the metonymy of the cause (Exo 5:3; Lev 26:6; Isa 1:20; Jer 43:11; Rom 8:35).

SEC. 61. METONYMY OF THE EFFECT.--The effect is put for the cause. The cause is meant, but the effect is named.

"Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days" (Ecc 11:1). A man casting bread on the water will not find it again; and Solomon did not intend to say the silly thing that he has been accused of saying. Let the bread stand for the bread seed, or wheat, sown on the water from a skiff, to fall into the alluvial deposit below, and, with the going down of the stream, spring up and grow, and you will get the idea of sowing in hope.

"And he answered and said, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil" (Mat 13:37-38). The sons of the kingdom were not sown there by the Son of man; what was done by the Saviour was the sowing of the truth, giving to the world the word of the Living God, which has resulted in the Christians referred to. So it is with the children of the evil one--the devil did not sow them, but he presented the world with the falsehood, and gave the influences that have brought them into being, or made them the children of the wicked one. They are the effect, not the cause.

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil" (Deu 30:15). But every one sees these as the result of serving God or refusing that service. The life and the good, the death and the evil, were the results of that which he presented to them. In Luk 11:14, we read that Jesus was casting out a demon, and it was dumb. And then we are informed that when the demon was gone out, the man spoke. Now, as to the condition of the demon, nothing is intended to be affirmed. It was the effect of the demon on the man possessed by it. The man was dumb, and the possession made him dumb. The effect is spoken of, whereas the cause was meant. Christ is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). He is our wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption; He is our life, and our peace--that is, he is the cause of all these things to us. So is the kingdom of God righteousness and joy and peace in the Holy Spirit--that is, these are blessings derived therefrom. These are the effects. In all these the effect is mentioned, while the cause is understood.