The Figures of Speech

8/9/2019 The Figures of Speech

1/14

THE FIGURES OF SPEECH

Introduction

Quintilian defined a figure of speech as any deviation either in thought orexpression, from the ordinary and simple method of speaking . . . or . . . a form of speechartfully varied from common usage (Instit. Orat. IX, i, 11). These forms were called by the

Greeks Schema, and by the RomansFigura. Both words mean shape or figure. P. J.

Corbett, however, divides figures of speech into two main groups--the schemes and the tropes

(Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student[New York: Oxford Press, 1971]). He writes: A

scheme ... involves a deviation from the ordinary pattern or arrangement of words. A trope

involves a deviation from the ordinary and principal signification of a word (p. 461).

In this discussion we shall survey the most important types of tropes and schemes.

More attention will be given to the tropes than the schemes because they are more difficult to

learn. The types listed below are those encountered most frequently in the study of the

Psalter. The student may find it helpful to use E. W. Bullinger (Figures of Speech Used in the

Bible) for the less common types and problematic passages. But this book should not be usedsimply for finding obscure figures or technical jargon. The table of contents and the Scripture

index will provide the student with a beginning for the use of this reference tool.

Before surveying the common types of figures one must briefly, at least, consider abasic issue--the tension between the literal and the figurative. Many students of the Bible

think that if something is figurative it means that no one can be sure what is being said (for

this, see Bullingers preface). Others, however, insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible

to the exclusion of figures of speech. If literal interpretation is taken literally, then there are

all kinds of problems--God would be a block of granite, Jesus a piece of wood on hinges, and

believers grazing sheep or growing wheat. The problem is confronted enough to warrant a

survey of how the issue has been handled in the interpretation of the Bible.

Students of the Bible are perhaps aware of Augustines concept of multiple senses of

Scripture, whereby both words and the things they signify point to spiritual or allegoricalmeanings. Yet Augustine gave careful attention to the words of Scripture, the literal sense, as

the ground for the spiritual significances. Attention to the words involves knowledge of theoriginal languages, of logic (rules of valid inference), or history, and especially the rhetorical

figures. He says,

Lettered men should know, moreover, that all those modes of expression which thegrammarians designate with the Greek word tropes were used by our [Scriptural]

authors, and more abundantly and copiously than those who do not know them . . .

are able to suppose or believe. Those who know these tropes, however, will

recognize them in the sacred letters, and this knowledge will be of considerable

assistance in understanding them . . . . And not only examples of all these tropes are

found in reading the sacred books, but also the names of some of them,

like allegoria, aenigma, parabola (De Doctrina, III, xxix).

Thomas Aquinas discussion of the senses of Scripture in Summa

Theologica rationalized Augustines account of figurative meaning into the Catholic formula:

a literal sense, and a spiritual sense having three levels--allegorical or typological, tropological

or moral, and anagogical (I. Q. 1, Art. 10,Basic Writings, I, 16-17). With regard to the literalsense, Aquinas says,

By words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, butthat which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of Gods arm, theliteral sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this

member, namely, operative power (ibid).

While Aquinas classifies the meaning of the trope as the literal sense, he suggests that the

poetic language often obscures the truth, making the reader look beyond the figures for the

true meaning. There is no real emphasis on the meaning conveyed by the metaphor itself.

Neither Augustine or Aquinas place great value upon the poetic language of Scripture as such.

The Reformation surfaced a new emphasis on literalism in the Scripture, along with

the emphasis on the one sense of Scripture. But a study of the writings of the Reformers

shows that this was no prosaic literalism. Tropes now became Gods chosen formulations of

the revelation which must be understood correctly, in themselves, and not as a means to ahigher, allegorical vision. Calvins discussion of the doctrine of the sacraments, especially the

expression This is my body is instructive:

[Those who state that] the bread is the body . . . truly prove themselves literalists . . .. I say that this expression is a metonymy, a figure of speech commonly used in

Scripture when mysteries are under discussion . . . . For though the symbol differs

in essence from the thing signified (in that the latter is spiritual and heavenly, while

the former is physical and visible), still, because it not only symbolizes the thing that

it has been consecrated to represent as a bare and empty token, but also truly

exhibits it, why may its name not rightly belong to the thing? . . . Let our

adversaries, therefore, cease to heap unsavory witticisms upon us by calling us

tropists because we have explained the sacramental phraseology according to the

common usage of Scripture (Institutes IV, xvii, 20-21).

The irony here is that the Roman Catholic position on the sacrament (transubstantiation) is

achieved by taking the text literally. The figurative sense (metonymy) communicated by thephysical signs was taken by the Reformers.

Based on such ideas the Protestants writings in the subsequent centuries

systematized the study of the rhetorical devices used in Scripture. The importance ofunderstanding the tropes and schemes became paramount. It was not that they were now

taking the text literally whereas the Church had taken it allegorically or mystically; rather they

were now studying the figures used in the Bible as means of communicating the divine

revelation. Because the Scripture made widespread use of figurative language, scholars

realized that skillful use of the various types of figures was necessary for exegesis.

Handbooks on the figures of speech and interpretation appeared throughout Protestantism. It

was prompted by the recognition that figures of speech served as vehicles of truth; they werechosen by God for His revelation of himself to people.


2/14

The concept of God as a magnificent poet who uses figurative language to

communicate His literal Word is graphically expressed by Donne:

My God, my God, Thou art a direct God, may I not say a literall God, a God that

wouldst bee understood literally, and according to the plain sense of all that thou

saiest? But thou art also . . . a figurative, a metaphoricall God too; A God inwhose words there is such a height of figures, such voyages, such peregrinations tofetch remote and precious metaphors, such extensions . . . . O, what words but

thine, can expresse the inexpressible texture, and composition of thy word (Sermons,

VII, 65).

So the concept that figurative language is the character of the literal Word of God in

many places, and not some mystical sense, came to be the important distinctive of biblical

exegesis after the Reformation. Unfortunately, modern expositions have not taken the time

to understand much of this, but rather stand closer to some Puritan interpretations which

considered rhetorical devices to be minimal or deceptive. Each student of the Bible must

recapture this important relationship between the figurative and the literal. One must learn

that not only is the figurative the means of communicating the literal, but that the figurative is

the literal in its chosen means of expressing the truth, a means that includes intellectual andemotional connotations, allusions and sounds. The figure is both unified in its

communication, and diverse in its aspects.

The Classification of the Figures

Because writers turn their words in various ways, literary critics have attempted to

analyze and categorize these deviations in the use of words in order to gain better control over

the intended thought and feeling of the author.

I. Figures Involving Comparison

In these figures of speech the author transfers a word into a foreign semantic field to

illustrate or picture his thought and to evoke the appropriate feeling in his reader. In this waythe writer draws a comparison between two things of unlike nature that yet have something in

common. The subject matter is real, but that to which it is compared is present in theimagination. That which the subject and things compared have in common is not stated and

must be guessed at and validated by the interpreter from other indications in the composition.The interpreter must also try to articulate the mood evoked by the figure.

1. Simile: Resemblance, an explicit comparison (using like or as) between two things

of unlike nature that yet have something in common (see Bullinger, pp. 726-733).

Silence settled on the audience like a block of granite.

Silence settling down is here compared to a block of granite. The

image is one of suddenness and absoluteness. There is a contrast implied

between the roar of an audience before a performance, and the sudden

silence when the safety curtain goes up.

All flesh is like grass. (1 Pet. 1:24)

In this verse flesh, which is also a figure of speech representing allliving creatures, is compared to grass. The point is that grass is

transitory--it withers and dies easily. This figure must be seen in the

context of grass in Israel--in the heat it completely disappears from the

hills until the rainy season. The feeling that this simile evokes is one of

pathos and futility.

He shall be like a tree planted by rivers of waters. (Ps. 1:3)

The psalm is describing an individual who meditates in the Law of the

LORD. The comparison is now made to a tree. Here, as is often the case,

the simile is qualified: the tree produces fruit in season and does not

wither because it is planted by water. The qualifications lead us toconclude that the water represents the Law, and the fruit righteousness.

The common thought between the tree and the person is life or vitality. Itcreates a positive feeling of desirability.

2. Metaphor: Representation, an implicit comparison between two things of unlike nature

that yet have something in common; a declaration that one thing is or represents

another (see Bullinger, pp. 735-743). This description will serve the purpose of this

introduction, but it must be acknowledged to be a simplification. Pure metaphors

are essentially figures of transference (for a detailed study, see Gustav

Stern, Meaning and Change of Meaning, chapter xi). That is why many prefer to

use metaphorical language as the equivalent of figurative language without

further qualification of types. The study must be aware of this; some commentaries

will use the word metaphor to mean any figure of speech, when the actual figureunder consideration is not a metaphor.

The question of federal aid to education is a bramble patch.

The idea of federal aid to education is now stated to be a bramble

patch (not like a bramble patch). The point is that it is tangled, noteasily solved, thorny. The metaphor conveys the feeling of frustration,

complexity, pain.

The LORD God is a sun and a shield. (Ps. 84:12 [11])

The LORD God is being compared to both a sun and a shield. Each

metaphor supplies different information about the LORD. The sunconveys light, warmth, provision for growth among other things; the


3/14

shield primarily represents protection. So the line brings a feeling of

security in Gods provision of and protection for life.

The LORD is my shepherd. (Ps. 23:1)

In this line a comparison is expressed between the LORD (a spirit) and a

shepherd (a human being who tends flocks). The essential qualities ofthe shepherd are transferred to the LORD so that a greater understandingof his nature may be achieved. The subsequent lines of the psalm (verses

1-4) extend and qualify the metaphor, so that the shepherding activates of

feeding the flock, leading them, and refreshing them, are all brought to

bear on the communication of the LORD's spiritual ministries to His

people, i.e., teaching them the truth, cleansing them from sin, and leading

them in righteousness. So we can see that the context must be considered

in explaining a figure.

The figure of shepherd was used frequently enough to achieve lexical

status, and so dictionaries often list the figurative use as one of the

categories of meaning. Even in English dictionaries under shepherd you

will find ecclesiastical use for minister. When this happens the figureis classified as a dead metaphor, or an idiom. However, in your exegesis

you must interpret it as you would any metaphor, because it is a figurativeuse of a term.

3. Hypocatastasis: Implication, a declaration that implies a comparison between two

things of unlike nature that yet have something in common. Unlike the above,

however, in hypocatastasis the subject must be inferred (see Bullinger, pp. 744-747;

Bullinger, however, does not give enough attention to this very common figure). It

may be simpler to refer to this as an implied metaphor if the title sounds too

technical or difficult. The main feature is that in the text, the figure will be

expressed fully, but the true topic or subject will be suppressed. For example,

Smite the shepherd and the flock will be scattered is a statement that remains on

the figurative level. The exegete must discern from either the context or usage of

the terms what is meant by shepherd and flock.

Dogs have surrounded me. (Ps. 22:17 [16])

The psalmist is comparing his enemies to dogs. There are no dogssurrounding him; the context will state it is a company of evil-doers. If he

had used a simile, he would have stated explicitly my enemies arelike dogs. A straightforward metaphor would have said my enemies are

dogs. But he simply says dogs have surrounded me, and you are left to

determine if they are real dogs, and if not, what are they. Once this has

been done, you have to return to the figure and ask why he compares them

to dogs. Dogs in the ancient Near East were scavengers--they ran in packs

and scoured for food. Much like the vultures in the desert they would pick

at carcases. So the psalmist is saying a lot about his enemies, and a lotabout his condition--he is almost dead.

Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them (Ps. 127:5)

In the context the psalmist has used a simile to compare children to arrowsin the hand of a warrior. Building on that point the psalmist uses quiver

to refer to his household. If the children are like arrows, then the house

is like a quiver--but house is not mentioned. So the comparison isimplied.

My frame was not hidden from You,

When I was made in secret,

and skillfully wrought

in the depths of the earth. (Ps. 139:15)

In this passage the psalmist is describing how God formed him in his

mother's womb--but he calls it the depths of the earth. He is thus

comparing the womb to the deepest recesses of the earth, stressing

remoteness and hiddenness (this is before sonograms). But he does not

state the comparison; he merely uses the figure to imply the comparison.

One reason for this strange comparison is rhetorical: he wants to form alink to the preceding strophe in which he described Gods presence in such

remote areas (see Ps. 139:7-12).

A lion has gone up from his thicket. (Jer. 4:7)

The context will make it clear that the idea is the king of Babylon who has

left his domain. The comparison with a lion stresses the fierce and brutish

nature of this pagan power, and conveys a feeling of fear of attack and

death. Writers frequently use animals or beasts in their hypocatastases for

rulers to stress such brutish power. In fact, Daniel's visions of such

grotesque beasts prepares for his vision of one like the Son of Man who

will replace them (Dan. 7:12, 13).

4. Parable: a placing beside (frompara = beside, and ballein = to cast) of two things ofunlike nature that yet have something in common; an extended simile, an anecdotal

narrative designed to teach a lesson. The extent of the comparison must be guessedat and validated by other indications in the literature (see Bullinger, pp. 751-753).

Parable is used about 30 times to translate lvm, masal, and of no other word; but

the most famous examples are those found in the New Testament.

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in

his field. (Matt. 13:24ff.)

The parable is essentially a story based on a simile, i.e., an extended

simile. It is not always easy to determine how much of the story should be

interpreted as part of the simile. It is safe to say the main point of the


4/14

parable is what was intended; but along the way other comparisons are

obvious (e.g., the elder brother representing the Pharisees).

5. Allegory: (from allos = another and agourein = to speak in the agora [i.e., where peopleassemble]); an extended metaphor (see Bullinger, pp. 748-750).

Expositors often say that an allegory refers to something non-historical in thecomparison; but this may be more apologetic than factual, designed to defendagainst the almost unlimited allegorical use of Scripture by some Church Fathers.

But in the classical sense an allegory is an extended metaphor; the thing used in the

comparison could be historical or fictional, each allegory requiring specific

attention. Thus, Paul's use of the term in Galatians 4:24 is perfectly legitimate--it

does not deny the historicity of the Old Testament event.

There are not many examples of allegories in the Old Testament; and of those that

come to mind, the images are not historical or actual.

The Allegory of the Fig, Olive, Vine, and Bramble (Ju. 9:7-15):

This is not a parable because there is no similitude expressed explicitly.Rather, it is a continued hypocatastasis, only one of the two things in the

comparison is clearly stated. In the context the point is that only theworthless one, the bramble, wants to rule over the nation.

The Allegory of the Unproductive Vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7):

The LORD is compared to the faithful gardener, the Beloved One, and

Israel to an unproductive vineyard (v. 7). The common thought between

Israel and the vineyard is that of an unjust return, and the common feeling

is contempt or disgust. Israel should have produced fruit under the

careful work of her gardener.

6. Personification: Personification: (From Latinpersona: actor's mask, person +facio =

to make; the making or feigning of a person); the investiment of non-humansubjects (e.g., abstractions, inanimate objects, or animals) with human qualities or

abilities. With all the figures discussed thus far, this figure also belongs to thesub-group of figures involving resemblance. Here, too, the things compared are of

unlike nature, but the thing to which the comparison is made is always a person.The figure is used to stir emotions and to create an empathy with the subject (see

Bullinger, pp. 861-869).

The land mourns--the oil languishes. (Joel 1:10)

The human traits of mourning and languishing are attributed to the land,

thus making a comparison. But the thought is the extreme agricultural

disaster, and the feeling is sadness and grief.

The voice of your brothers blood cries to me from the ground. (Gen. 4:6)

Abels shed blood is personified as a voice crying out. The point is that

the blood is a witness that a murder has been committed. It is a demand

for vengeance; and it conveys a feeling of condemnation and indignation.

Your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (Ps. 23:4)

Here the human ability to provide comfort in time of trouble is ascribed tothe LORDs rod and staff. Of course, rod and staff are also figures,

carrying through the comparison of the LORDs activities with those of

the shepherd (so they are hypocatastases). The line essentially affirms that

the means of protection that the LORD uses brings comfort to the worried

psalmist. This is a good example of how some figures build on other

figures.

7. Anthropomorphism: An implicit or explicit comparison of God to some corporeal

aspect of mankind. By this comparison the author does not intend to be evocative

but to be didactic, viz., to communicate a truth about the person of God. The

author will choose that part of human life which best corresponds to some

characteristic of Gods person: e.g., the face denotes His presence, the eyes denoteHis awareness, the ears signify His attentiveness, the nostrils signify His anger,

and the heart speaks of His moral purpose (see Bullinger, pp. 871-881, 883-894).Revelation of the Godhead demands the use of anthropomorphic language, i.e., to

communicate the nature of God in language people understand. Throughout the OTGod is described as if he has all such human parts and functions. This is probably

why Jesus is described as the complete revelation of God, the alpha and the omega,

theLogos--in the incarnation the Word (or should we say the words?) became

flesh.

His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the sons of men. (Ps. 11:4)

The psalmist, wishing to reveal Gods close examination of all human

affairs, uses the expressions eyes and eyelids. God is a Spirit and not

corporeal; moreover, divine omniscience does not need to squint theeyelids to look more intently. But what these mean for human life enables

people to understand the divine activity of investigation and judgment.

Incline your ear to me. (Ps. 31:3 [2])

Again, the expression is human--one leaning over to listen more intently towhat someone says. God does not need to do this (nor does he have an ear

that he lowers to the one praying). Such anthropomorphisms are for our

benefit--it is an urgent cry for God to hear the prayer.

Hide your face from my sins. (Ps. 51:11 [9]).

This is in Davids confession of sin. He prays that God would forgive himand not hold his sin against him. The human activity of hiding ones


5/14

face. i.e., not looking at something, graphically conveys his wish and

brings him comfort.

The Scriptures are filled with anthropomorphic expressions about God that will haveto be interpreted clearly (and carefully since many people simply take these

literally). God is described as having everlasting arms, saving hand,

consuming breath of his nostrils, feet; he is portrayed as sitting enthroned,hurling a storm, blotting out of a book, putting tears in a bottle, and a host ofother figurative expressions from the human realm. They are all meant to reveal the

person and work of the LORD in terms that we can understand and appreciate.

But note this: Many authors distinguish this figure from the description of Gods

passion(s) which they designate as anthropopatheia: an implicit or explicit

comparison between the nature of God and human passions. Doing this may give

the impression that God may not in fact possess passions or emotions. This notion

greatly limits God's personality, traditionally defined as intellect, sensibility and

will. And so I do not use this category at all, but maintain that Gods passions are

literal (see Bullinger includes it on pp. 882, 883).

8. Zoomorphism: An explicit or implicit comparison of God (or other entities) to thelower animals or parts of the lower animals (see Bullinger, pp. 894, 895; Bullinger

lists this under anthropomorphism).

In the shadow of your wings I used to rejoice. (Ps. 63:8)

Of course, God is not a bird with wings. Divine protection is frequently

expressed in zoomorphic terms, e.g., trusting under the shadow of his

wings. It speaks of safety and security.

N.B. Often animals take on a symbolic significance. Bullinger cites Genesis 4:7

(Sin crouches at the door) as an example of personification. Although the

verb rabats, to couch, may signify human activity, it more frequently is used of

animals, especially of lions, ready to pounce. Moreover, the figure should also be

interpreted in light of the command to mankind to have dominion over the animals.If so, then God is commanding Cain to rule over sin which threatens him like a lion.

If this interpretation is right, the figure employed is a zoomorphism.

We can see by this that zoomorphism is not limited to descriptions of God. Psalm139:9 says, If I take the wings of the dawn, and settle in the remotest part of the

sea, comparing the rays of the sun to wings of a bird that fly from the east and landin the distant west. His point in the context is that no matter how fast or far he might

fly (i.e., with the speed of light) God is always there.

9. Proverb: (frompro + verbum = more at word); a brief popular witticism; a specific

illustration to signify a general truth about life. The wit of one is the wisdom of

many (see Bullinger, pp. 755-767). The idea of comparison is often explicit (like

father--like son), but more often subtle.

Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 10:11)

The action of Saul is like that of the prophets--but he is the king. The

axiom is that they are amazed over his reversal of roles. The comparisonidea comes through clearly in an analysis of the usage ofmasal. Psalm 49,

a wisdom psalm, uses the verb in the repeated expression that the worldly

man is like the beast that perishes.

The fathers eat the sour grapes,

but the childrens teeth are set on edge. (Ezek. 18:2)

The comparison is clear in the figure; the general truth expressed by the

saying is that children unjustly receive the penalty earned by parents.

Proverbs are very complex in Hebrew literature. The student of the Bible must

research them further, especially when studying a book like Proverbs. Proverbs will

not figure predominantly in the study of the Book of Psalms, however.

10. Idiom: the regular occurrence of figures of speech. Any figure (including those to

follow) can become idiomatic when by frequent use it achieves lexical status.Bullinger offers many examples of idiomatic expressions of the Bible such as

breaking bread, open the mouth, the Son of Man, turn to ashes, three daysand three nights and many more (see Bullinger, pp. 819-860). An idiom is also

called a dead metaphor, low figure, or a common use of a figure. It may be easilyactivated if used in a fresh way.

Even though idioms may be readily classified as idioms, the expositor will still have

to evaluate what figure originally was involved. Once this has been done, the

interpretation will apply to subsequent usages. For example, way is idiomatic. It

may also be metaphorical (way or road compared to pattern of life), a basic

point that often needs to be made. Do not assume biblical idioms are generally

understood.

II. Figures Involving Substitution

11. Metonymy: Change of Noun (or any idea), the change of a word naming an

object for another word closely associated with it. From meta indicating changeand onoma meaning a name, noun; but a metonymy can word with a verb as well,

or a whole line. The substitution of some attributive or suggestive word for what ismeant. For example, crown for royalty, mitre for bishop, brass for

military officer, pen for writer, bad hand for poorly-formed characters.

In contrast to many of the above figures which are based on resemblance, metonymy

is founded on relationship. Whereas in figures based on resemblance, that to which

a comparison is made is imaginative; in metonymy the word that triggers an

association is historical reality--there really is a crown, a mitre, brass, pen, and the

like. But much more is meant.


6/14

This is important, because you will have the most difficulty in distinguishing

metonymy from hypocatastasis. If we say, the White House said today, that is

a metonymy, White House being substituted for the President in the White House.

But there is a White House. If we say Uncle Sam wants you, we have ahypocatastasis. There is no Uncle Sam. The letters U.S. have been taken and

compared to a person (actually a personification as well).

Bullinger analyzes metonymy into four kinds; viz., of the cause, of the effect, of thesubject, of the adjunct. These are helpful, but it will be seen that the analysis cannot

always fit neatly into one of them alone (see Bullinger, pp. 538-608).

a. Metonymy of the Cause: When the writer states the cause but intends the effect

(Bullinger, 540-560). The way to test this is that if you call something a metonymy

of cause you must state what the intended effect would be.

Examples where the instrument is put for the effect:

And the whole earth was of one lip. (Gen. 11:1)

The verse means that everyone spoke the same language. Lip is thecause, the instrument--so the expositor must state the effect, language.

At the mouth of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6)

The intended meaning is the testimony of the witnesses; mouth is the

cause, the instrument of giving testimony.

Examples where the thing or the action is put for the effect:

Pour out your anger upon the nations. (Ps. 79:6)

Anger is the emotion behind the judgment. The psalmist wants God to

pour out (also a figure, an implied comparison) acts of judgment. So the

cause is stated, the effect--judgment--is meant.

Continue your loyal love to those who know you. (Ps. 36:10)

The attribute is stated, but the spiritual and material blessings that Godsloyal love brings are intended. In most cases the attributes of God will be

metonymies of cause, because the communication of those attributes ismeant (hence: communicable attributes).

Example where the person acting, the agent or actor, is put for the effect:

They have Moses and the Prophets. (Luke 16:29)

What is meant is that they have the Scriptures that Moses and the Prophetswrote. The cause is stated, the effect is meant. It is a way of saying two

things at once; it stresses the authority by giving the identification of the

authors, but it clearly indicates that Scripture is meant (they do not have

Moses).

b. Metonymy of the Effect: When the writer states the effect but intends the cause

producing it (Bullinger, pp. 560-567).

Sometimes one line of poetic parallelism will give both the metonymy of cause andthe metonymy of effect to express the complete idea: Then he will speak (cause) to

them in his anger, and terrify (effect) them in his fury. (Ps. 2:5).

Examples where the effect is put for the thing or action producing it:

Entreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only.

(Exod. 10:17)

Locusts! That is what the Pharaoh wanted removed. But if they were

allowed to remain, they would utterly destroy the land and its inhabitants.

To make the request more vivid he substitutes the effect for the cause.

Cause me to hear joy and gladness. (Ps. 51:10[8])

The entire line is a metonymy of effect. The psalmist desires to hear the

oracle of forgiveness from the prophet. The effect of being forgiven isthat the psalmist can once again join the congregation with shouts of

praise to God and hear all the congregational rejoicing. He wants both to

be forgiven and to enter the praise; he states the effect and implies the

cause.

Example where the effect is put for the material object from which it is produced:

You split the fountain and the flood. (Ps. 74:15)

He split the rock in two, and water came out. The use of metonymies hereis very economical, for it is obvious that God did not split the water. The

reader would know that the cause, the rock, is intended, but the effect,water from the rock, is stated. Fountain and flood are also figurative

expressions of water. So the line is saying far more than what isliterally expressed.

Example where the effect is put for the instrument or organic cause:

Awake, my glory (Ps. 57:9[8])

The stated effect is glory; the intended cause is the tongue that sings

praises to glorify God. It is also possible that glory represents the real

person (compare Exodus 33:18, show me your glory, which may meanshow me yourself [ = LXX], the real you).


7/14

Example where the effect is put for the person or agent producing it:

But you, O LORD, be not far off;O my help, hasten to my assistance. (Ps. 22:19[181)

The stated effect is help, what the psalmist will receive. The intendedcause is the LORD.

c. Metonymy of the Subject: when the subject or thing is put for the attribute or adjunct

of it, i.e., the place or the container is put for that which is contained (Bullinger, pp.

567-587).

Examples where the container is put for the contents:

The grave cannot praise you. (Isa. 38:18)

This is a common motif in the Hebrew Scriptures. The prophet means that

a dead person in the grave cannot praise God. To use the word grave

heightens the tension and motivates God to keep the individual alive topraise Him.

You prepare a table before me (Ps. 23:5)

The stated subject-idea is table, but the intended ideas are food and

drink on the table. The literal meaning of preparing a table, i.e., carpentry,

would be most inappropriate here, for the psalmist is enumerating the

LORD's spiritual and physical provisions for life.

The voice of the LORD shakes the wilderness. (Ps. 29:8)

As a metonymy of subject wilderness signifies the flora and fauna in the

wilderness. In the sentence voice of Yahweh is also figurative, either a

metonymy of cause for the storm (God commanded it), or hypocatastasisfor the similarity of thunder to a voice.

Examples where the thing or action is put for that which is connected with it (the

adjunct):

Soul [if that is the translation, which is a misleading translation of the Hebrewword vp,n,, nephesh, that means the whole person, body and soul] for desires,

appetites; heart for thoughts, understanding, courage, will; kidneys for

conscience, affections, passions; liver for emotions, center of immaterial part (see

Bullinger, pp. 567-570; see also Hans W. Wolff,Anthropology of the Old

Testament).

You are near in their mouth (i.e., words [met. of cause]) but far fromtheir kidneys.

The Hebrews associated the visceral organs with the will and the emotions, much like

the modern western world would use heart for strong will (believe with your

heart) or strong affection (love with all my heart). All these we classify asmetonymy of subject, and then interpret the corresponding adjunct--will, desire,

thoughts, etc.

Example where the possessor is put for the thing possessed:

Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? (Acts 9:4)

The stated subject-idea is me, i.e., Jesus; but the intended idea is His

Church. The point is a common one in Scripture--to persecute the Church

is to persecute Christ.

Examples where the sign is put for the thing signified:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah. (Gen. 49:10)

The point of the oracle is that Judah (here the tribe and not the patriarch[met. of cause]) will retain the tribal supremacy or rulership. The sign of

the rulership is a scepter, so we classify that as metonymy of subjectbecause it signifies far more than (literally) retaining a scepter.

Kiss the son (Ps. 2:12)

In this example we have a verbal idea used as a metonymy. This is not too

common, but does happen. The stated idea of kissing the son is intended

to convey the adjunct, that is, what is connected to the act-submission,

showing homage. Son also is figurative in the psalm, an implied

metaphor here, but stated metaphor earlier in the passage (you are my

son).

d. Metonymy of Adjunct: The writer puts the adjunct or attribute or some circumstancepertaining to the subject for the subject (Bullinger, pp. 587-608).

Example where the attribute is put for the thing or object:

Then shall you bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave. (Gen. 42:38)

Now we have the opposite of the metonymy of subject. Here the

adjunct--gray hairs--is put for the subject--old Jacob. Obviously more

than the gray hairs will be brought down to the grave (grave is a

metonymy of subject for death).

Example where the time is put for the thing done in it:

For the shouting for your summer (Isa. 16:9)


8/14

The intended idea is the harvest that takes place in the summer. By

substituting summer the prophet has economized his description and

conveyed more than harvest alone would convey. Summer, the timeof the harvest, is an adjunct idea (something descriptive connected to the

idea).

Example where the contents are put for the container:

And when they had opened their treasures (Matt. 2:11)

They opened the chests that were holding the treasures. Here the adjunct

is stated (contents of the containers) but the subject is meant (containers).

Example where the appearance of a thing is put for the thing itself:

His enemies shall lick the dust. (Ps. 72:9)

This is a vivid description of the defeat of enemies. The intended

subject-idea is that the enemies be defeated, be in a state of humbleprostration; but the stated description is an adjunct of that defeat.

Example where the thing signified is put for the sign:

because the separation is on his head (Num. 6:7)

This expression comes from the chapter on Nazirite vows in which the

person would not cut his hair. The intended sign of the vow would be

uncut hair (the subject), but the thing that is signified is stated--separation.

Separation is not a metonymy of effect, because that would say that long

hair causes the vow.

Example where the Name of a person is put for the person:

May the name of the God of Jacob protect you. (Ps. 20:2)

The stated title is name; but the intended meaning is the LORD Himself,

or better, all the attributes of the LORD. This would be the same for askanything in my name.

12. Synecdoche: the exchange of one idea for another connected idea. In this figure one

word receives something from another which i s unexpressed but associated with it

because it belongs to the same genus. Like metonymy the figure is based on a

relationship rather than a resemblance. But whereas in metonymy the exchange may

be made between related words belonging to different genera (and so only loosely

connected by contact or ascription). in synecdoche the exchange is made between

two words related generically. For example, ends of the earthas a metonymy ofsubject would mean the people living in the ends of the earth, but as a synecdoche it

would mean distant geographical locations as part of a larger mass of land--soil, not

people.

As a general guideline, one may use synecdoche for figures that are actually a partof the whole, or the whole for a part--more strictly connected to the thing intended

than a metonymy would be. The use of Genus and Species may not be as frequent

as Whole and Part, but is serviceable for those things actually related generically.a. Synecdoche of the Genus: The genus is substituted for the species: e.g., weapon for

sword, creature for man, arms for rifles, vehicle for bicycle (Bullinger, pp. 613-656).

Words of wider meaning for a narrower sense:

The glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. (Isa.

40:5)

The general word flesh is used in place of the specific idea mankind

(they stand in a genus-species relationship). Metonymy will not work

(cause? effect? subject? adjunct?); if you think it might be a metonymy,

you would need to state the intended idea to substantiate it.

Preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15)

The stated genus is creature; the intended species is people. Recallhow St. Francis took this literally.

All for the great part:

All the people were gathered to Jeremiah. (Jer. 26:9)

This use of all might just as easily be handled as a lexical matter. The

stated genus here is all the people, but the intended sense is the greater

number of the people.

All for all kinds:

It contained all fourfooted animals. (Acts 10:12)

One would doubt that the vision contained all fourfooted animals. What is

meant no doubt is that all kinds of four-footed animals (i.e., every kind)were represented.

Universal for a particular:

Saul said nothing that day. (1 Sam. 20:26)

The synecdoche is nothing, but the intended meaning is nothing aboutDavid. We find even in English that universals most often are intended to


9/14

signify something more specific. I am reminded of the line attributed to

Yogi Berra, Nobody goes there anymore, the place is too crowded.

b. Synecdoche of the Species: The species is substituted for the genus, a part for the

whole; e.g., bread for food, cutthroat for assassin (Bullinger, pp. 623-635).

Words of a narrower sense for a wider meaning:

I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me. (Ps. 44:7 [6])

This type of synecdoche is more helpful exegetically. In this psalm bow

and sword are stated, but the intended meaning is weapons.

The meaning then is broader than the stated figures--but includes them.

Species for genus proper:

A land flowing with milk and honey (Ex. 3:8, 17)

Often a tour bus in Israel will take its people to a location where there arecows and beehives in a field and then quote this verse. But much more is

meant: the intended genus is all luxurious foods.

Give us this day our daily bread. (Matt. 6:11)

The intended meaning is basic food. Daily bread is a species of the

genus food.

c. The Whole is put for the Parts: (Bullinger, pp. 636-640). Many of the samples listed

in Bullinger might better be treated as lexical matters, especially when all is used

for parts.

Behold, the world has gone after him. (John 12:19)

The synecdoche of the whole is world; the intended meaning (the part)is people of all sorts.

Many of these figures also involve metonymy of subject--the container

for the contents. Usually it is enough to classify it is a metonymy and thenexplain the meaning. That explanation will show that the whole is put for

the part. It is worth noting that synecdoche is also frequently hyperbolic,

or even understatement.

And he shall serve him forever. (Ex. 21:6)

The whole is forever; the intended part is as long as the slave lives.

But again, this may be a lexical matter, or the way it has been translated

that has to be discussed.

d. The Part for the Whole: e.g., sail for ship, canvas for sail (Bullinger, pp. 640-656).

These could also be classified under species for genus, moreover, many of these

are close to metonymy. This is the most common use of synecdoche.

Part of man for the whole man:

Their feet run to evil. (Prov. 1:16)

The part stated is the feet; the intended whole is their entire bodies =

evil people. The point is that heart and soul they are into evil deeds.

The one who lifts up my head. (Ps. 3:4 [3])

For the stated part, head, the meaning is the whole person in dignity.

But to lift up the head may better be explained as either metonymy of

effect or adjunct, i.e., restoration to dignity and honor.

A part of the thing for the whole thing:

Your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. (Gen. 22:17)

The stated part is gate. But the intended whole is the city. As a

synecdoche gate represents brick and mortar--the actual city. If you

think gate means people in the gate, then that is metonymy of subject,

because people and gate are not generically connected.

An integral part of men for others associated:

Before Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh, stir up your might. (Ps. 80:2)

By these parts the psalmist means the northern tribes, southern tribes, and

tribes of Transjordan. In other contexts the patriarchal names could bemetonymies of cause (e.g., Judah gathered against him means either the

descendants of Judah [met. of cause] or the people living in Judah [met. ofsubject]--but not Judah himself. Words like seed and sons of will

receive similar considerations.

13. Merism: the use of two opposite statements to signify the whole; e.g., day and night,

springtime and harvest, hell and high water (Bullinger, p. 435). Note that Bullinger

lists these passages under synecdoche, for merism is a kind of synecdoche. But we

shall use a separate category.

You know when I sit down and when I get up. (Ps. 139:2)


10/14

The ideas of sitting down and rising up are opposites; the intended

whole is all the activities with reference to time--including sitting down

and getting up. It means, You know every move I make--including

these of course. Here the expressed ideas are indeed literal, but more ismeant.

If I ascend to heaven, You are there;If I make my bed in Sheol, You are there. (Ps. 139:8)

Heaven and Sheol are opposites; the intended whole is universal

space and all the situations in it. This line, then, expresses a vertical

merism--everywhere from heaven above to Sheol below.

From the rising of the sin to the place where it sets,

the name of the LORD is to be praised. (Ps. 113:3).

This verse could be interpreted in one of two ways: it could mean

everywhere--from east to west; or, it could mean all the time--from sunrise

to sunset (the place is added by the NIV, the Hebrew simply having its

going in).

14. Hendiadys: Two for One, the expression of one idea through two formally coordinateterms joined by and, instead of a noun and an adjective, or a verb and an adverb.

One component specifies the other (Bullinger, pp. 657-672).

I will greatly multiply your pain and your conception. (Gen. 3:16)

Two nouns are joined with a conjunction, but the next line clarifies it is a

hendiadys: in pain you shall bring forth children. So the single idea is

painful labor in bearing and rearing children (conception would have to

be a synecdoche, a part for the whole process, since there is no pain in

conception).

My soul shall be satisfied with fat and fatness. (Ps. 63:6[5])

The single idea is expressed better by making one of the nouns a modifier:abundant fatness. This is how one tests the category.

But Abel, he also brought from the firstborn of his flock and from the fat of them.

(Gen. 4:4).

I have rendered this very literally so you can see the starting point of the

interpretation. Our interpretation would signify: he also brought the

fattest firstborn of his flock.

Who is like Yahweh our God? He makes high to sit." (Ps. 113:4).

The text has a participle followed by an infinitive; the hendiadys should

be given a smooth reading--He sits on high. The idea of sitting is

anthropomorphic as well, signifying in the idea of sitting enthroned his

dominion over the earth.

15. Euphemism: the substitution of an inoffensive or mild expression for an offensive one

(Bullinger, pp. 684-688).

Then his wife said to him, Do you still hold your integrity? Bless (= curse) God

and die. (Job 2:9)

The text has substituted the word bless because it is more appropriate

with God; but curse is clearly required in the context. Probably most

of the euphemisms have entered the text through scribal activity and were

not part of the original writing. But since they exist, they must be

understood.

16. Apostrophe: a turning aside from the direct subject-matter to address another who may

be present in fact or in imagination (Bullinger, pp. 901-905).

David turns from his prayer in trouble to address those who had brought the troubleupon him: Depart from me, you workers of iniquity. (Ps. 6:9[8]).

Your glory, O Israel, is slain upon your high places . . . . You mountains of

Gilboa . . . (2 Sam. 1: 19-21)

When Israel went forth out of Egypt . . . What ails you, O sea, that you flee? (Ps.

114:1-5)

17. Type: a divinely prefigured illustration of a corresponding reality (called the antitype)

(Bullinger, p. 768). Typology is a form of predictive prophecy, the major difference

being that the passage can only be understood as prophetic once the fulfilling

antitype has come into full view. This topic will be discussed at length in the notes

on the royal psalms.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Ps. 22:2 [1])

The words of the psalm hyperbolically describe the suffering of David, but

become historically true in Jesus. Several of the verses from this psalmare used in the New Testament to describe the sufferings of Jesus.

18. Symbol: a material object substituted for a moral or spiritual truth, a visible sign of

something invisible. The visible sign stands as a constant resemblance to some

spiritual truth.

I will appoint you . . . a light to the nations. (Isa. 42:6)


11/14

Light becomes a symbol for spiritual and moral instruction (contrast

darkness in the next verse). Actually, this symbol originated as a figure

of comparison.

19. Irony: the expression of thought in a form that conveys its opposite (from eironeia =

dissimulation). The words meaning is reversed by juxtaposing it into a semantic

field of thought inappropriate to the speaker and/or subject. By this casting of theword into an obviously inappropriate context the writer stimulates a mental response(Bullinger, pp. 807-815).

In Greek comedy the character called the eiron was a dissembler who

characteristically spoke in understatement and deliberately pretended to be less

intelligent than he was, yet triumphed over the alazon--the self-deceiving and stupid

braggart. In most of the diverse critical uses of the term irony there remains the

root sense of dissimulation, or of a difference between what is asserted and what is

actually the case (Abrams,A Glossary of Literary Terms).

Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted? (Dt. 32:32)

The word rock (a hypocatastasis indicating strength and stability) isused here with the opposite intention. Their gods lack stability and are not

dependable.

Cry louder, for he is a god. (1 Kings 18:27)

Obviously Elijah did not believe that Baal was a god, for if he was a god

they would not have had to cry louder. The point of the irony is that they

should recognize that he is no god, and stop crying out to him. The whole

line is also an example of mockery (see below).

20. Chleuasmos: Mocking, an expression of feeling by mocking and jeering (Bullinger, p.

942).

He who sits in the heavens laughs,The LORD holds them in derision. (Ps. 2:4)

In addition to forming chleuasmos, this line is boldly anthropomorphic,

both in the expression of sitting and of laughing/mocking. The linemeans that God considers their futile plan utterly ridiculous.

21. Maledictio: Imprecation, an expression of feeling by way of a malediction or

execration (Bullinger, p. 940). See the discussion of the imprecations in the notes

on lament psalms and prayers.

When he shall be judged, let him be condemned,

and let his prayer become sin;

Let his days be few,and let another take his office;

Let his children be fatherless,

and his wife a widow; (Ps. 109:7f)

The psalmist is filled with zeal for Gods program, and so prays for divinejudgment on those who oppose it. The judgment should take the form of

graphic curses; but curses are only effectual if they are God's will.

III. Figures Involving Addition or Amplification

22. Parallelism: Parallel Lines, the correspondence of one verse or line with another (for

full discussion see the introductions to the Psalms). Be careful in using Bullinger

because he discusses these differently (pp. 349-362). We would follow the

classifications given in Andersons commentary of the Psalms.

23. Repetition: the repetition of the same word or words in the passage. This phenomenon

has many variations; and the expositor must state the type and purpose of repetition

(see Bullinger, pp. 189-263, which a rather extended section).

Whom shall he teach knowledge . . . for it is precept upon precept, precept

upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little . . . . (Isa.28:10)

My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? (Ps. 22:2[1])

The intense pathos of the verse is enhanced by the repetition beyond what

one expression would convey. Note also the irony--my God should not be

forsaking me.

24. Paronomasia: the repetition of words similar in sound and frequently in sense or origin

as well (Bullinger, pp. 307-320). If the words are etymologically connected, then it

is a paronomasia in the classical sense; if the words are not so related, then it is a

loose paronomasia, or, phonetic word play. You really need to work withHebrew to notice this figure.

Now the earth was waste and void. (Gen. 1:2)

The two words are tohu wabohu, a phonetic word play. They sound like

they might be related, but they are from different words. The catch-phraseassists the memory and organizes the chapter.

Therefore, the name of it was calledBabel, because there the

LORD confused (balal, i.e., turned into a babble) their language (Gen. 11:9).

The nameBabelis not etymologically related to the Hebrew verb balal,

to confuse--they are different languages. Bab-ili is a Babylonian word


12/14

that means gate of God; but the verb in Hebrew captures the sounds of

the name and makes a comment about it in the context.

God has taken away (asaph) my reproach; and she called his name Joseph(yoseph), saying, May Yahweh add (yoseph) to me another son. (Gen. 30:23, 24)

The paronomasiayoseph is a true one, being both etymologicallyconnected (fromyasaph) and morphologically identical--bothare hiphiljussives meaning may he add. But the paronomasia

with asaph is merely a phonetic wordplay, in spite of attempts by some

scholars to trace the root of Joseph to asaph.

25. Acrostic: repetition of the same or successive letters at the beginnings of words or

clauses (Bullinger, pp. 180-188).

Psalm 119 is the passage with which most people are familiar; each line of each

section begins with the sequential letters of the alphabet. In Psalm 34, each verse is

begun with a letter of the alphabet in sequence, omitting thewaw and ending with

verse 21. Verse 22, beginning with ape, is outside the series and probably

stressed. See also the Book of Lamentation; each chapter has 22 verses for thesequence of the alphabet, but the third chapter triples each letters use. Acrostics

served mnemonic purposes as well as rhetorical ones.

26. Inclusio: the rhetorical figure in which a literary unit begins and ends with the same (orsimilar) word, phrase, or clause. This repetition serves as a framing device, iterating

the theme of the section. It usually appears with chiastic constructions.

O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth! (Ps. 8:2[l] and

10[9])

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me and

. . . You are my God. (Ps. 22:2[l] and 11[10])

27. Hyperbole: the use of exaggerated terms for the purpose of emphasis or heightenedeffect; more is said than is literally meant (Bullinger, pp. 423-428).

The cities are great, and walled up to heaven. (Deut. 1:28)

The intent of the statement is that the cities are very high, formidable and

awesome.

I am worn out from groaning;

all light long I make my bed swim with weeping

and drench my couch with tears. (Ps. 6:6).

Flooding and drenching the bed with tears is probably not literally true.

But it certainly does signify a night of intense pain and uncontrollableweeping.

IV. Figures Involving Omission or Suppression

28. Ellipsis: Omission, the omission of a word or words in a sentence (Bullinger, pp.

3-113).When you shall make ready [ ] upon your strings. (Ps. 21:13[12])

Your arrows is not in the text; it must be supplied from the context.

Sometimes words are left out because they are unnecessary to the context;

other times they are left out for emphasis, such as in the next sample.

there is in my heart [ ] like a burning fire (Jer. 20:9b).

The NIV supplies the omitted subject: your word is in my heart. The

context shows that this is the correct and most important subject.

29. Aposiopesis: Sudden Silence, the breaking off of what is being said, with suddensilence (in anger, in grief, in deprecation, in promise) (Bullinger, pp. 151-154).

My soul is greatly troubled; but You, O LORD, how long--? (Ps. 6:3)

The sentence is not complete because of the intense emotion involved.

The psalmist simply breaks off the sentence and leaves it all in the care of

the LORD. Another good example is Isaiah 1:13 which expresses how

fed up the LORD is with Israels hypocritical worship--although the

NIV smooths it out quite a bit.

32. Erotesis: also called Rhetorical Question, Interrogating, the asking of questions

without expecting an answer (to express affi rmation, demonstration, wonder,

exultation, wishes, denials, doubts, admonitions, expostulation, prohibitions, pity,

disparagements, reproaches, lamentation, indignation, absurdities--you must decidewhich of these is the point [see samples in Bullinger]). By using the figure one

seeks to persuade an audience to adopt a point of view. The response desired mustbe guessed at and validated from the composition (Bullinger, pp. 943-956).

Is anything too hard for the LORD? (Gen. 18:14)

The point of the question is that nothing is too hard (literally

marvelous, wonderful, surpassing). The question form is used to force

Abraham and Sarah to realize the point.

Who can find a virtuous woman? (Prov. 31:10)


13/14

The intention is to evoke a feeling of desire for something so rare; it is not

a literal question to be answered. Virtuous in the line is a little

misleading for Hebrew khayil, unless we think in terms of virtuoso.

Why do the nations rage? (Ps. 2:1)

The psalmist is expressing amazement, possibly indignation, that thenations would rebel against the LORD.

33. Meiosis: a be-littleing of one thing to magnify another (also called litotes) (Bullinger,

pp. 155-158).

And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers,

and so were we in their sight. (Num. 13:33)

Note that this is also a simile, comparing people to grasshoppers. The be-

littleing is meant to enlarge the size and strength of the enemy.

34. Tapeinosis: a lessening of a thing in order to increase it (Bullinger, pp. 159-164).

A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Ps. 51:19 [17])

We would have expected you will joyfully receive. But anunderstatement is used to express two ideas: one idea is that God will

receive and take pleasure in a broken heart--that is the intended meaning;

the other is that if one does not have a broken heart God will despise. Of

course, broken and heart are figures as well (hypocatastasis and

metonymy respectively).

Summary and Illustration

There are several of the above figures of speech that can be easily confused at first

glance. The broader classification of the figures into four groups has proven helpful, for onemay ask if the writer is comparing, substituting, adding, or omitting in the sentence.

The figures of comparison that appear most often are simile, metaphor,

hypocatastasis (or implied metaphor), anthropomorphism and zoomorphism. Theseessentially do the same thing, i.e., make a comparison; but they do it differently. If we were to

diagram how they work, we would have to represent the comparison of one genus and another.

GENUS GENUS

LORD shield

The properties of one semantic field are transferred to another, forming acomparison, either stated or implied. Many times the context will restrict or qualify the

metaphorical language, limiting the range of the comparison or transference. The task of theexegete is to determine the point of the comparison. One way to do this is to write a new

GENUS that would embrace both words, thus making them each species. The abovemetaphor would be diagramed as follows:

PROTECTION

(posited genus)

LORD = shield

The figures of substitution that demand attention are primarily the synecdoche and

the metonymy. The figure of synecdoche may be diagramed fairly easily because it involves

the relationship of a GENUS (or WHOLE) and SPECIES (or PART).

GENUS > e.g., military weapons/

peaceful implements

SPECIES < e.g., swords/ploughshares

So if the figure is synecdoche, one must think in terms of substitution in the

direction of the genus or larger group to which the figure belongs, or the direction of the

species (or part) intended by the mention of the genus.

One of the most common figures used in the psalms is the metonymy. This is also a

figure of substitution, but whereas the synecdoche is actually a part for the whole or the whole

for the part, the metonymy is more loosely connected to the thing meant--but it is connected,

and this is where it differs from the figures of comparison. With metonymy there is contiguity

between the figure and the topic. In the following diagrams I have tried to illustrate the four

basic types (actually two types with reverse directions). The sample figure is boxed.

CAUSE EFFECT

Moses > the Law Moses wrote

They have Moses is not to be taken literally. They have the Scriptures that Moses wrote.

Thus, the cause (author) is stated, but the effect is meant. Between an author and his literature

there is a real connection, but not in the sense of a synecdoche.

CAUSE EFFECT

the rock Moses hit < fountain


14/14

You split the fountain substitutes the word fountain for the rock that Moses struck, out of

which came the fountain of water when he did it. There is a real connection between the

figure (fountain) and what is meant (rock) by it.

SUBJECT ADJUNCT

grave > the dead person in itThe grave cannot praise you substitutes the container for that which is contained in it (and

so my diagram is designed to show the subject encompasses the reality meant). There is a

connection between grave and dead; but not a comparison. Grave as a synecdoche

would represent dirt, or the earth, or Sheol.

SUBJECT ADJUNCT

long hair signifying vow < separation

The separation is on his head substitutes a descriptive term for what is meant, the long hair

of the vow. The full statement would say that the long hair which represents his separation tothe LORD is on his head.

In actual practice it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between these major types,

but the more that one works with them the easier they come. Of course, there will be timeswhen different interpretations are possible, depending on how the passage is viewed. The

Lords Supper illustrates this, for a Roman Catholic position would take Jesus words This is

my blood literally (yet with qualifications), a Lutheran metonymically, and a Baptist

metaphorically.

The Figures of Speech

Documents

Transcript of The Figures of Speech