Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 used simply 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 a
basic 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 Bullinger’s 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 Augustine’s concept of multiple senses of
Scripture, whereby both words and the things they signify point to spiritual or
allegorical meanings. 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 the original 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 the
grammarians 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).
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 God’s
chosen formulations of the revelation which must be understood correctly, in
themselves, and not as a means to a higher, allegorical vision. Calvin’s 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 the physical 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 of understanding
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 were chosen by God for His revelation of himself to people.
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 and emotional 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
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 way the 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 the imagination. 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.
complexity, pain.
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 a link to the preceding strophe in which he described
God’s presence in such remote areas (see Ps. 139:7-12).
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 (from para = beside, and ballein = to cast) of two
things of unlike 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 guessed at and validated by other indications in the
literature (see Bullinger, pp. 751-753).
“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 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 people assemble]); an extended metaphor (see Bullinger, pp. 748-750).
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):
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 Latin persona: actor's mask, person +
facio = to make; the making or feigning of a person); the investiment of non-
human subjects (e.g., abstractions, inanimate objects, or animals) with human
qualities or abilities. With all the figures discussed thus far, this figure also
belongs to the sub-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 voice of your brother’s blood cries to me from the ground.” (Gen. 4:6)
“Your rod and your staff, they comfort me.” (Ps. 23:4)
“His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the sons of men.” (Ps. 11:4)
But note this: Many authors distinguish this figure from the description of
God’s 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 God’s passions are literal (see Bullinger includes it on pp. 882,
883).
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
comparison idea comes through clearly in an analysis of the usage of
masal. Psalm 49, a wisdom psalm, uses the verb in the repeated
expression that the worldly man “is like” the beast that perishes.
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 days and 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 easily activated 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.
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 “change”
and 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 is
meant. 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.
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 a hypocatastasis. 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 the subject, 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.
The verse means that everyone spoke the same language. “Lip” is the
cause, the instrument--so the expositor must state the effect,
“language.”
Examples where the thing or the action is put for the effect:
“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
God’s loyal love brings are intended. In most cases the attributes of
God will be metonymies of cause, because the communication of those
attributes is meant (hence: communicable attributes).
Example where the person acting, the agent or actor, is put for the effect:
What is meant is that they have the Scriptures that Moses and the
Prophets wrote. 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 and the 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])
Example where the effect is put for the material object from which it is
produced:
He split the rock in two, and water came out. The use of metonymies
here is 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 is literally expressed.
Example where the effect is put for the instrument or organic cause:
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
mean “show me yourself” [ = LXX], the real you).
Example where the effect is put for the person or agent producing it:
“But you, O LORD, be not far off;
The stated effect is help, what the psalmist will receive. The intended
cause 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).
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.
Examples where the thing or action is put for that which is connected with it
(the adjunct):
“You are near in their mouth (i.e., words [met. of cause]) but far from their
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 as metonymy of subject, and then interpret the corresponding
adjunct--will, desire, thoughts, etc.
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.
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 subject because it signifies far more than (literally) retaining a
scepter.
“Then shall you bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave.” (Gen.
42:38)
Example where the time is put for the thing done in it:
“For the shouting for your summer” (Isa. 16:9)
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
time of the harvest, is an adjunct idea (something descriptive
connected to the idea).
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:
“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 “ask anything in my name.”
12. Synecdoche: the exchange of one idea for another connected idea. In this
figure one word receives something from another which is 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 earth” as a metonymy of subject 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
part of 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)
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).
“I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me.” (Ps. 44:7 [6])
The meaning then is broader than the stated figures--but includes them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
By these parts the psalmist means the northern tribes, southern tribes,
and tribes of Transjordan. In other contexts the patriarchal names
could be metonymies of cause (e.g., “Judah gathered against him”
means either the descendants of Judah [met. of cause] or the people
living in Judah [met. of subject]--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)
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 is meant.
space and all the situations in it. This line, then, expresses a vertical
merism--everywhere from heaven above to Sheol below.
14. Hendiadys: Two for One, the expression of one idea through two formally
coordinate terms 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])
“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
“Then his wife said to him, Do you still hold your integrity? Bless (= curse)
God and die.” (Job 2:9)
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
trouble upon 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])
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.
19. Irony: the expression of thought in a form that conveys its opposite (from
eironeia = dissimulation). The word’s meaning is reversed by juxtaposing it
into a semantic field of thought inappropriate to the speaker and/or subject.
By this casting of the word 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)
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).
The psalmist is filled with zeal for God’s program, and so prays for
divine judgment 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.
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 Anderson’s 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).
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])
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 with Hebrew to notice this figure.
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-phrase assists the memory and organizes the chapter.
“Therefore, the name of it was called Babel, because there the LORD
confused (balal, i.e., turned into a babble) their language” (Gen. 11:9).
“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)
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 the waw
and ending with verse 21. Verse 22, beginning with a pe’, is outside the series
and probably stressed. See also the Book of Lamentation; each chapter
has 22 verses for the sequence of the alphabet, but the third chapter triples
each letter’s 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 (or similar) 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])
27. Hyperbole: the use of exaggerated terms for the purpose of emphasis or
heightened effect; more is said than is literally meant (Bullinger, pp. 423-428).
The intent of the statement is that the cities are very high, formidable
and awesome.
“I am worn out from groaning;
Flooding and drenching the bed with tears is probably not literally
true. But it certainly does signify a night of intense pain and
uncontrollable weeping.
“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.
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
sudden silence (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)
33. Meiosis: a be-littleing of one thing to magnify another (also called litotes)
(Bullinger, pp. 155-158).
“A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” (Ps. 51:19 [17])
The figures of comparison that appear most often are simile, metaphor,
hypocatastasis (or implied metaphor), anthropomorphism and zoomorphism. These
essentially 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
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
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
“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
SUBJECT ADJUNCT
“The 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
“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 to the LORD is on his head.