It is not pleasant but a duty to question and even condemn a few of the author's positions. There is always a danger of exaggeration when a point is made of style (and indeed of other things less weighty), and an unconscious effort to justify a new work by multiplying technical manner and distinctions. It is true that Mr. N. spares his readers J. Holmes' 252 figures! and Mr. G. W. Harvey's systematic discussion, giving them a quantity of chatty remarks. But it is too much to say that no branch of Bible study is more important, and none so utterly neglected. Figures belong to rhetoric for the most part rather than to grammar, but far more generally common sense; for Christians a spiritual mind is the best guide. The general outline is set out in any ordinarily full grammar. For scripture, Glassius' Phil. Sacra is well known, whence Keach drew largely for English readers; also W. Jones, J. Brown, T. Home, and others. Dr. Alex. Carson in our day wrote still more ably and with less prolixity; as also Drs. T. Leland, Blair, Campbell, Lord Kames, and many more since Quintilian.
No doubt the author meant a short, cheap popular treatment. But he greatly over-estimates the value of knowing eastern habits. The true wonder of the Bible is its superiority to age, clime, or race in the main; and there is a real danger, especially in our day, of losing the kernel in excessive attention to the husk of local and temporal surroundings, and the like. Even we, English, talk figures incalculably more than most perceive; and though it might furnish matter for ingenious lectures and interesting papers to analyze this character of every day intercourse, it would be little better than pastime and might readily turn away the mind from the really important. Origen was a greater scholar than any man who ever wrote on figures of speech, and could scientifically explain the simile, metaphor, and every other figure beyond most; yet he fell a victim to a glaring misconception of our Lord's words in Matt. 19:1212For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12), and wasted a life of study in windy allegories. It was assuredly no lack of learning that exposed him so greatly to misapply the third case, nor lack of zeal to act at all cost on the supposed meaning.
Now the temptation to which Mr. N. has yielded is not anything corporeal as befell the Alexandrian divine, but divorcing scripture from its spirit. He must be singularly preoccupied to set the ascension of Christ to heaven, and His having a risen body, against the reality of His presence in the midst of those gathered to His name The presence of the Holy Spirit sent here below is an absolute truth; that of Christ, whatever the mode which we pretend not to define, is contingent on gathering to His name collectively, and on obedience individually (Matt. 18, John 14). To confound truths so distinct is to lose one of them, perhaps both.
So his treatment of Hendiadys is precarious. “Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory” is an ecclesiastical gloss, and not scripture. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” he emasculates into “the true and living way.” Nor does Peter mean apostolic ministry in Acts 1:2525That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. (Acts 1:25), but service generally and apostleship in particular; hence he speaks of himself as an “elder” as well as “apostle.” So Paul's “hope and resurrection” is curtailed into “the hope of the resurrection,” though it signifies far more. Nor does “kingdom and glory” import “glorious kingdom,” any more than “life and incorruptibility” “incorruptible life.” And “a kingdom and priests,” is debased to “a great priestly kingdom,” which is refuted by Rev. 1:5; 20:65And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (Revelation 1:5)
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20:6). Still more serious is the misapplication of John 3:5; 4:245Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24).
But passing over lesser matters, John 3:1313And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13) is an instance of the daring to which the hobby exposes the author. It is of the essence of the truth of Christ's person that “ὁ ῶν here as in John 1:1818No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) means “who is,” not “who was;” and so the Revised no less than the Authorized Version. So even Winer and other Germans, poor as they are, and all men taught of God. It is true that the present participle, combined with a past tense or qualified by an adverb of time, may have an imperfect force, as in i. 29, v.13, &c. But here nothing enters to weaken its simple, special, and emphatic force. The words are only difficult to unbelief. The late Dean Alford was bold enough in free thought; yet he expressly affirms that in both texts the present participle is used to signify essential truth without any particular regard to time. The figurative truth here as elsewhere; and here it is fundamental. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. To read this “Who was” may be natural perhaps, but is certainly neither spiritual nor accurate, but downright, though of course ignorant, perversion from an inveterate hunt after figurative language.
Just before, the beautiful truth of Luke 2:1414Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2:14) is lost through similar vagueness. It is not “toward man, goodwill,” but “goodwill (or rather good pleasure) in men,” as evinced by the incarnation of the Son of God. It would appear that it is borrowed from the American Mac Beth, who published not many years ago a treatise on Figurative Language. But this should have given the author time to weigh. Again, what can be feebler or more nugatory than the remarks on Acts 15, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us”? How does it help the reader's better understanding to remark that “the words doubtless are a strong form of the figure of Omission” etc..? I should have thought that no reverent mind could have lowered it to “us [as a church and people acting under His influence and teaching to whom He has revealed it],” but must recall the sense they had of the Spirit's action, as well as the weight of the apostles present, however they might associate not only the elders but the assembly with the decision to which the words, of the prophets had given an inspired basis.
The rest of the work calls for no notice in particular, save the illusion of counting what is really trivial and often erroneous to be a “vast and important subject.” No intelligent reader will be surprised to see misapprehension of prophecy here, and so inadequate a notion as “a princely people!” in Dan. 9:2626And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (Daniel 9:26), in the Romans, as almost all admit. He is just as far from the truth as the writer who makes “a coming prince” to be Antichrist. It is really the chief of the Roman empire in its last form (not the willful king, the Antichrist that reigns in Jerusalem over the land, Dan. 11:36-3936And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. 37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 39Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. (Daniel 11:36‑39)), who confirms covenant for a week, or seven years, with the many or mass of apostate Jews. These are the personages symbolically presented in Rev. 13 as the two beasts rising out of the sea and out of the earth, the beast and the false prophet of Rev. 19. The close of Dan. 11 shows us the king of the north, the Assyrian of many prophets, whose course is antagonistic to both the Latin Beast and the Jewish Antichrist; but he too, as we see in Dan. 11:40-4540And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. 44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. (Daniel 11:40‑45), shall come to his end, and none shall help him.