• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Understanding Literary Devices in the Bible

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Synecdoche is figure of speech in which a PART of something is used to signify the WHOLE (or vice-versa). In fact, it’s derived from the Greek word synekdoche: “simultaneous meaning.” As a literary device, synecdoche allows for a smaller component of something to stand in for the larger whole, in a rhetorical manner.

Synecdoche can work in the opposite direction as well, in which the larger whole stands in for a smaller component of something. Synecdoche is a helpful device for writers to express a word or idea in a different way by using an aspect of that word or idea. This allows for variation of expression and produces an effect for the reader.

In the Bible there are thousands of literary devices (hyperbole, metaphor, et al) used.

Jeremiah 26:9b (ESV) And all the people gathered around Jeremiah in the house of the LORD.
[Not “everyone” did, as is clear from the context, but a large number did. The Synecdoche adds a powerful punch to the verse, as we come face-to-face with the large number of people who rejected God, and Jeremiah His prophet.]

Matthew 3:5 (ESV) Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to John the Baptist
[Not “all” the people were going, but a large number were. The Synecdoche gives us a feel for the large numbers of people that responded to John the Baptist.]

Acts 10:12 (YLT) in which [in the sheet let down from heaven for Peter to see] were all the four-footed beasts of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the heaven
[Not every single animal, bird, and insect was in the sheet, but the majority of the kinds of animals were represented. The Synecdoche helps us understand why Peter was recoiled instinctively from all these creatures and said, “Surely not, Lord!” Even the average American, who has no problem eating some of the creatures in the sheet, would have recoiled at the sight.]

James 2:15a (KJV) If a brother or sister be naked…
[“Naked” is put by Synecdoche for “scantily clothed.” This is a common Synecdoche in the Bible]

Psalm 1:1a (ESV) Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked…
[In this verse, and hundreds of others in the Bible, the specific word, “man,” which is put for the whole of “mankind,” both men and women. In the culture of the Bible, women were understood to be included. In biblical times this was not considered an affront to women, although it often is today.]

Psalm 44:6a (NASB) For I will not trust in my bow…
[“Bow” is put by Synecdoche for all weapons. The point is David will not trust his weapons, he will trust Yahweh, his God. God’s use of the Synecdoche packs an important punch. If the verse had said, “I will not trust in my human resources, such as weapons,” we are left with no clear picture in our minds. However, by saying “bow,” we can all picture David holding a bow but not trusting it to deliver him.]

Genesis 3:19a (ESV) By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground…
[“Bread” is put for all the foods man will eat. Bread was such a staple in biblical times that “bread” is used as the general term for food dozens of times in the Bible, and the phrase, “break bread” meant much more than that, it meant to eat a meal.]

Ephesians 6:12a (ESV) For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood…
[In this case, “flesh and blood” means “people.” The verse could have been written in a simple literal way, using “people” instead of “flesh and blood,” but the use of the Synecdoche more powerfully contrasts people with demons, who are not flesh and blood.]
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
It is very common to refer to a thing by the name of its parts. Let us look at some of the examples of synecdoche that we can hear from casual conversations:

  • The word “bread” refers to food or money as in “Writing is my bread and butter” or “sole breadwinner”.

  • The phrase “gray beard” refers to an old man.

  • The word “sails” refers to a whole ship.

  • The word “suits” refers to businessmen.

  • The word “boots” usually refers to soldiers.

  • The term “coke” is a common synecdoche for all carbonated drinks.

  • “Washington” or "White House" are synecdoche's when they refer to a few decision makers.

  • The word “glasses” refers to spectacles.

  • “Coppers” often refers to coins.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
In THEOLOGY we find more words that actually use a PART to describe or stand for the WHOLE much greater concept:

BLOOD is a part of the greater concept of life and death. It is an integral part of salvation, but only a part. We are saved by the death of Christ, and only a certain type of death (not stoned, but crucified). We are saved by the sinless life as a sacrifice.

BELIEVE is a part of salvation, but no one would say just "believe" and you'll go to heaven. Demons "believe" and won't be there!

WORLD/ALL MANKIND is representative of all types of people without distinction, but not everyone without exception.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Trust this simple lesson in the use of a word - a small component - to describe the much larger concept will help in other discussions presently in Bible Theology.
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
All that you have TRIED to show is that Jesus Christ did not need to have shed any blood literally to make Atonement. This is totally UNBIBLICAL
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
All that you have TRIED to show is that Jesus Christ did not need to have shed any blood literally to make Atonement. This is totally UNBIBLICAL
Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in His image.

I'm pretty sure this is talking about killing somebody, not just cutting them....if that's what you mean.
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in His image.

I'm pretty sure this is talking about killing somebody, not just cutting them....if that's what you mean.

Dr Bob is trying to show that the Bible does not teach that Jesus Christ had literally shed His blood to make Atonement.

This thread is a response to my own thread on John Macarthur
 

37818

Well-Known Member
BELIEVE is a part of salvation, but no one would say just "believe" and you'll go to heaven. Demons "believe" and won't be there!
It is in whom is believed and how one believes. John 1:12-13, it is God who solely does the saving.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
I'm trying to show that understanding simple language devices (in Greek, Hebrew or English) would end stupid discussions.

The "blood" is part of the equation, but our atonement involves far more than that one part. Just like salvation is far more than just believing (but that is one part)

Sadly, missed by those without simple grasp of language
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to show that understanding simple language devices (in Greek, Hebrew or English) would end stupid discussions.

The "blood" is part of the equation, but our atonement involves far more than that one part. Just like salvation is far more than just believing (but that is one part)

Sadly, missed by those without simple grasp of language

I fully understand Hebrew Greek Latin and English grammar. So no problem with grasping anything.

It is those like you who are denying the Bibles teaching that ONLY the shed Blood of Jesus Christ can Atone for our sins.

It is you who cannot grasp this because of your theology
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Dr Bob is trying to show that the Bible does not teach that Jesus Christ had literally shed His blood to make Atonement.

This thread is a response to my own thread on John Macarthur
I'm not familiar with the John MacArthur thing. I'll have to check out the thread. But yea, Christ's blood was literally shed for us, He literally suffered, literally died, and was literally raised on the 3rd day.

I'm bowing out of this thread. There seems to me more going on than I care to know.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Did Jesus make King Herod into an animal? Did Herod grow a tail and ears and whiskers?

Luke 13:31-32 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
And Jesus replied to them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons, and I do cures today and tomorrow . . .

Of course not. A childlike understanding of literary devices in language shows what is meant. If a person DOESN'T want to believe literary devices, they will only show themselves of sub-par understanding.
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
I'm not familiar with the John MacArthur thing. I'll have to check out the thread. But yea, Christ's blood was literally shed for us, He literally suffered, literally died, and was literally raised on the 3rd day.

I'm bowing out of this thread. There seems to me more going on than I care to know.

This is what MacArthur says in the video clip

do you think that He (Jesus) had to bleed, no, not to save us"

Is this even Biblical?
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Did Jesus make King Herod into an animal? Did Herod grow a tail and ears and whiskers?

Luke 13:31-32 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
And Jesus replied to them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons, and I do cures today and tomorrow . . .

Of course not. A childlike understanding of literary devices in language shows what is meant. If a person DOESN'T want to believe literary devices, they will only show themselves of sub-par understanding.

Obviously you can't grasp this yet
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
This is what MacArthur says in the video clip

do you think that He (Jesus) had to bleed, no, not to save us"

Is this even Biblical?
I would have to know the context. Scripture uses "blood" to mean "life" (as in Christ's words in the upper room). If he means that Christ did not have to die in the manner He died then I do see it as a serious error.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
All that you have TRIED to show is that Jesus Christ did not need to have shed any blood literally to make Atonement. This is totally UNBIBLICAL
If there were ever a poster child for keeping the Scriptures in Latin, you are it.

That is NOT what he said at all.

You don't think the Roman soldiers got blood on them at the crucifixion? Did it save them?
 

Andrew69

New Member
An interesting discussion. My thoughts... If the shedding of Christ's blood was the only requirement for our Atonement, it would have been completed at his circumcision. Surely it's the shedding of blood in death that is the vital point.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
 
Top