THE
SONG OF SONGS:
Translated from the Original Hebrew,
WITH A
COMMENTARY, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL.
BY
CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG.
שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי
אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת־יְהוָה הִיא תִתְהַלָּל:—Prov. xxxi. 30.
LONDON:
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, LONGMANS, AND ROBERTS.
1857.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Preface vii.
Introduction:
Section I.—Title of the Book, and its Signification 1
Section II.—Canonicity of the Book 2
Section III.—Design and Method of the Book 4
Section IV.—Importance of the Book 12
Section V.—Historical Sketch of the Exegesis of the Book 20
Section VI.—The different Views classified and examined 102
Section VII.—Author, Date, and Form of the Book 124
Section VIII.—Exegetical Helps 126
Commentary 127
PREFACE.
The following is an exposition of the first of the five books called
Megiloth, all of which, having engaged the attention of the Author for
several years, will now, God willing, be brought before the Public in
regular succession. The Author’s aim has been to investigate and
elucidate the true meaning of the original, in accordance with the
established laws of historico-grammatical exegesis, and to show that,
in its literal sense, the Song of Songs teaches a great moral lesson,
worthy of Divine inspiration.
The resemblance, however, between the narrative here recorded and the
experience of the people of God is striking and apposite. The
Shulamite, espoused to her shepherd, is tempted by a mighty potentate
with riches and pleasures to transfer her affections; but, strengthened
by the power of divine love, she resists all temptation, remains
faithful to her beloved, and is ultimately rewarded. The people of God,
espoused to “the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls,” are tempted by
the prince of this world to forsake their Lord, but, strengthened by
grace divine, they resist all allurements, and eventually receive the
crown of glory.
The references to Genesius’ and Ewald’s Grammars are to the last
editions, which differ in the numbering of the sections from the
earlier ones; Fürst’s valuable Lexicon, to which frequent reference is
made, is not yet completed.
The author tenders his hearty thanks to his esteemed friend, the Rev.
Isaac Salkinson of Hamburg; to the Rev. J. M. Charlton, A.M.; the Rev.
R. Robinson, of York-road; the Rev. G. Rogers, of Albany-road; and to
Nathaniel Bridges, Esq., A.M., for perusing the MS. and proofs, and for
kind suggestions. Thanks are also due to those gentlemen in London and
Oxford, who have facilitated the author’s access to MSS. and other rare
works in the British Museum and the Bodleian Library.
May the Divine Spirit, whose words the Author has attempted to
elucidate, render the attempt profitable to the readers!
London: 16, Barkham Terrace, St. George’s,
May, 1857.
INTRODUCTION.
SECTION I.—TITLE OF THE BOOK, AND ITS SIGNIFICATION.
This book is called שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִיﬦ, which is literally translated by the
Septuagint, ᾄσμα ᾀσμάτων, by the Vulgate, Canticum Canticorum, and by
the English Version, Song of Songs; and, according to a Hebrew mode for
expressing the superlative degree by repeating the same noun in the
genitive, denotes the finest, the most beautiful, or the most excellent
Song. Compare עֶבֶד עֲבַדִים, servant of servants, i.e. most abject
servant (Gen. ix. 25); קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים, holy of holies, i.e. most holy
(Exod. xxix. 37; Numb. iii. 32; Deut. x. 14; Eccl. i. 2; Hos. x. 15;
Jer. vi. 28; Gesenius, Grammar, § 119, 2; Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 313, c).
Medrash Yalkut renders it שִׁיר הַמְּשׁוּבַּח וְהַמְּעוּלֶה בַּשִּׁירִים, a song more
celebrated and sublime than all songs; as Rashi, Ibn Ezra Rashbam,
Luther, and many others. The opinion of Kleuker, &c., that this
interpretation of the Rabbins is more owing to their preconceived
notion of the sublime contents of the book than to the real meaning of
these words, is refuted by Rashbam himself, who, having explained this
phrase by “most excellent song,” refers not to the contents of the book
for its corroboration, but adduces similar constructions of the
superlative from other passages of the Bible, viz., אֶלֹהַי הַאֱלֹהִים, and
אֲדוֹנֵי הַאֲדוֹנִים (Deut. x. 17). Other explanations, such as a song of
songs, i.e. a song from the songs of Solomon (Kimchi), or a collection
of songs (Kleuker), or a chain of songs, or string of strings,
comparing שִׁירֹ with the Chaldee שֵׁיר, שׁוּרָה, Greek σειρὰ, chain
(Velthusen, Paulus, Good, &c.), are contrary to the Hebrew usage of the
word שִׁיר, and the construction of שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים. More recent
commentators, and even those who regard this book as a collection of
separate songs (as, for instance, Döpke, Magnus, Noyes, &c.) admit that
the Rabbinical interpretation of this title is the only admissible one.
The ל prefixed to שְׁלֹמֹה, is the so-called Lamed auctoris, used in
the inscriptions of Psalms and other Hebrew poems to designate the
author. Comp. Ps. iii. 1; iv. 1, &c. The addition of אֲשֶׁר here, which
is not found in the other inscriptions, is owing to the article in שִׁיר
הַשִּׁירִים, which generally, though not always, is followed by this
pronoun; comp. Gen. xxix. 9; xl. 5; xlvii. 4; 1 Kings iv. 2; Gesen. §
115, 1; Ewald, 292 a. The rendering therefore of אֲשֶׁר לִשְׁלֹמֹה by
respecting Solomon, is contrary to usage, and is rightly rejected by
modern grammarians and lexicographers.
This Song is the first of the (הָמֵשׁ מְגִילוֹת) five Megiloth, or books
which are annually read in the Synagogues; viz. The Song of Songs on
the Feast of the Passover; Ruth on Pentecost; Lamentations on the Ninth
of Ab; Ecclesiastes on Tabernacles; and Esther on Purim. The present
arrangement of these five books in the Hebrew canon is according to the
order of the festivals on which they are read.
SECTION II.—CANONICITY OF THE BOOK.
This book possesses all the external marks which entitle other writings
to a place in the list of the sacred books. The evidence for its
canonicity is as conclusive as that which is commonly adduced to prove
the canonicity of any other portion of the Old Testament. In the Mishna
Yadim (sect. iii. 5), we find the following testimony respecting it
from R. Akiba, one of the most celebrated Rabbins, who lived at the end
of the first century, and was president of the academy of Bani-Brac: No
Israelite has ever disputed the canonicity of the Song of Songs. No day
in the whole history of the world is of so much worth as the one in
which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are
holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Another Rabbi (Simeon b.
Azzai), in the same place, says, I received it from the mouth of the
seventy-two elders, at the time when R. Eliezer b. Azzaria was
appointed Elder, that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes are canonical.
[1] We have here positive evidence that this book existed in the canon
in the Apostolic age; and that it was comprised in the sacred books,
which our Lord calls τὰς γραφὰς, the Scriptures, Matt. xxii. 29. It
has, therefore, been transmitted to us both by the Jewish and Christian
churches as canonical. It was translated into Greek, between the years
90 and 130, by Aquila, who was anxious to furnish his Jewish brethren
with a faithful version of the sacred books; and also by Symmachus and
Theodotion, before the end of the second century. It is contained in
the catalogue given in the Talmud; [2] and in the catalogue of Melito,
Bishop of Sardis (fl. 170, A.D.), which he brought from Palestine,
whither this learned and pious prelate expressly travelled to obtain
information respecting the number of the sacred books. [3] Those who in
modern days have questioned the canonicity of this book have done so,
not from external evidence, but from misapprehension of its design.
SECTION III.—DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE BOOK.
We have no sympathy with those who affirm that the Old Testament
Scriptures contain all the national writings which were esteemed
valuable in Hebrew literature, that this Song was placed among those
writings simply because it possessed much poetic beauty, and was
supposed to be the composition of a person so celebrated throughout the
East as Solomon, and that it is destitute of any moral or practical
instructions. We believe that every book of the Old Testament is
inspired; and has, on that account, obtained a place in the Hebrew
Canon. This is the unanimous testimony, not of the Jewish church only,
but is corroborated by Christ and his apostles. Paul, referring to the
Old Testament, most distinctly affirms, that “all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. iii. 16. [4] As
this Song undoubtedly formed a part of the Scriptures to which the
apostle alluded, it must, therefore, be inspired, and must serve some
of those purposes of inspiration.
The particular design of this book has been much disputed. It is here
maintained, that, upon careful examination, it will be found to record
an example of virtue in a young woman who encountered and conquered the
greatest temptations, and was, eventually, rewarded; the simple
narrative of which, divested of its poetic form, is as follows. There
was a family living at Shulem, consisting of a widowed mother, several
sons, and one daughter, who maintained themselves by farming and
pasturage. The brothers were particularly partial to their sister, and
took her under their special care, promising that her prudence and
virtue should be greatly rewarded by them. In the course of time, while
tending the flock, and, according to the custom of the shepherds,
resorting at noon beneath a tree for shelter against the meridian sun,
she met with a graceful shepherd youth, to whom she afterwards became
espoused. One morning, in the spring, this youth invited her to
accompany him into the field; but the brothers, overhearing the
invitation, and anxious for the reputation of their sister, in order to
prevent their meeting, sent her to take care of the vineyards. The
damsel, however, consoled her beloved and herself with the assurance
that, though separated bodily, indissoluble ties subsisted between
them, over which her brothers had no control. She requested him to meet
her in the evening, and as he did not come, she feared that some
accident had befallen him on the way, and went in search of him, and
found him. The evening now was the only time in which they could enjoy
each other’s company, as, during the day, the damsel was occupied in
the vineyards. On one occasion, when entering a garden, she
accidentally came in the presence of King Solomon, who happened to be
on a summer visit to that neighbourhood. Struck with the beauty of the
damsel, the King conducted her into his royal tent, and there, assisted
by his court-ladies, endeavoured with alluring flatteries and promises,
to gain her affections; but without effect. Released from the King’s
presence, the damsel soon sought an interview with her beloved
shepherd.
The King, however, took her with him to his capital in great pomp, in
the hope of dazzling her with his splendour; but neither did this
prevail: for while even there, she told her beloved shepherd, who had
followed her into the capital, and obtained an interview with her, that
she was anxious to quit the gaudy scene for her own home. The shepherd,
on hearing this, praised her constancy, and such a manifestation of
their mutual attachment took place, that several of the court-ladies
were greatly affected by it.
The King, still determined, if possible, to win her affections, watched
for another favourable opportunity, and with flatteries and
allurements, surpassing all that he had used before, tried to obtain
his purpose. He promised to elevate her to the highest rank, and to
raise her above all his concubines and queens, if she would comply with
his wishes; but, faithful to her espousals, she refused all his
overtures, on the plea that her affections were pledged to another. The
King, convinced at last that he could not possibly prevail, was obliged
to dismiss her; and the shepherdess, in company with her beloved
shepherd, returned to her native place. On their way home, they visited
the tree under which they had first met, and there renewed their vows
of fidelity to each other. On her arrival in safety at her home, her
brothers, according to their promise, rewarded her greatly for her
virtuous conduct.
The plot, if such it may be called, gradually develops itself, like
most poetic narratives of a similar kind. Various speakers are
introduced in the poem, as the Shulamite shepherdess, the shepherd, the
King, the court-ladies, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the brothers of
the Shulamite, and the companions of the shepherd, all of whom are
represented as speaking more or less, but without any such distinctions
as we find in Job, as “After this Job opened his mouth and cursed his
day—Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said—Then answered Bildad
the Shuhite and said—&c.,” and without separate names, or initial
letters of names to indicate the speakers, which renders it difficult
to gather the history it contains; and especially as some of the
statements appear at first sight to have little or no logical sequence.
The Song of Songs differs materially in this respect from all the other
books of Scripture; but not, as is well known, from the poems of
profane writers.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned difficulty, an attentive reader of
the original will find nearly as much help from the masterly structure
of this Song, as can be obtained from the divisions and initial letters
in modern dramas, by which the different speakers are distinguished,
and the various statements are connected in a regular narrative.
The recurrence, for instance, of the same formula of adjuration three
times (ii. 7; iii. 5; viii. 4), and the use of another closing sentence
(v. 1), divide the Song into five sections. The heroine of the book,
when speaking with her beloved or with the king, is easily
distinguished by the feminine gender of the verb, or of the adjective
or the noun; as, i. 5, “I am swarthy but comely,” where both
adjectives, swarthy (שְׁחוֹרָה) and comely (נָאוָה), are feminine in the
original, and plainly indicate the speaker. The beloved shepherd, when
he speaks, or is spoken to, or is spoken of, is recognised by the
pastoral language (i. 3, 4, 7; ii. 12; iii. 4, &c.); the King is
distinguished by express allusions to his position (i. 9–11; vi. 4–vii.
10); the court-ladies, when speaking to the Shulamite, are recognised
by the phrase, “fairest of women” (i. 8; v. 9; vi. 1), and when spoken
to by “daughters of Jerusalem” (i. 5; ii. 7; iii. 5, 10; v. 8; viii.
4); the brothers of the Shulamite are introduced as speaking in ii. 15,
compared with i. 6 and viii. 8, 9; the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in
iii. 6–11, and the companions of the shepherd, in viii. 5, are
sufficiently indicated by the context.
On a careful examination of the statements of the various speakers in
these five sections, it will be found that the narrative, though not
recorded in the order we have stated, may be easily deduced from it.
In the FIRST section—ch. i. 2, 7—the heroine of the Song, who, as is
evident from verse 8 and vii. 1, is a Shulamite shepherdess, ardently
wishes for the presence and love-tokens of her beloved, who, as she
herself most distinctly tells us (ver. 7, and ii. 16; vi. 3), is a
shepherd; she wishes him to take her away from the royal apartments
into which the King had brought her, for she loves him above all things
(verses 2, 3, 4); these apartments (or royal tent), as we learn from
iii. 6–11, were out of Jerusalem, and in the neighbourhood of the
Shulamite’s home, where the King temporarily resided, and where he met
with the damsel (vi. 11, 12). In reply to the disdainful looks of the
daughters of Jerusalem, in whose presence she had expressed her desire
for the shepherd, and who had contrasted their fair and delicate
countenances with her own, she insists that her swarthy complexion need
not render her contemptible, for it was not natural, but had arisen
from the duties which her brothers had unjustly required of her (v. 6);
she then resumes the address to her beloved, asking him, as if he were
present, to tell her where he tends his flock (7). The daughters of
Jerusalem, who, as we see from vi. 9, are the court-ladies, comprising
the maidens, concubines, and queens, ironically answer this question
(8). The watchful King, having heard that she wished for her beloved,
immediately comes forward, and, with flatteries and promises, tries to
win her affections (9, 10, 11); but without effect; for as soon as the
King retires she shows her unabated attachment to her shepherd (12; ii.
6), and concludes by adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to
transfer her affections to another (7).
The SECOND section—ch. ii. 8; iii. 5—though apparently disconnected
from the first, is found, upon investigation, to be a proper and
natural sequence. The Shulamite, in rebutting the contempt of the
court-ladies, had reflected with some severity upon her brothers for
sending her to keep the vineyards; but this had been done merely to
account for the darkness of her complexion; and having been interrupted
in her warm address to her beloved, which she hastened to resume, she
was obliged to be satisfied with this passing allusion to that event.
It was natural, therefore, to expect that, at the first opportunity,
she would state more circumstantially how her brothers came to be
severe with her, and why they had made her a keeper of the vineyards,
which she proceeds to do in this section. She tells the court-ladies
that her brothers were displeased with her because they had overheard
the shepherd inviting her to accompany him into the fields to enjoy
together the charms of nature (8–14), on account of which, in their
anxiety for her reputation, they changed her employment, told her to be
a “keeper of the vineyards,” in order to separate her from her beloved
(15). She, moreover, relates that they consoled themselves with the
assurance that, though separated bodily, indissoluble ties subsisted
between them, over which her brothers had no control (16); that she
invited him to come again in the evening, when unobserved (17); and
that, seeing he did not come, she went in search of him, &c. (ch. iii.
1–4). Having thus evinced her deep attachment for the shepherd, she
again concludes by adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to
transfer her affections to another (5).
This section, therefore, follows the preceding one, to set forth the
cause of the brother’s severity in having made her a “keeper of the
vineyards,” and thus gives a further insight into her previous history.
The THIRD section (ch. iii. 6, v. i.) relates the second unsuccessful
effort of Solomon to gain the Shulamite’s affections. The King,
determined to gain his purpose, takes the damsel, with great pomp, into
the capital (ch. iii. 6–11), in the hope of dazzling her with his great
splendour; but he is again disappointed. In the midst of the imposing
magnificence, the damsel tells her beloved shepherd, who has followed
her thither, and obtained an interview with her, and expressed his
delight at seeing her again (ch. iv. 1–5), that she is anxious to quit
the palace for her rural home (6). Her beloved, on hearing this, offers
his assistance to effect an escape (7, 8), and praises her constancy
and charms (9–16); whereupon they both manifest their mutual attachment
in so affecting a manner that even some of the court-ladies are moved
(ch. iv. 16, v. 1), with whose expression of sympathy the section
concludes.
The bearing which this section has upon the whole plan is, in the first
place, to develop the progress of the history itself, inasmuch as it
records the conveyance of the Shulamite from her rural home into the
royal capital; and, in the second place, to relate her faithfulness in
resisting another temptation, in which the grandeur of the procession
which elicited so much admiration from the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and the splendour of the court, which dazzled the eyes and fed the
vanity of so many of its inmates, had far less charms for her than the
presence of her shepherd in a humble home.
The FOURTH section (ch. v. 2–viii. 4) records the last and greatest
trial which the Shulamite had to encounter, and which she also
overcame. It commences with a dream which she had recently had, and
which she relates (ch. v. 2–8) to the court-ladies whose sympathy with
her has been shown at the close of the preceding section. The narration
of this dream gives the damsel an opportunity of describing the
personal appearance of her beloved (10–16), and thus we are gradually
led on to her chief trial and success. The court-ladies, having
listened to this charming description, inquire whither her beloved is
gone, and offer their assistance to seek him (ch. vi. 1); but she,
suspecting the motive, gives them an evasive answer (2, 3). The King,
ever watchful for a favourable opportunity to show his attachment to
her, as soon as he hears of the inquiry after the damsel’s beloved,
comes forward with most alluring flatteries and promises. He begins
with praising her beauty (4–7), and then promises to raise her to the
highest rank of all his numerous retinue of women (8, 9), who
themselves are constrained to extol her beauty (10). But the damsel,
having explained how she came to be seen by those court-ladies, spurns
all those praises and promises, and goes away (11, 12); the King calls
her back (ch. vii. 1), and, having again described her beauty and
attractions (2–8), wishes that he might enjoy the favours of so
charming a person (9, 10); but she refuses the King’s overtures, on the
plea that her affections are engaged, and that it is her duty to be
faithful to her beloved (11); then, addressing herself to her beloved,
she asks him to go with her from the palace to their rural home (12,
ch. viii. 3); and concludes with again adjuring the court-ladies not to
persuade her to transfer her affections to another (4).
This section, as we have seen, is intimately connected with the
preceding one. The damsel, having obtained the sympathies of some of
the court-ladies, according to the close of the last section, relates
to them, at the opening of this (ch. v. 2–8), a dream which she had
recently had; which gives the damsel an opportunity of describing the
appearance of her beloved, and this description gradually introduces
the last and the greatest trial which she has to encounter.
The FIFTH section—ch. viii. 5–14—states the result of the damsel’s
victory over all her temptations. The King, convinced that nothing
could induce her to transfer her affections, dismisses her; and
accompanied by her beloved shepherd, she quits the court for her humble
country residence. On their way, they visit the tree under which they
were first espoused (viii. 5), and there implore that the flame which
had been kindled in their hearts might be lasting. A most graphic and
powerful description of the nature of true love follows, in which all
her trials are recounted (6, 7). The damsel then reminds her brothers
of the promise they had made her, and obtains the reward of virtue.
Thus this Song records the real history of a humble but virtuous woman,
who, after having been espoused to a man of like humble circumstances,
had been tempted in a most alluring manner to abandon him, and to
transfer her affections to one of the wisest, and richest of men, but
who successfully resisted all temptations, remained faithful to her
espousals, and was ultimately rewarded for her virtue.
SECTION IV.—IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK.
Few, it is presumed, will question the importance of a Book, in the
sacred canon, which records an example of virtue in a humble
individual, who had passed successfully through unparalleled
temptations.
The avowed object of Holy Writ is to teach all that is good and
conducive to human happiness. Lessons of wisdom and virtue are
interspersed throughout the Old and New Testaments. The Apostle Paul
urges the Philippians to think of whatsoever is true, noble, just,
pure, lovely, and of good report: of everything, in short, that is in
any way profitable or praiseworthy. These lessons are not communicated
to us in abstract forms, or enforced by powerful argument merely, but
they are presented in the most attractive examples drawn from the lives
of illustrious men and women, who, amidst the greatest trials and
temptations, have pre-eminently maintained their integrity. The
Patriarch Job is set forth as an example of patience, and the Prophets
as patterns of suffering affliction (James v. 10, 11). An example of
virtue, very similar to the one in the Song before us, is recorded in
Gen. xxxix. 7, &c., where a Hebrew slave is tempted by a woman of rank,
but resists the temptations; and though left to suffer for a season, is
ultimately rewarded for his virtue. Such instances, therefore, are in
harmony with the design of Scripture, and its method of teaching.
The individual who passes through the extraordinary temptations
recorded in this Song, and remains faithful, is a woman. Who can find a
virtuous woman? This was the question of the Ancients, was reiterated
in the middle ages, and is still asked by many. Here is a reply to
Solomon’s own enquiry. He has found one at least of spotless integrity,
and her virtue is recorded in Scripture, for the defence of women
against a prevalent, but unjust suspicion.
The second chapter of Genesis clearly states, that the man and the
woman were created with the same intellectual and moral powers. The
words used by God respecting the creation of the woman are, “the being
of man in his solitary state is not good. I will make him a help-mate
corresponding to him;” that is, one that shall be exactly like him in
affections, in sympathies, in mind, in fact his counterpart; she shall
be the reflection of his own person. That this is the meaning of
כְּנֶנְדּוֹ is evident from the Septuagint, which renders it in verse 18,
κατ’ αὐτόν, and verse 20, ὅμοιος αὐτῷ; and from the Syriac and the
Vulgate; as well as from the Rabbinical usage of כְּנֶנֶד, to express
things exactly like one another. [5] The word of God affirms here, that
the woman was created exactly with the same capacities as the man, and
contains no intimation of subserviency to him, or of being in the
slightest degree weaker or less virtuous than he. The fact that the
Tempter assailed the woman, and not the man, so far from showing that
the woman was weaker, would rather prove that she was stronger; that
the cunning serpent knew this, and was persuaded, if he could only
prevail over the woman, she, with her superior influence, would be sure
to succeed with the man, as the sad result showed.
The curse which God pronounced upon the guilty pair, proves that the
woman was created with the same intellectual and moral capacities as
the man. Had the woman been weaker in these respects than the man, she
would not have been accountable in an equal degree for her sin, and
would not have been punished with the same severity.
No alteration has taken place in their relative position, in this
respect, since the fall. The curse upon the woman in relation to the
man does not refer to any intellectual or moral, but to a physical,
inferiority. Hitherto the Protoplasts resided in Paradise, and
subsisted upon its delightful fruit; and the employment of the man was
mere recreation. Henceforth they were to be driven from that happy
abode; the woman was to experience all the sorrow and pain of pregnancy
and parturition, and must look to her husband for support from his
hard-earned labour. The man, consigned to rough labour in the field,
exposed to the assault of brutes, was henceforth to have more physical
strength and daring; while the woman, destined to manage the affairs at
home, and to rear up a family, was to exercise the power of patient
endurance. The man, with his superior strength and boldness, was
henceforth to be the protector; the woman, suffering and mild, the
protected. He was to be the tiller of the ground, and she, in addition
to the sorrow peculiar to her condition, must depend on what he might
provide for her; and hence her desire was to be unto him; that is, she
should be looking up to him for protection and maintenance, and thus he
would rule over her. That this is the whole meaning of the phrase וְאֶל
אִישֵׁדְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵדְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל בָּדְ, Gen. iii. 16, is evident from the clause
immediately preceding, which describes the woman’s constant suffering,
and precludes the possibility of securing maintenance for herself; and
also from the following verse, where the man is destined to labour hard
for bread.
The notion, therefore, that the woman is intellectually or morally
weaker than man, is not the teaching of the word of God. While man,
through his superior out-of-door qualities, or physical strength and
courage, is the supporter, protector, and ruler of the woman; she,
through her superior in-door qualities, her endurance and her charms,
ameliorates his government, and sways his inmost heart. Their different
characteristics, arising from their different destinations, were
designed to blend together so as to produce a happy harmony, and to
make both one.
But how vilely and treacherously has man employed his superior strength
and audacity! Instead of maintaining, protecting, and defending the
woman, he has used his strength to oppress, to crush, and to degrade
her. As the human race became more and more alienated from their
Creator, intrinsic merit and moral character were despised, and
physical force became rampant; the stronger, as among animals,
oppressed and preyed upon the weaker, and thus woman became the slave
of man, and was absolutely sold in the capacity of daughter or wife, as
cattle and other property. Thus Eliezer, the servant of Abraham,
purchased Rebekah as a wife for Isaac, his master’s son, (Gen. xxiv.
53). Jacob, having nothing to give as a compensation for his wives, was
obliged to serve fourteen years for them (Gen. xxix. 18–28). Shechem,
wishing to obtain Dinah for a wife, and ascribing the unwillingness of
Jacob to part with her to the insufficiency of the compensation he had
offered, says—“Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give
according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife (Gen.
xxxiv. 12).” Compare, also, Exod. xxii. 15, &c.; 1 Sam. xviii. 25; Hos.
iii. 2. This custom of purchasing wives was general among the
Orientals. “In Babylon, [6] the following course was pursued in every
village once a-year. All the maidens of a marriageable age were
collected together, and brought in a body to one place; around them
stood a crowd of men. Then a crier, having made these maidens stand up
one by one, offered them for sale, beginning with the most beautiful;
and when she had been sold for a large sum, he put up another who was
next in beauty. They were sold on condition that they should be
married. Such men among the Babylonians as were rich and desirous of
marrying used to bid against one another, and purchase the most
beautiful. But such of the lower classes as were desirous of marrying,
did not regard beauty, and were willing to take the plainer damsels
with a sum of money given with them. For when the crier had finished
selling the most beautiful of the maidens, he made the plainest stand
up, or one that was a cripple, and put her up for auction, for the
person who would marry her for the least sum. This money was obtained
from the sale of the most beautiful; and thus the beautiful portioned
out the plain and the crippled.” Wives were purchased among the
Assyrians and Arabians also; [7] among the ancient Greeks [8] and
Germans [9] and are still bought among the Orientals of the present
day. [10]
Fearful consequences, arising from such a mode of obtaining wives, were
inevitable, and soon became apparent. As the procuring of wives
depended upon the offer which any one was able to make, those that
could afford it purchased as many as they pleased. Hence the practice
of polygamy, than which nothing produces more contempt for the proper
character of women, or tends more to their degradation. As these
contracts were formed without the parties being previously known to
each other, and without any affection subsisting between them, the
woman, instead of being the help-mate or companion of man became his
slave, and was kept for the gratification of his carnal appetites, or
at best was regarded as a plaything for a leisure hour. Her rights were
denied, her education was neglected, her intellect was degraded, her
moral character was questioned. Man, seeking to possess as many wives
as he could afford, gave the woman no credit for virtue. Acting upon
this suspicion and false accusation, he placed her in the most
inaccessible part of the house; dogs or eunuchs guarded the doors of
her chambers; [11] the harem was made as impenetrable as a prison; none
but the nearest relatives were allowed to see her, and when permitted
to pass through the streets her countenance was thickly veiled, and
eunuchs watched her every step. Plutarch relates that when women
travelled they were placed in a conveyance closely covered on all
sides, and that it was in such a covering that Themistocles fled from
Persia, his attendants being instructed to tell every inquirer that
they were conveying a Grecian lady from Ionia to a nobleman at Court.
[12] The sacred books of heathen nations teem with loud execrations
against the natural unfaithfulness and immorality of women. “The lust
of a woman,” says the pundits, “is never satisfied, no more than fire
is satisfied with fuel, or the main ocean with receiving the rivers, or
the empire of death with the dying of men and animals.” And again:
“Women have six qualities: the first is an immoderate desire for jewels
and fine furniture, handsome clothes and nice victuals; the second,
immoderate lust; the third, violent anger; the fourth, deep resentment,
no person knowing the sentiments concealed in their hearts; the fifth,
another person’s good appears evil in their eyes; the sixth, they
commit bad actions.” [13] The wickedness of women is a subject upon
which the stronger sex among the Arabs, with an affectation of superior
virtue, often dwell in common conversation. That women are deficient in
judgment or good sense, is held as an undisputed fact, as it rests on
an assertion of the Prophet; but that they possess a superior degree of
cunning, rests upon the same authority. Their general depravity is
affirmed to be much greater than that of men. “I stood,” said the
Prophet, “at the gate of Paradise, and lo, most of its inmates were the
poor; and I stood at the gate of hell, and lo, most of its inmates were
women.” In allusion to women, the caliph Omar said, “Consult them, and
do the contrary of what they advise,” which Moore has thus
paraphrased:—
“Whene’er you’re in doubt, said a sage I once knew,
’Twixt two lines of conduct which course to pursue,
Ask a woman’s advice, and whate’er she advise,
Do the very reverse, and you’re sure to be wise.”
When woman was created, “the devil,” we are told, “was delighted, and
said, ‘Thou art half of my host, and thou art the depository of my
secret, and thou art my arrow, with which I shoot and miss not.’” [14]
They were made so much to feel their inferiority, that Iphigenia is
made to say, “One man, forsooth, is better than ten thousand women.”
[15]
Though the Jewish women were treated more leniently, and enjoyed
greater privileges than their sex in other nations, yet it is evident,
from a variety of circumstances in Old Testament history, that they
were not wholly emancipated from a state of unnatural inferiority.
Polygamy was practised amongst the Jews, and its debasing effects were
obvious. The harems, the veils, and eunuchs were not uncommon to their
women. Weakness of moral character was imputed to them; unfaithfulness
and incontinency were dilated upon (Num. v. 12; Prov. xxxi. 10; Eccl.
vii. 28). Josephus tells us [16] that women, in consequence of their
natural levity, were not admitted as legal witnesses in courts of
justice. Maimonides teaches the same; “There are,” says this great
luminary, “ten sorts of disqualifications, and every individual in whom
one of them is found, is disqualified from giving evidence; and these
are women, slaves, children, idiots, the deaf, the blind, the wicked,
the despised, relations, and those interested in their testimony; these
are the ten.” [17] The Rabbins endeavour to justify this inhuman
treatment of women from the law of Moses. “Women,” say they, “are
disqualified by the law from giving testimony: for it is said, ‘At the
mouth of two witnesses,’ where the word ‘witnesses’ is of the
masculine, and not feminine gender.” It is not to be wondered at,
therefore, that the Jew, among his thanksgivings, should say to the
Almighty every morning, “Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the
universe, that thou hast not created me a woman.”
Now, if one sex of the human family has been so degraded by the other;
if she whom God created to be a help-mate and counterpart has been
reduced by man to the slave of his carnal lusts; if such slavish and
inhuman treatment has been justified on the false plea of the natural
unfaithfulness and incontinency of the sex; if exclusion from society
and imprisonment have been deemed necessary for the preservation of her
morals, how greatly has woman been alienated from the original design
of her creation! how unjustly has her character been aspersed! how
inhumanly has she been treated! and how great is the importance of a
book which celebrates the virtuous example of a woman, and thus strikes
at the root of all her reproaches and her wrongs!
The importance of this view of the book may be further seen from the
fact, that, in proportion to the degradation of women, men themselves
have become degraded; for, deprived of the meliorating influences which
the delicacy and tenderness of women were designed to have over them,
and never more needed than in their fallen state, they have abandoned
themselves to their worst passions and desires, and thus their whole
civil and social condition has been proportionally undignified and
unblest. Look, on the other hand, at the state of society where woman
is restored to her rightful position, there we shall find refinement of
manners, purity of conversation, mutual confidence and affection,
domestic happiness, intellectual enjoyment, freedom of thought and
action, sympathetic repose, and whatever, in fact, tends to mitigate
the unavoidable evils of the present life; all referable, in a greater
or less degree, to the unrestricted influence of woman upon the child
and upon the man. In religion, her influence is still more potent. If
first in the transgression, she is first in the restoration; and were
man as ready to follow her in doing good as he has been in doing evil,
the world would long ago have been in a holier and happier state than
it is at present. Who constitute the principal part of our worshipping
assemblies? Women. Who form the chief portion of the members of our
churches? Women. Who are the chief agents in the religious education of
our children? Women. Who are the main support of our various benevolent
and evangelical institutions? Women. Let it not be said, then, that a
Book which celebrates the ascendency of a virtuous woman in humble life
over all the blandishments of wealth and royalty, is unworthy of a
place in Holy Writ.
The importance of this book is, moreover, enhanced by the circumstances
more immediately connected with the time in which it was written.
The conduct of Bath-sheba with David was calculated to confirm man in
his opinion that woman was naturally unfaithful and incontinent, and
that it was requisite to exclude her from society, in order to preserve
her morals. But the narrative here recorded forms a contrast to the
conduct of Bath-sheba. It shows the power of virtue in a woman, even of
humble life. As the wife of an officer of rank, accustomed to luxury
and wealth, the temptations of Bath-sheba were not so great, and yet
she surrendered to them. Whereas the Shulamite, a humble shepherdess,
to whom the promise of costly apparel and of elevation from a low and
toilsome occupation to the highest rank, must have been an
extraordinary allurement, triumphed over them all. If one woman yielded
to small incitements, this book shows that another overcame
unparalleled temptations, and thus checked the clamour against woman
which might have arisen from the conduct of Bath-sheba with David.
SECTION V.—HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE EXEGESIS OF THE BOOK.
No book has furnished a wider field for the speculation and visionary
projects of those who substitute their own imagination and enthusiastic
feelings for the teaching of Scripture, than the Song of Solomon; the
varieties and absurdities of which are a solemn warning against
departing from the rules of sound philology and critical
interpretation.
An enumeration of all the different interpretations of this Song would
be too lengthy, and is not required. It will be sufficient to glance at
the leading expositions. We begin with the Jewish.
323–246, B.C. [18] It has been supposed that the Septuagint, which may
be regarded as the oldest Jewish exegetical tradition, contains some
intimation that the translators of the Old Testament into Greek and
their Jewish brethren of those days must have interpreted the Song of
Solomon in an allegorical manner. The only passage adduced in
corroboration of this opinion is, Ch. iv. 8, where the Septuagint
renders מֵראֹשׁ אֲמָנָה from the top of Amana, by ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς πίστεως, from
the top of faith. That this appeal is nugatory is obvious from the
rendering of תִּרְצָה Tirzah by εὐδοκία, delight, vi. 4, and of בַּתנָדִיב
noble daughter by θύγατερ Ναδάβ, daughter of Nadab, vii. 1; whence it
is evident that the Septuagint frequently mistook proper names for
appellatives and adjectives, and vice versâ. It appears inconceivable
that a profound scholar like Keil, who is well acquainted with the
frequent errors of the Septuagint, should quote this as a special and
sufficient proof that “the Alexandrian version took this Song in an
allegorical sense,” [19] especially as he knew that some have drawn
from it the very opposite conclusion, who have argued that if the
authors of the Septuagint had understood this book in any other than
its obvious sense, they would have betrayed it in the translation. [20]
180, B.C. Jesus Sirach, xlvii. 14–17, is next adduced as furnishing
some clue to the Jewish interpretation of this book. Ecclesiasticus,
according to some, is a name given to it κατ’ ἐξοχὴν, because of its
being the most remarkable and useful of the ecclesiastical or
apocryphal books; others say it was so called from its resemblance to
Solomon’s Ecclesiastes, and others, again, with more probability, that
this name was given to it by the Latins, to denote its use in the
church. Its Greek name, however, Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ, wisdom of
Jesus son of Sirach, is more appropriate. It specifies at once the
author, who mentions his own name in Ch. l. 27. The age given to the
book here, is that which is thought most probable. [21] This apocryphal
writer says in his apostrophe to Solomon,—“How wise wast thou in thy
youth, and, as a flood, filled with understanding! Thy mind covered the
earth, and thou filledst it with enigmatic sayings. Thy name went forth
to the distant isles, and thou wast beloved for thy peace. Countries
admired thee for songs, and proverbs, and enigmas, and solutions.” The
17th verse is supposed to include the whole writings of Solomon
contained in the Old Testament; and it is affirmed that παραβολαὶ
αἰνιγμάτων in verse 15, cannot be understood to mean the Proverbs
(παροιμία) since these are separately mentioned in verse 17, hence it
follows that they refer to the allegorical interpretation of this Song.
[22]
Even Hengstenberg, who, though a defender of the allegorical
interpretation, remarks, [23] “Sirach xlvii. 17, has wrongly been
referred to in support of the allegorical interpretation. For the words
ἐν ᾠδαῖς καὶ παροίμιαις καὶ παραβολαῖς καὶ ἐν ἑρμηνείαις ἀπεθαύμασάν σε
χῶραι depend upon the historical narration in the Books of the Kings,
and do not refer to the writings comprised in the Canon. This is
evident from the mention of the ἑρμηνείαι, whereby the solutions of the
enigmas in contradistinction to the enigmas themselves, can alone be
meant. Comp. 1 Kings x. 1–3. Whereas in the Canon no such ἑρμηνείαι are
to be found. Verse 15, in which Keil finds a special reference to the
allegorical interpretation, likewise alludes to 1 Kings x., especially
to verse 24.”
120, B.C. The Book of Wisdom has also been supposed to contain a clue
to the interpretation of this Song. The author and the age of the Book
are points of great contest. All that can be concluded with any degree
of probability is, that the author was an Alexandrian Jew, who lived
after the transplanting of the Greek philosophy into Egypt, and that he
seems to refer to the oppression of the later Ptolemies. [24] In ch.
viii. 2, Solomon is represented as speaking to Wisdom; “Her I loved and
sought from my youth, I sought to bring her home for my bride, and I
became a lover of her beauty.” Because Solomon is here made to speak of
Wisdom as his bride, it has been maintained to be an explanation of the
Song of Songs, as though the brides were necessarily the same. [25] Let
any impartial reader peruse the description of Wisdom in the chapter
quoted, and that of the bride in the Song of Songs, and he will be
convinced that there is no intentional resemblance whatever.
37–95, A.D. Josephus is also said to have understood this Song in an
allegorical sense, although it is not in a single instance quoted by
him. His arrangement of the Books of the Old Testament is the only
ground of this argument. It is said, as he [26] mentions twenty-two
books which are justly accredited as Divine, (τὰ δικαίως θεῖα
πεπιστευμένα) and describes five as belonging to Moses, thirteen to the
Prophets, and the remaining four as containing hymns to God, and rules
of life for men (αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν) viz., the Psalms, Job,
Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, no place is left for this Song except among
the Prophets; and if Josephus placed it there, it follows that he must
have understood it allegorically. [27] But were we to admit that
Josephus placed this Song among the prophetical writings, we should
deny the conclusion attempted to be drawn from it. For according to the
same mode of argumentation, we might infer that Josephus understood
Ruth and Esther allegorically, for he also places these books among the
prophetical writings. The fact is, that this historian, as he tells us
himself, reckons the historical books among the prophetical ones. But
we demur to the assertion that Josephus put this Song among the
prophetical writings; it is far more likely that he placed it among the
four books which he describes as consisting of hymns to God and
precepts for the life of men. [28]
We come now to the Talmud, in which passages from this Song are quoted
and interpreted. This elaborate work, consists of what is called the
Mishna, constituting the text, and the Gemara, which is a commentary
upon it, derived from two sources, viz.—Jerusalem and Babylon. The
Jews, from time immemorial, had an unwritten law תּוֹרָה שֶׁבַּעַל פֶּה δόγματα
ἄγραφα, in addition to the written one, תּוֹרָה שֶׁבַּכְּתָב, ἔγγραφος,
contained in the Pentateuch. Hillel of Babylon (born 75 B.C.), who,
next to Ezra, was celebrated by posterity as the restorer of the law,
[29] first arranged and divided this oral law into six parts:—1,
concerning sowing; 2, women; 3, festivals; 4, the rights of property;
5, holy things; 6, pure and impure things. This, which comprises
everything that appertains to the Jewish law, was called מִשְׁנָה Mishna,
δευτέρωσις, or the second recension of the law. In order to reconcile
the Sadducees, who denied every law not founded on Holy Writ, Hillel
laid down seven hermeneutic rules, whereby the Scriptures might be
interpreted in such a manner that the oral law could be deduced from
it. [30] When fears were afterwards entertained lest the oral tradition
should be lost, Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh (i.e. holy), in the year 220
A.D., collected everything that had been said upon the subject,
preserving the division of Hillel, and probably making some additions
of his own. This he did in a manner so masterly and satisfactory, that
it superseded every other previous attempt, and constitutes the present
Mishna.
The Mishna became the chief object of study. The rules of Hillel were
increased and much acted on; expositions were given upon the reasons
that led to the decisions in the Mishna; the expounders were called
אֲמוֹרָאִים Amoraim, public lecturers, and the exposition גְמָרָא Gemara.
After the death of Judah, many of his learned disciples, objecting to
the appointment of his second son Gamaliel, to his father’s office,
emigrated to Babylon, and having erected schools there, pursued the
study of the Mishna. The academy they established in Sura rivalled the
one in Tiberias. The Gemara of Tiberias, collated about 358 (A.D.) by
an unknown individual, is called Talmud Jerushalmi; and the Gemara of
Sura, the compilation of which was begun by R. Ashe (352–427),
continued by his disciple and friend, Rabina, and finished about 525,
is called Talmud Babli. The latter surpasses the former in
comprehensiveness, perspicuity, and depth, is about four times as
large, and fills 2947 folio pages. Both united are called The Talmud
תַּלְמוּד book of instruction; and also גְמָרָא Gemara. It contains the
civil and ceremonial law, debates on various branches of art and
science, moral sayings, anecdotes, expositions on different passages of
Scripture, &c. [31]
100–500, A.D.—In Yadaim, (Sect. iii. 5.) we find that R. Akiba, one of
the greatest Rabbins who lived in the first century, and president of
the Academy of Bai-Barc, said, “The whole world was not worthy of the
day in which this sublime Song was given to Israel; for all the
Scriptures are holy, but this sublime Song is most holy.” There can,
therefore, be no doubt that the mysteries which this distinguished
Rabbi found in the Song of Songs, he regarded as greater than those he
discovered in any other portion of the Sacred Scriptures.
Subsequent Rabbins quote and explain different passages. Thus, Ch. i. 2
is discussed in Abodah Sarah (Sect. 2, p. 35). It is asked, “How are
the words, ‘Thy love is better than wine’ understood?” Answer: When
Rabbi Dimi came to Babylon, he said, “This verse is thus understood:
the Congregation of Israel said to God, ‘Lord of the Universe, the
words of thy friends (namely, the sages) are more excellent than even
the wine of the Law.’”
Here we see that the beloved is taken to be God, and the loved one the
Congregation of Israel.
Ch. i. 3, is quoted and expounded, a little further on, in the same
tract of the Talmud, in the following manner. “R. Nachman ben R.
Chasdah once said, in his discourse, the words ‘Delicious is the odour
of thy perfumes,’ denote a learned man; for such an one is like a box
of perfumes; if it is covered up, no one can smell the perfumes, but
when it is opened the odour becomes widely diffused. It is so with a
learned man without disciples, no one knows of his learning; but if he
gets a circle of disciples his name and his learning become widely
diffused. And not only this, but he himself will increase learning by
teaching, so that things which he formerly did not understand will now
become plain to him; for it is written in the same verse עלמות אהבוך
DAMSELS LOVE THEE; read עלומות HIDDEN THINGS will love thee, i.e.,
will become plain to thee; and not only this, but even the angel of
death will love him; read then על־מות HE WHO IS OVER DEATH will love
thee; and still more, he will inherit both worlds, this world and the
world to come; read also עולמות WORLDS love thee.”
Ch. i. 13, 14, and v. 13, are quoted and explained in Sabbath, p. 88,
b., “Rabbi Joshuah ben Levi saith, What is meant by צרור המור דודי לי
בין שדי ילין is the congregation of Israel, who is saying before the
Holy One thus: O Lord, though my beloved (i.e. God) oppresses me, and
is embittered against me, yet he still lodges with me. By אשכול הכופר
דודי לי בכרמי עין גדי is meant, He who is the owner of all things,
will forgive me the sin of the calf, with which I covered myself. A
question is raised, How does בכרמי signify my covering? Then Rabbi
Mar-Sutra ben Rabbi Nachman quotes כסא של כובס שכורמי עליו את הכלאם
from another part of the Talmud (Kelim 35), where כרם means to cover.
R. Joshuah ben Levi proceeds, What is meant by לחייו כערוגת הבושם is,
At every commandment which proceedeth from the mouth of the Holy One on
Mount Sinai, the world was filled with aromatics. A question is asked,
If the world was filled at the first commandment, where was the odour
diffused at the second commandment? Answer, The Holy One sent his wind
from his stores, and carried them away successively, as it is written,
שפתותיו שושנים do not read שושנים but ששונים repeating in
succession. Rabbi Joshuah ben Levi concludes, At every commandment
uttered by the mouth of the Holy One, the soul of Israel was drawn out
of them, as it is written, ‘My soul went out when he spake.’ A question
is again asked, If their soul was drawn out at the first commandment,
how could they receive the second? Answer. He (i.e. God) caused the dew
to come down, by which he will raise the dead, and revived them, as it
is written, ‘Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou
didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary.’” Ps. lxviii. 9.
[32]
Here, again, we see that the bridegroom is taken to be the Holy One,
the Owner of all things, and the bride the congregation of Israel. The
reader, looking into the text of the Talmud quoted in the note, will
observe that most of this interpretation has been obtained, either by
the separation of words, the transposition and change of letters, or by
substituting in the commentary words, similar in sound to those in the
Scriptures. Thus, צרור a bundle, a bag, is explained by מיצר
oppress; מור myrrh by מימר embitter; אשכול a cluster by איש שהכל
לו He whose are all things; כופר cypress flowers by כפר pardon;
עין גדי En-gedi by עון עגל the sin of the calf.
This mode of interpretation is not confined to the Song of Songs, but
is applied to all parts of the Bible, and is an illustration of the way
in which the hermeneutic rules laid down by Rabbi Hillel, and augmented
by R. Ishmael, and others, were carried out.
550, A.D.—The Targum or Chaldee paraphrase is the first entire
commentary upon the Song of Songs which has been handed down to us. The
author is unknown. Kitto erroneously affirms, that it was “made several
centuries before the time of Christ, and probably before the
traditionary interpretation of the author himself (i.e. the author of
this Song) would entirely be lost.” [33] The inferior style in which it
is written, the copious use it makes of legends of a very late date,
and especially the mention it makes of the Gemara (Ch. i. 2), which was
not completed till nearly the middle of the sixth century, prove most
distinctly that this paraphrase was made in the sixth century.
Hävernick, [34] however, is equally wrong in affirming that the
Mahomedans are mentioned in Ch. i. 7. That the sons of Ishmael here
alluded to are not the Mahomedans, is evident from Ch. vi. 7. of the
same paraphrase, where we are told that these בְּנוֹי דְיִשְׁמָעֵאל headed by
Alexander the Great, came to wage war against Jerusalem at the time of
the Maccabees.
The Targum takes the Song of Songs as an allegory, describing
prophetically the history of the Jewish nation, beginning with their
Exodus from Egypt, and detailing their doings and sufferings, down to
the coming of the Messiah, and the building of the third Temple.
Thus, according to this allegory, Ch. i. 3, describes Jehovah’s fame,
which went abroad in consequence of the wonders he wrought when
bringing the Israelites out of Egypt; verse 12 describes the departure
of Moses to receive the two tables of stone, and how the Israelites, in
the mean time, made the golden calf; verse 14 describes the pardon of
that sin, and the erection of the Tabernacle; Ch. iii. 6–11, describes
the passage of the Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, over the
Jordan, their attacking and conquering the Canaanites, and the building
of Solomon’s Temple; Ch. v. 2, describes the Babylonian captivity; Ch.
vi. 2, the deliverance of Israel through Cyrus; and the building of the
second Temple; Ch. vi. 7, &c., describes the battles of the Maccabees;
Ch. vii. 11, 12, the present dispersion of the Jews, and their future
anxiety to learn the time of their restoration; Ch. viii. 5, &c.,
describes the resurrection of the dead, the final ingathering of
Israel, the building of the third Temple, &c., &c.
“The beloved,” according to the Targum, is the Lord; “the loved one” is
the Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” (Ch. i. 7)
are the Edomites and the Ishmaelites; “the daughters of Jerusalem” are,
in Ch. i. 5, the Gentile nations; in ii. 7, iii. 5, viii. 4, the
Congregation of Israel; and in v. 8, the prophets; “the brothers of the
loved one” are the false prophets; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, is
the people of Israel; the speakers in the same verse are the angels;
the speaker in viii. 13, is the Lord; “the companions,” in the same
verse are the Sanhedrim.
The following specimen of the Targum, on the first chapter of this
Song, will give the reader an idea of the way in which the paraphrase
develops the allegorical construction of this book.
1. The Song of Songs, &c.—The songs and praises which Solomon the
prophet, King of Israel, sang, by the spirit of prophecy, before
God, the Lord of the whole world. Ten songs were sung in this
world, but this song is the most celebrated of them all. The first
song Adam sang when his sins were forgiven him, and when the
sabbath-day came, and protected him, he opened his mouth and said,
“A song for the sabbath-day,” &c. (Ps. xcii.) The second song Moses
and the children of Israel sang when the Lord of the world divided
the Red Sea for them, they all opened their mouths and sang as one
man, the song, as it is written, “Then sang Moses and the children
of Israel.” (Exod. xv. 1.) The third song the children of Israel
sang when the well of water was given to them, as it is written,
“Then sang Israel.” (Numb. xxi. 17.) The fourth song Moses the
prophet sang, when his time came to depart from this world, in
which he reproved the people of the house of Israel, as it is
written: “Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak.” (Deut. xxxii. 1.)
The fifth song Joshua the son of Nun sang, when he waged war in
Gibeon, and the sun and moon stood still for him thirty-six hours,
and when they left off singing their song, he himself opened his
mouth and sang this song, as it is written: “Then sang Joshua
before the Lord.” (Josh. x. 12.) The sixth song Barak and Deborah
sang in the day when the Lord delivered Sisera and his army into
the hands of the children of Israel, as it is written: “Then sang
Deborah, &c.” (Judg. v. 11.) The seventh song Hannah sang when a
son was given her by the Lord, as it is written: “And Hannah prayed
prophetically, and said.” (1 Sam. ii. 1, and the Targum in loco.)
The eighth song David the King of Israel sang for all the wonders
which the Lord did for him. He opened his mouth and sang a hymn, as
it is written: “And David sang in prophecy before the Lord.” (2
Sam. xxii. 1, and the Targum in loco.) The ninth song Solomon the
King of Israel sang by the Holy Spirit before God, the Lord of the
whole world. And the tenth song the children of the captivity shall
sing when they shall be delivered from their captivity, as it is
written and declared by Isaiah the prophet: “This song shall be
unto you for joy, as in the night in which the feast of the
passover is celebrated; and gladness of heart as when the people go
to appear before the Lord three times in the year, with all kinds
of music, and with the sound of the timbrel, to go up to the
mountain of the Lord, and to worship before the Lord, the Mighty
One of Israel.” (Is. xxx. 29, and the Targum in loco.)
2. Let him kiss me, &c.—Solomon the prophet said, “Blessed be the
name of the Lord who has given us the law through Moses the great
scribe, written upon two tables of stone; and the six parts of the
Mishna and the Talmud traditionally, and who spoke with us face to
face, as a man that kissed his friend, because of his great love
wherewith he loved us above the seventy nations.” [35]
3. Thy perfumes, &c.—At the report of thy wonders and mighty deeds
which thou hast done for thy people the house of Israel, all the
nations trembled who heard of thy famous strength, and thy great
miracles; and in all the earth was heard thy holy name, which is
more excellent than the anointing oil that was poured upon the
heads of kings and priests; therefore the righteous love to walk
after thy good way, because they shall inherit both this world and
the world to come.
4. Draw me, &c.—When the people of the house of Israel went out of
Egypt the shechinah of the Lord of the world went before them in a
pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night, and the
righteous of that generation said, Lord of the whole world, draw us
after thee, and we will run in thy good way! Bring us to the foot
of Mount Sinai, and give us thy law out of thy treasury in heaven,
and we will rejoice and be glad in the twenty-two letters [36] with
which it is written, and we will remember them, and love thy divine
nature, and withdraw ourselves from the idols of the nations; and
all the righteous, who do that which is right before thee, shall
fear thee and love thy commandments.
5. I am swarthy, &c.—When the house of Israel made the calf, their
faces became black, like the sons of Cush, who dwelt in the tents
of Kedar; but when they returned by repentance, and were forgiven,
the shining splendour of their faces was increased to that of
angels, because they made the curtains for the tabernacle, and the
shechinah of the Lord dwelt among them; and Moses, their teacher,
went up to heaven and made peace between them and their King.
6. Do not look down upon me, &c.—The congregation of Israel said
before all the nations, Do not despise me because I am blacker than
you, for I have done your deeds, and worshipped the sun and moon;
for false prophets have been the cause that the fierce anger of the
Lord has come upon me, and they taught me to worship your idols,
and to walk in your laws; but the Lord of the world, who is my God,
I did not serve, and did not walk in his precepts, and did not keep
his commandments and laws.
7. Tell me, &c.—When the time came for Moses the prophet to depart
from this world, he said to the Lord, It is revealed to me that
this people will sin, and be carried into captivity; show me now
how they shall be governed and dwell among the nations, whose
decrees are oppressive as the heat and the scorching sun in the
summer solstice, and wherefore is it that they shall wander among
the flocks of the sons of Esau and Ishmael, who make their idols
equal to thee, as though they were thy companions.
8. If thou knowest not, &c.—The Holy One, blessed be his name, said
to Moses, the prophet, “I suffer myself to be entreated to abolish
their captivity; the congregation of Israel, which is like a fair
damsel, and which my soul loves, she shall walk in the ways of the
righteous, and shall order her prayers according to the order of
her governors and leaders, and instruct her children, who are like
to the kids of the goats, to go to the synagogue and the schools;
and by the merits of this they shall be governed in the captivity,
until the time that I send King Messiah, and he shall lead them
quietly to their habitations; yea, he shall bring them to the house
of the sanctuary, which David and Solomon, the shepherds of Israel,
shall build for them.”
9. I compare thee, &c.—When Israel went out of Egypt, Pharaoh and
his hosts pursued after them with chariots and horsemen, and their
way was shut up on the four sides of them; on the right hand and on
the left were wildernesses full of fiery serpents, and behind them
was wicked Pharaoh with his army, and before them was the Red Sea,
what did the holy blessed God do? He was manifested in the power of
his might upon the Red Sea, and dried the sea up, but the mud he
did not dry up. The wicked and the mixed multitude, and the
strangers who were among them, said, The waters of the sea he was
able to dry up, but the mud he was not able to dry up. In that very
hour the fierce anger of the Lord came upon them, and he sought to
drown them in the waters of the sea, as Pharaoh, and his army, and
his chariots, and his horsemen, and his horses were drowned, had it
not been for Moses the Prophet, who spread his hands in prayer
before the Lord, and turned away the anger of the Lord from them.
Then he and the righteous of that generation opened their mouths,
and sang a song, and passed through the Red Sea on dry land,
through the merits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the beloved of the
Lord.
10. Beautiful are thy cheeks, &c.—When they went out into the
wilderness the Lord said to Moses, “How comely is this people, that
the words of the law should be given unto them, and they shall be
as a bridle in their jaws, that they may not depart out of the good
way, as a horse turneth not aside that has a bridle in his jaws;
and how fair is their neck to bear the yoke of my commandments; and
it shall be upon them as a yoke upon the neck of a bullock which
plougheth in the field, and feeds both itself and its owner.”
11. Circlets of gold, &c.—Then was it said to Moses, “Go up into
heaven, and I will give thee the two tables of stone, hewn out of
the sapphire of the throne of my glory, shining as the best gold,
disposed in rows, written with my finger, on which are engraven the
ten commandments, purer than silver that is purified seven times
seven, which is the number of the things explained in them in
forty-nine various ways, and I shall give them by thy hands to the
people of the house of Israel.”
12. While the King, &c.—Whilst Moses, their teacher, was in heaven
to receive the two tables of stone, and the law and the
commandments, the wicked of that generation and the mixed multitude
that was among them rose up and made a golden calf, and caused
their works to stink, and an evil report of them went out in the
world; for before this time a fragrant odour of them was diffused
in the world, but afterwards they stank like nard, the smell of
which is very bad, and the plague of leprosy came down upon their
flesh.
13. A bag of myrrh, &c.—At that time the Lord said to Moses, “Go
down, for the people have corrupted themselves, desist from
speaking to me, and I will destroy them.” Then Moses returned and
asked mercy of the Lord, and the Lord remembered for them the
binding of Isaac, whom his father bound, on Mount Moriah, upon the
altar; and the Lord turned from his fierce anger, and caused his
shechinah to dwell among them as before.
14. A bunch of cypress flowers, &c.—So then went Moses down with
the two tables of stone in his hands; and, because of the sins of
Israel, his hands grew heavy, and the tables fell and were broken.
Then went Moses and ground the calf to powder, and scattered the
dust of it upon the brook, and made the children of Israel to drink
it, and slew all that deserved to die, and went up a second time
into heaven, and prayed before the Lord, and made atonement for the
children of Israel; then was the commandment to make a tabernacle
and an ark. Immediately Moses hastened and made the tabernacle, and
all its furniture, and the ark; and he put in the ark the two other
tables, and appointed the sons of Aaron, the priests, to offer the
offerings upon the altar, and to pour the wine upon the offerings;
but from whence had they wine to pour? For in the wilderness they
had no proper place for sowing; neither had they fig-trees, nor
vines, nor pomegranates; but they went to the vineyards of En-gedi,
and took clusters of grapes from thence, and pressed wine out of
them, and poured it upon the altar, the fourth part of a hin to one
lamb.
15. Behold thou art beautiful, &c.—When the children of Israel
performed the will of their King, he himself praised them in the
family of the holy angels, and said, “How fair are thy works, my
daughter, my beloved, O congregation of Israel, in the time that
thou doest my will, and studiest in the words of my law; and how
well ordered are thy works and thy affairs, as young doves that are
fit to be offered upon the altar!”
16. Behold thou art comely, &c.—The congregation of Israel answered
before the Lord of the world, and thus said, “How fair is the
shechinah of thy holiness, when thou dwellest among us, and
receivest prayers with acceptance; and when thou dwellest in our
beloved bed, and our children are multiplied in the world, and we
increase and multiply like a tree that is planted by a stream of
water, whose leaf is fair, and whose fruit is plenteous!”
17. The beams of, &c.—Solomon, the prophet, said, “How beautiful is
the house of the sanctuary of the Lord, which is built by my hands,
of wood of Gulmish; but far more beautiful will be the house of the
sanctuary which shall be built in the days of the King Messiah, the
beams of which will be of the cedars of the garden of Eden, and
whose rafters will be of cypress, pine, and box.”
The precedent of the Talmud in taking the beloved as the Lord, and the
loved one as the Congregation of Israel, and in explaining the text in
such a manner as to make it square with her doings, has quite prepared
us for the Chaldee exposition, the author of which most probably was
himself one of the later Talmudists. How could the paraphrast do
otherwise? “Are not the words of the sages more excellent than even the
wine of the Law?” [37] “Is not he who transgresses the words of the
scribes more guilty than he who transgresses the words of the Law?”
[38] Having, therefore, been once settled by the sages that this Song
describes the doings and sufferings of Israel, it only remained for the
expositors to apply their exegetical canons, viz.: of transposing,
changing, or omitting letters; explaining words by others of a similar
sound; making each letter of a word begin another word; reducing an
expression to its numerical value, and explaining the text accordingly,
&c. &c., in order to palm upon this book, in a consecutive order, the
remarkable events in connection with the history of the Jews.
Thus, the love of God to Israel, which was greater than to all the
seventy other nations mentioned in Ch. i. 2, was obtained by reducing
the word יין to its numerical value, seventy; the two worlds, in
verse 3, which the pious are to inherit, were obtained by changing
עלמות maidens, into עולמות worlds, according to the example of the
Talmud; [39] the twenty-two letters with which the Law is written, in
verse 4, were obtained by reducing the word בך to its numerical
value; the Tabernacle, in verse 5, was obtained from the word ירעות,
and the effected peace by changing the proper name שלמה into שלום
peace; the worship of the sun and moon, in verse 6, was obtained from
the word שמש sun; the ploughing bullock, in verse 10, was obtained by
changing תורים ringlet, and חרוזים necklace, into תור חרז; the
two tables shining as the best gold, verse 11, were obtained by
rendering תורי זהב golden Laws, and the seven times seven, or the
forty different interpretations of the Law, by reducing the word זהב
to its numerical value, ז being seven, and ה and ב seven, and
then multiplying seven by seven; the binding of Isaac, in verse 13, was
obtained by rendering צרור המור by ערור המוריה the binding of
Moriah; the sin of the calf, and the atonement of that, in verse 14,
were obtained by changing עין גדי En-gedi, into עון עגל the sin of
the calf, and by substituting כפר pardon, for כופר cypress-flower,
according to the example of the Talmud. [40] This is the development of
Hagadic exegesis, and this the paraphrase appealed to in support of the
allegorical interpretation, and in the track of which future
allegorists more or less follow.
892–942. From the Chaldee paraphrase to R. Saadias Gaon, a period of
about 350 years, thick darkness covers the annals of Jewish literature.
With him, however, a new epoch begins to dawn. Saadias was born at
Pithom, in Egypt, about the year 892, and died in the year 942. He was
“Gaon,” or spiritual head of the Jews in Babylon, and is well known by
his translation of the Bible into Arabic, the Pentateuch of which is
inserted in Walton’s Polyglott. [41] Among the many philosophical and
exegetical works this eminent man bequeathed to posterity, is a
commentary on the Song of Songs, which was originally written in
Arabic, and was translated into Hebrew by some unknown individual. This
work is exceedingly rare, and I have happily found a copy of the
original Constantinople edition in the British Museum, of which Dukes
was not aware when he wrote his “Literarische Mittheilungen.” The view
that Saadias takes is that “Solomon relates in it the history of the
Jews, beginning with their Exodus from Egypt, and extending it beyond
the coming of the Messiah.” Thus far he agrees with the Targum, but his
commentary on the text is entirely at variance with that paraphrase.
According to Saadias, Ch. i. 2–iii. 5, describes the bondage of Israel
in Egypt, their liberation, the giving of the Law, the battles with
Sihon, Og, and the King of Aroar, the wrath of God at the time of the
spies, &c. Ch. iii. 6–iv. 7, describes the erection of the Tabernacle,
the various journeys in the wilderness, the high position of Moses and
Aaron, &c. Hitherto Israel has been called by the appellation my loved
one, for they had not as yet entered Canaan; henceforth they are called
bride (כלה), because God takes them into the promised land; just as a
bridegroom calls his loved one bride, when he takes her home. Ch. iv.
8–v. 1, describes Israel’s entrance into Canaan, the building of the
first Temple, the separation of Judah and Israel, the Shechinah
departing from Israel and abiding with Judah, and the people coming up
to Jerusalem to the three great festivals. Ch. v. 2–vi. 3, describes
the rebellion of Israel and Ahaz, God sending prophets to warn them to
repent, the destruction of the Temple, the Babylonian captivity,
Israel’s liberation, the building of the second Temple, and the
covenant of God with his repenting people. Ch. vi. 4–ix. describes the
twofold condition of the people that returned from Babylon, some of
whom were godly, while others took strange women, forgot the holy
language, and were therefore called שחר dawn, being neither real
light nor real darkness, neither pious nor wicked. Ch. vi. 10–vii. 9,
refers to the present dispersion, in which the Jews, though being many
days without a king, without a priest, &c., say we still live in the
fear of God, and are His. Ch. vii. 12–viii. 4, refers to the sufferings
of the Messiah ben Joseph, the manifestation of the Messiah ben David,
the obedience of Israel to God in those days, and to the Lord’s
rejoicing over them as a bridegroom over his bride. Ch. viii. 5, to the
end, describes Israel restored, the third Temple built, and all the
people walking according to the will of the Lord.
The principal persons in this Song are understood in the following
manner: “the beloved” is the Lord; “the loved one,” the Congregation of
Israel; “the companions of the beloved,” (Ch. i. 7,) are Moses, Aaron,
and Miriam; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” the Congregation of Israel;
“the little sister,” the two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” the
Lord; “the inhabitant of the gardens,” is the sages; “the companions,”
in the same verse, are the Israelites wishing to listen to the teaching
of their sages.
The following is a specimen of R. Saadias’s commentary, the Hebrew of
which is given in the note. [42]
1–3. The Song of Songs, &c.—Know, my brother, that you will find a
great diversity of opinions as regards the interpretation of this
Song of Songs; and it must be confessed that there is reason for
it, since the Song of Songs is like a lock, the key of which hath
been lost. Some maintain that it refers to the kingdom of Israel;
others say that it refers to the days of the Messiah; and others
again affirm that it refers to the time of the dispersion and the
Messiah, and assert that by beloved (דוד) the Messiah is meant,
and by bride (כלה) is meant the law (תורה). But this is a sin,
an error, and a great heresy. The truth is, that by beloved (דוד)
is meant the Lord, for it is written, “I will sing to my beloved a
song of love respecting his vineyard” (Isa. v. 1), which the
prophet Isaiah explains (verse 7), “The vineyard of the Lord of
Hosts is the house of Israel.” Solomon relates in this book the
history of the Jews commencing with their Exodus from Egypt until
after the coming of the Messiah, and compares the position of
Israel to God to that of a bride to a bridegroom, because she
(Israel) is dear to him, and he to her. When he first takes her
from her father’s house he calls her my friend (רעיתי), when he
brings her to his house he calls her my bride (כלה), when she
finds favour in his eyes he calls her my sister (אחותי), and
praises her from head to foot; then he is angry with her, and she
returns and praises him from head to foot; then he praises her a
second time. And, because it is unlawful for a bridegroom and bride
to come together without a marriage-contract and witnesses,
therefore Solomon begins with the words, “Let him give me kisses of
his mouth;” that is, the commandments and the statutes, comprising
both the written and the oral law which the Lord gave to Israel
through the pious Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, so that Israel’s fame
went forth into the world in consequence of their wisdom, as it is
written, “And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy
beauty,” &c. (Ezek. xvi. 14), so much so that many of the nations
desired to be gathered under the wings of the shechinah and become
Jews; and these are the mixed multitudes, Jethro and others, and
therefore it is said, “Thy perfumes are good in odour,” that is,
the Lord tried them from the departure out of Egypt till their
entrance into Canaan whether they would walk in his ways, as it is
written, “Thou didst follow me in the wilderness,” &c. Jer. ii. 2.
4. Draw me, &c.—Having related in this verse how Israel walked in
the fear of the Lord, and received the ten commandments in the 6th
of Sivan, and then made the calf on the 17th of Tamuz, Solomon in
astonishment says in their name,
5. I am swarthy, &c.—That is, I am swarthy, but comely; I am
swarthy because of making the calf, but comely because of receiving
the ten commandments; and Israel says that his sin has been
forgiven through the three thousand men, the wicked among Israel,
who served idols, who were killed before the sun to atone for the
great sin, as it is written, “For thou hadst done it in secret, but
I will do it before all Israel, and before the sun” (2 Sam. xii.
11, 12); and the nations made me keeper of the service of other
gods, for I served strange gods, as it is written, “And they
changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eateth grass”
(Psal. cv. 25.)
The reader will have observed that this early commentator does already
compare the Song of Songs to a lock, the key of which has been lost,
and refers to several modes in which it has been interpreted.
1000–1040. The allegorical interpretation was nevertheless introduced
into the Jewish liturgical services in the middle ages, when they were
seeking, from traditions, dogmas, biblical events, &c., to construct
sacred hymns and poems to be said or sung at their feasts and fasts.
[43] Being regarded as representing the departure of Israel from Egypt
(יציאת מצרים), and their subsequent history in confirmation of
Jehovah’s covenant with them, the Song of Songs is used in a poetical
paraphrase on the first and second morning services of the Passover
feast, which was designed to celebrate the Exodus from Egypt as the
commencement of the conjugal relation between God and his people. For
the same reason, the book itself is read in the synagogue on the
Sabbath of the middle days of the Passover (חול המועד של פסח). The
poetical paraphrase above alluded to is in an alphabetical form, has
the author’s name in it, and each stanza closes with a quotation from
the book in regular order, which renders the paraphrastic meaning
artificial and obscure. Some idea of it may be gathered from the
following version which we have made of R. Solomon ben Judah Hababli’s
paraphrase, comprising the first five verses of the Song of Songs.
1 The Light and Saviour of the chosen people
Deserving protection,
He shall have from His beloved assembly
“A song of Songs.”
2 The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.
The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,
The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,
“He hath kissed me with kisses.” [44]
3 The loved one above all nations,
The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,
Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,
“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.” [45]
4 The chosen of Thy house and nobles,
Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,
We press to the house of Thy glory,
“Oh draw us after thee.” [46]
5 Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,
Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,
Though now with grief I am marred,
“I am swarthy, but comely.” [47]
It must, however, be borne in mind that the synagogal poetry was not
authorized to express the creed of the whole nation; which is evident
from the fact that many learned and pious Jews unscrupulously, and
without censure, rejected some of its opinions. Some of these poems
were composed by prelectors of separate congregations, and for the use
of the particular synagogues in which they officiated. The adoption or
rejection of any such poem entirely depended upon the influence of the
prelector on his congregation, and upon the theme and merit of the
composition. The poetical paraphrase of the allegorical interpretation
of the Song of Songs was sure to be adopted because of the consolation
which it imparts to the dispersed and suffering Israelites, inasmuch as
it assures them that God has not cast them off, that He is still their
beloved, and they are still his loved ones, and that he will speedily
be reunited to them.
1040–1105. Through R. Solomon ben Isaac, the founder of the
Germano-French Rabbinical literature, this encouraging allegorical
interpretation was introduced into Germany and France, where the
suffering Jews obtained consolation. This distinguished commentator,
commonly called Rashi, and, through the misleading of Buxtorf,
erroneously named Jarchi, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040,
where he also died, about 1105. [48]
“My opinion is,” says Rashi, “that Solomon foresaw, by the aid of the
Holy Spirit, that Israel would be carried into sundry captivities, and
undergo sundry dissolutions; that they would lament in their captivity
over their former glory, and recall the former love, which God
manifested for them above all other nations; that they would say, ‘I
will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me
than now’ (Hos. ii. 9); that they would acknowledge His kindness and
their own rebellion, and the good things which He promised to give them
in the latter days (i.e., at the coming of Messiah.)
“This book is written by inspiration, and represents a wife forsaken by
her husband, and shut up, longing after him, recalling to her mind her
love in youth to her beloved, and confessing her guilt; her beloved
sympathising with her affection, and remembering the kindness of her
youth, the charms of her beauty, and her good works, which had tied him
to her with an everlasting love.
“The design of this book is to show to Israel that God has not
afflicted her (i.e., Israel) willingly; that though He did send her
away, He has not cast her off; that she is still His wife, and He her
husband, and that He will again be united to her.” [49]
According to Rashi, דוד represents God as a husband, and the “loved
one” the congregation of Israel, as a wife forsaken for a time by him;
the “companions of the beloved” are the heathen kings and princes,
under the figure of wolves; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” are the
heathen nations; the “brothers of the loved one,” are the Egyptians;
the “little sister” is the forsaken wife of the Song, &c. &c.
The following is a specimen of Rashi’s commentary:—
1. The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon
is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of
Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s
father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This
most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the
congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not
worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel;
for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most
holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took
a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from
it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a
refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are
holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book
teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.
2. Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity
and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His
mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the
shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former
days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy
caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and
pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure
and joy by the name of wine (Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v.
12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory,
this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with
Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more
precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God
that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of
the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises.
This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”
3. Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance
of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt
it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt.
Thy name is called שמן, i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly
poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused.
This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a
bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened,
and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused. The
maidens love thee. Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God
in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab,
when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red
Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By the maidens are meant
the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a
youth.
4. Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish
to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be
Thy wife. He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still
rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee. We celebrate,
&c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than
a banquet of pleasure and mirth. They love thee, &c. I and my
forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and
upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning
according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel
reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their
espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a
land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no
provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and
did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place
destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He
brought them into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with
the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and
affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the
Law; and herein celebrate His love more than wine, and manifest
their sincere attachment to Him.
5. I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly
esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my
swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am
comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am
swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the
rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the
wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the
curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation
of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own
works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my
own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of
the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting
the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,”
because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is
predicted, “And I will give them to thee for daughters” (Ezek. xvi.
61); and, again, “Ekron and her daughters” (Josh. xv. 44).
Rashi also says, that he had seen “a number of other commentaries on
this Song; some containing an exposition of the whole Book, and others
of separate passages, but they are compatible neither with the language
of Scripture, nor with the connexion of the verses.” [50]
1085–1155. The spread of this consoling allegorical interpretation in
France and Germany was promoted by the commentary [51] of the
distinguished R. Samuel ben Meier, called Rashbam, the grandson of
Rashi, who was born about 1085, and died about 1155. [52]
Rashbam too affirms that this book “represents captive Israel as a
virgin sighing and mourning for her beloved, who left her and went afar
off, as describing his everlasting love to her, declaring in a Song,
‘Such an ardent love did my beloved manifest when with me,’ and telling
her friends and companions in a colloquial manner, ‘So did my beloved
speak to me, and so did I answer him.’” [53] In the explanations of the
principal persons Rashbam generally agrees with Rashi.
The following is a specimen of his commentary:—
1. The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs,
like אלהי אלהיﬦ the great and awful God, above all gods, and
ﬡדוני אדניﬦ the great Lord above all lords. Which is Solomon’s.
That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the
Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went
away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved,
Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel,
who is like a bride to Him (God). אשר לשלמה describes Solomon as
the author, compare תפלה למשה, תהלה לדוד.
2. Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses
of His mouth on my mouth in his great love as in the days of old;
for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter
than any delicious banquet. Thy caresses. The loved one sometimes
addresses herself to her beloved as if he were present, and at
other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he were
absent. More than wine, i.e. more than sweet beverages called
יַיִן. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law
delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.
3. Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the
odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out
from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp.
Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By
the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy
One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account
of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it
is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and
again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the
Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people
shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.
4. Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run
after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved,
brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we
will rejoice and be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the
expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and
beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This
refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes
supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her
captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her
into His chambers, i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him
continually.
5. I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of
Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness,
saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for,
although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the
tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature,
like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable
to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations
reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she
committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am
wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal
blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the
latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me
from the iron furnace of captivity. The daughters of Jerusalem are
the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thy
daughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61. The tents of Kedar are black, because
the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in
houses.
1093–1168. While Rashi and Rashbam, by means of this allegorical
interpretation, assuaged the sufferings of their brethren in France and
Germany, the celebrated Abraham Ibn-Ezra ben Meier, also called
Ibn-Ezra and Raba, who was born in Toledo in 1093, and died in 1168,
[54] administered consolation through the same medium to his suffering
brethren in Spain, shewing them that this Song recounts the past
wonderful dealings of God with his beloved people from the very call of
Abraham, and the blessings reserved for them at the coming of the
Messiah, who shall gather them from among all nations, and bring them
back to the land flowing with milk and honey.
Thus Ibn Ezra maintains that “This book is allegorical, and describes
the history of Israel; commencing with the days of our Father, Abraham,
and coming down to the days of the Messiah; just as the Song of Moses
(Deut. xxxii.) begins with the dispersion of the human family, and
finishes with the final ingathering of Israel, after the battle of Gog
and Magog. Do not wonder that the Congregation of Israel is here
compared to a bride, and the Lord to a bridegroom; for this is the
manner of the prophets.” (Comp. Isa. v. 1, lxii. 5, Ezek. xvi. 7, Hos.
iii. 1, Psa. xlv. 10.)
The allegory, according to this distinguished Rabbi, is developed in
the suppositious attachment contracted between a damsel who kept a
vineyard, and a shepherd. The representation of the love of these
parties “is suppositious, because such an actual manifestation, in so
public a manner as here recorded, would be regarded as highly
improper.” [55]
“The beloved” represents God; with the exception of viii. 12, where the
Messiah is meant; “the loved one” is the Congregation of Israel; “the
companions of the beloved” are the pious ancestors; “the daughters of
Jerusalem” are the thoughts of the loved one; “the little sister,” in
viii. 8, is the two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” in viii. 13, the
shechinah; “the companions,” in the same verse, are the angels.
The commentary consists of three different glosses: in the first, the
words are explained; in the second, the suppositious history of the
attachment of the shepherd and shepherdess is developed; and in the
third gloss, the allegory is evolved from that history. The following
is a specimen of the gloss where the allegory is propounded.
2. Let him kiss me.—He (i.e. Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he
is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are
meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham
obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes,
and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future
(ישקני) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the
sacred Scriptures, compare ﬡז ישּיר, then he sang (Exod. xv. 1,
and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for
the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c. i.e., to be loved by
thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people.
Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there
is a difference between אוהב, loving, and אהוב, loved.
3. Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and
instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the
name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth
like oil.” Therefore do the damsels love thee.—עלמות are such as
have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were
brought by Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The
souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).
4. Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his
native place (Gen. xii. 1). The king has brought me, &c.—God has
brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has
made him wise in his secrets, and the words, we will praise thy
love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and
planted wherever he came.
5. I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I
(i.e. Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed
there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and
to the belief in the unity of God.
It has generally been overlooked that Ibn Ezra distinctly states in the
second gloss, in which he professes to give the literal meaning of the
narrative, that the lovers are a shepherd and a shepherdess, and that
the king is a separate and distinct person from the beloved shepherd.
Thus he explains Ch. i. 4, “I rejoice in THEE (the shepherd) more than
if THE KING had brought me into his apartments.” Again, verse 12, the
shepherdess says to the shepherd, “Though my fragrance is so sweet that
THE KING, whilst reclining, desires to smell my nard, yet MY BELOVED
(the shepherd), who is a bundle of myrrh, diffuses a still sweeter
fragrance.” Compare also Ch. iii. 6–11, Ch. vi. 8, Ch. viii. 11, 12.
This is an important step to the right understanding of the Book.
Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to
refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of
the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain
it literally.” [56] In reference to the last mentioned mode of
interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the
Song of Songs is an amatory composition.” [57]
1200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of
the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have
prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been
adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish
community.
Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning of the
thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of
the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between
the ACTIVE INTELLECT (intellectus agens) and the RECEPTIVE MATERIAL
INTELLECT (intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved
one.
As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a
translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—
THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE. [58]
Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs,
which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves
us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is
likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not,
however, explain the words, since they have been explained long
before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to the design of
the book in general, and now and then make some observations in
particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my
discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has
enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it,
especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint
there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.
I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second
kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides)
mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used
in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just
as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a
beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only
difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of
matter and mind, and this book represents the union between the
active intellect and the receptive, material intellect, which
latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is the
imparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon
merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most
certain that he calls here the highest order of the human intellect
“the fairest of women,” and the active intellect “the graceful
lover;” frequently the whole intellectual mind is meant by the
latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places
of this Book.
It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens)
stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis)
from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the
philosophers; and that the receptive intellect requires to seek
after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be
found of thee.”
Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the
particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst
the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical
composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the
beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”
It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we
possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three
different kinds of ways; the one, in a plain manner, containing
nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is called all
silver; the second entirely symbolical, having no literal meaning
whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is
called all gold; and the third comprising both the figurative and
the literal, which is called apples of gold (under plates of
silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which
belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and
Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how
we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography,
and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death.
And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into
the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the
author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no
more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a
book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly
comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance,
however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious,
clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one
or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give
rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is
her own witness.
There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions
are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon
has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in
order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of
Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which
treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the
Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the
prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed memory, in their
respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did
not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them
for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in
the former, e.g., יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From
this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of
blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not
necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book
according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name!
Amen.
Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an
elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song
of Songs represents the union of the RECEPTIVE or MATERIAL INTELLECT
with the ACTIVE INTELLECT.”
This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the
Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum,
Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession
of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is
Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is
poetically called אַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל, the Prince of Science in Rome,
was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the
Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the
fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of
interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this
commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse,
which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is
applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the
possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797. [59]
The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory,
saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the
opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all
the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its
interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the
diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as
go no further than the material world, and that which their eye
sees, looking forward to the good of this world and its glory, to
the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God,
desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing
with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the
flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its
grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to
the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their
Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the
giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the
settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the
building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their
final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard
this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or
historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use,
and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are
other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of
true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise
the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the
Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with
heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the
garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom,
and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book
through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden
apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of
their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from
the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that
the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with
the incorporeal mind, which forms the perceptive faculty, and
influences it with abundant goodness.
The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which
longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to
be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to
its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.
These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of
the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly;
but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end,
till the celebrated sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained
the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full
of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several
particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries,
reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter
more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love,
that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the
same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its
particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book,
also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may
enable me.
Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their
wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book,
according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said
author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes
adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I
was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary
first to mention the design of the book in general, and its
division into sections.
I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book
philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three
principal sections.
The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.
The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.
And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.
These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of
men.
The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either
ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned,
and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is
written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and
there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made
the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and
good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden,
and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The
Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the
garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to
eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the
day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17).
And if, as man, he had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he
might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or
trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and
good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou
mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to
learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be
terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet
ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my
beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the
mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch
us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our
vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit
was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that
the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit
down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of
Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the
word חמדתי. The expression פריו is here used in the sense of
words, wisdom, and instruction. The whole, therefore, of the first
section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its
developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when
the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has
not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This
first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part
begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God
and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition,
and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to
iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.
The second section (chap. iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has
found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who
seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may
safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility
into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken
of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant
by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them,
when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not
let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother, into
the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4).
The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of
his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and
union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said,
“Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and
was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called here King Solomon,
whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or
Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The
beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed
garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with
delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are
generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe:
he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no
blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls her bride six times, which he
has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above
all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat
of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the
import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates
with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not
be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat
of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to
the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.
The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and
drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they
indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous
have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the
meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my
spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my
honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O
ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He,
as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat
and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he
passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in
and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and
finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or
committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen
who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which
are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out
to the mind the right way, and never mislead, nor hinder, nor delay
its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom
my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who
represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and
their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide;
yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to
teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance
from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it
is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul
loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him
into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that
gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and
a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have
already explained.
This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is
from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the
second part is epexegetical of the first.
The third section (v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who
has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites,
and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has
eaten. Mark here the expression with her (עמח), for man cannot
eat of it unless with her; for since God has not revealed it to
man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except
through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the
one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust.
But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor
does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her
feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal
instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to
open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my
sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and
she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake,
and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but
her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found
him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the
wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and
wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they
misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for
sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the
case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he
ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was
cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And
now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant,
would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and
he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I
live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek.
xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the
fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that
it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the
tree of life. “For the difficulty of uniting a couple a second time
is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural,
although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing
unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other
after their separation, and how they praised one another in the
manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to
have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and
wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving
her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a
woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is
dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her
voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly
replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young
fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were
her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself,
and run away, lest they meet him.
This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from
v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the
book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is
the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote
expositions on it.
This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by
the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and
shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains
before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of
importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero
and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards
Solomon as a separate person, whom the rustic maiden adduces in
illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming,
that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her
all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble
lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and
excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has
never been published.
1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas and Ralbag, a
learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about
1370 [60], defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which
is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.
It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding
commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and
took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the
possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No.
625, interprets this Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted
between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon
as a distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of
her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this
great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court
to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to
her humble shepherd.
This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible to
ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French
expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and
appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French
Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is
peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it
contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this
book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would
be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.
1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in
the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been
solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing
expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting
theories, as some explained it literally, others referred it to the
union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to
the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of
the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject
them all, and advanced a new theory, viz., that this book represents
the love of the people of Israel to their God. [61]
1360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field
was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended
those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was
printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who
was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is
published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the
philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the
father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and
commentator, who died in 1550, [62] and whose commentary is published
in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died
1570, [63] whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose
commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb,
Sabionnetta in Italy, 558, [64] Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the
second half of the sixteenth century, [65] and whose commentary was
published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech, [66] whose
commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the
other views.
While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting
parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion
entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It
was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who
affirmed that the Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom
Solomon converses. [67]
His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view. [68]
1729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical
exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished
philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in
Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues
Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the
rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators
distinctly stated, that as so many of the Rabbins have written upon
this book, and defended such various and conflicting views, they
questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal
explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the
commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who
are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.
Seeing that this book describes the love of a shepherd and a
shepherdess, and also speaks of a king, of humble rural life, as well
as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and
Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love
between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between
the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion
at all.
1798–1821. Löwisohn, born in 1798, and died in 1821, was the first who
recognised and elucidated the true design of this book. This sweet
singer of modern Israel shows that the Song of Songs celebrates the
victory of true and virtuous love in humble life over the temptations
of royalty; that this book records the virtuous attachment of a
shepherdess to a shepherd; that the rustic maiden having been tempted
by the wisest and most celebrated king to transfer her affections,
spurned every allurement, and remained faithful to her humble lover.
[69]
1832. It is surprising that the profound and learned Zunz, [70] did not
follow up the remarks of Löwisohn; but regarded this Song as an
epithalamium. [71]
1848. This view, however, has not gained ground among the Jews; and Dr.
Salomon Herxheimer, chief Rabbi of Anhalt-Bernburg, in his translation
of the Old Testament with annotations, follows the opinion of Löwisohn.
[72] His opinion is that “the Song of Songs celebrates ardent and
virtuous love which resists all allurements. The Shulamite, a rustic
maiden warmly attached to a young shepherd, is taken against her will
to the court of King Solomon. The king offers everything to win her
affections, but she does not suffer herself to be dazzled either by the
royal court, or by the sweet flatteries of the king himself, and
remains faithful to her absent lover.”
1854. Dr. Philippson, Rabbi of Magdeburg, propounded the same view.
[73] The design of the book is to show that true and virtuous love is
invincible, and is not to be bought, but is a flame of God (Ch. viii.
6, 7), exemplified in the conduct of a humble shepherdess, who being
attached to a shepherd, was tempted by King Solomon to transfer her
affection, but who overcame all allurements, and remained faithful to
her lover.
The two last-mentioned Rabbins, by virtue of their high position and
great learning, may be regarded as representing the view now generally
entertained by the Jews respecting the Song of Songs. [74]
185–254. We come now to the Christian Expositors of this book, whom we
shall introduce in the same chronological order, and of whose views a
concise explanation will be given. The first of these is Origen, who
has been justly celebrated for his genius and extensive acquirements.
He was born in Alexandria in 185, and died in Tyros in 254. His
commentaries upon Scripture are very extensive, and though containing
much that is valuable, abound with fanciful allegories and inexplicable
mysteries. His attachment to the Platonic philosophy drew him aside
from the simplicity of inspired truth, and his instruction in Hebrew by
R. Hillel, [75] imbued him with Hagadic interpretations of the sacred
text.
His commentary upon the Song of Songs was very voluminous, of which
fragments only remain, but these are of a very elaborate kind, and
sufficient to reveal his whole design. He admits an historical sense as
an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter,
[76] but in him we meet with a full exhibition of the allegorical
allusion to the marriage union of Christ and his Church, which has been
adopted by the majority of expositors to the present day. He says,
“Blessed is he who enters the holy place, but more blessed is he who
enters the holy of holies; blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath, but
more blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath of Sabbaths; so blessed is he
who sings holy songs, but more blessed is he who sings the Song of
Songs.”
He finds in it four distinct parties; a bridegroom and bride with their
separate companions. By “the bridegroom,” we are to understand Christ,
by “the bride,” the Church, by “the companions” of the former, angels
and saints in heaven, and by “the maidens” of the latter, believers on
the earth.
The following is a specimen of Origen’s method of interpretation:—
2, 3. Let him kiss me, &c. This is the suppliant voice of the
bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send
kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his
lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and
give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son;
she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and
the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom
Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says
to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore
God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become
a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes
forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the
other of the Spirit.
Thy name, &c. This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God
comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel,
a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it
upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his
feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These
are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that
the house was filled with the odour of the ointment, since the
world will be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the
leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world,
whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour.
Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy
Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens
at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in
praise of the bridegroom, she says, The virgins love thee. By their
coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments
we will run.’
4. Draw me, &c. In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize.
This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into
the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what
she has seen. The king hath brought me into his chambers. He
praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride
says to the maidens,
5. Black I am, &c. Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for
the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is
she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted.
Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her
dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to
greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh
up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar,
say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the
temple, were comely.
296–373. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, was born in that city in
296, and died in 373. He was the principal defender of the Nicene
faith, in opposition to Arius. His zealous advocacy of the Deity of
Christ led him to seek, and to find that doctrine everywhere. He looked
upon the Song of Songs as a Jubilee song of the Church, at the
incarnation of the Son of God, and thus differs from Origen, who refers
it to the experience of the believing soul. The whole book, he says, is
an allegory, and is to be understood enigmatically from the beginning
to the end. Its doctrines are secrets, and those only who are well
versed in allegory ought to study it, as it is sure to be corrupted in
the hands of others. It is called the Song of Songs, because it is the
chief and last song, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, which other
songs regard as future, this celebrates as present. It is an
Epithalamium in celebration of the marriage of Him who is the loved of
God and human flesh. Here are no threatenings and sorrows as in other
books, but as the Bridegroom is present, all is turned into joy. The
book is full of dialogues between the Son of God and the human race;
sometimes between men in general and Christ, sometimes between Him and
his ancient people; sometimes between Him and the Gentile Church,
sometimes between the Gentiles and Jerusalem; and sometimes between
ministering angels and men.
The following is a specimen of Athanasius’ Commentary:—
2. Let him kiss me, &c. This is the entreaty of his ancient people
to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch.
vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all
manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for
thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my
brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to
Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in
reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his
having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my
spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his
garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth
fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having
put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii.
10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the
winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his
teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the
turtle in their land.”
In this fanciful manner our author descants upon the whole book.
331–396. Notwithstanding the authority and influence of the foregoing
fathers, the allegorical interpretation was rejected by many at a very
early age. And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, born about 331,
and died about 396, who wrote an extensive commentary upon this book,
had strenuously to contend for the allegorical or spiritual
interpretation, and severely condemned those who adhered to the literal
meaning. The soul, he considers, as a spouse who enters into spiritual
union with God. The most perfect and blessed way of salvation is here
shown to those who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The following is a specimen of Gregory’s Commentary:—
2. Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which
has become worthy to speak to God face to face. Thy breasts are
better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human
wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.
3. Thy name, &c. This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to
the graces received from above.
Thus he finds some spiritual meaning in every part, for the
confirmation of which some other part of Scripture is adduced.
331–420. Jerome, however, (born at Stridon in Dalmatia in 331, and died
in the vicinity of Bethlehem in 420,) who was exceedingly fond of the
Greek philosophers, and, like Origen, was instructed in Hebrew
literature by the Jews, [77] as might have been expected, was not
affected by the objections against the allegorical interpretation, but
introduced it into the Western Churches. According to him, it is a
nuptial and dramatic song on the occasion of the union of Christ with
his Church or the soul of man. The bride and her companions, and the
bridegroom and his companions are the interlocutors in the drama. He
seems to have embraced almost entirely the theory and interpretation of
Origen.
354–430. Augustin, who was born at Tagesta in Numidia, in 354, and died
in 430, materially aided Jerome in the spread of the allegorical
interpretation in the West. He regards the Song of Songs as describing
“the holy loves of Christ and his Church.”
Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou
feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in
behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the
world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church
is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the
meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The
church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is
the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why
should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?”
that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not
thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration,
“I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words
addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in
graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes
to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for
them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand,
confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines.
Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes
together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the
condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north,
and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from
the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south
wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining
regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says,
“We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved,
and in them that perish.”
360–429. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, who wrote a commentary on this
book, also rejected the allegorical meaning, and adhered to its literal
and obvious sense. Pity that his commentary is lost, and that the only
account of it is from his enemies.
386–457. So general was the dissatisfaction with the allegorical
interpretation of the Song of Songs, and so different were the theories
respecting it at the time of Theodoret or Theodorit, bishop of Cyrus in
Syria, who was born at Antioch about 386, and died 457, that he was
obliged to mention and refute them.
There are some, says this prelate, who do not admit that the Song of
Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables,
which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is
here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the
Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others,
again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this
book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel,
and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary,
before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false
and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of
this book.
1. These people, he submits, ought to remember that those holy fathers
were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this
book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church
revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.
2. Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of
the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra
by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other
than a divine book.
3. Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written
devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings
with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near
the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not
believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own
opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard
letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.
“The bridegroom” is Christ, “the bride” his church; “the daughters of
Jerusalem” are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian
sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but
imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom” are either the
angels or the prophets.
The following is a specimen of his commentary:—
1. The Song of Songs, &c. This book is called The Song of Songs,
because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and
Psalms are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song
about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.
2. Let him kiss me, &c. This is the language of the spouse offering
a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both
the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well
as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the
description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou
art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that
her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and
the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,”
&c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and
power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world
without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him
in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that
which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him
remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the
beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which
we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel
ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were
with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say,
“love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes
to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.
390–444. Cyril of Alexandria, who was born towards the close of the
fourth century, and died in 444, went so far as to explain “the
palanquin,” to mean the cross; its “silver legs,” the thirty pieces of
silver which brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,” the
purple garment in which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,”
the crown of thorns put on Christ’s head, &c. &c.
650. The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to
become more apparent in the Christian Church. Aponius, who is quoted by
the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh
century, regards the Song of Songs as describing what the Logos has
done for the Church from the beginning of the world, and what he will
do to the end of it; thus, like the Chaldee, he takes the book as a
historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his
people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the
description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church.
673–735. Bede, called the venerable, who was born at Wearmouth, in
Durham, in 673, and died in 735, wrote seven books on the Song of
Songs, one being merely a copy from Gregory the Great, in which he
defends the doctrine of grace against the Pelagians.
1091–1153. To the scholastics of the middle ages the Song of Songs
seemed an unfathomable abyss of mysticism, into whose depths they could
dive as deeply as their speculative minds and fertile imaginations
prompted them. St. Bernard, who was born at Fountains, in the vicinity
of Dijon, in Burgundy, and died in 1153, delivered eighty-six sermons
upon this book, and this prodigious number comprises the first two
chapters only. In the first sermon he says, “The unction and experience
can alone teach the understanding of such a Song. It is not to be heard
outside, for its notes give no sound in the street; but she who sings
it, she hears it and he to whom it is sung, that is the bridegroom and
the bride.” He divides the Song into three parts; in the first part the
bridegroom leads the bride into the garden, and in the second he
conducts her into the cellar, and in the third he takes her home into
his apartments. Upon the words Let him kiss me, &c. (Chap. i. 2), which
he explains as referring to the incarnation of Christ, he remarks, “O
happy kiss, marvellous because of amazing condescension; not that mouth
is pressed upon mouth, but God is united with man.” [78]
Gilbert Porretanus, the disciple of St. Bernard, continued these
sermons, but only lived to deliver forty-eight, which extend to Chap.
v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprise
four chapters and a half.
1270–1340. In the Commentary of the celebrated Nicolas De Lyra, a
converted Jew, and a native of Lire, in Normandy, we meet more fully
the Chaldee mode of interpretation as adopted by Aponius. Like the
Chaldee, De Lyra takes the Song of Songs to be a historico-prophetical
book, with this difference, however, that he regards Chap. ii.–vii. as
describing the history of the Israelites from their Exodus from Egypt
to the birth of Christ, and from Chapter vii. to the end, the origin of
the Christian Church, her progress, and the peace which she attained in
the days of Constantine. Upon the words, “We have a little sister,” he
remarks, “This is the Church humble and abject among the worldly
enemies, for so she was till the time of Constantine.” [79]
1538. The great reformer, Luther, could not reconcile his mind to
believe that the Song of Songs describes the conjugal union of Christ,
the bridegroom, with the bride, i.e. the Church as a whole, or with the
soul of every individual believer. He therefore rejected the
allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and advanced a new theory,
viz., “that the bride is the happy and peaceful State under the
dominion of Solomon, and that the Song is a hymn of praise, in which
Solomon thanks God for the obedience rendered unto him as a divine
gift: for, where the Lord does not direct and rule there is neither
obedience nor happy dominion, but where there is obedience or a happy
dominion there the Lord lives and kisses and embraces his bride with
his word, and that is the kisses of his mouth.” [80]
1542. John Brentius, the Suabian reformer, adopted the same theory. He
calls the Song of Songs, “Carmen encomiasticum, quod de laude regni et
politiae suae Solomon conscripsit.” [81]
1544. Castellio, seeing that Luther had rejected the allegorical
interpretation of the Fathers, and propounded a theory of his own
equally untenable, maintained that the book has no allegorical meaning
whatever, but is merely a “colloquium Salomonis cum amica quadam
Sulamitha,” and as such deemed it unworthy of a place in the sacred
canon. [82]
1585. Thomas Wilcocks adhered to the opinion that this book celebrates
the marriage between Christ and his Church, and especially “the great
love of the bridegroom to his spouse, which is never removed, but
always abideth constant, how oft soever she fall away, and seem, as a
man would say, to forsake her husband.” [83] This commentary, which is
rare, contains many useful remarks.
1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De
Lyra, that this book describes historico-prophetically, the condition
of the Church, and “agrees well-nigh in all things with the Revelation
of St. John.” Solomon, in this Song, and John, in the Apocalypse,
“foresaw the same events in like times, and either of them directed his
course to the same mark.” [84] He divides the book into two parts; the
first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Legal Church from
the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv.
7–viii. 14, the state of the Evangelical Church, from A.D. 34 to the
second coming of Christ. We give the following analysis of this curious
commentary.
A. The Legal Church.
Chap. i.–ii. 2, describes the condition of the Church before the
captivity; 1, 2, under David; 3, under Solomon; 4–8, under Rehoboam;
9–11, under Abijah and Asa; 12, under Jehoshaphat; 13, under Jehoram,
Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; 14, under Hezekiah;
15, 16, under Manasseh and Josiah; chap. ii. 1, 2, under the other
Kings to the last Zedekiah.
Chap. ii. 3–14, describes the condition of the Church during the
captivity; 3, the comforts of the few left in their own country; 4–7,
the preservation of the whole in the captivity; 8, 9, the foretold
deliverance; 10–13, its approach; 14, and the deliverance from it.
Chap. ii. 15–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Church from the
deliverance to the death of Christ; 15, 16, the troublesome time from
the restoration of the Church by Cyrus to Alexander the Great; 17, the
partial rest under Alexander; chap. iii. 1–3, the desolation in the
Church caused by Antiochus Epiphanes, and its effects in driving away
the beloved; 4, 5, the finding of the beloved; 6–11, the condition of
the Church during Christ’s sojourn upon this earth; chap. iv. 1–6,
Christ’s description of her then beautiful aspect.
B. The Evangelical Church.
Chap. iv. 7–11, describes the obedience and perfection of the Church
from A.D. 34 to 334; 7, Christ’s return to his disciples after his
resurrection, and remaining with them forty days; 8, the preaching of
the Gospel by Peter and Philip to the Grecians, Samaritans, and in
Gaza; 9, the effects upon Antioch from the preaching of Paul and
Barnabas; 10, 11, the marvellous constancy of the martyrs who died
under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, &c.; the spread of the Gospel through the
faithfulness of these sufferers; the beautiful orations of Dionysius
the Areopagite, Quadratus, Aristides the Athenian, Dionysius of
Corinth, Melito, Apollinarius, Polycarp, &c., and through the setting
forth of the sweetness of the garments by Justin, Tertullian, and
Cyprian.
Chap. iv. 12–v. 16, describes the decayed state of the Church from
334–1510; 12, the declension of the Church after the death of
Dioclesian, when many embraced Arianism; 13, 14, her rising again under
Constantine; 15, the convocation of the Council of Nice; 16, Europe and
Africa defending the truth against Arian heresy; 17, the decayed state
of the Church after the demise of Constantine. Chap. v. 1, Christ
knocking by persecution (A.D. 368), in the time of Constance, Julian,
and Valens; 2, the attempt of the Church to obtain justification by
good works; 3, the withdrawal of Christ in consequence of the Chalcedon
Council refusing to root out heresy according to the exhortation of the
Emperor Marcian; 4, the rising of the Church in the time of Leo
Isaurus, Constantine his son (755), and Charles the Great, in Frankfort
(795), who endeavoured to exterminate image-worship; 5, the failure of
this endeavour; 6, the Church smitten and wounded through the
excommunication of Leo Isaurus, and the conduct of the Council of Nice
under Constantine (788); verse 8 describes how, in 1100, a Florentine
bishop, Arnold, a Roman, Hildegarde the prophetess, and Bernard, began
to seek the bridegroom; 8, multitudes flocked to Peter Waldo, in 1160,
to inquire after the beloved; 9, 10, Christ appearing again in 1200, at
the battle of the Albigenses with the anti-christian bands of Innocent
the Third; 11, the kingdom almost restored to Christ after the battle;
12, the faithful teaching of Michael Cesenas, Peter de Corboria, and
John de Poliaco, who were condemned in 1277 by Pope John; 13, the
preaching in 1290 by Robert Trench; 14, the first resurrection, as
described in Rev. i. 20, which took place in 1300, when Dante the
Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, William Ockham, and John of Gaunt,
boldly declared the truth, when Philip, king of France, and Edward of
England despised the authority of the Pope, and when John Wickliff
(1370) taught openly; 15–17, the days of John Huss, Jerome of Prague
(1415), and the shaking off of the Romish yoke by the Bohemians.
Chap. vi.–viii., describes the Church restored, from 1517 to the second
coming of Christ; 1, the teaching of pure doctrine (1517), by Luther;
2, the Church, in the mouth of Melancthon, claims her beloved before
Prince Frederick; 3, the unpleasant state of the Church from 1429, when
the Argentinenses joined battle with the Helvetians, till the death of
Charles the Fifth (1548); and her beauty, when, in the following year,
the Reformation spread in Scotland, Geneva, in the Helvetian and German
churches, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; 4, the declaration of
justification by faith by Luther; 5, the newly-called preachers of the
Gospel in 1550, such as Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zwinglius, &c.; 6,
the ecclesiastical and civil government of the Church as restored again
in Geneva; 7, the splitting of the Church in 1563, by John Brentius and
James Andrewes; 8, the excellency of the faithful; 9–12, the conversion
of the Jews, who are called princes. Chap. vii., their conversion a
blessing to the Church. Chap. viii. 1–4, their zeal; 5–7, the calling
in of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and all the nations bordering on the
eastern regions, and their glorious condition after their conversion;
11, 12, the care which the bridegroom will exercise over the whole
Church; 13, what he requires of her; 14, her longing desire to be
carried with him into everlasting mansions.
As Brightman’s Commentary may be regarded as the fullest development of
the Chaldee interpretation Christianized, we shall give a few specimens
of his mode of exposition.
I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church
lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his
enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep
caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded
nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the
householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when
the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken
with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common
good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein
outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the
heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether
quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine,
when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so
oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not
use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in
among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to
consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to
worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the
honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now
tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither
loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead,
Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her
up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the
times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a
professed enemy, (A.D. 368,) yet the other two exceeded him in
cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in
the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that,
returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him
in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors
(as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and
Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by
Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly,
(that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four
voices, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion
alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very
religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was
in all the fault, who having these helps prepared, would not use
them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the
emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and
best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen,
Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of
that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move
her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.
My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before
the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now
so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of
the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle
brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in
the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.
14. His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom
been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick
the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are
the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively
signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the
ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in
his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such
splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which
Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it
happened about the year 1300, which was called the first
resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended
wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves.
Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante
the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, William Ockham, John of Gaunt,
and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface,
Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants
of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made
show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.
His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as
ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two
Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one,
as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from
strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the
bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they
are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as
it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff
(1370), who taught openly, that the substance of the material bread
and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of
bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ
is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally.
Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but
the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom
should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.
How different to this is the opinion of Henry Ainsworth, the celebrated
Nonconformist divine, who regards this “book as treating of man’s
reconciliation unto God, and peace by Jesus Christ, with joy in the
Holy Spirit!” “In Solomon’s days,” says Ainsworth, “the Church before
Christ’s coming had the greatest glory, having the temple builded,
living under that most wise, rich, and peaceable King; the Israelites
being as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating, and
drinking, and making merry, and dwelling safely, every man under his
vine and under his fig-tree.” (1 Kings iv. 10, 25.) Notwithstanding
Solomon, being a prophet, foresaw the ruin of his house and kingdom,
and in his book of Ecclesiastes proclaimed all things under the sun to
be vanity, and in this Song prophesieth of the Church and Kingdom of
Christ. And as he, with many other prophets, and kings, and righteous
men, desired to see Christ, and to hear his words, but did not (Luke x.
24; Matt. xiii. 7), so here he manifesteth the desire of himself and of
all the faithful to enjoy the blessings and graces of Christ, saying,
‘Let him kiss me.’ Whereby the Church desireth to have Christ
manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable
doctrines of his Gospel applied unto her conscience, that she might not
be always under the schoolmaster of the law, which worketh wrath (Rom.
iv. 15), but might be prevented with the grace of Christ, and have the
feeling of his love towards her. [85]
The difference of opinion respecting the interpretation of this book,
which obtained after the Reformation had laid open the Scriptures to
all Protestants, and had established the right of private judgment, did
not, however, as yet affect the Romish Church. Her followers not only
adhered to the allegorical interpretation, but, unlike their
predecessors of the middle ages, took the bride of the Song to be the
Virgin Mary. Thus Michael Ghislerius and Cornelius à Lapide. The latter
is especially to be noticed, since he was the first who endeavoured to
show that this Song is a drama in five acts.
1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation could with
equal facility be made to describe the history of the Jewish nation and
that of the Virgin Mary, awakened the suspicion of Hugo Grotius, the
celebrated statesman, philosopher, and divine. He, therefore, adhered
to the literal sense of the book, which, according to him, celebrates
the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, but at the same time
also admitted that the ARCANA NUPTIARUM spiritually represent, first,
the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the
Church. [86] It will be remembered that Origen was already of opinion
that this Song primarily celebrates the marriage of Solomon with
Pharaoh’s daughter, though with him the literal meaning was of no
importance, and that Theodoret mentions some who viewed the Song in no
other light than this.
1603–1699. It was to be expected that John Cocceius, the founder of the
theological school bearing his name, whose doctrine was, that the whole
history of the Old Testament is a mirror, accurately reflecting the
transactions and events that were to happen under the New Testament
dispensation to the end of the world, would find in this Song something
in accordance with his views. Enlarging upon Aponius’ and De Lyra’s
mode of interpretation, and, like Brightman, still more approaching the
Chaldee, in a manner peculiar to himself Cocceius regards this book as
a prophetical narrative of the transactions and events that are to
happen in the Church, and divides the whole into seven distinct
periods, similar to the seven trumpets and seven seals in the
Revelation of St. John.
Chapter.
1. The period of the preaching of the Gospel to
Jews and Gentiles i.–ii.
2. The period of the increase of the Church, and
persecution from without iii.–iv.
3. The period of peace from without and danger
within v.–vi. 8.
4. The period of the Reformation vi. 9–vii. 10.
5. The period of unsettlement after the
Reformation vii. 11–viii. 3.
6. The period of the persecution viii. 4–6.
7. The period of rest after the sufferings and
longing for the spread of the Gospel viii. 7–14. [87]
1648. Strange as this mode of interpretation may appear, yet, as we
have seen, it is not confined to a single individual or country. John
Cotton also affirms that Solomon in this book “describes the estate of
the Church towards Christ, and his respect towards her from his (i.e.
Solomon’s) own time to the last judgment.” [88]
Chap. i. describes the estate of the Church from the days of
Solomon to the repair of the temple by Josiah.
Chap. ii. describes the estate of the Church from the repair of the
temple to the days of the Maccabees.
Chap. iii. describes the estate of the Church from the days of the
Maccabees to the time of Christ’s sojourning here on earth.
Chap. iv. describes the estate of the Church—first, in Christ’s
time, under his ministry, ver. 1–6; secondly, after his ascension,
under the Apostles, ver. 7–11; thirdly, after their departure,
during the first ten persecutions, ver. 12–16.
Chap. v. describes the estate of the Church from the time that
Constantine entered it to the time of restoring the Gospel and
reforming of the Church by the ministry of Luther and other late
divines.
Chap. vi. describes the state of the Church reformed by the
ministry of Luther and other late divines, and the calling in of
the Jews.
Chap. vii.–viii. 4, describes the estate of the Jewish Church when
they shall come to be converted unto the Lord.
Chap. viii. 5–14, describes the solicitude which the Church of
Judea and Assyria cherished for the growth and establishment of the
good people in Egypt, the destruction of the Turks, the union of
all Christians, the coming of the Lord, &c.
1650. John Trapp, however, adhered to the more general view, and
regarded this Song as “a treasury of the most sacred and highest
mysteries of Holy Scriptures, streaming out all along, under the
parable of a marriage, that full torrent of spiritual love that is
betwixt Christ and the Church.” ... “The form of it is dramatical and
dialogistical; the chief speakers are, not Solomon and the Shulamite,
as Castellio makes it, but Christ and his Church. Christ also hath
associates (those friends of the bridegroom), viz., the prophets,
apostles, pastors, and teachers, who put in a word sometimes; as
likewise do the fellow-friends of the bride, viz. whole churches or
particular Christians.” [89]
1688. Hennischius not only adopted the view of Brightman and Cocceius,
but even exceeded it, and called his commentary upon this book, [90]
“The Apocalypse in the Canticles.” He found in the Song of Songs seven
periods of the Church described, answerable to the states of the seven
Asiatic Churches in the Revelation of St. John.
Rev. Cant. A.D.
1. The Church at Ephesus ii. 1–7 i. 5–17 33–370
2. ,, ,, ,, Smyrna 8–11 ii. 1–17 371–707
3. ,, ,, ,, Pergamos 12–17 iii. 1–11 708–104
4. ,, ,, ,, Thyatira 18–29 iv. 1–v. 1 1046–138
5. ,, ,, ,, Sardis iii. 1–6 v. 2–vi. 2 1384–1721
6. ,, ,, ,, Philadelphia 7–13 vi. 9–vii. 14 1722–2059
7. ,, ,, ,, Laodicea 14–22 viii. 1–14 2060 and
onwards.
1693. The profound scholarship and exquisite taste of Bossuet, though a
Roman Catholic Bishop, would not allow him to follow these extravagant
theories. Presuming that the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of
Pharaoh is the primary object of this Song, and that the nuptial feast
among the Jews was hebdomadal, Bossuet divides the poem into seven
parts, corresponding to the seven days of the supposed duration of the
wedding. [91] The following is his division:—
Chapter.
1st day i.–ii. 6.
2nd day ii. 7–17.
3rd day iii.–v. 1.
4th day v. 2–vi. 9.
5th day vi. 10–vii. 11.
6th day vii. 12–viii. 3.
7th day viii. 4–14.
1700. Bishop Patrick, however, would not admit any literal meaning, but
found, almost in every word, some delightful mystery. Even the words,
“Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly
is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies,” (chap. vii. 2,) at
which so much umbrage has been taken, this pious prelate says, may mean
“the two Sacraments which the Church administers to her children; the
Font in Baptism being represented by the former, and the Sacrament of
the Lord’s Supper by the other part of the figure.” [92]
1710. Shortly after the publication of this commentary appeared the
Exposition of Matthew Henry. And though Henry confessed, “on the one
hand, that if he who barely reads this book be asked, as the eunuch
was, Understandest thou what thou readest? he will have more reason
than he had to say, How can I, except some man shall guide me? that the
books of Scripture history and prophecy are very much like one another,
but that this Song of Solomon is very much unlike the Songs of his
father David; here is not the name of God in it; it is never quoted in
the New Testament; we find not in it any expressions of natural
religion or pious devotion; no, nor is it introduced by vision, or any
of the marks of immediate revelation; thus it seems as hard as any part
of Scripture to be made a savour of life unto life.” Yet he affirms,
“on the other hand, that with the help of the many faithful guides we
have for the understanding of this book, it appears to be a very bright
and powerful ray of heavenly light, admirably fitted to excite pious
and devout affections in holy souls, to draw out their desires towards
God, to increase their delight in him, and improve their acquaintance
and communion with him.” [93]
1723. Durham tells us the import of the Song of Songs much more
positively and dogmatically than either Patrick or Henry. “The great
scope of this Song is to set out that mutual love and carriage that is
between Christ and the Church in five distinct branches. It holdeth out
the Church’s case, and Christ’s care of her, in all her several
conditions, and under all dispensations; such as, I. Her sinful
infirmities, and failings in duties, chap. i. 6; v. 2, 3, and also
under liveliness in duties, chap. i. 2, 3, 4, and v. 5, and almost
throughout. II. Under crosses, chap. i. 6, as being ‘a lily among
thorns,’ and hated of the world, ii. 2, and also in prosperity, wherein
she is commended as terrible, vi. 10. III. As deserted and sick of
love, chap. iii. 1, 2, and v. 4, 5, and again as enjoying her beloved,
i. 4; iii. 4, 5. IV. As under faithful shepherds and lively ordinances,
chap. i. 4; iii. 4, 5, and also as under carnal watchmen, v. 7. And in
all these, her various conditions, in all ages, are painted forth,
before Christ’s incarnation, as well as now, without respect to any
particular time or age; for ceremonial things are not here meddled
with, but what was spiritual; besides the Church then and now is one,
as in the next consideration will be cleared. V. As in private dealing
with Christ, and longing after him and praying for him, chap. iv. 16;
viii. 1, and almost throughout, and also what she was in public duties,
going to the watchmen, chap. v. 7, and iii. 3, and what she was in
fellowship with others, v. 8, 9; vi. 1, 2. VI. It sets out believers as
more strong, and it furnishes a greater measure of grace and knowledge;
and also, as more weak in gifts and grace. VII. And lastly, it holds
forth the same believers as more and less lively in their conditions.
“This book, in its matter, is a comprehensive sum of all those
particulars formed in a song, put together, and drawn as on a board,
for the believers’ edification, to show, 1. What should be, and will be
their carriage, when it is right with them as to their frame. 2. What
are their infirmities, and what they use often to fall into, even they
who are believers, that they may be the more watchful. 3. To shew what
they meet with, that they may make for sufferings, and not stumble at
them when they come. 4. That the care and love of Christ to them, in
reference to all these, may appear, that they may know upon what
grounds to comfort themselves in every condition, and may have this
Song as a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every
condition.” [94]
Upon the words “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the
vines,” &c. (Chap. ii. 15), Durham remarks:
“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon;
wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her
particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external
peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series
of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of
his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on,
to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear. There are three things
in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is,
to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take
them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in
sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”
Having descanted at large upon the first and second heads, Durham
remarks on the third:
“Thirdly. There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e.
Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is
service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants,
and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in
putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least
mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he
thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as
she is.
“Fourthly. The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say
some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some
comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to
meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No (saith he), take
them all, even THE LITTLE FOXES; for though they be but little, yet
they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind (as all
scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with),
so they are (saith he) foxes, and corrupt others; for a little
leaven will leaven the whole lump (often small-like schisms, or
heresies, such as the Novations and Donatists, &c., have been
exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church), therefore, saith
he, hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to
toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the
world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn
here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the
least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations,
for preventing the hurt that comes by them.” [95]
1723. Whether this commentary, with its affirmation that “this Song is
a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition,”
and whether the doctrine of intolerance palmed upon Chap. ii. 15 of the
Song were published in time to be seen by Whiston, who was neither
convinced by Durham’s arguments nor daunted by his appeal to the
magistrates, ministers, and people; or whether they appeared too late
to be seen by him, I cannot tell. But, in the same year that Durham’s
commentary was published Whiston’s Essay appeared, in which he declares
that he finds in the Song of Solomon, “from the beginning to the end
marks of folly, vanity, and looseness,” and assures us that “it was
written by Solomon when he was wicked and foolish, and lascivious and
idolatrous,” [96] and that the sooner this immoral book is rejected
from the sacred canon the better.
1728. About five years afterwards appeared the bulky Exposition of Dr.
Gill on Solomon’s Song, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two
sermons, which the Doctor delivered to his congregation. In this
confused mass of accumulated learning Gill warmly refutes both Whiston
and others who had written against this book. He acknowledges “the
profit and advantage” which he had received from “the sweet
observations of the excellent Durham,” and affirms that this divine
poem is wholly allegorical; “and sets forth in a most striking manner
the mutual love, union and communion, which are between Christ and his
Church; also expresses the several different frames, cases, and
circumstances which attend believers in this life, so that they can
come into no state or condition, but there is something in this Song
suited to their experience; which serves much to recommend it to
believers, and discovers the excellency of it.” [97] In vain do we look
even here for an exposition based upon the sound rules of grammar and
philology.
1753. It was reserved for Bishop Lowth to commence in this country a
new era in the interpretation of this book. Two of his admirable
“Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” are devoted to the
investigation of the import and interpretation of this Song, and the
conclusion he arrived at is almost the same as that of Grotius and
Bossuet. “The subject of the Canticles,” says this learned Prelate,
“appears to be the marriage-feast of Solomon, (who was, both in name
and reality, the Prince of Peace); his bride is called Shulamite....
Who this wife of Solomon was, is not clearly ascertained; but some of
the learned have conjectured, with an appearance of probability, that
she was the daughter of Pharaoh, to whom Solomon was known to be
particularly attached. May we not, therefore, with some shadow of
reason, suspect that, under the allegory of Solomon choosing a wife
from the Egyptians, might be darkly typified that other Prince of
Peace, who was to espouse a church chosen from among the Gentiles?”
As to the explanation of the allegory, this learned prelate properly
advises, “that we ought to be cautious of carrying the figurative
application too far, and of entering into a precise explication of
every particular; as these minute investigations are seldom conducted
with sufficient prudence not to offend the serious part of mankind,
learned as well as unlearned.” [98]
Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts
the division of Bossuet into seven parts.
1764. The excellent and judicious remarks of Lowth were followed by an
elegant version of Solomon’s Song, with a brief Commentary and
Annotations, by Thomas Percy, D.D., Bishop of Dromore. The author
vindicates the theory of Grotius, Lowth, &c., that this poem literally
describes the nuptials of Solomon; and, like Bossuet and Lowth, divides
it into seven parts, answering to the seven days of the supposed
duration of the nuptials, which are distinguished from each other by
different solemnities. In terms, even more severe than those of Bishop
Lowth, Percy censures those commentators, “who have been so busily
employed in opening and unfolding the allegorical meaning of this book
as wholly to neglect that literal sense which ought to be the basis of
their discoveries. If a sacred allegory may be defined a figurative
discourse, which, under a lower and more obvious meaning, delivers the
most sublime and important truths; then it is the first duty of an
expositor to ascertain the lower and more obvious meaning. For till
this is done, it is impossible to discover what truths are couched
under it. Without this all is vague and idle conjecture. It is erecting
an edifice without a foundation, which, however fair and goodly to the
view, will be blown down by the slightest breath of true criticism.”
[99]
1765. Wesley, however, opposed this theory. He maintained that “the
description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not with
decency be used or meant concerning Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter;
that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to them, would be
absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore follows that this book is
to be understood allegorically, concerning that spiritual love and
marriage which is between Christ and his Church.” [100]
1768. Harmer advanced a new theory. Whilst advocating with Grotius,
Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., that this Song in its literal and primary
sense celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh,
he maintained that the heroes of the plot are not two, as generally
believed, but three—viz., Solomon, the Shulamite, who is the principal
wife and a Jewish queen, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon
afterwards married, with which the Jewish queen was exceedingly
displeased, and looked with jealousy upon the Gentile wife as an
intruder. “This event of Solomon’s marrying a Gentile princess, and
making her equal in honour and privilege with his former Jewish queen,
and of her being frequently mentioned afterwards in history, while the
other is passed over in total silence, resembles the conduct of the
Messiah towards the Gentile and Jewish Churches.” ... “Nothing more,
according to that,” says Harmer, “is to be sought for of the mystic
kind, than the making out the general resemblance between Solomon’s
behaviour with respect to his two queens, and the situation of affairs
between the Messiah and the two Churches; of those that observed the
laws of Moses and those that did not.” [101]
The following analysis is gathered from Harmer’s singularly confused
work. Chapter I. describes Solomon and his attendants meeting the
Egyptian bride and her companions; ii. 1–iii. 5, describes the
complaining language of the Jewish queen; iii. 6–v. 1, resumes the
account of Solomon’s journey with the Egyptian bride up to Jerusalem,
and describes the consummation of the marriage; v. 2–vi. 3, relates
Solomon’s conversation with his Jewish wife; vi. 4–9, Solomon’s
conversation with the Egyptian wife in the garden; vi. 10–viii. 7,
begins with Solomon’s astonishment at his being surprised by his Jewish
wife whilst in the garden with the Egyptian wife, and the ensuing
conversation between them; viii. 8, describes the imaginative hope of
the Jewish wife that Solomon’s marriage with the Egyptian would not be
consummated, and that she would, therefore, not be treated as a wife;
viii. 9, gives Solomon’s reply, that the Egyptian princess should be
treated with the highest honours; viii. 10–12, contains a smart reply
of the Egyptian princess to the Jewish queen, in which she at the same
time also notices the addition her marriage had made to the King’s
possessions; viii. 13, states Solomon’s appeal to the Jewish queen in
the presence of all to give her final thoughts respecting her future
conduct; viii. 14, gives her resolution to keep her distance; but at
the same time there appears no thought of renouncing her relation to
Solomon on her part, as “there was not on his.” “Such actually,”
concludes Harmer, “is the state of things with respect to the Messiah,
and the two churches of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish Church persists
in not receiving the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, but they renounce not
their relation to the Messiah, nor has he utterly excluded them from
hope. The state of distance has long continued, but as they still
remain a distinct body of people, waiting for great events that are to
happen, so the New Testament leads us to expect their reconciliation.”
1770. Different to these strange outlines of Harmer were the effects
which Lowth’s remarks upon this Song produced in Germany. Michaelis,
the celebrated professor at the Göttingen University, in his edition of
the Praelectiones, took a more advanced and decided step in the
interpretation of this book. He not only rejected the allegorical
interpretation, as unsupported by internal evidence, but denied the
theory, defended by Lowth, &c., that this poem celebrates the nuptials
of Solomon, because there is no direct mention made in any part of this
long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance attending
it; no time appearing appropriated to the nuptial banquet itself, the
bride and the bridegroom being separated from and in quest of each
other, wishing and enjoying solitude, always showing themselves in the
street or field when conversing together, or with the virgins, and
never found with the guests or at the banquet; because it cannot be
possibly imagined that a bridegroom would be so necessitated to labour
as not to be able to devote the few days of his nuptial week to the
celebration of his marriage; that he would be compelled immediately to
quit his spouse and his friends for whole days in order to attend his
cattle in the pastures; and especially because we could not imagine
that the bridegroom would at this time of the festival leave his bride,
to whom he professes to be so deeply attached, alone and unhappy, and
not return at night. The learned professor, therefore, concludes that
this Song describes the chaste passion of conjugal and domestic love;
the attachment of two delicate persons who have been long united in the
sacred bond; and then asks, Can we suppose such happiness unworthy of
being recommended as a pattern to mankind, and of being celebrated as a
subject of gratitude to the great Author of happiness? [102]
1771. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this
book is due to J. T. Jacobi; notwithstanding the imperfections of his
attempt. He showed that the importance of this Song is not to describe
the chaste passion of conjugal love, but to celebrate fidelity. The
pattern of this conjugal fidelity is the Shulamite, the heroine of the
book. This humble woman was married to a shepherd. Solomon, being
struck with her beauty, tempted her with the luxuries and splendour of
his court to forsake her husband and enter the royal harem; but the
Shulamite spurned all the allurements, and remained faithful to her
humble husband. [103] However strange the manner in which Jacobi
divides this book, and the interpretation of separate passages, it must
be acknowledged that he was the first in Germany who showed that
Solomon was not the object of the Shulamite’s affections, and that the
beloved was a humble shepherd from whom the King endeavoured to
separate her. It will be remembered that Ibn Ezra, Immanuel, and the
Anonymous Commentary, [104] have already taken the lovers to be a
shepherd and shepherdess, and regarded Solomon as a separate person,
whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her sincere
attachment to her shepherd, affirming that if this great King were to
bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries,
she would still rejoice in her humble lover.
1772. It seems unaccountable that though the increased attention paid
in this country to the sound exegesis of the Scriptures compelled
expositors to propound the literal meaning of this book, that Durell
[105] could still overlook the two distinct persons referred to in this
poem, viz. the King and the Shepherd, and maintain that the Song of
Songs is an epithalamium on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter.
1776. It was not to be expected that the opposition of sound critics,
and much less the newly propounded view of Jacobi, would at once
subvert the old allegorical theories, or check fertile imaginations
from inventing new speculations. The Song of Songs was too darling an
object of those whose minds were addicted to allegories and mysticisms
to be so easily surrendered to the simple meaning of the text. So far
from being surprised, we rather expect that every one who rejects the
obvious sense of the Song will find in it some new view which his
predecessors had overlooked. And Herr von Puffendorf’s new theory,
therefore, only realises our expectations. He explained this Song
hieroglyphically, and by a process of reasoning as sound as that of the
other allegorisers, found his interpretation corroborated by analogy.
The sacred picture language constituted the wisdom of Solomon’s days,
and was therefore used among all nations to express everything divine.
As Solomon was more versed in the Egyptian mysteries than any of his
contemporaries, he would necessarily write the divine mysteries
contained in this book in hieroglyphics, in accordance with the custom
of those days. According to the deciphering of these hieroglyphics by
Puffendorf, “this much disputed Song treats almost exclusively of the
sepulchre of the Saviour, and his death, and the communion of
believers, especially of Old Testament saints; but it also describes
their longing for his Advent, whereby, however, the condition of the
New Testament community, and even the resurrection from the dead, are
represented in prophetical types.” [106] On the clause,
“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure
and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and
wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the root עָלַﬦ, whence
עֲלָמוֹת, virgins, is derived, signifies to be concealed, as those
souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity
of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were
allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have
to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus
the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness
wait for salvation and light.”
The curious reader must consult the Commentary itself to see how this
extraordinary mode of exposition is carried through the book.
1778. About two years after the publication of the deciphered
hieroglyphics of this Song, the allegorical interpretation sustained
some most severe blows from the eminently pious and celebrated poet
Herder. He denounced the allegorisers as violating common sense, and
the established laws of language, and maintained that this Song
celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.
Upon the question, whether there may not be another sense concealed
under the obvious and literal meaning, Herder remarks—“When I read the
book itself I do not find the slightest intimation, or even the
faintest trace that such a sense was the design of the author. Were I
to admit it, I should also expect to find it in the Song of Ibrahim, in
the odes of Hafiz, and in all the oriental erotic poems which in form
entirely resemble this Song. In the life of Solomon I discover still
less reason for this concealed sense, be it historical, mystical,
metaphysical, or political. For Solomon’s wisdom did not consist in
mysticism, much less in metaphysics, or scholastic church history. His
wisdom was displayed in his common sense, as seen in his view of the
things of this life, in his acute penetration and extensive knowledge
of nature. Subsequent Arabian tradition has indeed attributed to him
also the art of sorcery, and of driving out evil spirits, but never did
even this tradition ascribe to him the downcast look of a mystic, or
represent him as indulging in airy speculations, or as writing a
compendium of Christian Church History.” [107]
Herder admits that this book describes the love of a shepherd and
shepherdess, as well as that of a king; but finding great difficulty to
account for this, he divides the book into separate songs, or amorets,
while at the same time he acknowledges that there is a marked unity
throughout, and that love is described from its first germs to its full
maturity, its ripened fruit, and its first regermination.
1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of
Kleuker on this Song. [108] He too, with an overwhelming force of
argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that
the book consists of detached songs.
1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the
learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song, [109] was
the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book
speaks of two wives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon
long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently
espoused.
1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer,
but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an
epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have
supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.” [110]
1789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus, [111] seems
at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An
unknown author, mentioned by Magnus, [112] defended the view that the
bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.
1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with some glimpses of light
amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not
only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but
showed that it celebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble
life over the allurements of courtly grandeur. [113]
1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established
laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal
sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song.
Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon
with Pharaoh’s daughter. [114]
1803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the
matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess
was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding
personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion
celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the
gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and
perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.”
[115] He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct
amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a
native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a
spiritual allegory.
1813. Hug, [116] rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like
the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory.
According to him, “the bride” means the ten tribes, and “the
bridegroom” is King Hezekiah, and the book describes
allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of
Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens
of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers (chap. viii. 8,
9) to this re-union.
1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the
true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was
greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his
exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem
is to celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the
allurements of royalty. A virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to
a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the
king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she,
armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and
remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards
re-united. [117]
Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way
elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by
their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.
1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though
considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive
faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” is a new colony near the
Jordan, and the bridegroom represents Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah;
and that the Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish
constitution in the province of Judah. [118]
1826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true
design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty
leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner
that “this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no
splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.” [119]
1829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though
not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the
literal interpretation. [120]
1830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could
not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of
adhering to the obvious sense of the poem, adopted the view of
Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” represents wisdom, with
whom Solomon is described as conversing. [121]
Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being
waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England
to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to
their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method
of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and
dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral
eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour
of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration,
the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some
other interlocutors.” [122]
1839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett [123] about
the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added
considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the
literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the
Congregational Magazine, [124] in which the translator boldly affirms
that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment
of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of
nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can
“see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr.
Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the
revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other
gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”
1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the
band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under
the able leadership of Ewald, became stronger, and Hirzel now contended
for the view that the Song of Songs celebrates the victory of virtuous
love in humble life over the allurements of royalty. [125]
1842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this
book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some
perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the
work of different authors, and written in various ages. [126] Yet his
commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in
this historical sketch.
1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great
Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer
ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest
desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which
characterises chaste affection between the Jews.” [127]
1846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of
the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard
University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes,
shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains
that it is a collection of erotic songs, without any moral or religious
design, [128] and most powerfully opposes the allegorical
interpretation.
1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of
the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and
religion,’ if interpreted allegorically, [129] is descriptive of the
mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the
backslidings, the repentings, and finally the perfect and eternal union
of the church with its Lord and Saviour.” [130]
1849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers
were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different
course. They no longer sought for some Christian mysteries and doctrine
in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves
with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above
article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.”
Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love
subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion
was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel,
and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his
unchanging love, it was again restored. [131]
1851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could
conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the
book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and
Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical
interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view that the book
poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that
“the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively
represent the union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that
amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the
victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of
royalty, is to be preferred. [132]
1852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing
some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical
interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical
exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents the Messiah,
because at that early period the notion of a personal Messiah was not
yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a
new theory, that “the bridegroom” represents the kingdom of Israel, and
“the bride” Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes,
allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service,
eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love,
and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with
itself, and consequently with God.” [133] He takes the Song to be a
dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.
The first section, Chap. i. 2–ii. 7, describes the longing of the
maiden, who represents Japhetic heathenism, for the pleasurable love of
the king of Israel; her humble supplication to be received into his
fellowship, and the ultimate realization of her desire in that union.
The second section, Chap. ii. 8–iii. 5, supplementing the first,
describes the friendly invitation which the king of Israel gives to
this maiden (the Japhetic heathen) to catch with him the foxes, which
represent the kingdom of Satan upon earth, the Hametic heathen, and to
unite herself with him in the land of Canaan, which is the kingdom of
God, and her acceptance of this invitation.
The third section, Chap. iii. 6–v. 1, supplementing the first and
second, represents this maiden, after being conquered by the power of
the king’s love, and from sincere reciprocal attachment, devoting
herself as an acceptable offering to the service of God, as introduced
into the land of Canaan, which is the type of the kingdom of God, and
describes the completion of her never-ending union with the king of
Israel.
The fourth section, Chap. v. 2–vi. 9, a supplementary explanation of
the first, describes the early love of the king of Israel when he
visited the maiden in the dark night as she lay in a deep sleep, void
of all love to him, entreating to be admitted; her refusal; her
repentance after having become acquainted with his glory; her long
search after him; his accepting her after her repentance had been
tried, &c. &c.
The fifth section, Chap. vi. 10–viii. 4, which explains the second, and
supplements the fourth, describes how the king of Israel revealed
himself ultimately to the maiden; the king, after being long and
painfully sought by the maiden, who, despairing of success, and in a
dejected state, had returned home, was again incited, by some new
charms of hers, followed her, attended by his martial hosts, once more
offered her his love, met with a hearty response, and then she offered
herself to him with all she had, as his property.
The sixth section, Chap. viii. 5–14, which is a supplementary
exposition of the third, and a completion of the fifth, describes how
the maiden, after long and painfully searching, and longing for the
king of Israel, yielded herself up to him in her home, whither he had
followed her, and how she entreated for the favourable reception of her
younger sister, that is, the Hametic heathen, and how the king promised
the maiden that her sister shall eventually be received.
1853. Though this allegorist has repudiated the idea that Solomon
represents the Messiah, at the same time, another allegorist, and that
a no less writer than Hengstenberg, assures us that Solomon can be
regarded only as the Messiah, and that the bride is not Japhetic
heathenism, but the people of God. According to him, the poem
celebrates the Prince of Peace and all the mercies which through him
flow to the people of God, and is divisible into two parts.
The first part, Chap. i.–v. 1, describes the advent of Messiah, the
heavenly Solomon, to save his people; the tribulations and sorrows
which will precede his coming, and especially the bondage of the people
of God to worldly power, as the merited punishment of their
unfaithfulness. These sufferings are represented under the figure of
swarthiness, i. 6; winter and rain, ii. 11; dark nights and a
wilderness, iii. 6. Connected with the coming of Messiah is the
admission of the heathen into the kingdom of Christ, iii. 9–11,
effected through the mediation of the Old Testament people, as
indicated by the name “daughters of Jerusalem.”
The second part, Chap. v. 2–viii. 14, describes the sinning of the
daughter of Zion against the heavenly Solomon, her punishment,
repentance, and the re-union effected through the mediation of the
daughters of Jerusalem (the heathen), whose salvation she had first
assisted to accomplish; the complete restoration of the former mutual
love, in consequence of which the daughter of Zion becomes again the
centre of the kingdom of God; and the immutability of the new covenant
of love in contrast with the mutability of the old. [134]
1853. Simultaneous with this commentary of Hengstenberg, an allegorical
exposition appeared in America, by Professor Burrowes. He differs again
from the preceding in regarding this Song as illustrating by imagery
drawn from the court of Solomon, the mutual love of Christ and the
Church, as exercised in the case of individual believers. He divides it
into three parts.
The first part, Chap. i.–ii. 7, describes the way in which the soul,
longing after the manifestation of the love of Christ, is conducted in
the gratification of that desire, from one degree of pious enjoyment to
another, till, by the vicissitudes of fortune, and by the diversities
in its progress towards heaven, and the enjoyment of Christ’s love as
manifested in private communion in “his chamber;” 7–11, in the way of
duty and self-denial; 12–14, in social communion with him; 15–17, in
delightful repose with him, amid enlarged prospects of spiritual
beauty; chap. ii. 1–3, in the protection and delight here set forth;
4–7, it possesses the greatest possible pleasure on the earth.
The second part, Chap. ii. 8–vii. 9, describes the motives by which the
Lord Jesus would allure such souls away from the present world to be
with him in glory; chap. ii. 8–17, as by the beauty of heaven; chap.
iii. 1–11, by the splendour of the reception awaiting them there, as
well as by the grandeur of the conveyance thither; chap. v. 1–vii. 9,
and by his love for them, which remains constant even amidst their
greatest neglect.
The third section, Chap. vii. 10–viii. 14, describes the effects which
these manifestations of love produce on the heart of saints; chap. vii.
10, assurance of hope; 11, desire to be much alone in communion with
Christ; 12, their engagement in labours of love; 13, consecration to
him of all their gifts; chap. viii. 1, 2, a desire that everything
interposing between Christ and them may be removed; 3, 4, their
avoidance of everything that would cause the withdrawal of Christ’s
love; 5, the pleasing consciousness of leaning on Jesus, and of being
upheld by his everlasting arm; 6, their desire to be constantly near
him, and sustained by his power, and willingness to make every
sacrifice for him; 7, their conviction of the insufficiency of
everything the world could offer to tempt them from Christ; 8–10, their
interest for the salvation of the impenitent; 12, the sense of their
accountability as stewards of God; 13, the privilege of continual
access to the throne of grace; 14, desire for the completion of their
redemption, and for the perfecting of their love to Christ, and of his
to them, by the prospect of his second coming. [135]
From the analysis of the three latest commentaries upon this book, it
will be perceived that allegorical interpreters, even to this day,
differ in their views of its application and design.
1854. After quitting the bewildering maze of allegorism, it is cheering
to come to the commentary of Meier, in which the view that this poem
celebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the
allurements of royalty is defended. [136]
1855. This is also the view propounded by Friedrich [137] and Hitzig,
[138] though the latter embraces a similar theory to Harmer, that there
are two women as chief speakers in the poem.
1856. In this opinion of the superiority of virtuous love to all the
temptations of royalty, the Jew and the Christian, the Englishman and
the German, are beginning to unite. The reviewer in the Jewish Monthly
Journal of History and Science, declares himself in favour of regarding
the Shulamite as resisting all the offers of Solomon and remaining
faithful to her shepherd. [139] Meier, the author of a commentary
mentioned above, in his History of the poetical National Literature of
the Hebrews, recently published, maintains the same opinion. [140] This
poem, says Dr. Davidson, “warns against impure love, encourages
chastity, fidelity, and virtue, by depicting the successful issue of
sincere affection amid powerful temptations. The innocent and virtuous
maiden, true to her shepherd lover, resists the flatteries of a
monarch, and is allowed to return to her home.” [141] Umbreit, in an
article upon this book, just published, states that he still adheres to
the view propounded in his commentary of 1828, [142] noticed above,
that it is a celebration of virtuous love over the allurements of
royalty.
How mournful is the thought which irresistibly forces itself upon the
mind, in reviewing this imperfect sketch of what has befallen this
poem! This book, we have seen, is made to describe the most
contradictory things. It contains the wanderings of the Jews, how they
will ultimately “fill their stomachs with the flesh of the Leviathan
and the best of wines preserved in grapes,” and is the sanctum
sanctorum of all Christian mysteries. It is denounced as a love song,
and extolled as declaring the incarnation of Christ; it speaks of the
meridian church in Africa, and of the betrayal of the Saviour; it
contains a treatise upon the doctrine of free grace against
Pelagianism, and an Aristotelian disquisition upon the functions of the
active and passive mind; it is an apocalyptic vision, a duplicate of
the Revelations of St. John, and records the scholastic mysticisms of
the middle ages; it denounces Arianism, and describes the glories of
the Virgin Mary; it “treats of man’s reconciliation unto God and peace
by Jesus Christ, with joy in the Holy Ghost,” and teaches lewdness, and
corrupts the morals; it records the conversation of Solomon and Wisdom,
and describes the tomb of Christ in Egyptian hieroglyphics; it
celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, and gives us a compendium of
ecclesiastical history to the second advent of Christ; it records the
restoration of a Jewish constitution by Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah,
and the mysteries of marriage; it advocates monogamy and encourages
polygamy; it assists devotion and excites carnal passions. What a
solemn lesson we have here never to depart from the simple meaning of
the word of God!
SECTION VI.—THE DIFFERENT VIEWS CLASSIFIED AND EXAMINED.
The various opinions, enumerated in the preceding section, respecting
the design of this book, may be divided into three classes, the
literal, the allegorical, and the typical. The first considers the
description as real, that the words should be taken as representing an
historical fact; the second considers that the description has no
historical truth for its basis, but contains some latent meaning;
whilst the third admits the literal meaning, but regards it as typical
of spiritual truth. The literal view adopted by us having been given in
sections iii. and iv., we have to examine here only the claims of the
allegorical and typical.
THE ALLEGORICAL VIEW.
The allegorical view principally maintained is, that this poem, in
language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affections
between the sexes, expresses the mutual love subsisting between the
Lord and his Church.
REASONS FOR THE ALLEGORICAL VIEW EXAMINED.
1. The existence of this book in the sacred canon has been adduced as
an argument for its allegorical interpretation.
“In what part of the Hebrew Bible can we find any composition of an
analogous nature? All—every Psalm, every piece of history, every part
of prophecy—has a religious aspect, and (the book of Esther perhaps
excepted) is filled with theocratic views of things. How came there
here to be such a solitary exception, so contrary to the genius and
nature of the whole Bible? It is passing strange, if real amatory Idyls
are mingled with so much, all of which is of a serious and religious
nature. If the author viewed his composition as being of an amatory
nature, would he have sought a place for it among the sacred books? And
subsequent redactors or editors—would they have ranked it here, in case
they had regarded it in the same light? I can scarcely deem it
credible. So different was the reverence of the Jews for their
Scriptures from any mere approbation of an amatory poem as such, that I
must believe that the insertion of Canticles among the canonical books,
was the result of a full persuasion of its spiritual import. Had the
case stood otherwise, why did they not introduce other secular books,
as well as this, into the canon?” [143]
Granting that the design of the book was simply to describe love, we
deny that it would have been deemed unworthy of a place in the sacred
canon. Why should the pleasures of chaste love be considered less
worthy of record in the sacred books, than the sorrow for bereaved
friendship, in 2 Sam. i. 17, &c.? “To those,” says Dr. Mason Good, a
defender of the allegorical interpretation, “who disbelieve the
existence of such an allegory they (the amorets) still afford a happy
example of the pleasures of holy and virtuous love; they inculcate,
beyond the power of didactic poetry, the tenderness which the husband
should manifest for his wife, and the deference, modesty, and fidelity
with which his affection should be returned; and, considered even in
this sense alone, they are fully entitled to the honour of constituting
a part of the sacred Scriptures.” [144] “Why should a passion,” remarks
another allegorical interpreter, “so strong, so universal, so essential
to happiness—to the very existence of the human race, be denied a place
in a Revelation from God to man? As a matter of fact, has it not a
place in every part of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation? God is
the author of the human constitution as well as of the Bible; and he
has in all respects adapted his revelation to the nature of the beings
for whom it was designed. It would be strange indeed, if one of the
most important and never absent phenomena in the moral and physical
creation of men should never be noticed in a revelation to him from his
Creator. If the viciousness and licentiousness of men have loaded this
subject with vile and filthy associations in vile and filthy minds,
this is not the fault of God or of his revelation. The vine will not be
destroyed, nor the grapes annihilated, because wicked men make
themselves beasts with wine.” [145]
The design of the book, in our view, however, is not to celebrate love,
but to record an example of virtue, which is still more worthy of a
place in the sacred canon.
2. It has been urged, that the language put by the sacred writer into
the mouth of the bride, shows that the poem is to be allegorically
interpreted, because in its literal sense such language would be
contrary to nature and to the modesty of women.
“That this is not a song of human loves,” says Dr. Bennett, [146] “is
clear from the beginning to the end. It opens with the language of a
female: ‘Let him kiss me;’ it is full of her solicitous seeking after
him; it abounds with praises of his person, and her dispraises of
herself, of her person and her conduct; it invites other females to
love him, and it speaks of him as her brother, and of her as his
sister. Let any one examine the Song, and then muse over these facts,
recollecting that Solomon is, in the opening of the poem itself, said
to be the writer. Was ever such a human love-song composed by mortal,
since man either loved or wrote verses? What writer, with the feelings,
or the reason, of a man, would begin a poem on his fair one by
describing her as courting him? Let it not be said, ‘We must not
transfer our modern and northern ideas to the ancient Orientals, who
had not our delicate notions of the female character;’ for this would
only make my case stronger. It would be more abhorrent from the
secluded, submissive character of Eastern brides to ask the gentlemen
to come and kiss them, than it would be from the dignified confidence
of British women. It is not a question of climate or age, but of
nature. The bridegroom, who is supposed to love this fairest of women,
himself puts into her lips this speech: ‘Let him kiss me!’ Never would
human love speak thus. Though men like to court, they do not like to be
courted; and while they think it cruel to be rejected when they court,
they without mercy reject her that courts them; as the forward female
has usually found, from the days of Sappho to this hour. Women were
endowed with the form and the qualities intended to attract courtship,
and they feel it; and when they do not feel it, men despise them. No
man, therefore, in his senses, would think to compliment his fair one
by writing of her, to her, as if she had lost her retiring modesty, her
female dignity, and degraded herself by doing that for which every man
would despise her. The very first word of this Song, then, stands a
witness against the notion of its being a human love-song; for it would
better suit Solomon’s strange woman, that with an impudent face caught
and kissed the young simpleton, than Solomon’s princess-bride, or Dr.
Smith’s supposed chaste monogamist. Till fishes mount to sing with
larks on the shady boughs, and nightingales dive to ocean’s depths to
court the whales, no man, of any age, of any clime, of any rank, can be
supposed to write ordinary love-songs in such a style. We are told, by
the first word, that a greater than Solomon is here, one who must be
courted, and that loves more than human are the theme. This is the
Bridegroom of whom the Psalmist says, ‘He is thy Lord, and worship thou
him:’ ‘Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way.’
Such a spouse may exhibit his Bride as asking for his love; every other
must present himself as asking for hers, and begging the acceptance of
his.”
It is allowed by scholars of taste, that, regarded as a mere human
production, this poem is inimitable. “Every part of this Song,” says
the learned Bishop Bossuet, [147] “abounds in poetical beauties; the
objects which present themselves on every side are the choicest plants,
the most beautiful flowers, the most delicious fruits, the bloom and
vigour of spring, the sweet verdure of the fields, flourishing and
well-watered gardens, pleasant streams, and perennial fountains. The
other senses are represented as regaled with the most precious odours,
natural and artificial; with the sweet singing of birds, and the soft
voice of the turtle; with milk and honey, and the choicest of wine. To
these enchantments are added all that is beautiful and graceful in the
human form, the endearments, the caresses, the delicacy of love. If any
object be introduced which seems not to harmonize with this delightful
scene, such as the awful prospect of tremendous precipices, the
wildness of the mountains, or the haunts of lions, its effect is only
to heighten, by the contrast, the beauty of the other objects, and to
add the charms of variety to those of grace and elegance.” Bishop
Lowth, after having descanted upon some passages, remarks, “Nothing can
be imagined more truly elegant and poetical than all these, nothing
more apt or expressive than these comparisons.” [148] If the poet is so
charming in his style, so exquisite and true in his picture of nature,
surely it is but reasonable to give him credit for understanding his
art, that he was acquainted with the manners and habits of the women of
his age, and that he would be as true to nature in the description of
the bride as he is in depicting nature herself. If it be true that
language of such exquisite taste would outrage female decency and
modesty when addressed to a human love, it will surely be more
outrageous when put into the mouth of the humble, penitent, and
submissive Church in addresses to the Lord of lords. Where in the Old
or New Testament do we find any address from the saints to God or
Christ resembling the opening of this poem? The addresses of Abraham,
(Gen. xviii. 23–33,) Jacob, (Gen. xxxii. 10–13,) and of Solomon
himself, (1 Kings viii. 23–53,) and the language in which Christ has
taught us to appeal to God, are characterized by the greatest reverence
and humility. How, then, can it be affirmed, that language which would
violate female modesty and decency in the mouth of a woman to a lover
whom she prizes above all things, is becoming in the mouth of the
Church when addressing the Holy One of Israel?
Dr. Bennett, however, misunderstood the design of the book. The Song,
in its literal meaning, does not begin with representing a woman
courting a man, but describes how a humble and virtuous rustic maiden
was taken away from her beloved into the court of Solomon, and tempted
to transfer her affections, by the splendour and luxuries of royalty;
but even there, amidst all the grandeur, and in spite of all alluring
promises, the maiden was faithful to her espousals, and desired that he
whom she prized above all things would come and rescue her.
3. It is urged that the same language and imagery employed in the Song,
and the bridegroom and the bride here introduced, are elsewhere
spiritually applied to the Lord and his people.
“This sort of imagery,” says Professor Stuart, “is frequent in the Old
Testament, and in the New. Frequently are the Jews charged with ‘going
a whoring after other gods,’ Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6; Numb.
xv. 39; Deut. xxxi. 16; 2 Chron. xxi. 13; Ps. lxxiii. 27; Ezek. vi. 9.
Here the idea is, that they were affianced to the true God, and could
not seek after idols without incurring the guilt of adultery. So God
calls himself the husband of the Jews, Isa. liv. 5. The nation of
Israel is his bride, Isa. lxii. 4, 5. In Isa. l. 1, Jehovah asks,
‘Where is the bill of divorcement’ on his part, that Israel has
departed from Him? Jeremiah speaks of the espousals of Israel, when
young, in the wilderness.
“In Jer. iii. 1–11, the prophet speaks of Israel as playing the harlot,
and committing adultery, in forsaking Jehovah. In Ezekiel, two long
chapters (xvi., xxiii.) are occupied with carrying through the imagery
drawn from such a connexion. Hosea (i.–iii.) recognises the same
principle, and carries out the imagery into much detail. These are
merely specimens. Ps. xlv. presents the Mediator, the King of Zion, in
the attitude of a husband to the Church, and celebrates the union
between the former and the latter. So in the New Testament this imagery
is very familiar: see Matt. ix. 25; John iii. 29; Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 2.
Especially consult 2 Cor. xi. 2, and Eph. v. 22–32, where the Apostle
has gone into much particularity as to the duties of the marriage
relation, and then avows that he ‘speaks concerning Christ and the
Church.’
“Such is the custom of the Hebrew writers and of the Apostles. If, now,
this imagery is so often employed in all parts of the Bible, what
forbids the idea, that there may be one short book in which it occupies
an exclusive place, and is designed to symbolize the love that existed
between God and his ancient people, or the Church; or rather, which
ought to have existed on their part between God and his spiritually
regenerated people, who have become one (in a spiritual sense) with
him, and are for ever united to him? It cannot be shown, à priori, that
it is even improbable.”
First. What does this argument prove? Surely not what the
representation of this poem IS; it only shows what it might have been.
It shows that if we had indubitable proof, as in the passages cited,
that a whole book in the sacred canon is entirely devoted to symbolize,
under the figure of husband and wife, the covenant-relationship
subsisting between God and his people, we ought not to be surprised at
it, since it would be in harmony with those alleged passages. But
surely it does not follow, that, because we are distinctly told in some
passages of Scripture that the terms, husband and wife, are employed to
symbolize the relationship between God and his people, that they should
have this signification as often as they are employed.
Second. We utterly deny that the covenant-relation which subsisted
between the Lord and Israel was represented by the terms, husband and
wife, before the days of Solomon. The phrase, זנה אחרי אלהים אחרים,
to go whoring after other gods, to which reference has been made, does
not mean that Israel, by worshipping idols, committed spiritual
adultery against the true God to whom they were affianced,—thus
presupposing God to be their husband, and Israel his wife,—but
describes a literal fact, the libidinous orgies and prostitutions
identified with heathen worship which the Jews indulged in when
worshipping idols. Numb. xxv. 1; Hos. iv. 13, &c. This is evident from
Exod. xxxiv. 15, 17, where this phrase first occurs, and is applied to
heathen women worshipping their own gods. And though these women stood
in no such covenant-relation to the God of Israel, and therefore could
not incur the guilt of spiritual adultery, yet they are described as
“whoring after THEIR gods.” From these licentious rites, therefore,
originated this phrase, afterwards used to describe the worship of
idols. But even admitting that it does suggest a marriage relationship
between God and his people, the distance between a suggestive phrase of
this kind and an entire book of marital descriptions is so great, that
the one cannot be reasonably supposed to have suggested the other.
Third. We deny that even the language used by the prophets after the
days of Solomon, in the passages cited, is at all analogous to that of
this poem. Let us examine some of the passages themselves. Isa. l. 1:—
“Where is the bill of your mother’s divorce
With which I dismissed her?”
Isa. liv. 4–6:—
“Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed,
And be not abashed, for thou shalt not blush;
For thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth,
And the reproach of thy widowhood thou shalt remember no more.
For he weddeth thee who made thee.
Jehovah of hosts is his name,
And the Holy One of Israel redeemeth thee.
He is called the God of the whole earth.
For Jehovah calleth thee, as a forsaken wife, when spirit-broken,
And as a wife of youth when melting in repentance, saith thy Lord.”
Isa. lxii. 4, 5:—
“No more shall it be said to thee, Thou forsaken!
And no more shall it be said to thy land, Thou desolate!
But thou shalt be called, The object of my delight,
And thy land, The married woman;
For Jehovah delighteth in thee,
And thy land shall be married;
For the young man shall marry the virgin;
Thy children shall marry thee;
And with the joy of a bridegroom over his bride
Shall thy God rejoice over thee.”
Jer. iii. 20:—
“As a wife faithlessly departeth from her husband,
So have ye acted faithlessly towards me,
O house of Israel! saith Jehovah.”
These, and several more of a similar kind, are the passages referred
to, to prove that the bridegroom and bride in this Song mean the Lord
and his people! How totally different is the strain of thought and
expression in those passages to that in the Song!
In the former, the wedded-relation forms the comparison; in the latter,
ante-nuptial love is the theme. In the former, the general idea of the
figure is briefly used, without any particulars of the accompaniments;
in the latter, particulars of the persons, dresses, scenery, are
largely described. In the former, God is represented as the High and
Holy One inhabiting eternity, and, in his infinite condescension and
compassion, loving, with the tenderness of a husband, Israel, who is
represented as an unlovely, ungrateful, and unfaithful wife; in the
latter, the bridegroom and the bride are placed upon an equality, nay,
the bridegroom declares that his heart has been ravished by the charms
and faithfulness of the bride. In the former we are distinctly told
that the husband means the Lord, and the wife the people of Israel, so
that the most superficial reader is compelled to perceive it; in the
latter we have no intimation whatever that the lovers are intended to
represent God and his people, and no reader would ever gather it from
the poem. This will appear all the more forcible when we remember that,
supposing this poem to be a description of the covenant-relation
subsisting between God and his people, it contains the completest
representation of this kind. We should, therefore, naturally expect
that subsequent writers, employing the same figure, would borrow
something of the imagery and colouring from it. But, so far from this
being the case, there is not the slightest analogy between the strain
of thought and expression of this poem and that of subsequent writers.
Fourth. The 45th Psalm, which is supposed to celebrate, allegorically,
the union of the Messiah and the Church, has been adduced as analogous
to the Song of Songs, and therefore an evidence in behalf of the
allegorical interpretation.
“If we admit,” says Hengstenberg, “the allegorical interpretation of
this Psalm, we shall also be obliged to drop the literal meaning of the
Song of Songs.”
Is it certain, however, that this Psalm is all allegory? The Psalm
itself gives not the slightest intimation that it is to be understood
in any other than its literal sense. Let us examine it:—
“My heart boils with good matter;
When I think my work is for the king,
My tongue becomes as a style of a quick writer.
Thou art beautiful, beautiful above the sons of men:
Charm is poured upon thy lips,
Therefore God has blessed thee for ever.
Gird thy sword on thy thigh, O hero!
Thy splendour and thy glory, yea, thy glory,
Ride on victoriously for truth and mildness and right.
Great things shall thy right hand teach thee!
Thy arrows are sharp—people fall under thee—
They dart into the heart of the king’s enemies!
Thy throne, O God, stands for ever and ever;
A sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom;
Thou lovest right, and hatest wrong;
Therefore God, thy God, anointed thee
With gladdening oil above thy companions!
Myrrh, aloes, and cassia are all thy garments,
Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments joyfully greet thee;
Kings’ daughters are among thy dear ones—
Upon thy right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear;
Forget thy people and thy father’s house,
That the king may desire thy beauty,
For he is thy Lord, and honour thou him.
O daughter of Tyre, now with presents
The rich of the people salute thy face.
The king’s daughter stands in the palace in all the splendour,
Her clothing is of fabricated gold,
She is led to the king in wrought raiment;
Behind her are the virgins, her companions, brought for thee;
They are conducted with joy and rejoicing,
They enter the palace of the king.
Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons;
Thou wilt set them as princes over the whole land.
I wilt celebrate thy name from generation to generation;
Therefore shall nations praise thee for ever and ever.”
This Psalm is evidently a congratulatory nuptial-song, composed for the
occasion of a king’s marriage with a princess of Tyre. The sacred
writer begins by stating that such is the greatness of the subject,
that it awakens thoughts too big for utterance; but recollecting that
his work is for the king, at once his tongue is loosed, and glides as
rapidly as the stylus of a quick writer (2). He then celebrates the
king’s beauty and eloquence, recognising in it God’s blessing (3), his
valour, symbolized by the conquering sword, the prosperous chariot, the
terrible arm, the well-directed arrow (4–6), his divine throne, and
love of justice (7), his great happiness, resulting from his love for
justice (8), which consists in the splendour around him (9), in his
magnificent harem, and especially in the new princess-bride at his
right hand (10). Having gradually arrived at the subject which is the
occasion of the poem, the sacred writer now addresses the bride, and,
in accordance with Eastern custom, which represents brides as unwilling
to leave their parents on the day of espousals (Comp. Deut. xxi. 13),
telling her to forget her father’s house, as she will have such glory
as is just described (11, 12). The bride is then presented with gifts,
according to Oriental manners, from the first ladies of the kingdom
(13); she appears in all the splendour in the first palace (14), and
thence conducted in grand procession to the king’s palace (15, 16). The
marital procession now being over, the inspired writer congratulates
the king, wishing him a happy issue (17), and concludes by saying that
his renown will rapidly spread (18).
What is there in this Psalm compelling us to understand it
allegorically? The quotation of the sixth verse in Hebrews i. 8, 9,
only proves that this verse refers in a higher sense to the Messiah,
but not that the whole Psalm is descriptive of him. Who would think of
allegorizing the eighth chapter of Isaiah, because verses 17 and 18 are
quoted in Hebrews ii. 13? The throne of David is declared to be an
everlasting throne, 2 Sam. vii. 13, 16; a throne of God, i.e. a divine
throne, since the Messiah was to be the last and ever reigning king.
Hence it is said, וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא יְהֹוָה לְמֶלֶכְ תַּחַת דָּוִיד אָבִיו, “and
Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king instead of his father
David.”—1 Chron. xxix. 23. Every king, therefore, of that lineage,
occupying the throne, was regarded as the representative of God; as the
predecessor and type of Him who was to be born of the seed of David to
occupy the throne in the highest sense. So that, whether we translate
כִּסְּאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים thy throne, O God, taking אֱלֹהִים as a vocative, or thy
God-throne, i.e. the throne committed to thee by God, or, thou art
seated upon a throne of God, or regard the phrase as an ellipsis for
כִּסְּאֲךָ כִּסֵּי אֱלֹהִים, thy throne is a throne of God, comes substantially to
the same thing. It is, therefore, a groundless assertion, that the
whole Psalm is an allegory, and the reference to it in proof of the
allegorical interpretation of the poem before us is nugatory.
But, even admitting that the 45th Psalm is an allegory, this would by
no means prove that the Song of Songs is also an allegory, for the two
cases differ essentially. In the former the bridegroom is addressed in
verse 8 as God, and this verse is quoted in the New Testament, whereas
in the latter there is nothing of the kind.
4. The custom of oriental nations to express their religious and
devotional sentiments under the disguise of amatory and drinking songs
has been adduced as an argument in favour of the allegorical
interpretation of the Song of Songs.
“The durweesh,” [149] says Lane, “pointed out the following poem as one
of those most common at Zikrs, and as one which was sung at the Zikr
which I have begun to describe. I translated it verse for verse, and
imitate the measure and system of the original, with this difference
only, that the first, third, and fifth lines of each stanza rhyme with
each other in the original, but not in my translation.
‘With love my heart is troubled,
And mine eyelid hindereth sleep:
My vitals are dissever’d,
While with streaming tears I weep.
My union seems far distant,
Will my love e’er meet mine eye?
Alas! did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
‘By dreary nights I’m wasted,
Absence makes my hopes expire;
My tears, like pearls, are dropping,
And my heart is wrapt in fire.
Whose is like my condition?
Scarcely know I remedy.
Alas! did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
‘O turtle dove! acquaint me
Wherefore thus dost thou lament?
Art thou so stung by absence?
Of thy wings deprived, and pent?
He saith, ‘Our griefs are equal;
Worn away with love, I lie.’
Alas! did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
‘O First and Everlasting!
Show thy favour yet to me.
Thy slave, Ahh’mad El-Bek’ree, [150]
Hath no Lord excepting Thee.
By Tá-Há, [151] the great prophet,
Do thou not his wish deny.
Alas! did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.’
“I must translate a few more lines, to show more strongly the
similarity of these songs to that of Solomon; and lest it should be
thought that I have varied the expressions, I shall not attempt to
translate into verse. In the same collection of poems sung at Zikrs is
one which begins with these lines:—
‘O gazelle from among the gazelles of El-Yem’en!
I am thy slave without cost;
O thou small of age, and fresh of skin!
O thou who art scarce past the time of drinking milk!’
“In the first of these verses we have a comparison exactly agreeing
with that in the concluding verse of Solomon’s Song; for the word
which, in our Bible, is translated a ‘roe,’ is used in Arabic as
synonymous with ghaza’l (or a gazelle); and the mountains of El-Yem’en
are ‘the mountains of spices.’ This poem ends with the following
lines:—
‘The phantom of thy form visited me in my slumber.
I said, “O phantom of slumber! who sent thee?”
He said, “He sent me whom thou knowest;
He whose love occupies thee!”
The beloved of my heart visited me in the darkness of night;
I stood, to show him honour, until he sat down.
I said, “O thou my petition, and all my desire,
Hast thou come at midnight, and not feared the watchmen?”
He said to me, “I feared, but, however, love
Had taken from me my soul and my breath.”’
“Compare the above with the second and five following verses of the
fifth chapter of Solomon’s Song. Finding that songs of this description
are extremely numerous, and almost the only poems sung at Zikrs; that
they are composed for this purpose, and intended only to have a
spiritual sense (though certainly not understood in such a sense by the
generality of the vulgar); I cannot entertain any doubt as to the
design of Solomon’s Song.”
To this we cannot do better than quote the able reply of Dr.
Noyes:—“Now, as to the first of these religious love-songs of the
Mahometan dervishes, whatever slight resemblance it may have to any
part of the Canticles, it differs essentially from any of them in the
circumstance, that the Supreme Being is expressly introduced as the
object of worship. Without this essential circumstance, no one could
tell whether it were originally composed for a love-song, or a
religious hymn expressing a longing for a union of the soul with God,
according to the Sufi philosophy and religion.
“In the second poem, quoted by Mr. Lane, it is to be regretted that he
did not quote the whole of it; for I can by no means admit the
circumstance, that it was sung by the dervishes in their morning
devotions, to be conclusive in regard to the original design of the
hymn. Mr. Lane expressly tells us, in a note, that he found the last
six lines inserted, with some slight alterations, as a common
love-song, in a portion of the ‘Thousand and One Nights,’ printed at
Calcutta, vol. i. p. 225; Lane’s translation, ii. p. 349. Whether the
whole was originally composed as a love-song or a devotional hymn, does
not appear from the parts of it which Mr. Lane gives us. If in the
parts omitted there is any clear reference to the Deity, it is unlike
any of the Canticles. If there is no such reference, the meaning of the
hymn is too doubtful to allow any inference to be drawn from it. For we
might as well allow the singing of Dr. Watts’s version of the Canticles
to be an argument for their original design, as to admit the singing of
the mystic dervishes to be an evidence of the original design of the
hymns.
“Before making some general remarks on this whole subject of attempting
to show the character of the Canticles by reference to the pantheistic
poetry of the Mahometan Sufis, it may be well to mention that reference
has been made even to the poets of Hindostan for the same purpose;
especially to the Gitagovinda, the production of a celebrated Hindoo
poet, named Jayadeva. This appears to be a mystical poem, designed to
celebrate the loves of Crishna and Radha, or the reciprocal attraction
between the divine goodness and the human soul. Now, whatever may be
the resemblance between the Gitagovinda and Canticles in some of their
imagery, there is this essential difference, that, in the former,
Crishna was the chief incarnate god of the Hindoos, [152] and that
there are references to other gods, and to various superstitions of the
Hindoo mythology; whilst in the Canticles there is no reference to any
but human characters. Besides, the author of the Gitagovinda clearly
intimates its religious character in the conclusion of the poem.
“We have seen, then, that there are material differences between the
Canticles and the religious love-songs to which reference has been
made. But supposing the resemblance to be much greater than it is,
those mystical songs do not in any essential respect resemble the
Canticles more than they do the odes of Anacreon, or some of the
eclogues of Virgil, and the idyls of Theocritus. And it is not easy to
see why the resemblance does not prove the religious character of the
odes of Anacreon as much as that of the Canticles.
“But, after all, the great objection remains to any conclusion drawn
from the pantheistic mystic poets, whether of Persia or India, whether
Mahometans or Hindoos, namely, that their productions are founded on a
religion and philosophy entirely different from the Jewish. The
Canticles are productions of a different country, and separated from
any of the songs of the Sufi poets by an interval of nearly two
thousand years. The Jewish religion has nothing in common with the
pantheistic mysticism on which those songs are founded. There is
nothing in the Old Testament of a similar character. If any production
similar to those mystical love-songs had existed in the religious
literature of the Hebrews, undoubtedly we should have found some in the
Book of Psalms, which comprises compositions from the age preceding
that of David to a period long after the return of the Jews from the
captivity at Babylon. But in the most fervent Psalms, the forty-second,
for instance, nothing of the kind is found. Neither is anything similar
to those mystic songs ascribed to the Jewish sect, as described by
Josephus and Philo. Nothing of the kind is laid to the charge of the
Essenes. It is needless to say, that nothing approaching to the like
character is found in the New Testament. Nothing similar is discovered
even in the allegorical paraphrase of the Targumist on the Canticles.
All those religious love-songs are founded on the Sufi religion, or
rather religious philosophy, which, whether it was borrowed from India,
as Von Hammer supposes, or arose independently among the Mahometans,
according to the opinion of Tholuck, has no connexion with, or
resemblance to, the Jewish. It is as different from the latter as
darkness from light. The argument, therefore, which is drawn from the
mystical songs of the Mahometan devotees for ascribing a mystical
character to the Canticles, is without foundation.” [153]
REASONS AGAINST THE ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.
1. In every allegory, or parable, employed in the Scripture, or in any
good human composition, something is wrought into its texture to
indicate most unmistakably its allegorical design; that, under the garb
of an immediate representation, is conveyed one more remote. Thus, in
the 80th Psalm, 9–17, where Israel is represented under the allegory of
a vine which came out of Egypt, the design is distinctly wrought into
the texture of the allegory. The expression, heathen (גוֹיִם), at the
very beginning of the allegory, and especially the words, “the Son whom
thou hast chosen for thyself,” (עַל בֵּן אִמַּצְתָּה לָךְ) in the second clause
of verse 15, which, when compared with “the Son of man, whom thou hast
chosen for thyself,” (עַל בֵּן אָדָם אִמַּצְתָ לָךְ) in verse 17, are evidently
explanatory of the words, “and protect what thy right hand hath
planted,” (וְכַנָּה אֲשֶׁר נָטְעָה יְמִינֶיךָ) in the first clause, clearly to show
the more remote concealed under the immediate representation. Thus,
also, in the allegory of the vineyard, and by the prophet Isaiah (chap.
v.), we are distinctly told, in verse 7, that “the vineyard of Jehovah
of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant
plantation.” Compare also Judges ix. 7–20; 2 Kings xiv. 9, 10; Ezek.
xvi., xxxvii. 1–14; the parables of our Saviour, Acts x. 10–17; Gal.
iv. 22–31. Now, if the author of this poem had intended it to be
understood allegorically, he would have given some indication to that
effect; especially since the allegories occasionally used in some parts
of this very book, chap. iv. 12, v. 1, vii. 7, 8, are rendered plain
and obvious. As there is, however, not the slightest intimation in the
whole of this lengthy poem that it is designed to be allegorical, we
are unwarranted to assume it. To take one portion of the Scriptures
allegorically, without even an obscure hint of it in the writing
itself, is to violate the established laws of language, and to expose
all other portions of the sacred volume to a similar treatment. If one
chooses to allegorize one part without any sanction, another may choose
to allegorize another. But we have no right to depart from the literal
and obvious meaning, without some authority for it from the inspired
writer. This argument is applicable to every allegorical
interpretation, whether historical or hieroglyphical, whether political
or metaphysical.
2. The total silence of our Lord and his apostles respecting this book
is against its allegorical interpretation. If this Song, according to
the first and last allegorisers, “celebrates the glories of the
Messiah, and all the mercies which through him flow to the people of
God,” it is more spiritual and more evangelical than any other portion
of the Old Testament; surpassing even the writings of Isaiah, who is
called the fifth Evangelist, and is, in fact, what Origen called it,
“The Holy of Holies.” Is it possible, then, that our Saviour, and his
apostles, who, in their disputations with the Jews, so frequently
quoted the prophecies of Isaiah and other passages of the Old
Testament, far less evangelical and Messianic, would never have
referred to this book? Is it possible that the apostle Paul, who so
frequently describes the relation of Christ to the Church by the union
subsisting between husband and wife (2 Cor. xi. 2, Rom. vii. 4, Eph. v.
23–32), would be silent about a book which, more than any other in the
Old Testament, sets forth that union? The fact, therefore, that our
Saviour and his apostles never once refer to this book is against the
allegorical interpretation.
3. Is Solomon the man from whom a production of such preeminent
spirituality and evangelical truth could have been reasonably expected?
Is there anything in his private history, his habits of thought, his
moral inclinations, or in the general tone and tendency of his
religious emotions, at any period of his life, as far as they can be
gathered from his history and writings, that would lead us to
anticipate such evangelical piety as this interpretation presupposes?
The same agreement which exists between ordinary writers and their
productions is perceptible in the inspired records. Inspiration, like
Providence, selected the fittest instruments for its work. Thus,
between the history of Moses and his writings, of David and his
writings, of Paul and his writings, of John and his writings, a natural
uniformity exists; and so of other sacred authors. Accordingly, we have
not only to suppose Solomon to have been more spiritually-minded than
any under the Jewish economy, but to have stood upon a level with the
most enlightened and Christ-loving under the present dispensation, in
order to write in such a strain. Where is any such qualification in
Solomon, even remotely intimated in any part of Scripture? The wisdom
which he asked, which he received, and for which he gained celebrity,
was that displayed in his civil government, in social and moral
teaching, of which the first-fruit was given in the decision upon the
litigation of the two mothers. The poetry which he wrote, consisting of
one thousand and five songs, upon natural history, not having been
deemed worthy of a place in the sacred canon, shows that his muse did
not indulge in a devotional strain. The Book of Ecclesiastes, which is
attributed to him by tradition, is the experience of a thorough-going
worldling and libertine, and a confession to men rather than God. The
extensive harem which he had, displays his inordinate desire for revels
and foreign women, which in old age inveigled him into the practice of
idolatry. “His wives,” as the Scriptures teach us, “turned away his
heart after other gods.” And the last we hear of him is, that “his
heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of his
father David.” Is this, then, the man whose love-song is to be regarded
as pre-eminently spiritual, and to be exalted as more evangelically
rapturous than any other portion of Holy Writ? To what period of his
life is this pre-eminent piety to be assigned? If to the latter, that
is the period of his greatest degeneracy; if to the former, how are we
to reconcile his apostasy with so high a degree of spirituality? It is
difficult to conceive of such a mind as that of Solomon brought at any
time into sympathy with the prevailing allegorical exposition of this
Song. Who can conceive that he who caused an irreparable breach in his
kingdom should represent himself as the Prince of Peace, or that he who
was the embodiment of the carnal propensities should describe, under
the figure of chaste love, the union of Christ and his Church? It is
inconceivable. As David was not qualified to build the temple, because
he had been a man of war, and had shed blood, so Solomon was not
qualified to write in such a spiritual strain concerning Christ and his
Church as the prevailing allegorical exposition of this Song, because
he had been a man of lust, and had turned aside to idolatry.
4. For the same reason we cannot conceive that any other writer would
represent the Messiah as symbolized by Solomon. Is it conceivable that
he of whom the whole congregation of Israel complained to Rehoboam,
“Thy father made our yoke grievous—now, therefore, make thou the
grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon
us, light,” would be chosen to represent the Saviour of the world,
“whose yoke is easy, and his burden light?” We can understand why the
painter of the Judgment Scene, among the celebrated frescoes in the
cloisters of the Campo Santo at Pisa, in Italy, in which the righteous
and the wicked are gathered in their respective positions, placed
Solomon midway between them, as an intimation of his inability to
determine to which he belonged; but we cannot understand how an
inspired writer could choose Solomon, whose lusts were displayed in the
revels of an Eastern harem, and who was seduced to practise idolatry,
to represent Him who was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from
sinners,” together with the pure and holy union subsisting between him
and the Church.
5. In the allegorical interpretation language is attributed to Christ
inconsistent with his dignity and purity. It is almost blasphemous to
suppose Christ thus to address his Church:—
“The circuits of thy thighs are like ornaments,
The work of a master’s hand.
Thy navel is a round goblet,
Let not spiced wine be wanted in it!
Thy growth is like a palm tree,
And thy bosom like its clusters:
I long to climb this palm tree,
I long to clasp its branches.
May thy bosom be unto me
As the cluster of the vine,
And the odour of thy breath
As that of apples.”—Chap. vii. verses 2, 3, 7, 8.
This is the language of seduction, but it is blasphemous when put into
the mouth of Him who spake as never man spake.
6. The fact that three individuals are the principal persons
represented in this Song, and not two, is subversive of the allegorical
theory. That the poem speaks of three individuals, a shepherd, a
shepherdess, and a king, and that the shepherd, and not the king, is
the object of the maiden’s affections, will be evident to every
unbiassed reader of the book, and has been recognised by some of the
Rabbins of the middle ages. For the sake of avoiding repetition, we
refer the reader to the commentary, where the passages pointing out the
distinctions of persons are dwelt upon at large.
THE TYPICAL INTERPRETATION.
The defenders of this view maintain that this book records an
historical fact; that it celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the
daughter of Pharaoh, or some other heathen princess; and that this
marriage typically represents the union of Christ with the Gentiles.
REASONS AGAINST THIS NUPTIAL THEORY.
As we concur with those who seek “nothing more than a general
resemblance” between the history recorded in this poem and the
experience of the people of God, we have merely to state here our
reasons for rejecting their view of the narrative.
No direct mention is made in any part of this long poem of the marriage
ceremony, nor of any circumstance connected with it. The bride is
described as a shepherdess and keeper of the vineyards (chap. i. 6; ii.
15; viii. 12, &c.); as walking in the streets in the night to seek her
beloved, and as being beaten by the watchmen (iii. 1–4; v. 6, &c.);
which are incompatible with the notion that she was Pharaoh’s daughter,
or any other princess. Besides, the bridegroom is not a king, but a
shepherd; Compare chap. i. 7, ii. 8, and v. 2–4. These, and other
considerations which might have been mentioned, are entirely subversive
of this nuptial theory.
SECTION VII.—AUTHOR, DATE, AND FORM OF THE BOOK.
The title of this poem designates Solomon as the author, but internal
evidence is against it. The writer mentions David in such a manner as
if he were not his father (iv. 4). The words, “Solomon had a vineyard,”
(כֶּרֶם הָיָה לִשְלֹמֹה) in viii. 11, show that the author was not a
contemporary of Solomon. The subject, especially of the poem, is
decisive against Solomon’s authorship. It is impossible that he should
describe himself as having attempted to gain the espoused affections of
a country maiden, and being defeated by her virtue. The title is
evidently the addition of some other person; for the author of the book
never uses the pronoun אֲשֶׁר, but invariably employs the form שׁ; nor
would he announce his own production as “the finest or most celebrated
Song.”
The exact date of this poem has been much disputed. The powerful and
fluent style in which it is written, the originality of the figures,
the freshness of the landscapes, the life-like descriptions of local
circumstances, the imagery drawn from the royal court of Solomon, the
horses of Pharaoh, the tower of David, the tower of Solomon, the pools
of Heshbon, show that the poem must have been written in the most
flourishing age of the Hebrew language, and about the time of Solomon.
The Aramaisms, which used formerly to be adduced in order to transfer
the book to an age after the captivity, are now rightly rejected by
modern critics as inconclusive, since almost every poetical composition
of the earliest age contains such Aramaisms. The word פַּרְדֵס (iv. 13),
to which a Persian etymology has been assigned, and which has
especially been used to show the late period of this poem, is of a
Shemitic origin. See Comment, in loco. The form, שׁ for אֲשֵׁר, is also
used in Judges v. 7, vi. 17, vii. 12, viii. 26, and דָוִיד with god in
Amos vi. 5, ix. 11, Hos. iii. 5.
The form of the book has also been a matter of great dispute. From its
earliest age it has been regarded as one continued poem in a dramatic
form. Since the time of Richard Simon, however, who pronounced this
book, “summam confusionem, in quo vix ac ne vix quidem personas
discernere queas,” [154] it has been split by many into fragments, and
in turn been regarded as consisting of a number of eclogues, or
armorets, as an epithalamium, or nuptial song, and as a regular drama.
Having traced the unity of the poem in Section III., we need not again
show the unsoundness of the fragmentary theory, which originated from a
misunderstanding of the design of the book. It seems to approach
nearest in form to a drama. Yet we cannot think, with Ewald and others,
that it is a regular drama. The genius, character, and manners of the
Shemitic nations, their deficiency in plastic art, and their aversion
to females appearing on a public stage, seem to militate against it.
SECTION VIII.—EXEGETICAL HELPS.
ANCIENT VERSIONS.
1. The Septuagint, being the oldest version, occupies the first place;
its deviations from the Hebrew have generally been noticed in the
Commentary.
2. The Vulgate, which chiefly follows the Septuagint.
3. The Syriac, which is far superior to the Vulgate.
JEWISH COMMENTATORS.
4. Rashi, found in Buxtorf’s Rabbinical Bible.
5. Rashbam, recently printed for the first time.
6. Ibn Ezra; found in Rabbinical Bible.
7. Immanuel, MS. in the British Museum.
8. An Anonymous MS. Commentary in the Bodleian.
9. Philippson, an excellent modern commentator.
CHRISTIAN COMMENTATORS.
10. Wilcock, an old writer.
11. Bishop Lowth, Praelect. xxx., xxxi.
12. Bishop Percy, Commentary and Annotations.
13. Michaelis, Notes to Bishop Lowth’s Praelect.
14. Jacobi, Das Gerettete Hohelied.
15. Durell, Critical Remarks on Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and
Canticles.
16. Williams, The Song of Songs.
17. Good, The Song of Songs.
18. Umbreit, Lied der Liebe.
19. Ewald, Das Hohe Lied Salomonis, &c.
20. Döpke, Philologisch-critischer Comment.
21. Rosenmüller, Scholia in Vet. Test.
22. Hirzel, Das Lied der Lieder.
23. Magnus, Kritische Bearbeitung und Erklärung des Hohen Liedes.
24. Noyes, A New Translation of the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the
Canticles.
25. Heligstedt’s Continuation of Maurer’s Commentary, which, by an
oversight, is omitted in the Historical Sketch, deserves special
mention: Leipzig, 1847.
26. Delitzsch, Das Hohe Lied untersucht und ausgelegt.
27. Hengstenberg, Das Hohe Lied Salomonis.
28. Meier, Das Hohe Lied in deutscher Uebersetzung.
29. Friedrich, Cantici Canticorum.
30. Hitzig, 16th Lief. des Kurzg. Exeg. Handb.
For a further description of the dates and places of these
commentaries, see the Historical Sketch.
THE SONG OF SONGS,
WHICH IS SOLOMON’S.
SECTION I.
CHAPTERS I.–II. 7.
The scene of this division is in the royal tent of Solomon. The
Shulamite, separated from her beloved shepherd, longs to be reunited
with him whom she prizes above all things (2, 3). She implores him to
come and rescue her; for, though brought by the king into his royal
tent, her love continues the same (4). She repels the scornful
reflection of the court ladies when they hear her soliloquy (5, 6). She
implores her lover to tell her where she may find him (7). The court
ladies ironically answer this request (8). Meanwhile the king comes in,
and tries to win her affections by flatteries and promises (9–11). This
attempt fails, and she opposes to the king’s love her unabated
attachment to her beloved shepherd (12–ii. 6). In an ecstasy she
adjures the court ladies not to attempt to persuade her to love any one
else (7).
THE SHULAMITE.
Oh for a kiss of the kisses of his mouth!
For sweet are thy caresses above wine.
Sweet is the odour of thy perfumes,
Which perfume thou art, by thy name diffused abroad,
Therefore do the damsels love thee.
Oh draw me after thee! Oh let us flee together!
The king has brought me into his apartments,
But we exult and rejoice in thee,
We praise thy love more than wine,
The upright love thee.
I am swarthy, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,
As the tents of Kedar,
But comely as the pavilions of Solomon.
Disdain me not because I am dark,
For the sun hath browned me.
My mother’s sons were severe with me,
They made me keeper of their vineyards,
Though my own vineyard I never kept.—
Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth,
Where thou feedest thy flock,
Where thou causest it to lie down at noon,
Lest I should be roaming
Among the flocks of thy companions.
DAUGHTERS OF JERUSALEM.
If thou knowest not, O fairest among women,
Go in the footsteps of the flocks,
And feed thy kids
By the tents of the shepherds.
SOLOMON.
To my steed in the chariot of Pharaoh
Do I compare thee, O my love.
Beautiful is thy countenance in the circlet,
Thy neck in the necklace!
A golden circlet will we make thee,
With studs of silver.
THE SHULAMITE.
While the king is at his table
My nard shall diffuse its fragrance.
A bag of myrrh resting in my bosom
Is my beloved unto me.
A bunch of cypress-flowers from the garden of En-gedi
Is my beloved unto me.
THE SHEPHERD.
Behold, thou art beautiful, my love;
Behold, thou art beautiful,
Thine eyes are doves.
THE SHULAMITE.
Behold, thou art comely, my beloved,
Yea thou art lovely;
Yea, verdant is our couch;
Our bower is of cedar arches,
Our retreat of cypress roof:
Chap. II. I am a mere flower of the plain,
A lily of the valley.
THE SHEPHERD.
As a lily among the thorns,
So is my loved one among the damsels.
THE SHULAMITE.
As an apple-tree among the wild trees,
So is my beloved among the youths.
I delight to sit beneath its shade,
For delicious is its fruit to my taste.
He led me into that bower of delight,
And overshaded me with love.
Oh, strengthen me with grape-cakes,
Refresh me with apples,
For I am sick with love!
Let his left hand be under my head,
And his right hand support me!
I adjure you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,
By the gazelles, or the hinds of the field,
Neither to excite nor to incite my affection
Till it wishes another love.
SECTION II.
CHAPTER II. 8–III. 5.
Here we have a second scene, which is also in the royal tent. The
speakers are the Shulamite and the court ladies. The Shulamite, to
account for the cause of the severity of her brothers, mentioned in ii.
6, relates that her beloved shepherd came one charming morning in the
spring to invite her to the fields (8–14); that her brothers, in order
to prevent her from going, gave her employment in the gardens (15);
that she consoled herself with the assurance that her beloved, though
separated from her at that time, would come again in the evening (16,
17); that seeing he did not come, she, under difficult circumstances,
ventured to seek him, and found him (ch. iii. 1–4). Having narrated
these events, and reiterated her ardent affection for her beloved, she
concludes as before, by adjuring the court ladies not to persuade her
to change her love.
THE SHULAMITE.
Hark! my beloved!
Lo, he came
Leaping over the mountains,
Bounding over the hills.
My beloved was like a gazelle,
Or the young one of a hind.
Lo! there he stood behind our wall,
He looked through the window,
He glanced through the lattice.
My beloved spake, he spake to me,
“Arise, my love, my fair one, and come!
For lo, the winter is past,
The rain is over, is gone.
The flowers appear upon the fields,
The time of singing is come,
The cooing of the turtle-dove is heard in our land.
The fig-tree sweetens her green figs,
The vines blossom,
They diffuse fragrance;
Arise, my love, my fair one, and come!
My dove in the clefts of the rock,
In the hiding-place of the cliff,
Let me see thy countenance,
Let me hear thy voice,
For sweet is thy voice,
And thy countenance lovely.”
THE BROTHERS OF THE SHULAMITE.
Catch us the foxes, the little foxes
Which destroy the vineyards,
For our vineyards are in bloom.
THE SHULAMITE.
My beloved is mine, and I am his,
His who feeds his flock among the lilies.
When the day cools,
And the shadows flee away,
Return, haste, O my beloved,
Like the gazelle or the young one of the hind,
Over the mountains of separation.
Chap. III. When on my nightly couch,
I still sought him whom my soul loveth;
I sought him, but found him not.
I must arise now and go about the city,
In the streets and in the squares;
I must seek him whom my soul loveth:
I sought him, but found him not.
The watchmen who patrol the city found me:
“Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?”
Scarcely had I passed them,
When I found him whom my soul loveth;
I seized him and would not let him go
Till I brought him to the house of my mother,
Into the apartment of her who gave me birth.
I adjure you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,
By the gazelles or the hinds of the field,
Neither to excite nor to incite my affection
Till it wishes another love.