INTRODUCTION. (continued 2)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rev. Cant. A.D.

1. The Church at Ephesus ii. 1–7 i. 5–17 33–370

2. The,, Church,, at,, Smyrna 8–11 ii. 1–17 371–707

3. The,, Church,, at,, Pergamos 12–17 iii. 1–11 708–1045

4. The,, Church,, at,, Thyatira 18–29 iv. 1–v. 1 1046–1383

5. The,, Church,, at,, Sardis iii. 1–6 v. 2–vi. 2 1384–1721

6. The,, Church,, at,, Philadelphia 7–13 vi. 9–vii. 14 1722–2059

7. The,, Church,, at,, Laodicea 14–22 viii. 1–14 2060 and onwards.

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.

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.

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.

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?”

Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts the division of Bossuet into seven parts.

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.”

“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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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!

[

Contents

]

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.

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.

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.

‘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.

Hath no Lord excepting Thee.

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.

“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.

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.

[

Contents

]

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.

[

Contents

]

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.

[

Contents

]

THE SONG OF SONGS,

WHICH IS SOLOMON’S.

[

Contents

]