Chapter VII: Section V: Historical Sketch of the Exegesis of the Book (2)

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.